We said this was next given the logic of same-sex marriage, and here it is (not the first example). The headline says it all: “Love doesn’t just come in pairs. Is it time that marriage laws come to recognise the fact?”
If “love wins,” and love isn’t defined by gender, then love isn’t defined by twoness either. It’s a logical slippery slope, and we’re already slipping. Given how quickly people have acquiesced to transgenderism, I don’t suspect it will take too long for society and the legal system to give their approval to polyamory and polygamy.
Thinking to Believe 
June 29, 2016 at 12:02 am
Nothing new about this Jason:
Polyamory and polygamy have nothing to do with me and does not affect me. It also has nothing to do with anybody outside that community. As far as the legal aspect, I am not under the law and therefore neither is applicable to me. As far as society goes, we live in a democracy and majority rules.
Whether the secular vote is “for or against”, polyamory or polygamy, remember that tolerance is not only for cults, religions and theocratic governments to use when advantageous to them, it is a societal, cultural, traditional and personal responsibility to exercise compassion and respect for others.
And please, do not offer the “apple to orangatans” comparisons of P&P people to people who have no respect for sanctity of life and vulnerable children but love all things wicked.
Remember, whether you are part of the LBGT Community or part of the P & P Community you will be most happy and fulfilled if you live a life true to yourself; that is the beauty of true liberty and freedom that does not affect anybody outside those communities. Know thyself and be true to your self identity: The important thing to remember is that your sexual orientation is not something you can choose. Don’t become moral purists, This is a pattern that has been recurring since the advent of religion hundreds of centuries ago, and is amply substantiated by the historical record…..trying to enforce sabbath laws does not work!
Don’t give up hope! Social change takes time and effort. Think of the fight for women to get the right to vote. While it may seem like a no-brainer now, it was only 85 years ago that the 19th Amendment was passed, granting women the right to vote.
And groups adamantly against women voting?…religion, invoking God. Take these excerpts for example in the early 20th century:
“Adolf Hult, an early 20th century Lutheran pastor claimed that “Suffragism [is] Gripped by Feminism”. He said that the suffrage movement had been taken over by “lust and immorality”. He feared that the fall of women would lead to the fall of the world. “Must men put on the iron glove?” he asked.
(implying the domestic violence threat)
The Reverend John Williams of St. Barnabas Episcopal Church made a distinction between the mainstream suffragists and the radical fringe.
Nonetheless, he argued that the more moderate element of the movement failed to limit the excesses of the radicals who were undermining Christian morality, marriage, and home life, the Victorian ideal that a woman’s place was in the home as preordained by God.
“God meant for women to reign over home, and most good women reject politics because woman suffrage will destroy society.”
And a minister from Ponca, Nebraska quoted scripture and said that God simply forgot to list one more commandment — women shall not vote.”
Women’s Suffrage
by Rev. Prof. H. M. Goodwin
New Englander and Yale review, Volume 43, Issue 179 (March 1884), pp. 193-213.
“…..this reform signifies nothing less than a radical and revolutionary change in our whole social system.”
The practical tendency of women’s suffrage, as all must see, is to impair the unity of the family as a social organism, being itself a denial of it, and to create discord and rivalries between husband and wife, who by the divine ordinance are “no more twain but one flesh,” but by this act are legally declared to be not one but two.”
“The demand for woman suffrage is based upon a radically false theory of civil and political rights.”
“The claim for woman suffrage rests upon a radically false conception of the relations and duties of the sexes.”
“The reform in question is a violation of woman’s truest and deepest instincts, and so is truly a “reform against nature.”
“A last argument against woman suffrage is its practical consequences, or the evil results that will naturally follow such a social revolution. Only a few of these can be hinted at rather than described.”
“It is much as if a man in a state of nervous exhaustion were told by his physician to enter at once for a foot-race or a boxing match.” The result of such a cruel and intolerable burden, if imposed, would be either utter prostration and distraction, or evasion of one or the other class of duties.”
“The secularization of the home by the intrusion of political questions and disputes, is another impending evil consequence.”
“But the effect upon woman herself of the proposed reform is, perhaps, the worst evil to be apprehended.”
“Woman’s voice, if nothing else, indicates that she was not made for public speaking; and her native delicacy and modesty no less plainly declare that public life and government are contrary to her nature. The very qualities which by a perverse culture will fit her for the rostrum and the bar, will unfit her for her true place and influence in the home, and destroy that chivalrous love and devotion which is accorded to a true woman only as she keeps herself unspotted from the world.”
“………politics instead of being purified will become tenfold more corrupt by the corruption added to it of this new element.”
“The family, too, is before civil government; and its constitutive idea, its organic unity, and its sacred interests, must not be sacrificed to it, or practically violated in blind obedience to a false theory of natural or individual rights.”
Patriarchal hierarchy justified by religious carnival barkers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 29, 2016 at 10:27 am
Let’s take a long hard look at the historical record by examining the life of King Solomon. Starting out with the proverbial “silver spoon in his mouth” let’s see where he winds up after living a life of self-absorption & self-indulgent compromise.
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/RA/k/189/The-Enduring-Results-of-Compromise.htm
LikeLike
June 30, 2016 at 10:18 pm
Frank:
Solomon’s lifestyle can be summed up more generally as “the cares, riches and pleasures” of the world. While sexual activity is a great pleasure it is not the only identifier in the group as the topic of this thread wants to emphasize.
Proverbs 23:4.
Do not weary yourself to gain wealth, Cease from your consideration of it.
Remember the Proverbs were not lost on Solomon as the start of Proverbs states, Solomon wrote them.
Proverbs 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel:
The Beginning of Knowledge is a Wonderful Book so I would not harp on Solomon’s perceived sins to the neglect of his virtues in order to make brownie points by citing disobedience to the clerics in Solomon’s days.
Disobedience to the clerics was viewed (by the Clergy) as disobedience to God of whom the clergy were God’s self appointed spokesmen and that in itself is a life of theocracy self-absorption & self-indulgent compromise. The proverbial “pot calling the kettle black”….not an untypical sermon by preachers trying to compare themselves to somebody great in The Record of Mankind.
THIS IS, after all, THE Ancient Tradition of Religion’s Clergy:
God’s will, so called, is revealed in the “holy” scriptures. The sacred book formulates the will of God and specifies what is to be given to the clergy. Clergy become parasites. “… All things of life are so ordered that the clergy is everywhere indispensable; at all the natural events of life, at birth, marriage, sickness, death. Natural values become utterly valueless. The Clergy sanctifies and bestows all value. Disobedience of God (the clergy) is ‘sin.’ Subjection to God (the clergy) is redemption. Clergy use ‘sin’ to gain and hold power.
Clergy has always adhered to that role model. It forms their seat of power. To be the mediator of an omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent power is powerful indeed is it not?
LikeLike
July 1, 2016 at 1:42 pm
The point in contention is compromising the will of the Almighty.
More history of King Solomon:
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/1353/Solomon.htm
LikeLike
July 2, 2016 at 8:17 am
Frank:
No man knows the will of the Almighty; you may as well tell me the Cosmic Will…..can you? wannabee clerics, like psychics and prophets try to make people believe they know but they are merely self appointed or academically appointed because they study courses in how to behave or be dominate in the chosen field; the same as Seminary Graduates in today’s Divinity Schools: Ministers, Priests, Bishops, Mormon Elders and the like. Which is ironic that the Elders are just late teenagers or early out of teenage years and yet they are already called “Elder”, the modern term for the ancient term “Prophet” but theo-schooling remains the same.
LikeLike
July 2, 2016 at 1:59 pm
That’s what the Bible’s for.
LikeLike
July 2, 2016 at 7:15 pm
Since religion and the bible have been around a long time; one would think its proponents would have made a difference in the world to the betterment of humanity by now but it hasn’t.
It has fallen to secularism, without mythology, to take charge of civilizing the world by wresting power from religion’s control and relegating it to the back burner where it can do less harm than it already has; yet we witness daily, the remnants of Theocrats Gone Wild as they become irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
July 3, 2016 at 9:45 am
“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40)
LikeLike
July 3, 2016 at 10:01 am
“If anyone is willing to do God’s will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.” (John 7:17-18)
LikeLike
July 4, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Jason,
It’s all coming and that’s not what concerns me. What concerns me is what comes next – hate speech laws against people who disagree with it.
Happy July 4th to my American neighbours.
Paul Vander Voort
LikeLike
July 4, 2016 at 2:52 pm
Paul V:
Just for clarity sake because I can’t really understand what you are concerned about here. Never worry about the future; it is always, “in the future”. As Jesus said quite openly: “34 “Give your entire attention to what is going on right now, and don’t get worked up about what may or may not happen tomorrow. The Spirit will help you deal with whatever hard things come up when the time comes.”
I like it the way it’s rendered in the King James Bible but with the same inner sense. “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
Do you mean what your concern is. is “Hate speech laws against people” who disagree with hate speech laws?
Is that the “it” you refer to, “……..against people who disagree with “it”?
Happy Independence Day has such Nationalistic connotations, n’est ce pas?
Live long and prosper said Leonard Nimoy’s character of “Spock”.
ltg
LikeLike
July 5, 2016 at 5:32 pm
LeoTheGreater,
Merci, our close friendship with the USA is enhanced by our closely related national holidays.
I’ll give a couple quick examples (generally speaking). When I say support I don’t mean agree with in all instances and this is after the legal process has taken place. Obviously, several are not on topic but it’s a similar principle.
I would support a law that would require an existing building to be retro fitted with sprinklers. I would not support a law that made owning a previously legally acquired firearm illegal and subject to seizure.
I would support a law that made it illegal for a government employee to deny a marriage certificate to a homosexual couple (or others as the laws changed) as long as it wasn’t retro actively imposed. This would allow the couple to obtain their marriage certificate and the existing employee to not act in a manner they didn’t sign up for. This is commonly referred to as “grandfathered in.”
I would support a law that made it illegal for a baker to refuse to sell bread to anybody. I would not support a law that made it illegal for an existing baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for anybody they didn’t sign up for.
I would support a churches right to marry anybody the government says can be married as long as people can legally protest outside the ceremony.
I support a woman’s right to choose any legal medical procedure as long as people can legally protest outside the clinic/hospital.
I support a man trapped in a woman’s body, that wishes to have sexual relations with woman, to use the woman’s bathroom as long as all the women in that bathroom give consent.
I support polyamory/polygamy if all parties are willing participants and others can protest it as adultery.
I oppose hate speech laws, that is laws that are against offending. Free speech should be as free as possible. Lies, slander, falsely crying fire in a crowded building, inciting violence against an identifiable group are just a few examples of exceptions I would support. To say a behaviour is sinful I do not consider hate speech. I’ve been told many times God is going to send me to hell, I only protest when the person telling me that wants to kill me and thereby make the introduction. Some things you can freely say in America would get you in big trouble in Canada.
I can only speak for myself, but what I’m reacting to is not fear of the future. I see a problem developing which I am warning against. The problem is if we can’t agree to disagree (both sides) the poop is going to hit the fan.
Please note – some of the things I support above would create hardship for people like me. I’m okay with that as long as there are as many avenues as possible we could make a living while keeping true to our beliefs. Many people like myself disagree with me and I support their right to do so. Sadly in the past “Christians” have been the persecutors not the persecuted. Perhaps if we are seen as persecuted instead of persecuting, a great revival will occur.
Paul
LikeLike
July 9, 2016 at 7:11 pm
People are confused because they are listening to false teaching like “there is neither male nor female”….. that was Paul’s false teaching.
Jesus of the Gospels, on the other hand, reminded us from the Law that God created us male and female, and created marriage to be between one man and one woman……
But, many won’t listen to Jesus, they would rather listen to Paul.
Jesus was asked twice which Commandment is the greatest or most important one, (Matthew 22 and Mark 12)
Both times Jesus answered quoting the same two commandments, from the Law of Moses.
Jesus said that one of these two commandments is the first and greatest most important one. Which one is it? The one in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, or the one in Leviticus 19:18 ?
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ [Mark 12:29-30, Deuteronomy 6:4-5]
Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.” [Matthew 22:37-38, Deuteronomy 6:5]
Poem – What is love?
Two men came to Jesus
With different motivations.
They asked Him the same question
Relevant to all the nations:
Which is the Most Important?
The answer was the same.
Jesus did not manipulate
He was not there to play a game.
“Love the Lord your God” said Jesus
as He quoted from The Law –
to fulfill and not abolish
was His purpose, full of awe.
Jesus did not make all Scripture
Into one new great commandment.
He summarized The Law and Prophets
“First and Greatest” and “The Second.”
The Love of God is higher
Than the love of any man.
Receive from God, give back to God-
Then to others, that’s His plan.
The Love of God involves much more
Than simply “love your fellow man.”
Worship, trust, and pray to God,
and obey Him – that’s His plan
To worship and pray to neighbors,
Whoever they may be,
Or trust and obey our enemies
Would be idolatry.
The love of God is first and greatest,
And the love of man is second.
“All we need is love” are words
of dead Beetles on the pavement.
“The entire law is summed up in a single command”
are not the words of Jesus our Salvation.
It’s false teaching of Paul the Pharisee
an “accuser of our brethren.”
“Love” without God is Satan’s word through Paul
in his chapter to the Corinthians.
“I will show you the most excellent way”
is the road to eternal perdition.
Where is God in Paul’s chapter on love?
Nowhere in view of the eye.
Paul sings about himself like a Mexican Mariachi
“I, I, I, I.”
Jesus is The Most Excellent Way
Not the words of a Pharisee.
The words of Jesus are very clear.
Jesus said, “You must follow ME.”
LikeLike
July 11, 2016 at 8:51 am
Is God specific in the way that He wants to be worshipped?:
http://www.bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1483/Worship-Spirit-Truth.htm
LikeLike
July 11, 2016 at 10:13 am
“People are confused because they are listening to false teaching like ‘there is neither male nor female’ …. . that was Paul’s false teaching.”
How did Paul live in relation to Christ?:
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus / Messiah Yahshua, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no mortal man will be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ/Messiah died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:14-21)
LikeLike
July 11, 2016 at 10:13 am
Why would God want to be worshiped? This is the domain of man’s ego, to be worshiped. So when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well that was not a demand or a command to worship but a sense of behavior, in spirit and in truth emanating from our humanity.
And note that Jesus did not use the term God but the term Father. They are not interchangeable without recognizing the fact that Jesus was speaking of the Father who is resident in you. He was not talking about the wide ranging, shove everything into the one lump God and think they are the same. The Father is human specific, God is not.
LikeLike
July 11, 2016 at 10:21 am
If the law of God has not changed, then how could so many people be wrong, and for so long? Is that even possible? Does it even make sense to question established mainstream theology and test it to the Word of God? In this teaching, we answer such questions, and introduce the first video in The Pauline Paradox Series.
LikeLike
July 11, 2016 at 10:41 am
ltg,
Who is the One True Eternal God of The Bible?
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god.htm
LikeLike
July 11, 2016 at 11:37 am
“People are confused because they are listening to false teaching like “there is neither male nor female”….. that was Paul’s false teaching.”
Matthew, Paul was not trying to say that there is no distinction between male or female so therefore it is OK for a person of the same sex to marry. That is a misinterpretation of the scripture.
The context of this passage is telling us that in Christ, we are all equal regardless of our gender or social status. A lot of things changed because of the cross, but the distinction between a man and woman and what marriage is did not.
Be careful to pit Paul against Jesus since Paul wrote the better part of the new testament and had an encounter with the risen Christ, which we have not. He suffered greatly for the gospel and his writings should be taken seriously and not dismissed.
Naz
LikeLike
July 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm
Naz:
Lots of people had encounters with Jesus according to those who had encounters but can one man’s encounter mean anything more to another man than merely another man’s encounter? I don’t think so. I can
tell you about the dream I had last night but alas, you had to be there. Paul’s hallucination?
On Psychoactive Plants:
To imagine that mind altering psychoactive plants prove the existence of supernatural god myths or their Messengers and Prophets is about as smart as believing that standing in your garage proves you are a car.
WORSER: Believing you are right in defending such myths, messengers, prophets and books recounting such nonsense derived from drug inducing psychosis is an abnormal condition of the mind for a mental state described as a “loss of contact with reality”: THAT is Religion.
Salvi divinorum has a long and continuous tradition of religious use by Mazatec shamans, who use it to facilitate visionary states of consciousness during spiritual healing sessions.
Now if you can get a following based on how many people you convince that really believe in you…..well that’s called a congregation and they spring up like Gods themselves….tens of thousands of congregations following another man’s pillar.
Did Jesus ever mention Paul, even once? That’s enough for me to doubt Paul has any more skin in the game than anybody else when it comes to ministers of what they perceive.
As long as you go outside of Jesus for your references you are on a slippery slope and remember a famous ltg quote about gravity and slippery slopes: “Gravity like your caricature concept of gods loves no man more than the man who defies it not and loves no less the man who does.”
LikeLike
July 11, 2016 at 12:52 pm
Where have you been Naz? On a Pauline retreat?
LikeLike
July 11, 2016 at 12:55 pm
PAULINE RETREAT:
Retreatants are asked to bring their own towels and toiletries.
The following information lists the cost of retreats:
Retreats with 2 overnights
— $150.00
Retreats with 1 overnight
— $100.00
Single Day of Reflection —
$50.00
Hermitage Experience [see below]
We ask all retreatants to bring their own towels and soap; the Villa will supply bed linens and blankets.
A non-refundable $100.00 deposit to reserve dates for group retreats will be taken off the bill at the end of retreat.
All retreat groups are responsible for scheduling a retreat director and for paying his/her stipend.
There is also a Hermitage on the property for prayerful solitude. Anyone using this facility must bring his/her own food. Suggested donation $65.00 per day.
LikeLike
July 12, 2016 at 6:23 am
Frank Adamik #15
You wrote QUOTE: “How did Paul live in relation to Christ?: ”
then you quoted 8 verses from…..PAUL – boasting about his divisive inhospitable behavior, harshly rebuking a visiting elder, publicly without speaking privately to him first, with no second witness to back him up in his accusations.
According to Paul’s teachings to others,
.1) Paul should not have rebuked an older man harshly.
.2) Paul should have spoken to Peter first one to one.
.3) Paul should have had a second witness before entertaining an accusation against Peter the elder.
So either Paul’s action in rebuking Peter was wrong and his teachings are right, or his teachings are wrong, and his action was right.
I agree with these 3 teaching of Paul in this case – but I see that Paul was a hypocrite who didn’t practice what he preached in the case of Peter.
How about you – what is your view?
LikeLike
July 12, 2016 at 6:35 am
Naz #19
You wrote QUOTE: “Be careful to pit Paul against Jesus since Paul wrote the better part of the new testament and had an encounter with the risen Christ, which we have not.”
You speak for yourself.
All true followers of Jesus have “had an encounter with the risen Christ…” and so have I. If you think you have not… maybe you really don’t know Jesus the Risen Christ of the Gospels.
Paul wrote 33.4% of our current “New Testament” by chapter count- not “the better part.” Probably you spend “the better part” of YOUR time in “Scripture” reading Paul – not the Gospels, Law, Prophets, Writings, or other parts of the New Testament, so you have the “mind of Paul.” This is common in many “Evangelical” churches.
However,
we should instead be following Jesus.
not
BOSS PAUL THE PHARISEE
[sing it to the tune of “Rapture” by Blondie]
I’m Boss Paul, the Pharisee
My hypocrisy’s plain for the world to see
I travel the land and travel the sea
to make a convert who is just like ME
“All have sinned” – we know that’s true
but it never means ME – it only means YOU
My sins are all theoretical
“I’m the worst of sinners”- but don’t ask where
To be more like Jesus is what some strive
except for me – I’ve already arrived
I’m the perfect model since the road to Damascus
What were Paul’s sins? Don’t ask us!
I justify everything I do
If I testify about myself it MUST be true
I’m the only man in all history
whose testimony doesn’t need two or three
If I did something it MUST be right
Don’t use the Scripture to shed any light
Don’t do as I say, do as I do
and then you can be a Pharisee too.
LikeLike
July 12, 2016 at 10:39 pm
Matthew Perri,
My view is you’re ignorant of the facts while for some reason you have a chip on your shoulder. How do you know whether Paul spoke privately with Peter or not? Do you equate exhortation with castigation? By any chance were you there? Or are you clairvoyant? You’re eager to throw stones.
The Scripture passage I referenced speaks to Paul’s fidelity to Messiah and the truth of His gospel. It clarifies & demonstrates his complete understanding that our eternal salvation comes by God’s grace through faith/trust in the Person and works of Yahshua/Jesus of Nazareth who is the Son of God but not by our own works. You’ve demonstrated what happens when somebody tries to build a theological case on insufficient evidence, i.e., a snippet of a Bible verse. I urge you to read Galatians chapter 2 again; this time in its entirety especially, Galatians 2:2, 6-9, 11-13. I also suggest you develop competent knowledge concerning the difference between the Spirit and the letter of God’s Law. Then follow Messiah truly and, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24) In other words: think thrice before you sarcastically mislabel anyone a hypocrite.
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/44/Gods-Law.htm
– Frank Adamick
LikeLike
July 13, 2016 at 9:23 am
Frank Adamick,
You wrote, QUOTE: “think thrice before you sarcastically mislabel anyone a hypocrite. ”
Amen.
Don’t label the Apostle Peter a hypocrite, (or Barnabas) based solely on Paul’s (biased self-serving) testimony about his own experience.
I have heard this passage from Paul’s letter to the Galatians read many times in “Evangelical” churches. And every time, they blast Peter, and hold Peter up as the classic example of a “hypocrite”.
Yet in fact, Paul taught others, but didn’t practice what he preached.
“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.” [1 Timothy 5:19]
Paul has no second witness.
“Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father.” [1 Timothy 5:1]
Paul rebuked Peter and his mentor Barnabas harshly.
“Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless – not overbearing, not quick-tempered….. Rather he must be hospitable….”
[Titus 1:7-8]
Paul was overbearing, quick-tempered, and NOT hospitable to The Apostle Peter in Antioch, (thought Paul was not a overseer in the Antioch church.)
Yet,
Paul exhibited these same sins as the overseer of the Church in Corinth.
Jesus taught us correct behavior in Matthew 18:15-20. But Paul was an arrogant, argumentative “loose cannon” who thought he was accountable to no one, and never needed a second witness.
LikeLike
July 13, 2016 at 11:47 am
Matthew Perri,
My experience with Evangelical congregations is different from your own. I base my assessments on Scripture, not presumptions. You make it evident you have a chip on your shoulder.
An actual blatant case of hypocrisy & double standard:
Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:11-12)
LikeLike
July 13, 2016 at 12:28 pm
Frank Adamick,
I’ve made a number of specific observations about Scripture, backing them up with quotes from Scripture. You are not really facing any of these points, or providing any Scripture backup for your opinions.
Instead, you mention your own experience, make vague unsupported attacks on me and my character, change the subject, and quote Paul again on an unrelated matter…..
Many self-professed “Bible-believing Evangelicals” won’t listen to the words of Jesus, because they are brainwashed through reciting their “mantra” – “all scripture is God-breathed.”
This “Evangelical Mantra” has been accepted by the collective subconscious mind of “The Evangelical Church” without thought, question, reflection, or even 2 witnesses from the Scripture itself. It’s based on a misinterpretation, out of context, of one verse in one letter written by one man, Paul the Pharisee, who was unfamiliar with the personal ministry and teaching of Jesus.
But, “Once an idea has been accepted by your subconscious, it remains there and it governs your behavior until it is replaced or changed.” [ as a pastor named Bishop Dale C. Bronner observed in one of his sermons]
(Definition from the American Heritage Dictionary.) Mantra (noun) (Hinduism.) A sacred formula believed to embody the divinity invoked and to possess magical power, used in prayer and incantation.
When cult members repeat their mantra, it makes them deaf to the voice of God, unable to hear God. Instead, it puts their focus on their one “special man” above all others – his personality, words and teachings, character, life example, feelings, experience, intentions, mind, will, emotions, etc. Their cult leader is their hero – he is always right, could never be wrong about anything specific, and he must be obeyed in all things and never questioned. He will give himself a special title, write at least one special book, and claim special authority, with no need for a second witness to back him up.
Here are 3 examples.
.1) Fuhrer. The title of Adolf Hitler as the leader of the German Nazis, author of “Mein Kamph”. Mantra: “Heil Hitler.”
.2) The self-appointed Prophet Muhammad, author of The Koran. Mantra: …..”and Muhammad is his prophet.”
.3) Paul the Pharisee, the self-appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, whose 13 letters comprise one third of what, today, we call the “New Testament.” (The first, original “New Testament” was composed by the second century heretic Marcion, and he coined the term “New Testament.” His new “book” contained nothing except 10 of Paul’s letters and an abbreviated Gospel of Luke. There were no other “New Testament” books, and the Hebrew Scriptures were the “Old Testament” which was irrelevant, according to the heretic Marcion.) Mantra: “All Scripture is God-breathed….”
I got my Masters Degree at Dallas Theological Seminary. I was attracted to the school because they put Paul’s mantra of “All Scripture is God-breathed” above everything else, and I wanted to heed Paul’s command and “Preach the Word” like Paul….
This mantra is a misinterpretation out of context of 2 Timothy 3:16. It ignores the previous verse, 2 Timothy 3:15, which clearly indicates that Paul was NOT referring to his own letters when he wrote the words “All Scripture.”
Paul was probably making reference to some of the Hebrew Scriptures, quite likely including the Law and the Prophets. We cannot be completely certain exactly which “Scriptures” Paul meant in “All Scripture”, and what Paul meant by “God-breathed.” Why can’t we be certain?
Because we must establish a matter by the testimony of two or three witnesses, especially something as important as “What is the Word of God.” No one else in the pages of the Bible besides Paul ever said anything like “All Scripture is God-breathed”. And Paul only said it here, one time, in the middle of a personal letter.
The Apostle Peter made reference to “Prophecy of Scripture,” not “All Scripture,” and no it’s not the same thing at all. Jesus never said anything like that. And no one, not even Paul, ever said that all Scripture was equal.
I remember the general approach to the Bible at Dallas being that “every word in the 66 Books is the Word of God”….. and we should interpret it based on “the intended meaning of the author in the historical grammatical context.”
That is the basic idea of the heavy-duty seminary language we were being trained in. It sounds so right, so intelligent, so professional, so “godly”….. but it is fundamentally flawed.
When we look at Paul’s teachings and testimony about himself, (in his letters that make up 1/3 of the New Testament,) we should NOT immediately ask ourselves; “what did Paul say, what did Paul mean, and how does this apply to my life?” The fundamental question is NOT “what was in the mind of Paul?”
Before any of that, the FIRST question to ask is; “does Paul agree with Jesus, who came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets?”
Paul contradicted himself, and his teachings and testimony about himself don’t harmonize with the teachings of Jesus (or with Luke’s record of his life.) Let’s not waste our time with endless debates about “what Paul really meant” with his wacky teachings about “baptizing the dead” or “there is neither male nor female.” Paul was wrong. Jesus reminds us from The Law “at the beginning, the Creator made them male and female.” [Matthew 19:4, Genesis 1:27]
As to the question of “whether the Bible is ALL truly Gods WORDS”…
The underlying unspoken assumption is that “The Bible” (66 Books) was given to us by God as “one book” and it’s all “equal” in level of authority, priority, and importance. This comes from unconsciously believing Paul’s mantra, the “Evangelical Mantra”, that “All Scripture is God-breathed”, and falsely assuming Paul was referring to every word in the 66 Books of the Bible. Yet even here, not even Paul, not even once, ever said that “All Scripture is EQUAL” in authority, priority, and importance.
No one in the pages of the Bible ever said or wrote that “all Scripture,” or “the Bible,” is “all truly God’s words”. Jesus never said anything like that, and Jesus did not see it that way. Jesus did not see even the Hebrew Scriptures, what we call the “Old Testament”, as a whole unit or book that was all equal or “all truly God’s words.” Jesus spoke of The Law, or The Law and the Prophets, holding these 2 sections of the Old Testament above the third, least important sections the “Writings.” And Jesus held the Psalms, the first book of the “Writings” section, above the other books in the “Writings” section in importance, since some parts of some Psalms are prophetic.
Obviously, the New Testament Scriptures were not written when Jesus was walking the earth. But if we want to get closest to The Source, Jesus himself, it makes sense that we should look first to the eyewitness testimony of two of His appointed Apostles who walked with Him faithfully for over 3 years, Matthew & John. (Also to other eyewitness testimony, recorded by Mark and Luke.) This is more accurate, important, and authoritative than personal letters written by Paul the Pharisee, who never knew Jesus personally, had no part in His ministry, and had no eyewitness testimony.
We should follow the Jesus of the Gospel writers. We should not follow the “jesus” of Paul the Pharisee or Muhammad or any other man, who had their own ideas of who “jesus” was and what He did.
LikeLike
July 13, 2016 at 4:44 pm
Matthew Perri,
I’ll leave you with these words from someone who knew both Yahshua & Paul intimately; surely, far better than you yourself ever could:
But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Yahshua Messiah. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. (2 Peter 3:13-18)
Regards & be well,
Frank Adamick
LikeLike
July 13, 2016 at 7:49 pm
Frank Adamick,
Who appointed Paul an apostle, when?
No one. Never.
Did Jesus, Peter, or any of the 11 Apostles Jesus appointed personally ever say or write anything at all related to Paul being an apostle?
No. Nothing.
The Apostles were unique eyewitnesses of the entire ministry of Jesus, and there are only 12 according to Jesus and the Apostles Jesus chose.
Who did The Apostle Peter and the 10 others publicly and formally appoint as the 12th and final Apostle? [see Acts chapter 1]
Matthias. (not Paul)
All true followers of Jesus are “chosen instruments, chosen vessels, and beloved brothers or sisters” and have had a personal encounter with the Risen Living Jesus Christ. That does not make us “apostles”.
“What is an Apostle?”
Here is the answer based on the original sources:
The words and actions of Jesus and the Original Apostles in the text of the New Testament.
.1) Gospel of Mark – time lag between being appointed and being sent
“Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. He appointed twelve – designating them apostles – that they might be with him…” [Mark 3:13-14]
Three chapters later,
“Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits.” [Mark 6:6-7]
.2) Gospel of Luke – time lag between being appointed and being sent
“One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon…..” [Luke 6:12-14]
Again three chapters later,
“When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.” [Luke 9:1-2]
.3) Gospel of Matthew – which is organized by theme, not necessarily in chronological order.
“He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal disease and sickness. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon…” [Matthew 10:1]
Without any clear time reference, continuing on the theme of the Apostles, Matthew does record “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions…” [Matthew 10:5] Matthew never said that the Apostles were “sent out” immediately after being appointed. If we didn’t also have the clear records in Mark and Luke, it would be a fairly logical assumption that Jesus sent them out right away, but it would still be just an assumption. In this case, that assumption would clearly be wrong. The Twelve Apostles were absolutely NOT sent out right away after being appointed Apostles, according to Mark chapters 3 through 6, and Luke chapters 6 through 9.
So being an Apostle of Jesus involves being sent by Jesus, yes. But that isn’t the only meaning, or even the first and primary meaning. The first thing was “that they might be with Him” personally, together, for His entire earthly ministry, from the time of John the Baptist until Jesus rose to heaven. Jesus poured his life into the 12 Apostles for 3 ½ years very personally training them to be the leaders of the church, and Jesus chose Peter as first among equals.
The NIV translation inserts the heading “Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas” for the passage Luke wrote in Acts 1:12-26]. The NIV headings were not part of the original text, and sometimes they can be misleading, but in this case I believe the heading is right on.
Jesus and the Original Apostles knew what an Apostle is better than anyone else in the world. Why is this a strange idea? Why do so many people frequently attack and tear down and dismiss the Original Apostles, particularly Peter, as if they were all incompetent, stupid, and wrong in so many ways, and they didn’t even know what an “Apostle” was? The answer to that question is, they have been listening to the voice of Paul, rather than the voices of Jesus and the Original Apostles.
As we consider the question “what is an Apostle”, we should carefully listen to the words of the leader that Jesus personally appointed as first among the Apostles, and trained personally for 3 ½ years, Peter.
“It is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” [Acts 1:21-22]
Neither Paul, nor James, nor Luke were with Jesus and the Apostles the whole time, so they were not qualified to be a “witness with the Apostles of Jesus’ resurrection”, which is what it means to be an Apostle. Matthias was qualified, appointed, and later recognized as part of The Twelve. No one except Judas ever lost his apostleship.
Responding to a question from Peter,
“Jesus said to them:
…you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” [Matthew 19:28]
We cannot prove that Judas was present at that time, and we cannot prove that Matthias was absent at that time when Jesus spoke those words. Even if Judas was physically present, as we all realize now, he was not a true follower of Jesus. And even if Matthias was physically absent at that particular occasion, Jesus is still establishing the basic qualification for having one of the twelve thrones as being “you who have followed me,” not someone who will follow Jesus in the future, like Paul, James, Luke or anyone else in the world.
At the Last Supper, Jesus said to His Apostles:
“You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred on one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” [Luke 22:28-30]
Was Judas present when Jesus spoke those words? Even if someone wants to be argumentative and say we can’t prove that Judas wasn’t there at the time, we certainly can’t prove that Judas WAS there. Judas obviously didn’t stand by Jesus in his trial, as the whole world knows. But that was the requirement Jesus gave to “sit on thrones:” “You are those who have stood by me in my trials.” “You”, speaking to His 11 Apostles who had been walking with Him faithfully for 3 ½ years. Not others in the future who will follow the risen Jesus Christ. Notice that at the Last Supper, when Judas lost his throne and Matthias was definitely absent, Jesus chose to speak of “thrones” rather than “twelve thrones” as he had previously.
The Apostle John recorded about the New Jerusalem,
“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” [Revelation 21:14]
The Apostles are 12 faithful eyewitnesses who walked with Jesus during His entire earthly ministry, and Matthias is the 12th. That’s the short version of my definition of “what is an Apostle.”
LikeLike
July 13, 2016 at 9:29 pm
Frank:
Can you give me an example that would define to what extent this scripture prevails and refers to, in today’s real world?
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:11-12)”
AND SECOND:
Matthew Perri is right to insist that Christians define themselves by the words of Jesus rather than from the interpretations of his words by the preachers who followed after him since it is obvious the followers have not been able to convey the real Jesus to you and if you knew Jesus, the real Jesus you would not have to go out and surround yourself with every modern day creationist, pharisee, supernatural magician and psychic charlatan in all the ministries in about 50,000 denominations around the world all preaching from the shoulders of those who came before them.
When you start with falsehoods how can you end up being right regardless of how many wrongs you have learned from passed on falsehoods. I myself have demanded that for the last three years without much response other than you calling Matthew Perri a hypocrite and using scriptures to vilify him which I am quite familiar myself by Christians on this blog. Yet all you do is grab any charlatan with a bible belief and an academia resume who agrees with creationism and man, that’s another ninja soldier in your army.
Jesus was called far worse than you can level at Mr Perri and he was big enough for the job while still loving you enough to believing that eventually you will clear the film from your Christian eyes.
Frank you are not on a wrong path; you are on no path at all; you’re a leaf in the wind blown around by various ministries, first one than the other. You’ve come to know the bible textually but never learned the truth.
If the Sanhedrin for whom Paul worked wanted a strong personality and communicator and a bully with fearful scowls and a murderous record as an unyielding persecutor of Christians who would you most likely hire to infiltrate the followings with a view to hijacking and redirecting them back to the Pharisaical Law and the traditional religion of the Pharisees; then, using just the right words, become an agent for the Pharisees; a single Trojan Horse Actor with a made-up-story about a supernatural encounter with Jesus? Because you know they will just suck up that old supernaturalism that’s for sure; they were already well versed in that nonsense from the Pharisees.
And Paul of course, with the wealth of the Sanhedrin behind him could go hither and thither and promote himself as someone who “saw the light”! And you have a well sealed curtain and the transition from Jewry ONE to Christianity ONE.
And then lo and behold, singlehandedly the Annual Family Festival(Human Estrus Season) was suddenly hijacked to become the Jesus Birth/Family/Children event that has grown into the offshoot, we know as the “Christmas Season” around the whole Western Christian World but was actually a well known and practiced Annual Festival long, long before Jesus was born and they even used the “Christmas Tree” during this Festival, fastened it with nails, decked it out and gifts exchanged among the people.
Where was Paul when Jesus was in jail being prepared for crucifixion? Don’t know? Well, where was Paul when the stoning of Stephen began, it could be a hint. Acts 7:58. And check out this uncanny time line:
Jesus crucified 31 CE;
Stephen stoned, Paul watches, 32 CE;
Paul relentless Persecutor, 33 CE;
Paul’s Conversion 34 CE
You might think you are not reading revisionist historian accounts but how would you know? Look how many scoundrel preachers were approved by your ancestors! And so on down the line……
LikeLike
July 13, 2016 at 9:49 pm
Matthew:
“That’s the short version of my definition of “what is an Apostle.”.
I’m glad you started with the “short version”. lol.
LikeLike
July 14, 2016 at 6:58 am
LeoTheGreater #20, 31, 32
AMEN to 3 of your observations above. You wrote QUOTE:
.1)
“Matthew Perri is right to insist that Christians define themselves by the words of Jesus rather than from the interpretations of his words by the preachers who followed after him……”
.2)
“Did Jesus ever mention Paul, even once? That’s enough for me to doubt Paul has any more skin in the game than anybody else when it comes to ministers of what they perceive…….As long as you go outside of Jesus for your references you are on a slippery slope….”
.3)
“Lots of people had encounters with Jesus according to those who had encounters but can one man’s encounter mean anything more to another man than merely another man’s encounter? I don’t think so. I can tell you about the dream I had last night but alas, you had to be there. Paul’s hallucination?……”
There is one important place where the Risen Jesus Christ does speak to commend people for rejecting Paul and other false apostles. Given the content of our current “New Testament”, it is fairly obvious this negative comment was directed primarily against Paul, although not exclusively.
In the Red Letters,
Jesus spoke through his Apostle John to the first of the 7 Churches – Ephesus.
“I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” [Revelation 2:2]
Ephesus- didn’t some preacher write a letter to the Ephesians, opening with “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus….” [Ephesians 1:1]…..
And how long was Paul in Ephesus REALLY? Luke records “three months” in the synagogue, and “discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years….” [Acts 19:8-10]
So, about two years and three months. A little more than two years.
Yet, Evangelical preachers are remarkably consistent in their belief about how long Paul was really in Ephesus. They always say “ABOUT three years.”
Why?
Because they choose to listen to the voice of Paul’s boastful exaggerated testimony, also recorded by Luke, where Paul contradicts the facts Luke had recorded earlier.
Paul gave a farewell speech to the Ephesian elders, where he claimed: “for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.” [Acts 20:31]
Luke went way out of his way to carefully document these details, and prove clearly, using Paul’s own words spoken in public, that Paul exaggerated his ministry, claiming that he was working longer and harder than he really had been. Unfortunately, it is common for carnal people to do that. And if you are a “missionary like Paul”, travelling around as you please, accountable to no one, it is easy to do that……
Near the end of Paul’s recorded ministry, Paul wrote to his travelling assistant Timothy. “You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me…” [2 Timothy 1:15]
Not deserted Jesus. Not deserted the faith or the church. But deserted PAUL.
Ephesus was the first of the 7 Churches in Asia, and Jesus praised them because they
“tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” [Revelation 2:2]
LikeLike
July 16, 2016 at 8:33 pm
Matthew,
I’m back at work so I won’t be able to dialogue, but your post #13 is so strange to me I wanted to hear your thoughts on the following if you have time:
Was Paul’s conversion as stated in the bible? Or is this a hoax? Something else?
If Paul was a false teacher wouldn’t the Holy Spirit have revealed this to the 12? Or are the stories of Paul interacting with other Church leaders false?
Do you believe people who weren’t Apostles were called Apostles in the bible?
Of course Paul wasn’t among the 12 he didn’t meet the requirements as Peter described and at that time not even Christian. Besides, he was sent to the gentiles not the lost tribes of Israel.
Paul Vander Voort
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 8:21 am
“Can you give me an example that would define to what extent this scripture prevails and refers to, in today’s real world?”
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 9:03 am
Frank:
Sorry. I should have said with more clarity that I wanted you to give me examples from your own brain and from the content of your own heart…not some other ministry that has more money than brains, that tells me nothing about what you think.
I know this has always been a problem for you: talking to people, person to person, and you need to use other people’s answers to express the content of your heart, seeking the approval of others is simply passing the buck to show you don’t know anything. Your answers to everything from others is worse than merely useless.
There are too few seekers of truth and too many seekers of approval. Even Jesus commented on this: Looking to one and other for approval, how can you do what is right.
However, at the risk of repeating Jesus words to you again please listen to what Jesus says about following that kind of pattern: Luke 6:26 ”There’s trouble ahead when you live only for the approval of others, saying what flatters them, doing what indulges them. Popularity contests are not truth contests. Your task is to be true, to thine own self, not popular by the whims of others by using the resources of those from whom you seek approval and who give the appearance of being scholarly adept; they are not! And neither are you. You need to speak to the matters in question from ‘within you’. ” Lift up a few of your own brain cells and cut the brain dead act.
Do you expect to come to the Judgment Day with a suitcase full of videos to to justify your ideas to the Judge? Get with the program. Stop using other ministry videos to flagellate us with. You are quite capable of your own scourging.
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 9:26 am
By the way Jesus had nothing to do with religion. Jesus hated religion, hated the Ministry’s you depend on, hated the wide flowing robes they wore for pretense, hats two feet tall, highest seats in gatherings, hypocrisy of the Church, religious insanity, the supernatural, superstition, miracles, fabrications and hypocrisy of self righteousness.
And last but not least Jesus was the first intelligent, common sense man who dared come out of the Antitheism closet to testify about the evils of the religious world; after he came out however, he was forced to dodge and dart in and out of congregations and festivals for the next 3 years fleeing from the religious wingnuts who tried to arrest him, beat him, whip him, stone him, crucify him and kill him. The killers were the powers and clerics of Bingo the Money God and they haven’t changed one bit over the two thousand years after; all they changed was the name of their church and started new religions to obfuscate the masses.
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 12:51 pm
Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. (Ephesians 6:11)
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:27)
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm
Spiritual warfare has been going on since antiquity as written of in Daniel 10.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/daniel/10.html
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Paul V #34
You asked me QUOTE: “Was Paul’s conversion as stated in the bible? Or is this a hoax? Something else? ”
In Acts 9 Luke records some events, things that were said and done. I believe they are true. When (or if) Paul was actually “converted” is debatable.
I think he probably was, sometime before the end of Acts, since in Acts 28 he appears to have repented of his false teaching, and at that time he was teaching The Law of Moses and The Prophets. [Acts 28:23] He wasn’t teaching that Jesus “abolished the Law” like he had been earlier….
Acts 22 and Acts 26 do not give accounts of what happened on “the road to Damascus” – rather, they are Luke’s careful record of Paul’s boastful false contradictory testimony of the events Luke recorded in Acts 9. Paul’s testimonies about himself don’t match Act 9, an they don’t even match each other. Please look for yourself at these three chapters in Acts, compare and contrast. I’m not saying Luke lied or made mistakes – rather, Luke recorded Paul’s lies, fabrications, and exaggerations accurately.
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 1:24 pm
KNOW YOUR ENEMY:
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm
On the road to Damascus:
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 2:11 pm
Paul was called “The Ringleader of the Nazarenes” Paul even defined the faith of a “Nazarene” for us. Everyone Paul discipled was also a “Nazarene.” Does your faith resemble that of a Nazarene, or something different? Prepare to understand what those of the first century really taught, believed, and practiced in the faith…
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 2:18 pm
Most everyone is familiar with the verse that says Yeshua is the way, truth and the life. And for some reason, it seems that we all just pass over that so quickly. Join us as we dig a little deeper into examining what it means when it says He is “the way”.
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 2:40 pm
Matthew,
Thank you for your response, I’ll keep that in mind when I get to those verses later on.
If Acts 9 is accurate, that is powerful evidence on Paul’s behalf. If Acts 9 is not accurate there is a big problem for sure.
Paul
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 3:22 pm
Lecture by N.T. Wright “How Paul Invented Christian Theology”
Given 7pm – 9pm on Friday March 21, 2014 at The Lanier Theological Library Chapel in Houston, Texas. It is part of the Lanier Library Lecture Series. A series devoted to bringing world class lectures to benefit the community of all those who might be interested.
I am indebted to the generosity of the library to allow me to share these videos of theirs. Please support them by visiting their website for more information and resources:
N. T. Wright approaches the Apostle Paul as the world’s first, and greatest, Christian theologian. Much of his lifetime study has had Paul, his life and writings, as the focus. He has offered detailed insights into Paul’s life and times for over 30 years, beginning with his dissertation on Pauline Theology and Romans and continuing through his recently released, two-volume Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In between those writings, Wright has produced over 60 books, many of which have dealt with Paul, and another one is soon to be released, Paul and His Recent Interpreters.
Bio info:
N. T. Wright was born on December 1, 1948 in Morpeth, Northumberland, England. He is a retired Anglican bishop and a leading New Testament scholar. Wright was the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England from 2003 until his retirement in 2010. He is currently Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
In a 2003 interview he said that he could never remember a time when he was not aware of the presence and love of God. He recalled an occasion at age four or five when “sitting by
myself at Morpeth and being completely overcome, coming to tears, by the fact that God loved me so much he died for me. Everything that has happened to me since has produced wave upon wave of the same.”
In addition to his Doctor of Divinity degree from Oxford University, he has also been awarded honorary doctoral degrees from Durham University in 2007, the John Leland Center for Theological Studies in 2008, the University of St. Andrews in 2009, Heythrop College, University of London in 2010, and the Ecumenical Institute of
Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary & University in 2012.
Among modern New Testament scholars, Wright is an important proponent of traditional views on theological matters including Christ’s bodily resurrection and second coming. Further he has expressed strenuous opposition both to the ordination of openly gay persons and the blessing of same-sex partnerships and
marriages. On the other hand, he has criticized the idea of a literal rapture, coauthored a book with his friend Marcus Borg, a widely known voice of liberal Christianity, and is associated with the Open Evangelical movement and New Perspective on Paul, both of which are controversial in many conservative theological circles.
He has published over 50 books and spoken often on radio and television. His latest books include Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Paul and His Recent Interpreters (forthcoming), How God Became King, and The Case for the Psalms: Why They Are
Essential. One of his most important popular series is his New Testament for Everyone that includes 18 volumes.
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 5:42 pm
Providing the cultural context for the theology of Paul:
Click to access paul_jewish_law_and_early_christianity.pdf
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 7:34 pm
The Rt. Rev. N.T. Wright presented “‘The Challenge of Pauline Theology” at Huron University College on November 25, 2015.
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 8:04 pm
Paul V #13-34, 40, 45
In a number of posts above, I’ve largely answered the questions you posed:
QUOTE:
“If Paul was a false teacher wouldn’t the Holy Spirit have revealed this to the 12? Or are the stories of Paul interacting with other Church leaders false?
and
Do you believe people who weren’t Apostles were called Apostles in the bible? ”
I’m glad we agree on QUOTE:
“Of course Paul wasn’t among the 12 he didn’t meet the requirements as Peter described and at that time not even Christian. Besides, he was sent to the gentiles not the lost tribes of Israel. ”
My FURTHER COMMMENTS:
The stories PAUL told about HIMSELF interacting with other Church leaders are simply Paul’s boastful biased self-serving autobiography, and should not be taken seriously.
I believe “the stories of Paul interacting with other Church leaders” recorded by Luke in his biography of Paul are basically true. Luke does clearly reveal some of Paul’s specific sins – but he does it without comment. I believe that when Luke records people saying or doing something specific, it’s true that it happened. But it was not necessarily right, anymore that it was right or Solomon to have 1000 women and worship pagan gods, as recorded in the Bible narratives.
Luke’s editorial comments and opinions reveal a bias in Paul’s favor, to “cover for Paul”. For example, Luke’s comment that Mark “had deserted them in Pamphylia” is not a record of fact, or a record of what someone said. It’s Luke’s biased voice, reflecting Paul’s version of what happened. It’s a fact Mark left them. It’s not a fact Mark “deserted” them. [Acts 15:38]
In Peter’s second letter Peter’s is not “endorsing” Paul, but rather acknowledging his existence and warning people not to take Paul too seriously.
….”people who weren’t Apostles were called Apostles BY PAUL in the Bible.”
Acts 14 is an example of Luke’s editorial comments “covering or Paul”, with “the apostles Barnabas and Paul.” But other than this, and Hebrews 3 calling Jesus our apostle, you have 2 clear choices. (Neither Luke nor the Author of Hebrews were apostles anyway, and they certainly had no authority to appoint apostles or define for themselves what an apostle is.)
What is an “apostle” depends on which voice you are listening to.
I laid out above what Jesus and the original Apostles HE appointed said and did. They are completely unanimous – no exception or ambiguity at all.
There are only 12, and Matthias is the 12th Apostle.
The other opinion is, Paul. Alone.
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 8:23 pm
Frank,
Here is the dance you know so well….
The Evangelical “Mexican Hat Dance”
Sin is always specific, not general.
The “Hat” is, “What were Paul’s sins?”
The music starts, with a cheery blast of trumpets in a melody that is familiar to most North Americans- the “Mexican Hat Dance.” (The national dance of Mexico, taught in Mexican public schools since 1921, and officially named “El Jarabe Tapatio.”)
A couple in rather elaborate traditional costumes begins the dance. The man throws his huge sombrero hat on the floor, and the couple dances around it, but never steps on the hat. (The “Hat” is, “what were Paul’s sins?”) Here are the basic steps- (there may be one or two other basic steps, but they are very similar to these.)
What were Paul’s sins?
STEP 1) Paul said; “I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man.” [1 Timothy 1:13]
(Response- Those were Saul’s sins, before Jesus called him. What were Paul’s sins as a Christian? )
STEP 2) Paul said; “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.” [1 Timothy 1:15]
(Response- Sin is alwasy specific. What were Paul’s specific sins as a Christian? )
STEP 3) Paul said; “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” [Romans 3:23]
(Response- Again the same question; What were Paul’s specific sins as a Christian? )
STEP 4) Paul said; “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it.” [Philippians 3:12-13]
(Response- They say third time’s a charm. Same question; What were Paul’s specific sins as a Christian? )
STEP 5) Paul said; “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do- this I keep on doing.” [Romans 7:15-19]
(Response- One more time! This is getting boring. Same question; Specifically, what were Paul’s specific sins as a Christian based on specific verses of the Bible? )
STEP 6) LOOP- REPEAT steps 1 through 5, until your dance partner gives up, the audience gets bored, or the music stops. The rule is- never step on the “Hat,” just keep dancing around it.
LikeLike
July 17, 2016 at 9:37 pm
M. Perri,
I’ll speak to one item you mention in post # 49. The 11 apostles disobeyed Yahshua’s command. He told them to wait for “what the Father had promised” [Acts 1:4-5]. They refused to wait but rather decided to cast lots to fill the 12th position [Acts 1:26]. Yahshua had other plans [Acts 9:1-6] as to who would be His 12th apostle, i.e., Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles.
I suggest two things:
Stop beating a dead horse.
And seek a refund from Dallas Theological Seminary.
Viewing Scripture through the indoctrinated lens of dispensationalism has become the most common theological framework in mainstream Christianity. In this teaching, we examine dispensationalistic thinking, test it to the word, and allow the audience to generate their own conclusions and begin their own study on the subject matter. We pray that this teaching only blesses and serves the body, allowing His people to see the Word the way our Father intended, and the way our Messiah modeled for us.
– Frank
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 6:07 am
Frank Adamick,
You believe Paul was appointed an apostle, and was “The Apostle to the Gentiles,” simply and ONLY because “Paul said so.”
You elevate Paul as your god, and believe Paul was right – (and Jesus and the Apostles Jesus appointed were all wrong.)
I’ve provided a mountain of evidence above, and even typed out many relevant verses myself for you to see. Who appointed Paul an apostle, when? No one. Never. But, just as Muslims only listen to the voice of Muhammad and can’t hear the voice of Jesus of the Gospels, so it is with you and your idol – PAAL.
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 2:15 pm
Matthew,
Thank you for your response, obviously I haven’t had time to reassess the apostle Paul situation but I did check it out briefly in the past. But I’ve got a few hours off today so I’ll briefly respond from memory of my previous check.
If Acts 9 is false or Paul boasted it up big time, then that opens up a big can of worms for me.
If Acts 9 is accurate it appears to me Paul was called by Jesus Christ (Who appeared in Spirit) to be an apostle. My definition of apostle is simply – messenger, envoy, ambassador. Whether he will be placed on one of the 12 or other 12 thrones I don’t have the biblical proof to say. However, I would think if Acts 9 is accurate he will play an important role in God’s coming Kingdom though.
It would seem to me very cheeky of Paul to falsify his conversion story or boast it up big time when Ananias could easily out him as a liar unless he was in on it.
If Luke just took what Paul said at face value, I’m not feeling very confident then about his gospel. And since similar events to Luke’s gospel are recorded in the others that would then cause me concern also.
If Peter misbehaved publically, shouldn’t he be reprimanded publically?
Before my conversion a big concern I had was it appeared some things in the gospels contradicted each other, especially about the Resurrection. Did you have that concern also and how did you square that? If Paul’s conversion story is true, could it be possible you are misunderstanding Paul? Like I thought the gospels contradicted each other at first.
I don’t know any Christians that would jump over a verse by Jesus Christ to quote Paul about the same topic. But as you accurately stated, Paul was responsible for a lot of the New Testament and he is usually but not always talking to gentiles, Jesus Christ is usually but not always talking to Israelites or so it seems to me.
To summarize – Paul didn’t die for me Jesus Christ did. Paul is pointing me to Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is pointing me to the Father, so I guess I’m not seeing the problem you are.
Paul
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 2:51 pm
Frank,
Thanks for posting the videos about Paul, I checked them out and found them very helpful.
I also wonder if the 11 jumped the gun and filled Judas’ spot before Pentecost for the same reasons you stated? Peter did have that type of personality to rush a head – along the lines of Abraham/Sarah/Hagar and Saul not waiting for Samuel, but there doesn’t seem to be any condemnation after they are filled with the Holy Spirit like those other examples so I’m not sure. And since I believe the 12 will judge the 12 tribes of Israel in the land promised to them in the bible and Paul was called to go to the gentiles it adds to my uncertainty Paul was to be counted amongst the 12 but I believe he’ll be amongst the 24.
Paul
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 3:35 pm
Paul V (and also cc to Frank Adamick)
You wrote to me QUOTE:
“…..so I’ll briefly respond from memory of my previous check.”
and to Frank QUOTE:
“Thanks for posting the videos about Paul, I checked them out and found them very helpful.”
This sums up the problem.
You are not listening to the right voice (Jesus – and the voices of the Apostles Jesus appointed).
Rather,
you are listening to the wrong voice (Paul, your memory of what others wrote or said about Paul, and now new videos about Paul….)
You have not opened up your Bible for yourself, or bothered to read the relevant, extensive Bible quotes I’ve carefully laid out for you here in the above comments.
Please open your Bible and read the entire chapters of Acts 9, 22 & 26. It won’t take you that long – less than watching those Paul videos, I’m sure. Compare and contrast for yourself. I’ve already addressed a number of your specific questions in Post #49 above https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56872
If you want to open your Bible, read it, think, and deal with specific points, with specific texts from the Bible, which you have already brought up, great. I would love to hear your comments.
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 4:37 pm
Matthew,
Thanks again for your response.
I’ve read those passages many times and when I get to them again in due course I’ll keep what you said in mind.
I don’t see the urgency you seem to have. I’m not a Jew are you saying I have to live as a Jew to be Christian? I’m a gentile and I understand I’m to live according to the 7 Noahide Laws and some more things in Acts 15.
Paul
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 7:09 pm
Paul V,
you wrote to another Paul-worshipper QUOTE:
““Thanks for posting the videos about Paul, I checked them out and found them very helpful.”
But, you don’t have time right now to open your Bible for yourself and look at the 3 chapters for yourself regarding Paul which are the subject of the videos……
I see.
In conversation with “Bible-believing Evangelical Christians”, if anyone says anything “critical” about Paul – anything Paul said, did, or wrote – the immediate knee-jerk reaction in most cases is to “defend Paul” with statements like the following :
“Paul wrote that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
“It’s the inerrant infallible Word of God, because “All Scripture is God-breathed.”
However, as we know, Paul did not write Acts. Luke wrote the Book of Acts. So the follow up question to a “Bible-believing Evangelical” is ,
“When Luke wrote down Paul’s biography in Acts, are you saying that every word Paul SAID was also “the Word of God” and everything Paul DID was also done “under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” and without error?”
Usually that will end the conversation. If they do respond, it will be just one brief vague comment like “no one is perfect, Paul must have made some mistakes in his life too…..” And then they will change the subject.
We have been trained, brainwashed really, to think it’s a sin to ever say specifically “Paul was wrong” about anything. Not just in what Paul wrote, supposedly “under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, but also everything Paul said and did, recorded by Luke in Acts. We have been trained to believe the voice of Paul, without any other witnesses, “simply because Paul said so”, and ignore the voices of Jesus and everyone else.
Acts is not a Gospel, centered on the perfect actions and words of Jesus. But Acts is a narrative, like other narratives in the Bible, revealing the sinful actions and false words of the imperfect people in its pages, like David’s adultery and murder, Peter denying 3 times he knew Jesus, and Paul… by the way, what about Paul?
Parable of the Wacky New Religion
“SNAKE WORSHIPPER” and “PAULIST” make plans to start their own wacky new religion, “based on the Bible”.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: I think people make too big a deal about Jesus. Who do they think he is- God? Do they think Jesus is the only way to be saved? The Bible says, “So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived. ”[Numbers 21:9] People are saved by looking at a snake. What do we need Jesus for? We should just keep it simple.
PAULIST: Right on! Who needs a “Jesus Movement?” I say what we really need is a “Paul Movement!” But as to your comment, I think Christians would say that the salvation referred to there was only temporary salvation from snake poison, for the Israelites at a particular time. And it pointed to the future, to Jesus dying on the cross to save us from our sins.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Don’t confuse the issue with facts! That verse is my favorite verse in Scripture. It says it right there in black and white. So my personal interpretation of this one verse is the trump card that negates all other verses of Scripture about salvation. Are you questioning the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures?
PAULIST: Of course, you must be right! If you quote one verse out of context, insist that it means something that contradicts other verses of Scripture, and then accuse me of questioning the inerrancy of Scripture if I disagree with your personal interpretation, than you must be correct. How foolish of me. Please continue.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: So that’s it. Just look to the serpent and be saved. Never mind about Jesus.
PAULIST: But the Bible tells us: “He (King Hezekiah) broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it.” [2 Kings 18:4] So Christians would say that this snake had become an idol, which the godly King Hezekiah destroyed.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Bah! Hezekiah was like Judas, who betrayed the true salvation! We snake worshippers know better. We must restore true worship.
PAULIST: OK. If that is your personal interpretation of one verse of Scripture, then you must be correct. But my favorite verses of Scripture are from Paul writing to the church in Corinth: “In Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.” [1 Corinthians 4:15-16]
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: But Christians would remind us what the Bible says: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach… They love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi’. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi’, for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father”, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher’, for you have one Teacher, the Christ (or Messiah).’” [Matthew 23:1-3, 7-10]
PAULIST: Don’t confuse the issue with facts! Those 2 verses from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians are my favorite verses in Scripture. It says it right there in black and white. So my personal interpretation of these two verses is the trump card that negates all other verses of Scripture. Are you questioning the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures?
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Of course, you must be right! If you quote two verses out of context, insist that they mean something that contradicts many other verses of Scripture, and then accuse me of questioning the inerrancy of Scripture if I disagree with your personal interpretation, than you must be correct. How foolish of me. Please continue.
PAULIST: So that’s it. Paul is our father, and we should “be like Paul”. Paul also testified about himself without any other witnesses: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” [1 Corinthians 11:1] So that has to mean that to “be like Paul” is the same thing as to “be like Christ”, and Paul lived a perfect life as a Christian, everything Paul did was 100% correct and everyone around him was wrong, and Paul is our perfect model for life and ministry. Unless all men speak well of Paul and everything Paul ever did, said, or wrote about himself, they are heretics who are denying the inerrancy of Scripture. What other possible interpretation could there be?
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Yes of course! That is the only possible choice. Well since we’re starting our own wacky new religion, we need some of the trappings of religion. How about a slogan and a rallying cry?
PAULIST: I’ve got it! “There is no god but the serpent, and Paul is his prophet”! Our rallying cry can be “Paul is great!”
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: That has a familiar ring to it somehow…
PAULIST: We’ll make people take a religious pilgrimage once in their lives- we’ll call the pilgrimage the “Journey of Paul”. It will go from Galatia (present day Turkey) to Antioch (present day Syria) and to Jerusalem, so we can “be like Paul” and do the things Paul did.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Tell me more.
PAULIST: In Galatia, the pilgrims will go and circumcise some young men, [Acts 16:3] and then yell at them “You foolish Galatians” [Galatians 3:1] because they got circumcised.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: But in the Bible, Paul taught passionately, over and over, that Christians should never be circumcised under any circumstances, and Jesus said “Anyone who says ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” [Matthew 5:22]
PAULIST: What are you, a liberal? Only liberals criticize Paul. Conservatives have an instant, airtight justification for everything Paul ever did or said. If you criticize Paul that means you’re a liberal who is attacking Jesus.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Of course- carry on.
PAULIST: At Antioch, the pilgrims must have a sharp disagreement and part company with whomever they are with. [Acts 15:39] If they are married, they must get divorced. If they have children, they must disown them. If they are with friends, they must separate.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: But in the Bible, Paul wrote to Timothy “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing.” [1 Timothy 2:8]
PAULIST: Paul meant for that to apply to everyone else except him. Paul is an exception. Paul is always the exception to the rule. If Paul disputed, he must have been right. Remember in the inerrant Scripture, Paul testified about himself “follow my example”.
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: Yes of course.
PAULIST: Luke records Paul as saying “compelled the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem.” [Acts 20:22] So since Paul said this about himself, that has to mean it was true, and we should “be like Paul.”
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: But Luke, who was personally traveling with Paul to Jerusalem at that time, also wrote “Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” [Acts 21:4]
PAULIST: What are you, a left-wing liberal heretic who is attacking Jesus?
SNAKE WORSHIPPER: OK. Lets just keep true to our foundations as a religion. Just look to the serpent and be saved. Paul is our father, and we should “be like Paul”.
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 7:16 pm
P.S.
So if Paul said to a gentile – “One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14: 5). And the Noahide Laws don’t have a commandment to keep a Sabbath, is Paul contravening God’s Law?
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 7:43 pm
The Church in Corinth was a very unhealthy, divisive, problem church.
This is common knowledge for anyone even a little familiar with the New Testament.
It was a dismal failure of leadership, repeated in many churches today.
Who was the overseer of the Church in Corinth?
Who was in charge?
When Paul wrote his letters to the church in Corinth, who was leading all aspects of the church?
PAUL !!!
Yes Paul.
And why is this type of bad behavior sadly repeated in many churches today??
Because it’s “profitable’ for the modern “Paul”. He gets to be an abusive absentee Boss, like Paul was to the church in Corinth. He preaches down to them and blasts them from a distance. He claims all the credit, all the rights, all the benefits, all the glory, is accountable to no one, and accepts none of the responsibility or blame for any of the problems.
The Church in Corinth is infamous for being very unhealthy – yet, I have never heard a single sermon that puts any of the blame on Paul – even though Paul was still completely controlling the church from hundreds of miles away, years after he left, while he was working full-time teaching in his own school in Ephesus.
After Paul broke from his mentor Barnabas, Paul NEVER appointed ANYONE to a position of leadership in any church, as far as we can tell from the pages of the Bible. He was a prima donna, clinging to power, travelling around as he pleased, accountable to no one, demanding people give him money so he could “do his own thing.”
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 8:03 pm
Matthew,
Again, thanks for your response.
Don’t you want to answer my simple question in post # 58?
Paul
LikeLike
July 18, 2016 at 9:59 pm
M. Perri,
The one here involved in knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk) reactions proves to be you yourself. You whine incessantly about your proposed transgressions committed by Saul of Tarsus, Sha’ul ha-Tarsi, Saulos Tarseus, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, or whomever you rationalize him as being. Realize that you’ve become fixated so driven by ulterior motives. Vainglorious assaults on Paul’s character expose your own self-crippling malicious spite. What good will all the misdirected projection on your part serve? Your energies are far better spent in repentance then serving and worshipping the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, His Son Messiah Yahshua and Holy Spirit.
Paul speaks for himself:
2 Corinthians 12
Paul’s Visions and His Thorn
12 I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses—6 though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. 7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Concern for the Corinthian Church
11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. 13 For in what were you less favored than the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong!
14 Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you. For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children. 15 I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls. If I love you more, am I to be loved less? 16 But granting that I myself did not burden you, I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by deceit. 17 Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you? 18 I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him. Did Titus take advantage of you? Did we not act in the same spirit? Did we not take the same steps?
19 Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? It is in the sight of God that we have been speaking in Christ, and all for your upbuilding, beloved. 20 For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. 21 I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced.
You must live by this Scripture:
Deuteronomy 4:2.
Deuteronomy 12:32.
I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him. (Ecclesiastes 3:14)
– Frank
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 4:45 am
MP,
What is a “dismal failure of leadership” and what are the churches of today teaching or not teaching that justifies that assessment?
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 6:54 am
Bob Mason,
Let’s agree on some facts first about the Church in Corinth.
Do you agree that based on Luke account in Acts and Paul’s two letters to the church, that:
Paul, after being the primary “church planter leader”, and then leaving after only 18 months – Paul was still keeping total control over all aspects of the church from hundreds of miles away, years after he left, while he was teaching full-time at his own school in Ephesus?
Do you agree that:
After Paul broke from his mentor Barnabas,
Paul NEVER appointed ANYONE to a position of leadership in any church, as far as we can tell from the pages of the Bible?
Either quote chapter an verse to name someone, or admit this is true.
Yes, “Paul speaks for himself” many times – NOT for God. Paul’s boastful self-promoting testimony about himself is NOT “the word of God.”
Parable of the 12 heavenly chalkboards
What is a common analogy for a permanent decision?
“Written in stone.”
What could be more permanent than that?
How about written in stone in heaven (in other words, for eternity.)
And what kind of a stone is the most solid, permanent, and unchangeable?
Perhaps a foundation stone?
The Book of Revelation written by the Apostle John, chapter 21 verse 14 says… “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostle of the Lamb.”
Nothing about a “13th Apostle” or an “Apostle of the Gentiles”…. Hmmmm…..
Parable of the 12 heavenly chalkboards
Imagine “Wackyjesus” in “Wackyheaven”, built on the foundations of 12 chalkboards:
“Matthias, you should have developed your skills in writing and public speaking. Your name never appears in the Bible after your appointment as the 12th Apostle in Acts 1. [erase erase erase]
Actually, the same is true for you Thaddaeus, after you were appointed. You should have hired a PR firm to promote your name and make if famous. [erase erase erase]
Of course, you both are specifically mentioned in Acts 6:2. “So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together.” And this is before Saul/Paul is even mentioned. But let us not confuse the issue with facts. Paul did a much better job of marketing himself, and he wrote about himself hundreds of times. Share of voice equals share of mind. And most Evangelical pastors who read the Bible spend most of their time listening to the voice of Paul, so they become “like Paul.” But I digress…
James, we had a good run. I didn’t think King Herod would knock you off so quickly. [erase erase erase]
Oh well. Wow, they’re dropping like flies. Now I’ve got 3 slots open. I’d better buy a case of chalk and some more erasers. I’ll have to change the names on these 12 chalkboards hundreds of times in the next couple of millennia.
I guess I had better plan ahead, and save a slot for the last Pope, Francis. And the head Mormon Apostle. And I need to save a throne for my mom, or she’ll be mad. And one for Muhammad too. Who needs truth in relationship, when I can quickly get market share, and totally dominate the market, through mergers and acquisitions?
And one throne for that other guy named Peter. When he was younger, he used to have the great theological insight about territorial spirits and wrestling with dark angels. What was his last name? Begins with a consonant. Sounds almost like he was in the personal transportation industry back in “sword and sandal epic” days… “Peter Charioteer?” Maybe not. This isn’t the “fullest” description of him, but it’s full enough. Anyway, I should save a throne for him too.”
So what is the application of this parable?
Beware of the NAR whale – it’s really a killer whale with a man-made horn strapped on top. The only place in the New Testament that mentions anything like “Seven Mountains” is Revelation 17, “seven hills on which the woman sits.” (The Great Prostitute, that is.) Rome is the city that sits on seven hills, the perfect place for Peter the Roman, the New World Pope for the New World Order, to replace the original Apostle Peter in the apostate church of the Antichrist.
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 7:20 am
M. Perri, in post # 59. you wrote, “He [Paul] was a prima donna, clinging to power, travelling around as he pleased, accountable to no one, demanding people give him money so he could “do his own thing.”
Once more, Paul attests to his own integrity.:
2 Corinthians 11
Paul and the False Apostles
11 I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! 2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. 5 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. 6 Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.
7 Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me, this boasting of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia. 11 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
12 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
Paul’s Sufferings as an Apostle
16 I repeat, let no one think me foolish. But even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. 17 What I am saying with this boastful confidence, I say not as the Lord would but as a fool. 18 Since many boast according to the flesh, I too will boast. 19 For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! 20 For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. 21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!
But whatever anyone else dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they offspring of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food,2 in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?
30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, the who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.
Read The Bible.
– Frank
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 7:30 am
M. Perri,
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16)
(9) Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. (10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
New American Standard Bible (2 Corinthians 5:9-10)
These verses state a reality we all face: We are accountable to the Creator for our conduct. We know that standing between us and God is an internally generated pride that, if allowed, will greatly hinder our desire to please Him by submitting.
We must understand that God’s calling of us, His granting of repentance to us, and His providing us with His Spirit have given us a valuable power, an “edge.” He has not given us an impossible challenge. Receiving the Holy Spirit has given us the wherewithal, the powers, to meet our responsibility to submit voluntarily to Him. What is the solution? In short, it is to exercise humility before the Holy One of Israel. Humility can defuse pride’s power.
There is a major difference between pride and humility. Because of exposure to Satan and the world, pride is within us almost from birth. Humility, though, is not part of us from birth. Spiritual humility is most definitely a developed characteristic, derived because of contact with God and our choosing to be so before Him.
— John W. Ritenbaugh
To learn more, see:
Living By Faith and Human Pride
Related Topics:
Exercising Humility
Human Pride
Humility
Living by Faith
Pride
Repentance
Submitting to God
New American Standard Bible copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, Calif. All rights reserved. For Permission to Quote Information visit http://www.lockman.org
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 7:33 am
M. Perri,
Since you’re a music fan, take a listen.
– Frank
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 7:43 am
Frank,
Since you love to listen to Paul’s testimony about himself,
can you tell me some of the differences you see between Paul’s two differing stories in Acts 22 and Acst 26, regarding what Jesus supposedly said,
and compare those with the words of Jesus recorded by Luke in Acts 9?
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 8:13 am
M. Perri,
Since you love to presuppose dialoguing with you wastes time & effort in which I have no interest.
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 9:21 am
Jesus SHOULD BE our pattern – not Paul. Here is a parable in the form of a “Letter” to illustrate what happens if you follow the wrong pattern.
Letter to the Angelenos
Setting and context: Los Angeles California, Summer 2009. Due to lack of rain, there is a water shortage.
The Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, preached that homeowners should only water their lawns 2 days a week, not every day, in order to save water. But after that, a TV news crew camped out 24/7 at the mayor’s house, and found that the mayor’s own lawn was being watered every day. Now, it has come to the mayor’s attention that some other homeowners are also watering their lawns every day again.
The mayor could write a letter to the homeowners of Los Angeles about the need for water rationing. If he decided to use the life of the Paul the Pharisee as his example, and he wanted to “be like Paul,” he could write the letter below, using Paul’s letter to the Galatians as his pattern.
TEXT OF LETTER TO THE ANGELENOS
Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles,
To the homeowners of Los Angeles:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the 2-day-a-week plan for watering your lawns. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion. But even if we or an angel from heaven should tell you to stop the 2-day-a-week water-rationing plan, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody should tell you a different message, let him be eternally condemned! Not even my personal staff members at City Hall are watering their own lawns every day.
You foolish Angelenos! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes I clearly explained the need for water rationing. I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. What has happened to all your joy? Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? How I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!
Mark my words! I, Antonio Villaraigosa, tell you that if you water your lawn every day, your life in Los Angeles will be of no value at all. You have fallen away from grace. For in Los Angeles, neither a green lawn nor a brown lawn has any value. You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the 2-day-a-week water-rationing plan? A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty whoever he may be. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and turn their lawns into swamps!
Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to water your lawn every day. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for having a brown lawn. In Los Angeles, neither a green lawn nor a brown lawn means anything.
Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I’ve suffered a lot for the City of Los Angeles. Do as I say, not as I did. How dare you ask me why I was watering my own lawn every day?
Regards,
The Mayor of Los Angeles – Antonio Villaraigosa
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 9:41 am
Lets get back “On Topic.”
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/19/portland-polyamorous-relationships-consensual-non-monogamy
“Love” without God is Satan’s word –
THROUGH PAUL !
yes, through Paul.
Romans 13:8-10
Galatians 5:14
1 Corinthians 13
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56667
And people are not listening to the voice of Jesus in the Gospels, quoting the Law of Moses, which He came to fulfill, not abolish.
Matthew 19:4-9
“Instead, they have followed the stubbornness of their hearts; they have followed the PAALS, as their fathers taught them.”
[Jeremiah 9]
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 9:42 am
M Perri:
I researched your Acts 9, 22 & 26 and found them to be similar, not differing significantly one from the other. In one, those with Paul saw the light but did not hear the voice
(9:7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.)
While ( 22:9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.) Who knows if Paul’s companion Luke, heard a voice and wrote about what he heard or, heard no voice and merely repeated what Paul told him what the voice said?
(Acts 26 is silent on what those with Paul saw or heard other than (26:14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’)
Unless one uses a teleprompter when speaking to different parties at different times under different circumstances, the versions will always have some differences for instance more or less details. And the speaker will automatically adjust the story to emphasis some points over other points and whether he is speaking street talk jargon or professional shop talk.
AS TO WHAT JESUS IS REPUTED TO HAVE SAID: ACCORDING TO THE THREE CHAPTER ACCOUNTS:
26:15 So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’
22:6 “Now it happened, as I journeyed and came near Damascus at about noon, suddenly a great light from heaven shone around me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ 8 So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ 9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. 10 So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’ 11 And since I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those who were with me, I came into Damascus.
9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” 6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
These three accounts of Paul as told to
King Agrippa in chapter 26, to
The Commander who allowed Paul to speak and to the Jerusalem Mob and
to the record according to Luke. ( The tradition from the earliest days of the church has been that Luke, a companion of Paul, wrote both Luke and Acts (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11).
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 10:42 am
LeoTheGreater,
I have appreciated your previous insightful comments, and you (rare) willingness to open your Bible, think, and interact with the text.
The words that Paul “put in Jesus’ mouth” in Acts 26 are almost entirely fiction.
Also there are a number of significant differences regarding what happened with the other men. But leaving those aside for the moment,
Can we focus on
the words of Jesus to Paul on the “Road to Damascus”?
In MY Bible (NIV) Luke’s narrative in Acts 9 of the actuals words Jesus spoke to Paul [the Red Letters] match “well enough” with Paul’s testimony of “the Red Letters” in Acts 22:7-10]. I don’t know which translation you are using, but in MY Acts 9 and Acts 22 there is nothing about “kicking against the goads.” Paul made that up in Acts 26.
Paul’s comments in Acts 22 surrounding the words of Jesus don’t match Acts 9 either, and Paul “put words in Ananias’ mouth” that Ananias never said, but again, lets leave that for the moment.
Can you see that the words Paul claimed Jesus spoke in Acts 26 are almost entirely a fabrication?
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 10:46 am
Jesus abolished the Law of Moses because he fulfilled the Law and demonstrated that the Law of Moses as practiced by the clergy was wrong. But remember the Law of Moses was not just about what you should do or not do; the Law of Moses also laid down the penalties for doing or not doing what the Law demanded. And just how wrong the Law of Moses was to Jesus was evidenced when it came to the Law of Moses penalty phase.
3 “………the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”
Jesus was not prepared to fulfill the Law of Moses with respect to this penalty phase; in fact by his answer, Jesus effectively abolished the Law of Moses:
“……..he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
Forget the Religious Ritual regarding the Sabbath, Humanity owns the Sabbath; Church Dogma or the Law of Moses does not..
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 19, 2016 at 11:18 am
LeoTheGreater,
Unfortunately in this case, you are listening to the voice of Paul the Pharisee
[Ephesians 2:15]
not the voice of Jesus [Matthew 5:17-20]
….”.this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ”
No, it’s impossible to commit adultery alone. They set the woman up, then let the man go. They caught a man and a woman in the very act. The Law does not say stone only the woman. If they insisted on the Law being applied, they would have to stone their friend who set the woman up too. So they dropped the charge.
Jesus did not break the Law. Although He didn’t condemn, her, he didn’t say she was without sin. No one accused the woman in the end, so the punishment of the Law did not need to be applied.
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 12:32 pm
M. Perri:
I quoted from, John 8 when I told you about the woman the religious whackos wanted to stone according to the Law of Mose. Nothing I said in my comment had anything whatsoever to do with Ephesians 2:15 so I know you drew that one out of thin air. Paul does not figure into anything I say about Jesus. I don;t follow Paul but you seem to be well versed in everything Paul; I am well versed in everything Jesus.
If they insisted on the Law being applied, they would have to stone their friend who set the woman up too. So they dropped the charge. That is absolutely not the reason they dropped the charge, the bible plainly tells you why. in John 8:9 “9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.”
They were convicted in their own conscience because the reality is that all men make mistakes and Jesus challenged anyone in the religious crown who was
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 1:03 pm
They were convicted in their own conscience because the reality is that all men make mistakes (sin) and Jesus challenged everyone in the crowd that he who was WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.
This was a clear rejection by Jesus of the Mosaic Law & Penalty and one of the many reasons the clergy of the day hated him. Jesus did not break the Law because the Law was impotent; he abolished the Law by that very act and many other Laws did he abolish as well. I don’t care what Paul says about any of this because nothing Paul says applies to anything I say.
“No one accused the woman in the end,” is a ridiculous conclusion because they had already accused the woman at the beginning. The Law was not applied because it was effectively nullified in the eyes and reasoning of Jesus. And that is good enough for me. I understand Jesus pure logic and the impact truth of self reflection in his challenge to the inner conscience of the accusers had on their own, common humanity and it was not lost on them, beginning with the eldest until everybody left, clothed in shame.
For anybody to say that the Law was not supplanted by Jesus is full of ancient caca del toro. We hear that again and again from the platform, “Jesus didn’t destroy the Law”….Oh yes he did! In the old days the fire consumed the sacrifice but in Jesus the sacrifice consumed the fire.
The eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth was the Law of Revenge according to the Laws of Moses and it still persists today in our Western Justice System and Secular modernity has yet to employ the laws of Jesus: love, forgiveness, compassion and still operate under the Letter of the Law to the neglect of the Spirit of the Law.
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 1:38 pm
When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
On the God who reconciles:
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 1:53 pm
LeoTheGreater,
You have gone on an on with your personal interpretation and application of one short narrative in John chapter 8, as if your opinions about the meaning of this narrative override everything else Jesus said and did in the Gospels.
You wrote, QUOTE:
“We hear that again and again from the platform, “Jesus didn’t destroy the Law”….Oh yes he did! ”
You hear it again and again because Jesus said it.
There two voices which disagree-
The voice of Paul the Pharisee [Ephesians 2:15]
The voice of Jesus of the Gospels [Matthew 5:17-20]
You agree with Paul.
I agree with Jesus.
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 1:58 pm
According to the voice of Jesus,
Which commandment is the most important?
Jesus was asked twice, by two different men, the same basic question about which is the most important or greatest commandment in the Law. Here is how Jesus answered that question:
#1
“One of the teachers of the law… asked him [Jesus],
‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, of Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than THESE.” [Mark 12:28-31, Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18]
#2
…an expert in the law, tested him [Jesus] with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’”
Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO commandments.” [Matthew 22:36-40, Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18]
But in contrast with Jesus, Paul the Pharisee didn’t know the greatest, most important, first commandment according to Jesus. Paul made up his own rule. Paul wrote:
“The entire law is summed up in a SINGLE command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” [Galatians 5:14, Leviticus 19:18]
And again, Paul wrote:
“He who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not covet, and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this ONE RULE: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” [Romans 13:8-10, Leviticus 19:18]
Jesus said it’s TWO commandments, with the greatest, most important, first command to
.1) first, love God with everything you’ve got, and
.2) second, love people.
Paul said no, it ONE commandment- to love people.
This is very similar to The Beatles- “All you need is love. Love is all you need. Love, Love, Love.” (In other words, the second commandment, the love of man, without the love of God. Love as me, myself and I define love to be, and continuously redefined by sinful men.)
In essence, it is also the same principle as what Eve did in the Garden of Eden, forgetting about the Tree of Life, which is the first tree in the middle of the Garden, and instead referring to the second tree as “the tree that is in the middle of the garden.” [Genesis 3:3 & 2:9 2:17, 3:24]
Kind of like the Pharisees with Jesus, who were pushing the false idea that we can consider ONE commandment in the Law, alone in isolation, to be “the greatest commandment in the Law.”
Or like today, false teachers in the Chrislam – Purpose Driven – Seeker Sensitive – Emergent – Liberal – Ecumenical – New Age – world church movement pushing the false idea that the ONE RULE is “Loving God and Neighbor together.”
The Lord God Jesus the Jewish Messiah, Son of Yahweh the Most High God of Israel, said:
“All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO commandments.”
Not one. TWO.
Sometimes, Paul was wrong. Jesus is always right. I’m following Jesus.
Here are answers to 2 common objections:
.a) What about the so-called “Golden Rule”?
Jesus spoke the 3 chapters of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7, including 7:12. Jesus didn’t make PART of this one verse out of context into “The Golden Rule” or “one rule.” Jesus did not use the term “Golden Rule,” it’s simply a tradition of men. The sentence begins with “So” in the NIV and Amplified Bibles, and “Therefore’ in the NASB and King James Bibles, which ties 7:12 to the previous sentences. So 7:12 cannot stand alone as One Commandment.
.b) What about the so-called “Great Commission”?
Jesus spoke the words recorded in Matthew 28:18-20, including “make disciples of all nations.” Jesus never used the term “Great Commission,” it’s simply a tradition of men. Yes I agree it’s a commandment given by Jesus, it’s not optional, and it applies to us today. We need to carry this out, with our own God-given abilities and talents, using the skills, and circumstances we have. But we don’t need to put words in the mouth of Jesus, we can let Jesus speak for himself, and we can listen to Him – and obey Him.
Evangelism is part of the Second Commandment given by Jesus, to Love people. Evangelism is not the most important commandment, and it isn’t the entire Second Commandment. So if our priorities are “The Great Commission and the Great Commandment,” we have our priorities upside down and confused, and we are not listening to the voice of Jesus. Never mind what Paul said. Let’s listen to the voice of Jesus first, and get our priorities straight.
The people who will protest most loudly against this truth are the modern “Pauls:” traveling evangelists, speakers, writers, abusive absentee mega-church pastors, Crusaders, and self-appointed “apostles” like Paul, who find it “profitable” to “be like Paul” rather than follow Jesus the Jewish Messiah.
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 9:14 pm
M.Perri
I can write on everything Jesus said and did and was because I know Jesus better than you know Paul, which obsession with Paul is actually antithetical, to the messages of Jesus. And I can talk about Jesus without even mentioning Paul one single time. You seem not to have this ability.
By the way, when it comes to Jesus I don’t give opinions; I give revelations. I don’t know what Nathaniel was doing under the fig tree when Jesus saw him and why this conversation took place.
John1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!”
48 Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”
49 Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
50 Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe?
Do you know what Nathaniel was doing under the fig tree? That made him exclaim “Rabbi, you are the Son of God”?
I don’t understand how you can say you know Jesus by always talking about Paul? How does that make any sense? Frankly I have no idea what you think you know about Jesus other than what the clergy may have perhaps fed you. Your narrative about Jesus seems to be only that you agree with him and then give a quote but you never explain why you agree or how you agree or what the quote means. That’s why you misunderstood Jesus and what he meant when he saved the woman from being stoned. I had to reveal to you the reasoning behind the method of discourse that prompted Jesus to respond to the religious scholars. You thought the reason she was not stoned was because the religious scholars did not accuse her in the end so the Law did not then apply but that just exposed your ignorance about Jesus.
I told you originally that I did not follow Paul because I follow Jesus and then you turn that around and say that I agree with Paul and not Jesus. But Why do you insist on twisting what people say? Just by casting out phrases or statements doesn’t make them true; in fact, it doesn’t make them anything but words without meaning, without definition. It’s like Trump who throws out any allegation unproved, unfounded, untrue to see if it sticks!
“……every Christian I have heard on this board …………… think they are doing a wonderful service for themselves and others by quoting the preachers of Acts, most notably Paul the Pharisee. And if that was not enough they take the Pauline Weave, run with it and quote every tradition and law and stupidity of stone chiseled dogma that serves only the same religious tradition that it always served and the blinders have been put on your Jesus eyes as you preach the same nonsense of the Pharisees since Moses: literal text-truth, miracles, supernaturalism, charlatans and frauds, the EXACT message of the Pharisees”. See LTG Post #38: “Has science excluded room for belief in God?”
What do you know about Jesus, anything? Or are you too comforted by your attacks on Paul to care about Jesus messages?.
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 9:19 pm
Perri:
“……..all correction is grievous to be born………however, whom the LORD loves He chastens….bear it and be made wise.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 4:55 am
I’m still waiting for the revelation as to what constitutes a dismal failure of leadership in modern day churches (posts 59,62,63).
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 6:55 am
LeoTheGreater,
Neither of us knows exactly what Nathanael saw under the fig tree. The point is that Jesus was able to read people’s minds and hearts, even from a distance. It’s just one glimpse of His supernatural power, as God.
Sometimes, people will take one passage of Scripture – one short narrative, like your favorite in John 8, or “the wedding at Cana” in John 2 for Catholics, or Paul’s solitary claim, out of context, that “All Scripture is God-breathed” for “Evangelicals”, and make this the one lens to see everything else through.
They have their own particular interpretation of the meaning of this one passage, and what the application needs to be. And this overrides everything else. They become deaf to the voice of Jesus in the Gospels.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 7:27 am
LeoTheGreater
You wrote QUOTE:
“I told you originally that I did not follow Paul because I follow Jesus and then you turn that around and say that I agree with Paul and not Jesus.”
There two voices which disagree-
The voice of Paul the Pharisee [Ephesians 2:15]
The voice of Jesus of the Gospels [Matthew 5:17-20]
Which one do you agree with – Paul or Jesus?
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 8:02 am
Bob Mason,
In your view, from the pages of our Bible,
was The Church in Corinth a healthy, well-run “model for ministry” and a good example for us to imitate?
or,
was it an example of an unhealthy, poorly-run church, a “dismal failure of leadership ” and an example that we should NOT imitate?
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 9:50 am
Matthew:
With all due respect you are misunderstanding scripture both with Jesus and with Paul:
Now read this scripture in context please, from different translations than the ones you are familiar with….
Look for the parallels because the glass is half full not half empty:
Ephesians 2:14-15
The Messiah has made things up between us so that we’re now together on this, both non-Jewish outsiders and Jewish insiders. He tore down the wall we used to keep each other at a distance. He repealed the law code that had become so clogged with fine print and footnotes that it hindered more than it helped. Then he started over. Instead of continuing with two groups of people separated by centuries of animosity and suspicion, he created a new kind of human being, a fresh start for everybody.
16-18 Christ brought us together through his crucifixion on the cross. The Cross got us to embrace, and that was the end of the hostility. Christ came and preached peace to you outsiders and peace to us insiders. He treated us as equals, and so made us equals. Through him we both share the same Spirit and have equal access to the Father.
19-22 That’s plain enough, isn’t it? You’re no longer wandering exiles. This kingdom of faith is now your home country. You’re no longer strangers or outsiders. You belong here, with as much right to the name Christian as anyone. God is building a home. He’s using us all—irrespective of how we got here—in what he is building. He used the apostles and prophets for the foundation. Now he’s using you, fitting you in brick by brick, stone by stone, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone that holds all the parts together. We see it taking shape day after day—a holy temple built by God, all of us built into it, a temple in which God is quite at home.
——————————————————
Matthew 5:17-20:
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”
And this is true: Jesus did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill the Law but in the fulfilling the law, the traditional law was abolished…So what was the Law that Jesus fulfilled? Only two upon which everything in the law depended when it is fulfilled: And you know this because you already alluded to it:
Matthew 22:36-40
34-36 When the Pharisees heard how he had bested the Sadducees, they gathered their forces for an assault. One of their religion scholars spoke for them, posing a question they hoped would show him up: “Teacher, which command in God’s Law is the most important?”
37-40 Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.’ This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: ‘Love others with all your passion and prayer and intelligence as well, as you love yourself.’ These two commands are pegs; everything in God’s Law and the Prophets hangs from them.”
THAT IS THE LAW THAT JESUS FULFILLED.
Jeremiah 31:33-34
“I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34″They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Revelation 21:22 But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23And the city has no need for sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp.…
The “fresh start” that Paul is speaking about in Ephesians 2:14-15 is simply reiterating the fulfillment of the Law which Jesus taught us:
“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.”
And so the equality we hear about today….because of Jesus……. made its way into the Declaration of Independence because the government of tyranny the declaration speaks of about concerning the Monarchy was the same government of Tyranny that Jesus spoke against concerning the religion of the Scribes and the Pharisees and the Laws they niggled over and forced upon the people in tyrannical suffering because they would not accept that all men were and are created equal.!
“……..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…….”
If you would like to read the full list of grievances you can do so here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
and thereafter follows a list of grievances against the Monarchy, which for all intents and purposes, are in almost direct parallel to the “Woe To You Indictment” against the tyranny of Pharisaical religion that you can read again for the first time and to which Matthew devoted the entire chapter expounding on, Chapter 23.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 10:30 am
MP
If you want to dialogue you can’t simply pose questions to others but avoid answering questions from them.
To use your analogy, dialogue is similar adultery in this respect, it’s impossible for just one person to participate, it takes two, n’est ce pas?
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 10:37 am
LeoTheGreater,
When Jesus spoke about “THE Law”, He was referring to The Torah, The Law of Moses – The Pentateuch. Nothing else, in my observation. If I’ve missed someplace, you can quote me chapter and verse to show me where.
Jesus frequently mocked the Pharisees, for making the Psalms “their law” or their traditions “your law.” But the Writings -The Kethuvim, the third section of the Hebrew Scriptures that contains Psalms, Proverbs, Esther, Song of Solomon, is NOT “The Law.” And the Traditions of the Pharisees are not “The Law” either.
What matters most is what Jesus said and commanded – directly, specifically, twice, speaking in complete consecutive sentences, quoting the Law – Deuteronomy 6:4-5.
You want to quote from “The Message” I think, which is not really a “translation” strictly speaking…… and your argument is that Paul really meant something different than Jesus did when he talked about “The Law.”
This approach is so common in Evangelical circles that it’s like breathing, and we have been trained not to see it.
Rather than the “word of God” being what Jesus clearly said in the Gospels, for you ” the word of god” is your own opinions about what you think “Paul really meant.”…. So your opinions about what was in the “mind of Paul” becomes the “word of god.”
I choose to listen to Jesus through the Apostles Jesus appointed.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 11:14 am
LeoTheGreater
Earlier you claimed that QUOTE:
” I did not follow Paul because I follow Jesus…”
But in Post #86, there you are, quoting Paul, justifying and defending Paul all over the place ! You really ARE following Paul !
Underlying it, probably subconsciously, are the false teaching and false testimony of Paul – that “All Scripture is God-breathed” and we should follow Paul’s example because Paul said so.
You and I have been taught this false idea that Paul’s teachings “harmonize” with the teaching of Jesus.
That is a lie. They don’t harmonize in many places. And where they disagree, Paul was wrong. Period.
Related to The Topic of this post, Jesus quoted the Law about God creating us male and female, and marriage between one man and owe women.
Paul said there is neither male nor female……..”O but what Paul REALLY MEANT was……” fill in the blank with whatever you want. The unwritten, unknowable “mind of Paul” can “mean” whatever you want it to mean, you don’t need a second witness, and you can ignore The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the words of Jesus in the Gospels….. because “that’s what Paul really meant” …………
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 11:44 am
There’s definitely a whole lot of taking Scriptures out of context and misinterpretation going down in recent posts relating to both Yahshua/Jesus & Paul. There are times you must apply complete concentration (which I observe isn’t happening due to obvious points of neglect & distortion) so that you’ll receive the text for what it’s actually saying. It’s plain to see there are those who totally reject Moses and those who totally reject Paul. Now Yahshua doesn’t live His Life in a vacuum. He’s involved with people of every sort (many of those found in the pages of Scripture like Moses & Paul) and interacts with them on every conceivable level of intimacy, justice, mercy & righteousness. So to disregard His dealings with those critical to His very own narrative proves foolhardy and worthless. That will get you nowhere in coming to understand/know God or Scripture.
Galatians 5
Christ Has Set Us Free
5 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. 11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
Keep in Step with the Spirit
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
It’s been said of Paul that he doesn’t follow Messiah/Christ; that he’s only out for himself. Do these claims match the facts or Scripture? Absolutely not! Read Galatians 5:1 for starters. He tells us, CHRIST has set us free and we’re to stand firm in Him. Messiah has liberated us from the yoke of slavery. Slavery to what; bondage in sin of course, as Paul explains in the latter half of Galatians 5’s message [Galatians 5:17-26]. It’s been said of Paul that he supersedes the First Commandment with the Second. Absolutely not! Read Galatians 5:16. Who is the Spirit? Isn’t the Spirit God Himself, Third Person of The Godhead. Paul teaches we are to live & walk in the Way of the Spirit of God. If we are indeed honestly doing that of course our highest aim shall be to love God with all our heart, with all our mind, with all our soul and all our strength. We’ll be obeying God’s Law because He will have given us new hearts and circumcised them by writing His Law on them. The Law will not justify you in God’s sight rather it defines what’s sin in God’s sight. We become declared righteous in God’s sight by His grace when we have faith/trust in the Person & work of His Son, Messiah Yahshua. We then receive the righteousness of God/Messiah’s righteousness applied to our account so that we might be considered acceptable in His sight [Hebrews 11:4-14].
Paul advises us not to become unsettled by those who would teach anything contrary to the Gospel of Messiah. He warns us not to use the freedom we receive from Messiah as an opportunity for the flesh [Galatians 5:13] but rather we should serve both our God and our neighbor while through love serve one another. Didn’t our Lord and Savior Yahshua Messiah preach along with His apostles the very same message that by His command we are to love one another and by our love for each other we would be known as His disciples [John 13:34-35; Romans 12:10, 13:8; Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 1:22, 4:8; 1 John 3:11, 3:23, 4:7, 11-12; Hebrews 10:24].
Trying to eliminate the OT from the Life and works of Yahshua/Jesus of Nazareth proves a false start from the very outset for they’re inextricably intertwined. From the LORD God who walked the garden in the cool of the day [Genesis 3:8] to the ark of Noah [Genesis 7:16] to the Angel of YHWH who told Abraham He’d spare Sodom & Gomorrah for 10 righteous men [Genesis 18:20-33] and then appeared to Moses [Exodus 3:2-15] to the Tabernacle of Exodus [Exodus 35-39] to the Rock of salvation & offense [Exodus 17:6; Isaiah 8:14] to the coming messenger of the covenant, the Lord of His temple [Malachi 3:1-6] all these and much more point to the Person and works of Jesus Christ/Messiah Yahshua. No one can deny nor revise His story as told in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms [Luke 24:44].
If you desire to be at peace with Him as I AM seek His message truly then live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit [Galatians 5:25]. But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. (Galatians 5:15) Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. (Galatians 5:26)
Ephesians 4
Unity in the Body of Christ
4 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it says,
“When He ascended on high He led a host of captives,
and He gave gifts to men.”
9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that He had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the One who also ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) 11 And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
The New Life
17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!—21 assuming that you have heard about Him and were taught in Him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil. 28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. 29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Read The Bible.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 11:54 am
“When Jesus spoke about “THE Law”, He was referring to The Torah, The Law of Moses – The Pentateuch.”
That’s an assumption especially when Jesus was asked which Commadment of the Law was the greatest and you know what he said at that time……If I missed something where Jesus said that and you have a quote from Jesus about what Law he was talking about let me know.
“You want to quote from “The Message” I think, which is not really a “translation” strictly speaking…… and your argument is that Paul really meant something different than Jesus did when he talked about “The Law.”
No Paul did not mean something different than Jesus, Paul explained that Jesus bonded everyman as being equal, the religious and the non religious alike which was what Jesus referred to about loving your neighbor as yourself.
“Rather than the “word of God” being what Jesus clearly said in the Gospels, for you ” the word of god” is your own opinions about what you think “Paul really meant.”…. So your opinions about what was in the “mind of Paul” becomes the “word of god.”
You are incorrect. This is a misconstrual of what I said. What I said was not a generalization of Paul’s ministry it was specific to the Ephesian 2 quoted by you. I told you what I believe Paul was trying to say about the Jesus welcoming all people to himself. Jesus said he would draw all people to himself and this is the same as what Paul was talking about not a different. And quite frankly the only reason I am talking about Paul is because you asked the question about Paul; otherwise, I seldom mention Paul in any of my comments. It is you insisting on bringing Paul into the conversation. Personally I would rathe talk about Jesus and forget Paul altogether but you can’t seem to let Paul go as it is the principal aspect of all your commentaries.
Now before you go too far about the “word of God” from where does this “word of God” from Jesus emanate, where does this God reside when you speak about the word of God.. And the Word of God that you quote where do you think that word of God emanates from? In fact how about defining this God you talk about….where does this God live?
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 12:01 pm
MP
You are the one obsessed with Paul you asked me a specific question about Paul and I answered you; then you accuse me of following Paul and justifying Paul.
Get Paul out of your mindset and talk to me about Jesus instead of wrapping everything around your nemesis.
If you want to know anything about Jesu I can tell you because Jesus is my light of spirit…..I know whose light you follow and it is not a healthy spirit you conjure up with every post.
So please don’t speak to me again about who or what you want to talk about if it does not involve Jesus only, not comparing Jesus with anybody else. period.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 12:50 pm
LeoTheGreater,
OK
According to the words of Jesus, in the Gospels,
Jesus was asked twice which Commandment is the greatest or most important one, (Matthew 22 and Mark 12)
Both times Jesus answered quoting the same two commandments, from the Law of Moses.
Jesus said that one of these two commandments is the first and greatest most important one. Which one is it? The one in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, or the one in Leviticus 19:18 ?
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ [Mark 12:29-30, Deuteronomy 6:4-5]
Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.” [Matthew 22:37-38, Deuteronomy 6:5]
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 12:57 pm
Frank Adamick,
You wrote of QUOTE “Unity in the Body of Christ”
But as followers of Jesus of the Gospels, were are the BRIDE of Christ.
NOT the “Body of Christ.” That was Paul’s false teaching, and no one anywhere in the Bible agreed with Paul on that point.
God’s people are described as His Bride throughout the Bible however – by the Prophets, by Jesus in the Gospels, and in Revelation by the Apostle John.
We are the BRIDE not the Body.
We are to have unity in Jesus of the Gospels – in the message of Jesus through the 11 Apostles He chose, according to Jesus’ instructions at the Last Supper. NOT “unity” in the “christ” of Paul, or “the Bible”, or “the pope” or anyone or anything else.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 1:49 pm
LeoTheGreater,
Are you a PAULIST that has been pretending to follow Jesus of Nazareth all this time?
Unless I missed it, Matthew didn’t answer my simple question in post # 58 yet. I wonder if he’ll add that into his future boasts about “Bible-believing Evangelical Christians” being unable to give an answer to his wisdom about Paul being a false apostle and all around SOB and changing the subject.
Has Matthew called Bob a PAULIST yet? that would be funny.
I got the call to head back to work tomorrow but I’ll check in from time to time when able.
Regards,
Paul
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 2:25 pm
Paul V
You have been “bound in spirit” for too long by the evil “spirit of Paul”.
Regarding the text of one of Luke’s narratives [Acts 19:21- 27:1]
When I was at Dallas Theological Seminary, I stayed after class one day to talk with one of the professors. He had me open my Bible and read Acts 20:22, where Luke records the words of Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders, saying: “compelled by the Spirit I am going to Jerusalem.”
For this professor, Paul’s claim about himself in this one verse, recorded by Luke, was the “trump card.” It was the end of any discussion, it couldn’t be questioned or examined. Paul said this so it must be true. Period. Luke’s entire narrative about Paul’s journey [Acts 19:21- 27:1] had to be interpreted through the lens of Paul’s claim about himself in Acts 20:22, and it MUST be true because Paul said it.
What about all the numerous other parts of the narrative that indicate Paul was speaking falsely [Acts 20:22] in the midst of walking in disobedience to God?
The Paulist would reason: “Well, Paul was right, so they all must have been wrong, even if their intentions were good- Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Agabus, Luke, others who ‘Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.’ [Acts 21:4] O, but they didn’t understand Paul. They didn’t know what they were talking about. The noble Apostle Paul is our hero, a model of maturity, he wouldn’t let himself be swayed by anyone, and he resolutely went to Jerusalem even though everyone was against him – almost like a second Christ, for the sake of the Gentiles…”
This Dallas Seminary professor didn’t mention the fact that LUKE wrote the Book of Acts, not Paul. So apparently, the voice of Paul is equal to the voice of God, even if Paul didn’t write it but only spoke it…… This view of Paul is, practically speaking, essentially the same as the view Muslims have toward Muhammad. “Neither his life example nor his teachings can be examined or questioned – he never intentionally disobeyed God, because he said so, so he doesn’t need another witness because he speaks for God. If you disagree you’re an infidel heretic.”
Many Evangelicals, including many pastors, teachers, missionaries, and other leaders, are bound in spirit by the “evil spirit of Paul.”
In comparing Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem with Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, the most important thing is not the opinions of the people around them. What is most important is GOD’s opinion. God’s opinion about Paul going to Jerusalem is clear in the pages of the Bible- “get out and stay out,” according to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But Paul disobeyed God.
It was fine for most people to go to Jerusalem. But for Paul to ignore the clear voice of the Holy Spirit telling him specifically not to go at that time was disobedience. God didn’t want Paul to die in Jerusalem like a Muslim martyr. Jesus wanted Paul to go far away to the Gentiles, and Paul knew that. So pouting that he was “ready to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus” was simply a commitment to willful disobedience.
If you read Luke’s account, you will see that Paul actually did have the chance to die OUTSIDE Jerusalem “for the name of the Lord Jesus” but he didn’t want to. So Paul’s journey to Jerusalem wasn’t really about Jesus- it was about himself- Paul the Jezebel Pastor. Since Paul had a “messiah complex” perhaps he wanted to go down in a blaze of glory, but God prevented that, fortunately.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 3:15 pm
Matthew,
I have no basis to judge the success or failure of the church of Corinth. I’m a retired scientist, not a Christian historian. You claimed Corinth was a failure and then extrapolated your logic to impugn the reputation of some modern day churches. I’m not interested in what happened to a Christian church 2000 years ago, other than as an example of learning from history so as not to repeat it, which you apparently believe we have already failed to do. I’m merely asking what the bases are for your assertions, preferably delineated in a form that a non-historian can understand. What do some current church leaders teach or don’t teach that amounts to a failure of leadership? Was it about the teachings of Paul, or something else?
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 4:40 pm
Bob Mason,
Lets cut to the chase with case histories we both have in front of us – some churches in the New Testament.
Yes, there is no perfect church, God is the Judge not us, only God knows everything about every church that ever existed, 2000 years ago or today, etc. etc.
But,
Based on the New Testament text we do have in common:
Can we agree that there are some healthy, “good” churches,
Antioch, Smyrna, Philadelphia, (& Jerusalem although it’s extremely unique…)
Some unhealthy “bad” churches
Corinth, Laodicea
and some in between, like some of the other 7 churches of Revelation?
And we should try to learn how to “do church” from the “good” churches, and NOT try to follow the pattern of the “bad’ churches?
Can we agree on that?
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 7:12 pm
Matthew,
It’s quite possible I’m in error but it seems to me you are wrong. Let me quickly explain why I’m not taking you seriously:
You have not explained to me what was a lie about Paul’s conversion. Was Paul blinded? Did the Lord talk to Ananias? Was Paul’s sight restored and was Paul filled with the Holy Spirit? Did Barnabas lie?
Was Luke present at Pentecost and filled with the Holy Spirit? If Luke was filled with the Holy Spirit, why didn’t he sense Paul was a false apostle? If Luke wasn’t filled with the Holy Spirit why trust his gospel writings? If he got Acts wrong why couldn’t he get his gospel writings wrong?
Jesus Christ talking to Jews and Paul talking to gentiles, do you take this into account? Does a gentile Christian have to live like a Jew?
So no one in Acts 15 sensed Paul was a false apostle? Did the Holy Spirit allow them to be deceived by Paul? Was Luke there? Or is this all more of Paul’s boasting in Acts 15 and Paul just relayed the events to Luke and Luke wrote down Paul’s lies? Was James a PAULIST too?
You just ignore points against your hypothesis that Paul is a false apostle and all around SOB and just keep slamming Paul and calling anybody who even questions you a PAULIST or PAAL WORSHIPPER (I like that one).
Don’t get me wrong you probably win lots of arguments, do what you feel is best. However, if you want to convince me you have to answer my concerns. If you just want to keep slamming Paul knock yourself out, that’ll speak volumes to me.
Paul
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 8:13 pm
Paul V.
A PAAL worshipper is Matthew’s twist on the ancient deity Idol BAAL to compare Paul followers to followers of BAAL simply by substituting “P” in place of “B”.
It’s rather childish like his questions that belongs in a Sunday School study for children: his post in 93 is two or three time repeat and serves no purpose since it has been answered as many times as the question was posed.
Perri asks the questions, if you answer he will trample them rend you apart but has no answers to anybody else’s questions, a rather lopsided discussion.
Without Paul to denigrate his mind is a void.
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 8:14 pm
Paul V
There two voices which disagree-
Jesus said that one of these two commandments is the first and greatest most important one. Which one is it? The one in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, or the one in Leviticus 19:18 ?
Jesus had one opinion. Paul had a different opinion.
The voice of Paul the Pharisee said: [Ephesians 2:15]
The voice of Jesus of the Gospels said: [Matthew 5:17-20]
Which one do you agree with – Paul or Jesus?
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 8:24 pm
M. Perri:
You repeat another children’s Sunday school question; grow up and put away childish things.
1 Corinthians 13:11 “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways.”
Who said that?…..OMG ……….it was Paul. oh no, no, nada, niet, non, nang, nang. WTF?
LikeLike
July 20, 2016 at 9:51 pm
M. Perri,
There’s a word which describes your claims against Paul. It’s SPURIOUS. Take for example your diatribe in post # 96. You don’t account for a relevant verse in that passage you whine about.
For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 20:16)
Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks
How to say it and what it means
The Hebrew is shah-voo-oat, but it is also correct to say Shavuos (shah-voo-ohs). Shavuot means weeks.” The Greek word for this holiday is Pentecost, which means “50th.”
Shavuot in the Old Testament (see Leviticus 23:15-21)
Shavuot occurs 50 days or seven weeks after Passover.
It is a harvest celebration commemorating God’s provision for and sustenance of His people.
Shavuot shares two important characteristics with the holidays Pesach (Passover) and Sukkot (The Feast of Tabernacles):
All three holidays involved a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
All three holidays involved firstfruit offerings at the Temple.
Passover, in early spring, included firstfruits from the first harvest, barley.
Shavuot, in late spring, included firstfruits from the wheat harvest. Among the many offerings given, was a “wave offering” of two loaves of leavened bread. This was the firstfruits offering.
Sukkot, in the fall, was the final harvest and included firstfruits of olives and grapes.
Shavuot and Jewish Tradition
Beliefs
According to Jewish tradition, Moses received the Law from God at Mount Sinai during Shavuot.
Jewish tradition also suggests that King David both was born and died on Shavuot.
Themes
Revelation: God’s Word was revealed through the Law.
Community: the giving of the Law taught the Jewish people how to relate to one another as well as to God.
Customs
The Ten Commandments are read to commemorate the giving of the Law.
Some Jewish people stay up all night studying the Torah (Law) to “re-live” the revelation at Mount Sinai.
Book of Ruth is read, tying in with the theme of harvest as well as the theme of community. This also ties in with the belief that King David was born on Shavuot, since the last verse of the book shows that Ruth was one of his ancestors.
A 12th century Aramaic poem, Akdamut, which heralds the Messianic future, is read.
Jewish people traditionally decorate their homes and synagogues with flowers and greens.
An older tradition prescribes that two loaves of leavened bread be baked; some say they represent all of humanity (one loaf is the Jewish people, the other Gentiles), while others see them as representing the two tablets Moses brought down from Sinai.
It is traditional to eat milk products, because the rabbis say that when our people received the Law they were as newborn babies.
Shavuot in the New Testament
(see Acts 2)
The giving of the gospel: God’s grace revealed through the Living Word
When the Holy Spirit came to the disciples in tongues of flames and they began speaking other languages, they were preaching the gospel of Jesus to God-fearing Jews who had come to Jerusalem from every nation under heaven to observe Shavuot at the Temple.
The Resurrection connection: King David and Y’shua
Peter seemed to know the tradition that King David was born and died on Shavuot as he gave his sermon. He used the prophecies of David in the Psalms to speak of the resurrection of Jesus, the Son of David.
Prophecy fulfilled
Peter pointed out to the crowd that what they were witnessing was a fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Joel (Joel 2:28).
An experience of revelation and community
A mighty revelation occurred that day as 3,000 Jewish people understood the truth of Peter’s words and became followers of Jesus.
Shavuot in the future: the harvest festival to come
Just as there was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit so that Jewish people heard and accepted Jesus in a supernatural way on Pentecost, so an even greater outpouring is predicted by the prophet Zechariah: “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn” (Zechariah 12:10).
Yes, there will be mourning when all of Israel finally realizes who Jesus is, but after the mourning and the repentance there will be great joy. Y’shua said this regarding the end-time harvest of souls:
“The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest”
Matthew 9:37, 38
“Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place that He will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths.” (Deuteronomy 16:16)
Didn’t they teach you anything at Dallas Theological Cemetery? Here you are beating your breast again over Paul’s dastardly wicked behavior and it turns out he has a perfectly logical reason for going to Jerusalem. Like every male Jew according to Deuteronomy 16:16 he’s commanded by YHWH to be in Jerusalem for Shavuot (Pentecost). You’re accusing him of all kinds of disobedience to YHWH. Meanwhile Paul’s doing all he can to live faithfully to God.
You may be the one with the Spirit problem. Think about it.
As you READ THE BIBLE.
– Frank
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 4:57 am
Frank Adamick,
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56987
Can you hear the voice of Jesus of the Gospels?
There are now over 100 comments here on this thread.
If you can’t agree by now with Jesus about which commandment is the Most Important One, then maybe at this point in your spiritual journey you don’t have “eyes to see and ears to hear” the voice of Jesus…..
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 5:00 am
Frank Adamick
This earlier comment to Naz applies to you also….
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56725
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 6:39 am
Frank Adamick,
I respect the effort and work you put into your post #103 – You are addressing specific points, quoting specific verses, along with your own ideas and relevant other sources of information. You are thinking for yourself with an open Bible, and interacting with the text, and interacting with some of my thoughts. Great !
The fundamental problem is, your devotion is misplaced. Your purpose is to defend, justify, excuse, rationalize, and give a plausible reason for why Paul did something.
You underlying reason, I’m sure, is your unstated belief that Paul COULDN’T be wrong – so if Paul did something it MUST be right – and your job is to figure out WHY Paul was right- because Paul MUST have had a valid reason for doing whatever he did – because it’s in “the BIble” and Paul wrote “All Scripture is God-breathed” – so that MUST mean the 66 Books of our Bible- and it means everything Luke recorded Paul doing MUST have been correct…….
The Bible has many narratives, revealing the mistakes and sins of people- David committing murder and adultery, Solomon with 1000 women worshipping idols. It’s true they did these things – and they were sin.
Paul clearly disobeyed God in going to Jerusalem, if you read the whole story.
You told me READ THE BIBLE.
My exhortation to you is,
READ THE GOSPELS. And the Law of Moses and the Prophets.
These are in The Bible – the most important parts.
Stop spending all your time reading Paul’s autobiography and teaching in his letters, and Luke’s biography of Paul in Acts.
READ THE WORDS OF JESUS IN THE GOSPELS.
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 8:50 am
M. Perri,
Remember what I told you earlier on. You’re prone to presuppose. How would you know anything about the nature of my “devotion” as you put it? Can you read my heart? Most definitely not. From what you’ve displayed in this blog you’re simply another quack with an axe to grind. Your bound up by obsessive compulsion worst of all without any recognition of your own plight. We can go on trading Bible verses ad nauseum but it will obviously (as evidenced by your incessant one-trick-pony approach to Scripture) not prove fruitful in your case.
Nevertheless if you truly wish to become one with Messiah you’ll need to begin by opening your eyes & heart genuinely to His word:
“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
39 He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. 41 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” (Luke 6:37-42)
– Frank
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 9:05 am
Okay Matthew, I will, perhaps foolishly, take the bait and agree with your premise that it is best to adhere to the practices of “good” churches rather than “bad”. And I will, perhaps foolishly, ask for the third time – what are the specific practices of modern day (2016AD, not 100AD) churches that amount to a dismal failure of leadership?
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 10:32 am
Bob Mason,
Trying to “be like Paul” in his dealings with the Church in Corinth, holding Paul up as the “ministry model’ and an example of maturity that we should imitate.
I’ve already written a couple of posts about this above – If you want to quote me and react to those, I can respond further
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 10:35 am
Frank Adamick
in Post #103 I observe that, primarily,
“Your purpose is to defend, justify, excuse, rationalize, and give a plausible reason for why Paul did something.”
Is that not true? If it’s not, what IS your primary purpose in Post #103 ?
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 3:52 pm
Matthew,
That’s my point, Jesus Christ is talking to Jews about Mosaic Law and Paul is talking to Gentiles about Noahide Law. Apples and oranges no conflict.
If Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit how can he be a false apostle? And if those around Paul (Acts 15) were filled with the Holy Spirit and Paul wasn’t, why wasn’t Paul exposed as a false apostle?
Paul
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 4:06 pm
LeoTheGreater,
Talking to Matthew is like discussing Mariology with a RC.
Paul
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 4:28 pm
Paul V,
So the truth is not the words of God written down in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and spoken by Jesus written in the Gospels…
TO YOU,
the truth is your own opinion about the unwritten unknowable, “mind of Paul”, and “what Paul really meant” was…… fill in the blank.
So The Law meant one thing to Jesus, and The Law meant something else to Paul, and since Paul couldn’t be wrong, Paul must be right, and The Law means whatever YOU think “Paul meant”….. relative truth.
The Slippery Slope.
You have your truth I have mine.
It may not be true for others, but it’s true for you!
It’s funny how you are so sure Paul was The Apostle to the Gentiles” simply because Paul said so….
Yet,
when faced with people who knew better
Paul waffled and opted for relative truth, and admitted he may not be an “apostle” to anyone except to the Church in Corinth. (And by admitting that, Paul proved he didn’t know what an apostle really is.)
1 Corinthians 9:2
Paul writes.
“Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!”
There are lots of false apostles operating in the church today, who may be partially exposed or not, but they still are at work – like Paul..
No one in Acts 15, or anywhere else, said that Paul was appointed an apostle or recognized individually as “an apostle” – except Paul talking about himself.
Paul WAS exposed as a false apostle.
Revelation 2:1-3
2 Timothy 1:15
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 4:33 pm
Paul V
Mary is to Roman Catholics as
Paul is to most Evangelicals as
Muhammad is to Muslims.
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 4:59 pm
Matthew,
Paul couldn’t have been a false apostle if he was filled with the Holy Spirit.
If Paul wasn’t filled with the Holy Spirit, those that were filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts 15 should’ve exposed Paul as a false apostle not send him to Antioch.
I wonder why you can’t explain away my objections?
Paul
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 5:17 pm
M. Perri,
My purpose in post # 103. is to reveal your ignorance.
Since you reference Muhammad & Muslims on occasion and you’ve expressed an interest in history:
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 5:53 pm
Paul V
As I’ve already documented extensively above
Paul claimed to be an apostle to the Church in Ephesus (and other churches in his letters), but he was not, and was found false, and the Risen Jesus commended the Church in Ephesus for taking such action.
Revelation 2:1-3
2 Timothy 1:15
Who appointed Paul an apostle, when?
No one. Never.
You don’t quote any Scripture to prove otherwise, because there isn’t any.
Your opinions about what people “couldn’t be” or what people “should have done” 2000 years ago don’t really count for much.
King David was God’s anointed, a “man after God’s own heart” who wrote half the Psalms- could he commit adultery and murder, and cover it up? He shouldn’t have – but, as we know, he could, and he did.
I wonder why you can’t explain away the text of the Bible, but rather keep dodging the facts when you are proved wrong, and make up new objections off the top of your head?
Read the Gospels. Get to know the Real Jesus – not the false “christ” of PAAL.
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 6:32 pm
P46 is the oldest surviving manuscript containing the Pauline Epistles.
http://www.lib.umich.edu/reading/Paul/about.html
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 7:39 pm
Matthew,
It’s called the other side of the story which you do not address or welcome it appears to me.
You haven’t disproved Ananias was sent to Paul by the Lord so this proves Paul was appointed an apostle by the Lord. Your proof is basically – Paul made it up and Luke wrote his lies. This makes Luke out to be a stooge, but you trust his gospel writings it seems, go figure.
If Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit he couldn’t be a false apostle, could he?.
If Paul wasn’t filled with the Holy Spirit you haven’t explained why the apostles and Church elders not only didn’t denounce him but sent him to Antioch as one of their apostles.
Did you answer my question in post #58 yet?
All that you’ve really done is behave like a RC and make pronouncements that you are correct and everyone that objects to your truth, which is the truth, is a PAAL WORSHIPPER.
Don’t you think the Holy Spirit would’ve intervened if Paul was a false apostle?
Is it you don’t want to address my concerns, dismiss them or you don’t have answers for my concerns? I wouldn’t dismiss the Holy Spirit’s role in the Church but that’s your choice.
I read all of the bible in rotation. I’m just questioning your hypothesis which you don’t seem to like. When I put forth an hypothesis I’m hoping to get questions like you’ve gotten from us so it can be tested thoroughly “to see that it is so.” But obviously we are different in that regard.
Paul
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 7:51 pm
Paul, the Apostle, 1:
pol,
I. SOURCES
1. The Acts
2. The Thirteen Epistles
(1) Pauline Authorship
(2) Lightfoot’s Grouping
(a) First Group (1 and 2 Thessalonians)
(b) Second Group (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans,
(c) Third Group-(Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians)
(d) Fourth Group (1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy)
(3) Paul’s Conception of His Epistles
(4) Development in Paul’s Epistles
II. MODERN THEORIES ABOUT PAUL
1. Criticism Not Infallible
2. The Tubingen Theory
3. Protest against Baur’s View
4. Successors to Baur
5. Appeal to Comparative Religion
6. The Eschatological Interpretation
III. CHRONOLOGY OF PAUL’S CAREER
1. Schemes
2. Crucial Points
(1) The Death of Stephen
(2) The Flight from Damascus
(3) The Death of Herod Agrippa I
(4) The First Mission Tour
(5) The First Visit to Corinth
(6) Paul at Troas according to Ac 20:6 f
(7) Festus Succeeding Felix
IV. EQUIPMENT
1. The City of Tarsus
2. Roman Citizenship
3. Hellenism
4. The Mystery-Religions
5. Judaism
6. Personal Characteristics
(1) Personal Appearance
(2) Natural Endowments
(3) Supernatural Gifts
7. Conversion
(1) Preparation
(2) Experience
(3) Effect on Paul
V. WORK
1. Adjustment
2. Opposition
3. Waiting
4. Opportunity
5. The First Great Mission Campaign
6. The Conflict at Jerusalem
7. The Second Mission Campaign
8. The Third Mission Campaign
9. Five Years a Prisoner
10. Further Travels
11. Last Imprisonment and Death
VI. GOSPEL
LITERATURE
I. Sources.
1. The Acts:
For discussion of the historical value of the Ac of the Apostles see the article on that subject. It is only necessary to say here that the view of Sir W.M. Ramsay in general is accepted as to the trustworthiness of Luke, whose authorship of the Ac is accepted and proved by Harnack (Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908; The Ac of the Apostles, translation by Wilkinson, 1909; Neue Untersuch. zur Ap., 1911; The Date of the Ac and of the Synoptic Gospels, translations by Wilkinson, 1911). The proof need not be given again. The same hand appears in the “we” sections and the rest of the book. Even Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 311) admits the Lukan authorship though dating it in 100 AD instead of 60-62 AD, against Harnack. The Ac is written independently of the Epistles of Paul, whether early or late, and supplements in a wonderful way the incidental references in the epistles, though not without lacunae and difficulties.
2. The Thirteen Epistles:
(1) Pauline Authorship.
See the articles on each epistle for detailed criticism. It is here assumed that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, though Pauline in point of view. One cannot stop to prove every statement in an article like this, else a large book would be needed. Criticism is not an infallible science. One can turn easily from the Hatch-Van Manen article on “Paul” in Encyclopedia Biblica (1902) to the Maclean article on “Paul the Apostle” in the 1-vol HDB (1909). Van-Manen’s part of the one denies all the thirteen, while Maclean says: “We shall, in what follows, without hesitation use the thirteen epistles as genuine.” It is certain that Paul wrote more epistles, or “letters,” as Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 225) insists on calling all of Paul’s epistles. Certainly Philera is a mere “letter,” but it is difficult to say as much about Romans. Deissmann (St. Paul, 22) admits that portions of Romans are like “an epistolary letter.” At any rate, when Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 64-82) carefully justifies the Pauline authorship of both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, it is clear that the case against them cannot be very strong, especially as Moffatt stands out against the genuineness of Ephesians (op. cit., 393) and the Pastoral Epistles (p. 414).
Bartlet, who was once at a loss to know what to do with the Pastorals on theory that Paul was not released from the Roman imprisonment (Apostolic Age, 1899, 200), is now quite willing to face the new facts set forth by Ramsay (Expos, VII, viii-ix, VIII, i), even if it means the admission of a second Roman imprisonment, a view that Bartlet had opposed. He now pleads for “the fresh approach from the side of experience, by men who are in touch with the realities of human nature in all its variety, as well as at home in the historical background of society in the early Roman empire, that has renovated the study of them and taken it out of the old ruts of criticism in which it has moved for the most part in modern times” (Expos, January, 1913, 29). Here Bartlet, again, now eloquently presents the view of common-sense criticism as seen by the practical missionary better than by a life “spent amid the academic associations of a professor’s chair,” though he pauses to note as an exception Professor P. Gardner’s The Religious Experience of Paul (1912). We may quote Bartlet once more (Expos, January, 1913, 30): “In the recovery of a true point of view a vital element has been the newer conception of Paul himself and so of Paulinism. Paul the doctrinaire theologian, or at least the prophet of a one-sided gospel repeated with fanatical uniformity of emphasis under all conditions, has largely given place to Paul the missionary, full indeed of inspired insight on the basis of a unique experience, but also of practical instinct, the offspring of sympathy with living men of other types of training. When the Pastorals are viewed anew in the light of this idea, half their difficulties disappear.” One need not adopt Deissmann’s rather artificial insistence on “letters” rather than “epistles,” and his undue depreciation of Paul’s intellectual caliber and culture as being more like Amos than Origen (St. Paul, 1912, 6), in order to see the force of this contention for proper understanding of the social environment of Paul. Against Van Manen’s “historical Paul” who wrote nothing, he places “the historic Paul” who possibly wrote all thirteen. “There is really no trouble except with the letters to Timothy and Titus, and even there the difficulties are perhaps not quite so great as many of our specialists assume” (St. Paul, 15). See PASTORAL EPISTLES. Deissmann denies sharply that Paul was an “obscurantist” who corrupted the gospel of Jesus, “the dregs of doctrinaire study of Paul, mostly in the tired brains-of gifted amateurs” (p. 4). But A. Schweitzer boldly proclaims that he alone has the key to Paul and Jesus. It is the “exclusively Jewish eschatological” (Paul and His Interpreters, 1912, ix), conception of Christ’s gospel that furnishes Schweitzer’s spring-board (The Quest of the Historical Jesus). Thus he will be able to explain “the Hellenization of the gospel” as mediated through Paul. To do that Schweitzer plows his weary way from Grotius to Holtzmann, and finds that they have all wandered into the wilderness. He is positive that his eschatological discovery will rescue Paul and some of his epistles from the ruin wrought by Steck and Van Manen to whose arguments modern criticism has nothing solid to offer, and the meager negative crumbs offered by Schweitzer ought to be thankfully received (ibid, 249).
(2) Lightfoot’s Grouping.
(Compare Biblical Essays, 224.) There is doubt as to the position of Galatians. Some advocates of the South-Galatian theory make it the very earliest of Paul’s Epistles, even before the Jerusalem Conference in Ac 15. So Eramet, Commentary on Galatians (1912), ix, who notes (Preface) that his commentary is the first to take this position. But the North Galatian view still has the weight of authority in spite of Ramsay’s powerful advocacy in his various books (see Historical Commentary on Galatians), as is shown by Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 90 ff. Hence, Lightfoot’s grouping is still the best to use.
(a) First Group (1 and 2 Thessalonians):
1 and 2 Thessalonians, from Corinth, 52-53 AD. Harnack’s view that 2 Thessalonians is addressed to a Jewish Christian church in Thessalonica while 1 Thessalonians is addressed to a Gentilechurch is accepted by Lake (Earlier Epistles of Paul, 1911, 83 ff) but Frame (ICC, 1912, 54) sees no need for this hypothesis. Milligan is clear that 1 Thessalonians precedes 2 Thessalonians (Commentary, 1908, xxxix) and is the earliest of Paul’s Epistles (p. xxxvi). The accent on eschatology is in accord with the position of the early disciples in the opening chapters of Acts. They belong to Paul’s stay in Corinth recorded in Ac 18.
(b) Second Group (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans):
1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, 55-58 AD. This is the great doctrinal group, the four chief epistles of Baur. They turn about the Judaizing controversy which furnishes the occasion for the expansion of the doctrine of justification by faith in opposition to the legalistic contention of the Judaizing Christians from Jerusalem (Ac 15:1-3; Ga 2:1-10). The dates of these epistles are not perfectly clear. 1 Corinthians was written shortly before the close of Paul’s 3 years’ stay at Ephesus (Ac 20:31; 1Co 16:8; Ac 20:1 f). 2 Corinthians was written a few months later while he was in Macedonia (2:13; 7:5,13; 8:16-24). Romans was written from Corinth (16:23; Ac 20:2 f) and sent by Phoebe of Cenchrea (Ro 16:1). The integrity of Romans is challenged by some who deny in particular that chapter 16 belongs to the epistle Moffatt (Intro, 134-38) gives an able, but unconvincing, presentation of the arguments for the addition of the chapter by a later hand. Deissmann (St. Paul, 19) calls Ro 16 “a little letter” addressed to the Christians at Ephesus. Von. Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 78) easily justifies the presence of Ro 16 in the Epistle to the Romans: “These greetings, moreover, were certainly intended by Paul to create bonds of fellowship between the Pauline Christians and the Roman community, and to show that he had not written to them quite exclusively in his own name.” A common-sense explanation of Paul’s personal ties in Rome is the fact that as the center of the world’s life the city drew people thither from all parts of the earth. So, today many a man has friends in New York or London who has never been to either city. A much more serious controversy rages as to the integrity of 2 Corinthians. Semler took 2Co 10-13 to be a separate and later ep., because of its difference in tone from 2Co 1-9, but Hausrath put it earlier than chapters 1-9, and made it the letter referred to in 2:4. He has been followed by many scholars like Schmiedel, Cone, McGiffert, Bacon, Moffatt, Kennedy, Rendall, Peake, Plummer. Von Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 50) accepts the partition-theory of 2 Corinthians heartily: “It may be shown with the highest degree of probability that this letter has come down to us in 2Co 10:1-13:10.” But the unity of the epistle on theory that the change in tone is a climax to the disobedient element of the church is still maintained with force and justice by Klopper, Zahn, Bachmann, Denhey, Bernard, A. Robertson, Weiss, Menzies. The place of the writing of Galatians turns on its date. Lightfoot (in loc.) argues for Corinth, since it was probably written shortly before Romans. But Moffatt (Introduction, 102) holds tentatively to Ephesus, soon after Paul’s arrival there from Galatia. So he gives the order: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. In so much doubt it is well to follow Lightfoot’s logical argument. Galatians leads naturally to Romans, the one hot and passionate, the other calm and contemplative, but both on the same general theme.
(c) Third group (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians):
Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians. Date 61-63, unless Paul reached Rome several years earlier. This matter depends on the date of the coming of Festus to succeed Felix (Ac 24:27). It was once thought to be 60 AD beyond any doubt, but the whole matter is now uncertain. See “Chronology,” III, 2, (2), below. At any rate these four epistles were written during the first Roman imprisonment, assuming that he was set free.
But it must be noted that quite a respectable group of scholars hold that one or all of these epistles were written from Caesarea (Schultz, Thiersch, Meyer, Hausrath, Sabatier, Reuss, Weiss, Haupt, Spitta, McPherson, Hicks). But the arguments are more specious than convincing. See Hort, Romans and Ephesians, 101-10. There is a growing opinion that Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were written from Ephesus during a possible imprisonment in Paul’s stay of 3 years there. So Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 229; Paul, 16); Lisco (Vincula Sanctorum, 1900); M. Albertz (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1910, 551 ff); B. W. Bacon (Journal of Biblical Lit., 1910, 181 ff). The strongest argument for this position is that Paul apparently did not know personally the readers of Eph (1:15); compare also Col 1:4. But this objection need not apply if the so-called Ephesian Epistle was a circular letter and if Paul did not visit Colosse and Laodicea during his 3 years at Ephesus. The theory is more attractive at first than on reflection. It throws this group before Romans-a difficult view to concede.
But even so, the order of these epistles is by no means certain. It is clear that Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians were sent together. Tychicus was the bearer of Colossians (4:7 f) and Ephesians (6:21 f). Onesimus carried the letter to Philemon (1:10,13) and was also the companion of Tychicus to Colosse (Col 4:9). So these three epistles went together from Rome. It is commonly assumed that Php was the last of the group of four, and hence later than the other three, because Paul is balancing life and death (Php 1:21 ) and is expecting to be set free (Php 1:25), but he has the same expectation of freedom when he writes Philemon (1:22). The absence of Luke (Php 2:20) has to be explained on either hypothesis. Moffatt (Introduction, 159) is dogmatic, “as Philippians was certainly the last letter that he wrote,” ruling out of court Ephesians, not to say the later Pastoral Epistles. But this conclusion gives Moffatt trouble with the Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col 4:16) which he can only call “the enigmatic reference” and cannot follow Rutherford (St. Paul’s Epistles to Colosse and Laodicea, 1908) in identifying the Laodicean Epistle with Ephesians, as indeed Marcion seems to have done. But the notion that Ephesians was a circular letter designed for more than one church (hence, without personalities) still holds the bulk of modern opinion.
Von Soden (History of Early Christian Literature, 294) is as dogmatic as Wrede or Van Manen: “All which has hitherto been said concerning this epistle, its form, its content, its ideas, its presuppositions, absolutely excludes the possibility of a Pauline authorship.” He admits “verbal echoes of Pauline epistles”
Lightfoot puts Philippians before the other three because of its doctrinal affinity with the second group in chapter 3 as a reminiscence, and because of its anticipation of the Christological controversy with incipient Gnosticism in chapter 2. This great discussion is central in Colossians and Ephesians. At any rate, we have thus a consistent and coherent interpretation of the group. Philemon, though purely personal, is wondrously vital as a sociological document. Paul is in this group at the height of his powers in his grasp of the Person of Christ.
(d) Fourth Group (1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy):
1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy. The Pastoral Epistles are still hotly disputed, but there is a growing willingness in Britain and Germany to make a place for them in Paul’s life. Von Soden bluntly says: “It is impossible that these epistles as they stand can have been written by Paul” (History of Early Christian Literature, 310). He finds no room for the heresy here combated, or for the details in Paul’s life, or for the linguistic peculiarities in Paul’s style. But he sees a “literary nicety”-this group that binds them together and separates them from Paul. Thus tersely he puts the case against the Pauline authorship. So Moffatt argues for the “sub-Pauline environment” and “sub-Pauline atmosphere” of these epistles with the advanced ecclesiasticism (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 410 ff). Wrede thrusts aside the personal details and argues that the epistles give merely the tendency of early Christianity (Ueber Aufgabe und Metbode der Sogen. New Testament Theologie, 1897, 357). The Hatch-Van Manen article in Encyclopedia Biblica admits only that “the Pastoral Epistles occupy themselves chiefly with the various affairs of the churches within ‘Pauline circles.’ ”
Moffatt has a vigorous attack on these letters in EB, but he “almost entirely ignores the external evidence, while he has nothing to say to the remarkable internal evidence which immediately demands our attention” (Knowling, Testimony of Paul to Christ, 3rd edition, 1911, 129). Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 414) holds that the Pastoral Epistles came from one pen, but the personality and motives are very vague to him. The personal details in 2Ti 1:14-18; 4:9-22 are not on a paragraph with those in The Ac of Paul and Thekla in the 2nd century. Many critics who reject the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles admit the personal details in 2 Timothy, but it is just in such matters that forgeries are recognizable. To admit these fragments is logically to admit the whole (Maclean in 1-vol HDB), as Moffatt sees (Intro, 414), however much he seeks to tone down the use of Paul’s name as “a Christian form of suasoriae,” and “a further and inoffensive development of the principle which sought to claim apostolic sanction for the expanding institutions and doctrines of the early church” (ibid., 415). The objection against these epistles from differences in diction has been grievously overdone. As a matter of fact, each of the four groups has words peculiar to it, and naturally so. Style is a function of the subject as well as a mark of the man. Besides, style changes with one’s growth. It would have been remarkable if all four
groups had shown no change in no change in vocabulary and style. The case of Shakespeare is quite pertinent, for the various groups of plays stand more or less apart. The Pastoral Epistles belong to Paul’s old age and deal with personal and ecclesiastical matters in a more or less reminiscential way, with less of vehement energy than we get in the earlier epistles, but this situation is what one would reasonably expect. The “ecclesiastical organization” argument has been greatly overdone. As a matter of fact, “the organization in the Pastoral Epistles is not apparently advanced one step beyond that of the church in Philippi in 61 AD” (Ramsay, The Expositor, VII, viii, 17). The “gnosis” met by these epistles (1Ti 6:20; Tit 1:14) is not the highly developed type seen in the Ignatian Epistles of the 2nd century. Indeed, Bartlet (“Historic Setting of the Pastoral Epistles,” The Expositor, January, 1913, 29) pointedly says that, as a result of Hort’s “Judaistic Christianity” and “Christian Ecclesia” and Ramsay’s “Historical Commentary on the Epistles of Timothy” (Expos, VII, vii, ix, VIII, i), “one feels the subject has been lifted to a new level of reality and that much criticism between Baur and Julicher is out of date and irrelevant.” It is now shown that the Pastoral Epistles are not directed against Gnosticism of advanced type, but even of a more Jewish type (Tit 1:14) than that in Colossians. Ramsay (Expos, VIII, i, 263) sweeps this stock criticism aside as “from the wrong point of view.” It falls to the ground. Lightfoot (“Note on the Heresy Combated in the Pastoral Epistles,” Biblical Essays, 413) had insisted on the Jewish character of the Gnosticism attacked here. As a matter of fact, the main objection to these epistles is that they do not fit into the story in Acts, which breaks off abruptly with Paul in Rome. But it is a false premise to assume that the Pastoral Epistles have to fit into the events in Acts. Harnack turns the objection that Paul in Ac 20:26 predicted that he would never see the Ephesian elders again into a strong argument for the date of Luke’s Gospel before 2Ti 4:21 (The Date of Ac and Synoptic Gospels, 103). Indeed, he may not have revisited Ephesus after all, but may have seen Timothy at Miletus also (1Ti 1:3). Harnack frankly admits the acquittal and release of Paul and thus free play for the Pastoral Epistles Blass (Acta Apostolorum, 24) acknowledges the Pastoral Epistles as genuine. So also Findlay, article “Paul,” in HDB; Maclean in 1-vol HDB; Denney in Standard BD. Sanday (Inspiration, 364) comments on the strength of the external evidence for the Pastoral Epistles. Even Holtzmann (Einl(3), 291) appears to admit echoes of the Pastoral Epistles in the Ignatian Epistles Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, “Date of the Pastoral Epistles,” 399-437) justifies completely the acceptance of the Pauline authorship. Deissman (St. Paul, 15) has a needed word: “The delusion is still current in certain circles that the scientific distinction of a Bible scholar may be estimated in the form of a percentage according to the proportion of his verdicts of spuriousness….. The extant letters of Paul have been innocently obliged to endure again a fair share of the martyrdom suffered by the historic Paul.” See further PASTORAL EPISTLES.
(3) Paul’s Conception of His Epistles
Assuming, therefore, the Pauline authorship of the thirteen epistles, we may note that they, reveal in a remarkable way the growth in Paul’s apprehension of Christ and Christianity, his adaptation to varied situations, his grasp of world-problems and the eternal values of life. Paul wrote other epistles, as we know. In 1Co 5:9 there is a clear reference to a letter not now known to us otherwise, earlier than 1 Corinthians. The use of “every epistle” in 2Th 3:17 naturally implies that Paul had written more than two already. It is not certain to what letter Paul refers in 2Co 2:4-most probably to one between 1 and 2 Corinthians, though, as already shown, some scholars find that letter in 2Co 10-13. Once more Paul (Col 4:16) mentions an epistle addressed to the church at Laodicea. This epistle is almost certainly that which we know as Ephesians. If not, here is another lost epistle. Indeed, at least two apocryphal Epistles to the Laodiceans were written to supply this deficiency. As early as 2Th 2:2 forgers were at work to palm, off epistles in Paul’s name, “or by epistle as from us,” to attack and pervert Paul’s real views, whom Paul denounces. It was entirely possible that this “nefarious work” would be continued (Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, 191), though, as Gregory argues, Paul’s exposure here would have a tendency to put a stop to it and to put Christians on their guard and to watch for Paul’s signature to the epistles as a mark of genuineness (2Th 3:17; 1Co 16:21; Ga 6:11; Col 4:18). This was all the more important since Paul evidently dictated his letters to amanuenses, as to Tertius in the case of Ro 16:22. In the case of Phm 1:19, Paul probably wrote the whole letter. We may be sure therefore that, if we had the other genuine letters of Paul, they would occupy the same general standpoint as the thirteen now in our possession. The point to note here is that the four groups of Paul’s Epistles fit into the historical background of the Ac as recorded by Luke, barring the fourth group which is later than the events in Acts. Each group meets a specific situation in a definite region or regions, with problems of vital interest. Paul attacks these various problems (theological, ecclesiastical, practical) with marvelous vigor, and applies the eternal principles of the gospel of Christ in such fashion as to furnish a norm for future workers for Christ. It is not necessary to say that he was conscious of that use. Deissmann (St. Paul, 12 f) is confident on this point: “That a portion of these confidential letters should be still extant after centuries, Paul cannot have intended, nor did it ever occur to him that they would be.” Be that as it may, and granted that Paul’s Epistles are “survivals, in the sense of the technical language employed by the historical method” (ibid., 12), still we must not forget that Paul attached a great deal of importance to his letters and urged obedience to the teachings which they contained: “I adjure you by the, Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren” (1Th 5:27). This command we find in the very first one preserved to us. Once more note 2Th 3:14: “And if any man obeyeth not our word by this ep., note that man, that ye have no company with him.” Evidently therefore Paul does not conceive his epistles as mere incidents in personal correspondence, but authoritative instructions for the Christians to whom they are addressed. In 1Co 7:17, “And so ordain I in all the churches,” he puts his epistolary commands on a paragraph with the words of Jesus quoted in the same chapter. Some indeed at Corinth (2Co 10:9 f) took his “letters” as an effort to “terrify” them, a thing that he was afraid to do in person. Paul (2Co 10:11) does not deny the authority of his letters, but claims equal courage when he comes in person (compare 2Co 13:2,10). That Paul expected his letters to be used by more than the one church to which they were addressed is clear from Col 4:16: “And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.” If the letter to Laodicea is our Eph and a sort of circular letter (compare Galatians), that is clear. But it must be noted that Colossians, undoubtedly a specific letter to Colosse, is likewise to be passed on to Laodicea. It is not always observed that in 1Co 1:2, though the epistle is addressed “unto the church of God which is at Corinth,” Paul adds, “with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours.” Philemon is, of course, a personal letter, though it deals with a sociological problem of universal interest. The Pastoral Epistles are addressed to two young ministers and have many personal details, as is natural, but the epistles deal far more with the social aspects of church life and the heresies and vices that were threatening the very existence of Christianity in the Roman empire. Paul is eager that Timothy shall follow his teaching (2Ti 3:10 ), and “the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2Ti 2:2). It is this larger view of the future of Christianity that concerns Paul very keenly. The very conception of his ministry to the Gentiles (Ro 15:16; Eph 3:7 ) led Paul to feel that he had a right to speak to all, “both to Greeks and to Barbarians” (Ro 1:14), and hence, even to Rome (Ro 1:15 f). It is a mistake to limit Paul’s Epistles to the local and temporary sphere given them by Deissmann.
(4) Development in Paul’s Epistles
For Paul’s gospel or theology see later. Here we must stress the fact that all four groups of Paul’s Epistles are legitimate developments from his fundamental experience of grace as conditioned by his previous training and later work. He met each new problem with the same basal truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, revealed to Paul on the way to Damascus. The reality of this great experience must here be assumed (see discussion later). It may be admitted that the Ac does not stand upon the same plane as the Pauline Epistles as a witness concerning Paul’s conversion (Fletcher, The Conversion of Paul, 1910, 5). But even so, the Epistles amply confirm Luke’s report of the essential fact that Jesus appeared to Paul in the same sense that He did to the apostles and 500 Christians (1Co 15:4-9). The revelation of Christ to Paul and in Paul (en emoi, Ga 1:16) and the specific call connected therewith to preach to the Gentiles gave Paul a place independent of and on a paragraph with the other apostles (Ga 1:16 f; 2:1-10). Paul’s first preaching (Ac 9:20) “proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God.” This “primitive Paulinism” (Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, 1893, 113) lay at the heart of Paul’s message in his sermons and speeches in Acts. Professor P. Gardner regards Luke as a “careless” historian (“The Speeches of Paul in Acts,” Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, 386), but he quite admits the central place of Paul’s conversion, both in the Ac and the Epistles (ib; compare also The Religious Experience of Paul).
We cannot here trace in detail the growth of Paulinism. Let Wernle speak (Beginnings of Christianity, 1903, I, 224) for us: “The decisive factor in the genius of Paul’s theology was his personal experience, his conversion on the road to Damascus.” This fact reappears in each of the groups of the Epistles. It is the necessary implication in the apostolic authority claimed in 1Th 2:4-6; 2Th 2:15; 3:6,14. “We might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ” (1Th 2:6). For the second group we need only refer to 1Co 9:1 f and 15:1-11, where Paul justifies his gospel by the fact of having seen the risen Jesus. His self-depreciation in 15:9 is amply balanced by the claims in 15:10. See also 2Co 10-13 and Galatians 1 and 2 for Paul’s formal defense of his apostolic authority. The pleasantry in Ro 15:14 does not displace the claim in 15:16,23 f. In the third group note the great passage in Php 3:12-14, where Paul pointedly alludes to his conversion: “I was laid hold of by Jesus Christ,” as giving him the goal of his ambition, “that I may lay hold”; “I count not myself yet to have laid hold.” This concentration of effort to come up to Christ’s purpose in him is the key to Paul’s life and letters, “I press on toward the goal.” So the golden cord reappears in Eph 3:2-13: “How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ.” In the fourth group he still recalls how Christ Jesus took pity on him, the blasphemer, the persecutor, the chief of sinners, and put him into the ministry, “that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all his longsuffering, for an ensample of them that should thereafter believe on him unto eternal life” (1Ti 1:16). He kept up the fight to the end (2Ti 4:6 f), for the Lord Jesus stood by him (2Ti 4:17), as on the road to Damascus. So the personal note of experience links all the epistles together.They reveal Paul’s growing conception of Christ. Paul at the very start perceived that men are redeemed by faith in Jesus as the Saviour from sin through His atoning death, not by works of the Law (Ac 13:38 f). In the first group there are allusions to the “work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Th 1:3). He speaks of “election” (1Th 1:4) and “our gospel” (1Th 1:5) and the resurrection of Jesus (1Th 1:10). The Father, Son and Spirit cooperate in the work of salvation (2Th 2:13 f), which includes election, belief, sanctification, glorification. It is not necessary to press the argument for the conception of salvation by faith in Christ, grace as opposed to works, in the second group. It is obviously present in the third and the fourth. We seem forced to the view therefore that Paul’s experience was revolutionary, not evolutionary. “If we consider the whole history of Paul as it is disclosed to us in his letters, are we not forced to the conclusion that his was a catastrophic or explosive, rather than a slowly progressive personality?” (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1911, 32). “His gospel was included in his conversion, and it was meditation that made explicit what was thus implicit in his experience” (same place). This is not to say that there was no “spiritual development of Paul” (Matheson, 1890). There was, and of the richest kind, but it was a growth of expression in the successive application of the fundamental Christian conception. The accent upon this or that phase of truth at different stages in Paul’s career does not necessarily mean that the truth is a new one to him. It may simply be that the occasion has arisen for emphasis and elaboration.
In a broad generalization the first group of the epistles is eschatological, the second soteriological, the third Christological, and the fourth pastoral (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 22). But one must not get the notion that Paul did not have a full gospel of salvation in the first group, and did not come to the true motive of the person of Christ as Lord till the second, or understand the pastoral office till the fourth. See emphasis on Paul’s work as pastor and preacher in 1Th 2 (first group), and the Lordship of Christ also (1Th 1:1,3; 2Th 1:1; 2:13 f), on a paragraph with the Father.
There was a change of accent in each group on questions of eschatology, but in each one Paul cherishes the hope of the second coming of Christ up to the very end when he speaks of his own death (2Ti 4:8,18). Paul has a whole gospel of grace in all his epistles, but he presses home the special phase of truth needed at the moment, always with proper balance and modification, though not in the form of a system of doctrine. In the first group he relieves the minds of the Thessalonian Christians from the misapprehension into which they had fallen concerning his position on the immediate coming of Christ. In the second group Paul vindicates the gospel of grace from the legalistic addition of the Judaizers who sought to rob the Gentiles of their freedom by insisting that they become Jews as well as Christians. This ringing battle is echoed in Ac 15 and is the mightiest conflict of Paul’s career. We hear echoes of it in Php 3, but he had won his contention. In the third group the battle with error has shifted to the province of Asia, especially the Lycus Valley, where a mystic mixture of Judaism (Essenism) and heathen mystery-religions and philosophies (incipient Gnosticism) was so rife in the 2nd century (the various forms of Gnosticism which combined with some aspects of Christianity). It is possible also that Mithraism was already a foe of Christianity. The central position and essential deity of Jesus Christ was challenged by these new and world-old heresies, and Paul attacks them with marvelous skill in Col and Eph and works out in detail his teaching concerning the person of Christ with due emphasis on the soteriological aspects of Christ’s work and on Christian life. Bruce (St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity) conceives that Paul gives us his entire conception of Christianity in the four great epistles of the second group, while B. Weiss (Biblical Theology of the New Testament) sees a more developed doctrine in the third group. He is in his prime in both groups. In the fourth group the same struggle lingers on with variations in Crete and even in Ephesus. The Jewish phase of the heresy is more decided (perhaps Pharisaic), and recalls to some extent the Judaistic controversy in the second group. Paul is older and faces the end, and Christianity has enemies within and without. He turns to young ministers as the hope of the future in the propagation of the gospel of the happy God. The fires have burned lower, and there is less passion and heat. The tone is now fierce, now tender. The style is broken and reminiscent and personal, though not with the rush of torrential emotion in 2 Corinthians, nor the power of logic in Galatians and Romans. Each epistle fits into its niche in the group. Each group falls into proper relation to the stage in Paul’s life and justly reveals the changes of thought and feeling in the great apostle. It is essential that one study Paul’s Epistles in their actual historical order if one wishes to understand the mind of Paul. Scholars are not agreed, to be sure on this point. They are not agreed on anything, for that matter. See two methods of presenting Paul’s Epistles in Robertson, Chronological New Testament (1904), and Moffatt, Historical New Testament (1901).
Written by A. T. Robertson
*Through the Courtesy of The Blue Letter Bible
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 7:55 pm
Paul, the Apostle, 2:
II. Modern Theories about Paul.
1. Criticism Not Infallible:
Findlay (HDB, “Paul”) utters a needed warning when he reminds us that the modern historical and psychological method of study is just as liable to prepossession and prejudice as the older categories of scholastic and dogmatic theology. “The focus of the picture may be displaced and its colors falsified by philosophical no less than by ecclesiastical spectacles” (same place). Deissmann (St. Paul, 4 f) sympathizes with this protest against the infallibility of modern subjective criticism: “That really and properly is the task of the modern student of Paul: to come back from the paper Paul of our western libraries, Germanized, dogmatised, modernized, to the historic Paul; to penetrate through the ‘Paulinism’ of our New Testament theologies to the Paul of ancient reality.” He admits the thoroughness and the magnitude of the work accomplished in the 19th century concerning the literary questions connected with Paul’s letters, but it is a “doctrinaire interest” that “has gone farther and farther astray.” Deissmann conceives of Paul as a “hero of piety first and foremost,” not as a theologian. “As a religious genius Paul’s outlook is forward into a future of universal history.” In this position of Deissmann we see a return to the pre-Baur time. Deissmann would like to get past all the schools of criticism, back to Paul himself.
2. The Tubingen Theory:
Baur started the modern critical attitude by his Pastoralbriefe (1835, p. 79), in which he remarked that there were only four epistles of Paul (Galatians 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans) which could be accepted as genuine. In his Paulus (1845) he expounded this thesis. He also rejected the Acts. From the four great epistles and from the pseudo-Clementine literature of the 2nd century, Baur argued that Paul and Peter were bitter antagonists. Peter and the other apostles were held fast in the grip of the legalistic conception of Christianity, a sort of Christianized Pharisaism. Paul, when converted, had reacted violently against this view, and became the exponent of Gentile freedom. Christianity was divided into two factions, Jewish Christians (Petrinists) and Gentile Christians (Paulinists). With this “key” Baur ruled out the other Pauline epistles and Ac as spurious, because they did not show the bitterness of this controversy. He called them “tendency” writings, designed to cover up the strife and to show that peace reigned in the camp. This arbitrary theory cut a wide swath for 50 years, and became a fetich with many scholars, but it is now dead. “It has been seen that it is bad criticism to make a theory on insecure grounds, and then to reject all the literature which contradicts it” (Maclean in 1-vol HDB). Ramsay (The First Christian Century, 1911, 195) contends that the perpetuation of the Baur standpoint in Moffatt’s Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament is an anachronism: “We are no longer in the 19th century with its negations, but in the 20th century with its growing power of insight and the power of belief that springs therefrom.” Van Marten (Encyclopedia Biblica) calls the Baur view that of the “old guard” of liberal theology in Germany, Switzerland, France, Holland, and, to some extent, in Britain.
3. Protest against Baur’s View:
But even in Germany the older conservative view of Paul has always had champions. The most consistent of the recent opponents of Baur’s views in Germany is Th. Zahn (compare his Einlin das New Testament, 2 volumes, 1897-99; Introduction to the New Testament, 3 volumes, 1910). In Britain the true successor of Lightfoot as the chief antagonist of the Tubingen School is Sir W.M. Ramsay, whose numerous volumes (Church in the Roman Empire, 1893; Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 1895; Paul the Traveler, 1896; Pauline and Other Studies, 1906; Cities of Paul, 1908; Luke the Physician and Other Studies, 1908; Pictures of the Apostolic Church, 1910; The First Christian Century, 1911) have given the finishing touches to the overthrow of Baur’s contention.
4. Successors to Baur:
But even so, already the Baur school had split into two parts. The ablest representatives, like H. J. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Harnack, Julicher, Lipsius, von Soden, were compelled to admit more of Paul’s Epistles as genuine than the four principal ones, till there are left practically none to fight over but Eph and the Pastoral Epistles. This progress eliminated completely Baur’s thesis and approached very nearly to the position of Lightfoot, Ramsay and Zahn. Von Soden (Early Christian Literature, 324) still stands out against 2 Thessalonians, but Harnack has deserted him on that point. But the old narrow view of Baur is gone, and von Soden is eloquent in his enthusiasm for Paul (ibid., 119): “As we gaze upon the great literary memorials of the Greeks we may well question whether these Pauline letters are not equal to them-indeed, do not surpass them-in spiritual significance, in psychological depths and loftiness of ideal, above all in the art of complete and forcible expression.” The other wing of Baur’s school Findlay (HDB) calls “ultra-Baurians.” It is mainly a Dutch school with Loman and Van Manen as its main exponents, though it has support in Germany from Steck and Volter, and in America from W. B. Smith. These writers do not say that Paul is a myth, but that our sources (Acts and the 13 epistles) are all legendary. It is a relentless carrying of Baur’s thesis to a reductio ad absurdum. Van Manen (Encyclopedia Biblica) says of “the historical, Paul” as distinct from “the legendary Paul”: “It does not appear that Paul’s ideas differed widely from those of the other disciples, or that he had emancipated himself from Judaism or had outgrown the law more than they.” When one has disposed of all the evidence he is entirely free to reconstruct the pictures to suit himself. Quite arbitrarily, Van Manen accepts the “we”-sections in Ac as authoritative. But these give glimpses of the historical Jesus quite as truly as the Pauline Epistles, and should therefore be rejected by advocates of the mythical Jesus. So the pendulum swings back and forth. One school destroys the other, but the fact of Paul’s personality remains. “The new start is one of such importance that we must distinguish the pre-Pauline from the post-Pauline Christianity, or, what amounts to the same thing, the Palestinian sect and the world-religion” (Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, I, 159).
5. Appeal to Comparative Religion:
In his Paulus (1904), Wrede finds the explanation of Paul’s theology in late Jewish apocalyptic views and in the oriental mystery religions. Bousset (Die Religion des Judenthums im New Testament Zeitalter, 1903) seeks to find in the “late Jewish apocalyptic” “conceptions from the Babylonian and the Irano-Zarathustrian religions” (Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 173). According to Wrede’s view, Paul is one of the creators of “Christ” as distinct from the Jesus of history (compare “Jesus or Christ,” HJ, suppl., January, 1909). “Wrede’s object is to overthrow the view predominant in modern theology, that Paul loyally and consistently expounded and developed theology of Jesus” (J. Weiss, Paul and Jesus, 1909, 2). J. Weiss in this book makes a careful reply to Wrede as others have done; compare A. Meyer, Jesus or Paul (1909), who concludes (p. 134) dramatically: “Paul-just one who points the way to Jesus and to God!” See also Julicher, Paulus und Jesus (1907); Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus (1906); Kolbing, Die geistige Einwirkung der Person Jesu und Paulus (1906). The best reply to Wrede’s arguments about the mystery-religion is found in articles in the The Expositor for 1912-13 (now in book form) by H.A.A. Kennedy on “St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions.” The position of Wrede is carried to its logical conclusion by Drews (Die Christus-Mythe, 1909), who makes Paul the creator of Christianity. W. B. Smith (Der vorchristliche Jesus, 1906) tries to show that “Jesus” was a pre-Christian myth or god. Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 235) sums the matter up thus: “Drews’s thesis is not merely a curiosity; it indicates the natural limit at which the hypothesis advanced by the advocates of comparative religion, when left to its own momentum, finally comes to rest.”
6. The Eschatological Interpretation:
Schweitzer himself may be accepted as the best exponent of the rigid application of this view to Paul (Paul and His Interpreters, 1912) that he had made to Jesus (The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910). He glories in the ability to answer the absurdities of Steck, Loman and Van Manen and Drews by showing that the eschatological conceptions of Paul in his epistles are primitive, not late, and belong to the 1st century, not to the 2nd (Paul and His Interpreters, 249). He thus claims to be the true pupil of Baur, though reaching conclusions utterly different. There is undoubtedly an element of truth in this contention of Schweitzer, but he loses his case, when he insists that nothing but eschatology must be allowed to figure. “The edifice constructed by Baur has fallen,” he proclaims (p. viii), but he demands that in its place we allow the “exclusively Jewish-eschatological” (p. ix) interpretation. There he slips, and his theory will go the way of that of Baur. C. Anderson Scott (“Jesus and Paul,” Cambridge Biblical Essays, 365) admits that Paul has the same eschatological outlook as Jesus, but also the same ethical interest. It is not “either….. or,” but both in each case. See a complete bibliography of the “Jesus and Paul” controversy in J. G. Machens’ paper on “Jesus and Paul” in Biblical and Theological Studies (1912, 547 f). As Ramsay insists, we are now in the 20th century of insight and sanity, and Paul has come to his own. Even Wernle (Beginnings of Christianity, I, 163) sees that Paul is not the creator of the facts: “He merely transmits historical facts. God-Christ-Paul, such is the order.” Saintsbury (History of Criticism, 152) says: “It has been the mission of the 19th century to prove that everybody’s work was written by somebody else, and it will not be the most useless task of the 20th to betake itself to more profitable inquiries.”
Written by A. T. Robertson
*Through the Courtesy of The Blue Letter Bible
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 7:59 pm
Paul, the Apostle, 3:
III. Chronology of Paul’s Career.
1. Schemes:
There is not a single date in the life of Paul that is beyond dispute, though several are narrowed to a fine point, and the general course and relative proportion of events are clear enough. Luke gave careful data for the time of the birth of Jesus (Lu 2:1 f), for the entrance of the Baptist on his ministry (Lu 3:1 f), and the age of Jesus when He began His work (Lu 3:23), but he takes no such pains in the Ac with chronology. But we are left with a number of incidental allusions and notes of time which call for some discussion. For fuller treatment see CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul, 1910, 181) gives a comparative table of the views of Harnack, Turner, Ramsay and Lightfoot for the events from the crucifixion of Christ to the close of Acts. The general scheme is nearly the same, differing from one to four years here and there. Shaw (The Pauline Epistles, xi) gives a good chronological scheme. Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 62 f) gives theories of 23 scholars:
Turner, “Chronology,” in HDB; Neteler, Untersuchung New Testament Zeitverhaltnisse, 1894; O. Holtzmann, New Testament Zeitgeschichte, 1895, changed in 2nd edition, 1906; Bartlet, Apostolic Age, xiii f; Cornely (compare Laurent), New Testament Studien; Harnack, Chron. d. altchristl. Lit. bis Eusebius, 233-329; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 164, 172; Zahn, Intro, III, 450 f; Ramsay, “The Pauline Chronology,” Pauline and Other Studies, 345 f; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 213-33; Wendt, Acts, 53-60, Meyer, Commentary; Renan, Paul; Bornemann, Thess, 17 f, Meyer, Comm.; Clemen, Paulus, I, 411; Giffert, Student’s Life of Paul, 242-59; Weiss, Intro, I, 154 f; Sabatier, Paul, 13 f; Julicher, Einl6, 31 f; Findlay, “Paul” in HDB; Farrar, Paul, Appendix; Belser, Theol. Quartalschrift; Steinmann, Abfassungszeit d. Gal, 169; Hoennicke, Die Chronologie des Paulus.
Let us look at the dates given by ten of this list:
Turner Bartlet Harnack McGiffert Zahn
Conversion 35-36 31-32 30 31-32 35
1st visit to Jerusalem 38 34-35 33 34-45 38
2nd visit to Jerusalem 46 46 44 45 44
1st missionary tour 47 47 45 before 45 50-51
Meeting in Jerusalem 49 49 46-47 45 52
2nd missionary tour 49 49 46-47 46 52
3rd missionary tour 52 52 50 49 54
Arrest in Jerusalem 56 56 53-54 53 58
Arrival in Rome 59 59 56-57 56 61
Death of Paul 64-65 61-62 64 58 66-67
Ramsay Lightfoot Clemen Findlay Hoennicke
Conversion 32 34 31 36 33-35
1st visit to Jerusalem 34 37 34 39 36-38
2nd visit to Jerusalem 45 45…. 45-46
1st missionary tour 46-48 48 46 46 49?
Meeting in Jerusalem 50 51 48 49 50-52
2nd missionary tour 50-53 51 49-52 49..
3rd missionary tour 53-57 54 53-59 53..
Arrest in Jerusalem 57 58 59 57..
Arrival in Rome 60 61 62 60 60-62
Death of Paul 67 67 64 67..
This table shows very well the present diversity of opinion on the main points in Paul’s life. Before expressing an opinion on the points at issue it is best to examine a few details. Paul himself gives some notes of time. He gives “after 3 years” (Ga 1:18) as the period between his conversion and first visit to Jerusalem, though he does not necessarily mean 3 full years. In Ga 2:1, Paul speaks of another visit to Jerusalem “after the space of 14 years.” Then again Luke quotes him as saying to the Ephesian elders at Miletus that he had spent “3 years” at Ephesus (Ac 20:31). These periods of time all come before Paul’s last visit and arrest in Jerusalem, and they do not embrace all the time between his conversion and arrest. There is also another note of time in 2Co 12:2, where he speaks in an enigmatic way of experiences of his “14 years” ago from the writing of this epistle from Macedonia on the third tour. This will take him back to Tarsus before coming to Antioch at the request of Barnabas, and so overlaps a bit the other “14” above, and includes the “3 years” at Ephesus. We cannot, therefore, add these figures together for the total. But some light may be obtained from further details from Ac and the Epistles.
2. Crucial Points:
(1) The Death of Stephen.
Saul is “a young man” (Ac 7:58) when this event occurs. Like other young Jews he entered upon his life as a rabbi at the age of thirty. He had probably been thus active several years, especially as he was now in a position of leadership and may even have been a member of the Sanhedrin (Ac 26:10). Pontius Pilate was not deposed from his procuratorship till 36 AD, but was in a state of uneasiness for a couple of years. It is more probable, therefore, that the stoning of Stephen would take place after his deposition in the interregnum, or not many years before, when he would be afraid to protest against the lawlessness of the Jewish leaders. He had shown timidity at the death of Jesus, 29 or 30 AD, but some of the forms of law were observed. So nothing decisive is here obtained, though 35 AD seems more probable than 32 or 33.
(2) The Flight from Damascus.
Paul locates this humiliating experience (2Co 11:32 f) when “the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes.” Aretas the Arabian, and not the Roman, has now control when Paul is writing. The likelihood is that Aretas did not get possession of Damascus till 37 AD, when Tiberius died and was succeeded by Caligula. It is argued by some that the expression “the city of the Damascenes” shows that the city was not under the control of Aretas, but was attacked by a Bedouin chieftain who lay in wait for Paul before the city. That to me seems forced. Josephus (Ant., XVIII, v, 3; vi, 3) at any rate is silent concerning the authority of Aretas over Damascus from 35-37 AD, but no coins or inscriptions show Roman rule over the city between 35 and 62 AD. Ramsay, however (“The Pauline Chronology,” Pauline and Other Studies, 364), accepts the view of Marquardt (Romische Staatsalterth., I, 404 f) that it was possible for Aretas to have had possession of Damascus before 37 AD. The flight from Damascus is the same year as the visit to Jerusalem, Paul’s first after his conversion (Ac 9:26; Ga 1:18). If we knew the precise year of this event, we could subtract two or three years and reach the date of his conversion. Lightfoot in his Commentary on Ga gives 38 as the date of this first visit to Jerusalem, and 36 as the date of the conversion, taking “after 3 years” in a free way, but in his Biblical Essays, 221, he puts the visit in 37 and the conversion in 34, and says “‘ after 3 years’ must mean three whole years, or substantially so.” Thus we miss a sure date again.
(3) The Death of Herod Agrippa I.
Here the point of contact between the Ac (12:1-4,19-23) and Josephus (Ant., XIX, viii) is beyond dispute, since both record and describe in somewhat similar vein the death of this king. Josephus says that at the time of his death he had already completed the 3rd year of his reign over the whole of Judea (Ant., XIX, viii, 2). He received this dignity soon after Claudius began to reign in 41 AD, so that makes the date 44 AD. He died after the Passover in that year (44), for Peter was imprisoned by him during that feast (Ac 12:3). But unfortunately Luke sandwiches the narrative about Herod Agrippa in between the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem from Antioch (Ac 11:29 f) and their return to Antioch (Ac 12:25). He does not say that the events here recorded were exactly synchronous with this visit, for he says merely “about that time.” We are allowed therefore to place this visit before 44 AD or after, just as the facts require. The mention of “elders” in Ac 11:30 instead of apostles (compare both in 15:4) may mean that the apostles are absent when the visit is made. After the death of James (Ac 12:1 f) and release of Peter we note that Peter “went to another place” (Ac 12:17). But the apostles are back again in Jerusalem in Ac 15:4 ff. Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 216) therefore places the visit “at the end of 44, or in 45.” Once more we slip the connection and fail to fix a firm date for Paul. It is disputed also whether this 2nd visit to Jerusalem according to Ac (9:26; 11:29 f) is the same as the “again” in Ga 2:1. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 59) identifies the visit in Ga 2:1 with that in Ac 11:29 f, but Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 221) holds that it “must be identified with the third of the Acts” (15:4 ff). In Ga 1 and 2 Paul is not recording his visits to Jerusalem, but showing his independence of the apostles when he met them in Jerusalem. There is no proof that he saw the apostles on the occasion of the visit in Ac 11:29 f. The point of Lightfoot is well taken, hut we have no point of contact with the outside history for locating more precisely the date of the visit of Ga 2:1 and Ac 15:4 ff, except that it was after the first missionary tour of Ac 13 and 14.
(4) The First Missionary Tour.
Sergius Paulus is proconsul of Cyprus when Barnabas and Saul visit the island (Ac 13:7). The proconsul Paulus is mentioned in a Greek inscription of Soloi (Hogarth, Devia Cypria, 1889, 114) and Lucius Sergius Paulus in CIL, VI, 31, 545, but, as no mention of his being proconsul is here made, it is probably earlier than that time. The Soloi inscription bears the date 53 AD, but Sergius Paulus was not proconsul in 51 or 52. Hence, he may have been proconsul in 50 or the early part of 51 AD.It could not be later and may have been earlier.
(5) The First Visit to Corinth.
The point to note here is that Gallio becomes proconsul of Achaia (Ac 18:12). Paul has been apparently in Corinth a year and six months when Gallio appears on the scene (Ac 18:11). Aquila and Priscilla had “lately come from Italy” (Ac 18:2) when Paul arrived there. They had been expelled from Rome by the emperor Claudius (Ac 18:2). On the arrival of Gallio the Jews at once accuse Paul before him; he refuses to interfere, and Paul stays on for a while and then leaves for Syria with Aquila and Priscilla (Ac 18:18). Deissmann (St. Paul, Appendix, I, “The Proconsulate of L. Junius Gallio”) has shown beyond reasonable doubt that Gallio, the brother of Seneca, became proconsul of Achaia about July, 51 AD (or possibly 52). On a stone found at Delphi, Gallio is mentioned as proconsul of Achaia according to the probable restoration of part of the text. But the stone mentions the fact that Claudius had been acclaimed imperator 26 times. By means of another inscription we get the 27th proclamation as imperator in connection with the dedication of an aqueduct on August 1, 52 AD. So thus the 26th time is before this date, some time in the earlier part of the year. We need not follow in detail the turns of the argument (see Deissmann, op. cit.). Once more we do not get a certain date as to the year. It is either. the summer of 51 or 52 AD, when Gallio comes. And Paul has already been in Corinth a year and a half. But the terminus ad quem for the close of Paul’s two years’ stay in Corinth would be the early autumn of 52 AD, and more probably 51 AD. Hence, the 2 Thessalonian Epistles cannot be later than this date. Before the close of 52 AD, and probably 51, therefore must come the 2nd missionary tour, the conference at Jerusalem, the first missionary tour, etc. Deissmann is justified in his enthusiasm on this point. He is positive that 51 AD is the date of the arrival of Gallio.
(6) Paul at Troas according to Ac 20:6 f.
On this occasion Luke gives the days and the time of year (Passover). Ramsay figures (St. Paul the Traveler, 289 f) that Paul had his closing service at Troas on Sunday evening and the party left early Monday morning. Hence, he argues back to the Passover at Philippi and concludes that the days as given by Luke will not fit into 56, 58, or 59 AD, but will suit 57. If he is correct in this matter, then we should have a definite year for the last trip to Jerusalem. Lewin (Fasti Sacri, numbers 1856, 1857) reaches the same conclusion. The conclusion is logical if Luke is exact in his use of days in this passage. Yet Lightfoot insists on 58 AD but Ramsay has the advantage on this point. See Pauline and Other Studies, 352 f.
(7) Festus Succeeding Felix.
When was Felix recalled? He was appointed procurator in 52 AD (Schurer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, I, ii, 174). He was already ruler “many years” (Ac 24:10) when Paul appears before him in Caesarea. He holds on “two years” when he is succeeded by Festus (Ac 24:27). But in the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian text) it is stated that the recall of Felix took place in the last year of Claudius, or 54 AD. But this is clearly an error, in spite of the support given to it by Harnack (Chronologie d. Paulus), since Josephus puts most of the rule of Felix in the reign of Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 1-9; BJ, II, xii, 8-14), not to mention the “many years” of Paul in Ac 24:10. But the error of Eusebius has now been explained by Erbes in his Todestage Pauli und Petri, and is made perfectly clear by Ramsay in Pauline and Other Studies, 349 ff. Eusebius over-looked the interregnum of 6 years between the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 AD and the first year of Herod Agrippa II in 50 AD. Eusebius learned that Festus came in the 10th year of Herod Agrippa II. Counting from 50 AD, that gives us 59 AD as the date of the recall of Felix. This date harmonizes with all the known facts. “The great majority of scholars accept the date 60 for Festus; but they confess that it is only an approximate date, and there is no decisive argument for it” (Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 351). For minute discussion of the old arguments see Nash, article “Paul” in new Sch-Herz Enc; Schurer, Hist of the Jewish People, I, ii, 182 ff. But if Erbes and Ramsay are correct, we have at last a date that will stand. So then Paul sails for Rome in the late summer of 59 AD and arrives at his destination in the early spring (“had wintered,” Ac 28:11) of 60 AD. He had been “two whole years in his own hired dwelling” (Ac 28:30) when Luke closes the Acts. On the basis of his release in 63 or early 64 and the journeyings of the Pastoral Epistles, Paul’s death would come by early summer of 68 before Nero’s death, and possibly in 67. On this point see later. We can now count back from 59 AD with reasonable clearness to 57 as the date of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem. Paul spent at least a year and three months (Ac 19:8,10) in Ephesus (called in round numbers three years in Ac 20:31). It took a year for him to reach Jerusalem, from Pentecost (1Co 16:8) to Pentecost (Ac 20:16). From the spring of 57 AD we thus get back to the end of 53 as the time of his arrival in Ephesus (Ac 19:1). We have seen that Gallio came to Corinth in the summer of 51 AD (or 52), after Paul had been there a year and a half (Ac 18:11), leaving ample time in either case for the journeys from Corinth to Ephesus, to Caesarea, to Jerusalem apparently (Ac 18:21 f), and to Ephesus (Ac 19:1) from the summer of 51 (or 52) we go back two years to the beginning of the 2nd missionary tour (Ac 16:1-6) as 49 (or 50). The Jerusalem Conference was probably in the same year, and the first missionary tour would come in the two (or three) preceding years 47 and 48 (48-49). The stay at Antioch (Ac 14:28) may have been of some length. So we come back to the end of 44 or beginning of 45 for the visit to Jerusalem in Ac 11:29 f. Before that comes the year in Antioch with Barnabas (11:26), the years in Tarsus in Cilicia, the “three years” after the conversion spent mostly in Arabia (Ga 1:17 f), Paul’s first appearance at the death of Stephen (Ac 7:58). These early dates are more conjectural, but even so the facts seem to indicate 35 AD as the probable year of Saul’s conversion. The year of his birth would then be between 1 and 5 AD, probably nearer 1. If so, and if his death was in 67 or 68 AD, his age is well indicated. He was “Paul the Aged” (Phm 1:9) when he wrote to Philemon from Rome in 61-63 AD.
Written by A. T. Robertson
*Through the Courtesy of The Blue Letter Bible
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 8:01 pm
“The prophets prophesied by PAAL, following worthless idols.”
[Jeremiah 2:8]
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 8:04 pm
Paul, the Apostle, 4:
IV. His Equipment.
Ramsay chooses as the title of chapter ii, in his Paul the Traveler, the words “The Origin of Paul.” It is not possible to explain the work and teaching of Paul without a just conception of the forces that entered into his life. Paul himself is still woefully misunderstood by some. Thus, A. Meyer (Jesus or Paul, 1909, 119) says: “In spite of all that has been said, there is no doubt that Paul, with his peculiar personality, with his tendency to recondite Gnostic speculation and rabbinic argument, has heavily encumbered the cause of Christianity. For many simple souls, and for many natures that are otherwise constituted than himself, he has barred the way to the simple Christianity of Jesus.” That is a serious charge against the man who claimed to have done more than all the other apostles, and rightly, so far as we can tell (1Co 15:10), and who claimed that his interpretation of Jesus was the only true one (Ga 1:7-9). Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 1910, 70) minimizes the effect of Paulinism: “The majority of Paul’s distinctive conceptions were either misunderstood, or dropped, or modified, as the case might be, in the course of a few decades.” “Paulinism as a whole stood almost as far apart from the Christianity that followed it as from that which preceded it” (ibid., 73). “The aim of some scholars seems to be to rob every great thinker of his originality” (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1). Ramsay (Pauline and Other Studies, 3 ff) boldly challenges the modern prejudice of some scholars against Paul by asking, “Shall we hear evidence or not?” Every successive age must study afresh the life and work of Paul (ibid., 27) if it would understand him. Deissmann (St. Paul, 3 f) rightly sees that “St. Paul is spiritually the great power of the apostolic age.” Hence, “the historian, surveying the beginnings of Christianity, sees Paul as first after Jesus.” Feine (Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902, 298) claims that Paul grasped the essence of the ministry of Christ “auf das tiefste.” I own myself a victim to “the charm of Paul,” to use Ramsay’s phrase (Pauline and Other Studies, 27). In seeking to study “the shaping influences” in Paul’s career (Alexander, The Ethics of Paul, 1910, 27), we shall be in error if we seek to explain everything by heredity and environment and if we deny any influence from these sources. He is what he is because of original endowments, the world of his day, and his experience of Christ Jesus. He had both essential and accidental factors in his equipment (Fairbairn, Studies in Religion and Theology, 1910, 469 f). Let us note the chief factors in his religious development.
1. The City of Tarsus:
Geography plays an important part in any life. John the Baptist spent his boyhood in the hill country of Judea in a small town (Lu 1:39) and then in the wilderness. Jesus spent His boyhood in the town of Nazareth and the country round. Both John and Jesus show fondness for Nature in all its forms. Paul grew up in a great city and spent his life in the great cities of the Roman empire. He makes little use of the beauties of Nature, but he has a keen knowledge of men (compare Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul, 12). Paul was proud of his great city (Ac 21:39). He was not merely a resident, but a “citizen” of this distinguished city. This fact shows that Paul’s family had not just emigrated from Judea to Tarsus a few years before his birth, but had been planted in Tarsus as part of a colony with full municipal rights (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31 f). Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, then a part of the province of Syria, but it had the title of metropolis and was a free city, urbs libera (Pliny, NH, v.27). To the ancient Greek the city was his “fatherland” (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 1908, 90). Tarsus was situated on the river Cydnus, and in a wide plain with the hill country behind and the snow-covered Taurus Mountains in the distance. It was subject to malaria. Ramsay (ibid., 117 ff) from Ge 10:4 f holds that the early inhabitants were Greeks mingled with Orientals. East and West flowed together here. It was a Roman town also with a Jewish colony (ibid., 169 ff), constituting a city tribe to which Paul’s family belonged. So then Tarsus was a typical city of the Greek-Roman civilization.
The religions of the times all met there in this great mart of business. But it was one of the great seats of culture also. Strabo (xiv.6,73) even says that “Tarsus surpassed all other universities, such as Alexandria and Athens, in the study of philosophy and educational literature in general.” “Its great preeminence,” he adds, “consists in this, that the men of learning here are all natives.” Accordingly, he and others have made up a long list of distinguished men who flourished at Tarsus in the late autumn of Greek learning: philosophers-of the Academy, of the Epicurean and Stoic schools-poets, grammarians, physicians. At Tarsus, one might say, “you breathed the atmosphere of learning” (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 205). But Ramsay (Cities of Paul, 231 f) cautions us not to misunderstand Strabo. It was not even one of the three great universities of the world in point of equipment, fame, students from abroad, or general standing. It was not on a paragraph with Athens and Alexandria, except that “it was rich in what constitutes the true excellence and strength of a university, intense enthusiasm and desire for knowledge among the students and great ability and experience among some at least of the teachers” (ibid., 233). Strabo was very fond of Athenodorus, for instance. No students from abroad came to Tarsus, but they went from Tarsus elsewhere. But Philostratus represents Apollonius of Tyana as disgusted with the university and the town, and Dio Chrysostom describes Tarsus as an oriental and non-Hellenic town.
Ramsay speaks of Tarsus in the reign of Augustus as “the one example known in history of a state ruled by a university acting through its successive principals.” “It is characteristic of the general tendency of university life in a prosperous and peaceful empire, that the rule of the Tarsian University was marked by a strong reaction toward oligarchy and a curtailment of democracy; that also belongs to the oriental spirit, which was so strong in the city. But the crowning glory of Tarsus, the reason for its undying interest to the whole world, is that it produced the apostle Paul; that it was the one city which was suited by its equipoise between the Asiatic and the Western spirit to mold the character of the great Hellenist Jew; and that it nourished in him a strong source of loyalty and patriotism as the citizen of no mean city” (Ramsay, op. cit., 235). The city gave him a schooling in his social, political, intellectual, moral, and religious life, but in varying degrees, as we shall see. It was because Tarsus was a cosmopolitan city with “an amalgamated society” that it possessed the peculiar suitability “to educate and mold the mind of him who would in due time make the religion of the Jewish race intelligible to the Greek-Roman world” (ibid., 88). As a citizen of Tarsus Paul was a citizen of the whole world.
2. Roman Citizenship:
It was no idle boast with Paul when he said, “But I am a Roman born” (Ac 22:28). The chief captain might well be “afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him” (Ac 22:29). Likewise the magistrates at Philippi “feared when they heard that they were Romans” (Ac 16:39), and promptly released Paul and Silas and “asked them to go away from the city.” “To the Roman his citizenship was his passport in distant lands, his talisman in seasons of difficulties and danger. It shielded him alike from the caprice of municipal law and the injustice of local magistrates” (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 203). As a citizen of Rome, therefore, Paul stood above the common herd. He ranked with the aristocracy in any provincial town (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31). He would naturally have a kindly feeling for the Roman government in return for this high privilege and protection. In its pessimism the Roman empire had come to be the world’s hope, as seen in the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 49). Paul would seize upon the Roman empire as a fit symbol of the kingdom of heaven. “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Php 3:20); “Ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints” (Eph 2:19). So he interprets the church in terms of the body politic as well as in terms of the Israelite theocracy (Col 2:19). “All this shows the deep impression which the Roman institutions made on Paul” (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 205). Ramsay draws a striking parallel under the heading, “Paulinism in the Roman Empire” (Cities of Paul, 70 ff). “A universal Paulinism and a universal Empire must either coalesce, or the one must destroy the other.” It was Paul’s knowledge of the Roman empire that gave him his imperialism and statesmanlike grasp of the problems of Christianity in relation to the Roman empire. Paul was a statesman of the highest type, as Ramsay has conclusively shown (Pauline and Other Studies, 49-100). Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 66) does say: “His perspective was not imperialistic,” but he shows thereby a curious inability to understand Paul. The vision of Paul saw that the regeneration of the empire could come only through Christianity. Ramsay strikingly shows how the emperor dreaded the spiritual upheaval in Paulinism and fought it steadily till the time of Constantine, when “an official Christianity was victorious, but Pauline Christianity had perished, and Paul was now a mere saint, no longer Paul but Paul, forgotten as a man or a teacher, but remembered as a sort of revivification of the old pagan gods” (Cities of Paul, 78). But, as Ramsay says, “it was not dead; it was only waiting its opportunity; it revived when freedom of thought and freedom of life began to stir in Europe; and it guided and stimulated the Protestants of the Reformation.” Suffer Ramsay once more (Pauline and Other Studies, 100): “Barbarism proved too powerful for the Greek-Roman civilization unaided by the new religious bond; and every channel through which that civilization was preserved or interest in it maintained, either is now or has been in some essential part of its course Christian after the Pauline form.” Paul would show the Roman genius for organizing the churches established by him. Many of his churches would be in Roman colonies (Antioch in Pisidia, Philippi, Corinth, etc.). He would address his most studied epistle to the church in Rome, and Rome would be the goal of his ministry for many years (Findlay, HDB). He would show his conversance with Roman law, not “merely in knowing how to take advantage of his rights as a citizen, but also in the use of legal terms like “adoption” (Ga 4:5 f), where the adopted heir becomes son, and heir and son are interchangeable. This was the obsolete Roman law and the Greek law left in force in the provinces (compare Ga 3:15). But in Ro 8:16 f the actual revocable Roman law is referred to by which “heirship is now deduced from sonship, whereas in Ga sonship is deduced from heirship; for at Rome a son must be an heir, but an heir need not be a son (compare Heb 9:15 ff which presupposes Roman law and the revocability of a will)” (Maclean in 1-vol HDB). So in Ga 3:24 the tutor or pedagogue presents a Greek custom preserved by the Romans. This personal guardian of the child (often a slave) led him to school, and was not the guardian of the child’s property in Ga 4:2. See Ramsay, Gal, 337-93; Ball, Paul and the Roman Law, 1901, for further discussion. As a Roman, Paul would have “nomen and praenomen, probably taken from the Roman officer who gave his family civitas; but Luke, a Greek, had no interest in Roman names. Paulus, his cognomen, was not determined by his nomen; there is no reason to think he was an AEmilius” (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 31). It is probable, though not certain, that Paul spoke Latin (see Souter, The Expositor, April, 1911). He was at any rate a “Roman gentleman” (Findlay, HDB), as is shown by the dignity of his bearing before governors and kings and the respect accorded him by the proconsul Sergius Paulus, the procurator Porcius Festus, and the centurion Julius, whose prisoner he was in the voyage to Rome. His father, as a Roman citizen, probably had some means which may have come to Paul before the appeal to Rome, which was expensive (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 310 ff). Though a prisoner in Rome, he made Rome “his best vantage ground and his adoptive home,” and it was here that he rose to “his loftiest conceptions of the nation and destiny of the universal church” (Findlay, HDB) as “an ambassador in chains” (Eph 6:20). As a Roman citizen, according to tradition, he was beheaded with the sword and not subjected to crucifixion, the traditional fate of Simon Peter. He saw the true pax Romana to be the peace that passeth all understanding (Php 4:7; compare Rostron, The Christology of Paul, 1912, 19).
3. Hellenism:
It is not possible “to specify all the influences that worked on Paul in his youth” (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 79). We do not know all the life of the times. But he was subject to all that life in so far as any other Jewish youth was. “He was master of all the education and the opportunities of his time. He turned to his profit and to the advancement of his great purpose all the resources of civilization” (Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 285). I heartily agree with this conception of Paul’s ability to assimilate the life of his time, but one must not be led astray so far as Schramm who, in 1710, wrote De stupenda eruditione Pauli (“On the Stupendous Erudition of Paul”). This is, of course, absurd, as Lightfoot shows (Biblical Essays, 206). But we must not forget Paul lived in a Greek city and possessed Greek citizenship also (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 33). Certainly the Greek traits of adaptability, curiosity, alertness, the love of investigation were marked features of his character, and Tarsus afforded wide opportunity for the acquiring of these qualities (The Ethics of Paul, 39). He learned to speak the vernacular koine like a native and with the ease and swing displayed by no other New Testament writer save Luke and the author of He. He has a “poet’s mastery of language,” though with the passion of a soul on fire, rather than with the artificial rules of the rhetoricians of the day (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 239 f). Blass (Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, 1905) holds that Paul wrote “rhythmically elaborated artistic prose-a singular instance of the great scholar’s having gone astray” (Deissmann, Light, etc., 64). But there is evidence that Paul was familiar with the use of the diatribe and other common rhetorical devices, though he was very far from being tinged with Atticism or Asianism. It is certain that Paul did not attend any of the schools of rhetoric and oratory. Heinrici (Vorrede to 1 Cor. in Meyer’s Krit. exeget. Komm.) argues that Paul’s methods and expressions conform more nearly to the cynic and Stoic diatribe than to the rabbinical dialectic; compare also Wendland und Kern Philo u. d. kynisch-stoische Diatribe, and Hicks, “St. Paul and Hellenism” in Stud. Biblical, IV. How extensive was his acquaintance with Greek literature is in doubt. Lightfoot says: “There is no ground for saying that Paul was a very erudite or highly-cultivated man. An obvious maxim of practical life from Menander (1Co 15:33), a religious sentiment of Cleanthes repeated by Aratus, himself a native of Tarsus (Ac 17:28), a pungent satire of Epimenides (Tit 1:12), with possibly a passage here and there which dimly reflects some classical writer, these are very slender grounds on which to build the supposition of vast learning” (Biblical Essays, 206); but Lightfoot admits that he obtained directly or indirectly from contact with Greek thought and learning lessons far wider and more useful for his work than a perfect style or a familiar acquaintance with the classical writers of antiquity. Even so, there is no reason to say that he made his few quotations from hearsay and read no Greek books (compare Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 52). Certainly he knew the Greek Old Testament and the Jewish Apocrypha and apocalypses in Greek Garvie is only willing to admit that Paul had such knowledge of Greek literature and philosophy as any Jew, living among Greeks, might pick up (Life and Teaching of Paul, 2), and charges Ramsay with “overstating the influence of the Gentile environment on Paul’s development” (Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 8). Ramsay holds that it is quite “possible that the philosophical school at Tarsus had exercised more influence on Paul than is commonly allowed” (St. Paul the Traveler, 354). Tarsus was the home of Athenodorus. It was a stronghold of Stoic thought. “At least five of the most eminent teachers of that philosophy were in the university” (Alexander, Ethics of Paul, 47). It is not possible to say whether Paul artended these or any lectures at the university, though it is hard to conceive that a brilliant youth like Saul could grow up in Tarsus with no mental stimulus from such a university. Carvie (ibid., 6) asks when Paul could have studied at the university of Tarsus. He was probably too young before he went to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel. But it is not probable that he remained in Jerusalem continuously after completing his studies till we see him at the death of Stephen (Ac 7:58). He may have returned to Tarsus meanwhile and taken such studies. Another possibility is that he took advantage of the years in Tarsus after his conversion (Ac 9:30; Ga 1:21) to equip himself better for his mission to the Gentiles to which he had been called. There is no real difficulty on the score of time. The world was saturated with Greek ideas, and Paul could not escape them. He could not escape it unless he was innocent of all culture. Ramsay sees in Paul a love of truth and reality “wholly inconceivable in a more narrow Hebrew, and wholly inexplicable without an education in Greek philosophy” (“St. Paul and Hellenism,” Cities of Paul, 34). Paul exhibited a freedom and universalism that he found in the Greek thought of the time which was not so decayed as some think. For the discussion between Garvie and Ramsay see The Expositor, April and December, 1911. Pfleiderer (Urchristenthum, Vorwort, 174-178) finds a “double root” of Paulinism, a Christianized Hellenism and a Christianized Pharisaism. Harnack is more nearly correct in saying that “notwithstanding Paul’s Greek culture, his conception of Christianity is, in its deepest ground, independent of Hellenism.” The Hellenistic influence on Paul was relative and subordinate (Wendland, Die hell.-rom. Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judenthum und Christenthum, 3te Aufl, 1912, 245), but it was real, as Kohler shows (Zum Verstandnis des Apostels Paulus, 9). He had a “Gr inheritance” beyond a doubt, and it was not all unconscious or subliminal as Rostron argues (Christology of Paul, 17). It is true that in Athens the Stoics and Epicureans ridiculed Paul as a “picker up of learning’s crumbs”-Browning’s rendering (An Epistle) of spermologos. Paul shows a fine scorn of the sophistries and verbal refinements of the mere philosophers and orators in 1Co 1 and 2, but all the same he reveals a real apprehension of the true significance of knowledge and life. Dr. James Adam (The Religious Teachers of Greece, 360) shows instances of “the real kinship of thought between Plato and Paul.” He does not undertake to say how it came about. He has a Platonic expression, ta dia tou somatos, in 2Co 5:10, and uses a Stoic and cynic word in 2Co 9:8, autarkeian. Indeed, there are so many similarities between Paul and Seneca in language and thought that some scholars actually predicate an acquaintance or dependence of the one on the other. It is far more likely that Paul and Seneca drew upon the common phrases of current Stoicism than that Seneca had seen Paul’s Epistles or knew him personally. Lightfoot has a classic discussion of the matter in his essay on “St. Paul and Seneca” in the Commentary on Php (see also Carr, “St. Paul’s Attitude to Greek Philosophy,” The Expositor, V, ix). Alexander finds four Stoic ideas (Divine Immanence, Wisdom, Freedom, Brotherhood) taken and glorified by Paul to do service for Christ (Ethics of Paul, 49-55). Often Paul uses a Stoic phrase with a Christian content. Lightfoot boldly argues (Biblical Essays, 207) that the later Greek literature was a fitter handmaid for the diffusion of the gospel than the earlier.
Paul as the apostle to the Greek-Roman world had to “understand the bearings of the moral and religious life of Greece as expressed in her literature, and this lesson he could learn more impartially and more fully at Tarsus in the days of her decline than at Athens in the freshness of her glory” (same place). Ramsay waxes bold enough to discuss “the Pauline philosophy of history” (Cities of Paul, 10-13). I confess to sympathy with this notion and find it in all the Pauline Epistles, especially in Romans. Moffatt (Paul and Paulinism, 66) finds “a religious philosophy of history” in Ro 9-11, throbbing with strong personal emotion. Paul rose to the height of the true Christian philosopher, though not a technical philosopher of the schools. Deissmann (St. Paul, 53) admits his language assigns him “to an elevated class,” and yet he insists that he wrote “large letters” (Ga 6:11) because he had “the clumsy, awkward writing of a workman’s hand deformed by toil” (p. 51). I cannot agree that here Deissmann understands Paul. He makes “the world of Paul” on too narrow a scale.
4. The Mystery-Religions:
Was Paul influenced by Mithraism? H.A.A. Kennedy has given the subject very careful and thorough treatment in a series of papers in The Expositor for 1912-13, already mentioned (see II, 5, above). His arguments are conclusive on the whole against the wild notions of W.B. Smith, Der vorchristliche Jesus; J.M. Robertson, Pagan Christs; A. Drews, Die Christus-Mythe; and Lublinski, Die Entstehung des Christenrums aus der antiken Kultur. A magic papyrus about 300 AD has “I adjure thee by the god of the Hebrew Jesu” (ll. 3019 f), but Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, 256) refuses to believe this line genuine: “No Christian, still less a Jew, would have called Jesus ‘the god of the Hebrews.’ ” Clemen (Primitive Christianity and Its non-Jewish Sources, 1912, 336) endorses this view of Deissmann and says that in the 1st century AD “one cannot speak of non-Jewish influences on Christology.” One may dismiss at once the notion that Paul “deified” Jesus into a god and made Him Christ under the influence of pagan myths. Certainly pagan idolatry was forced upon Paul’s attention at every turn. It stirred his spirit at Athens to see the city full of idols (Ac 17:16), and he caught eagerly at the altar to an unknown god to give him an easy introduction to the true God (Ac 17:23); but no one can read Ro 1 and 2 and believe that Paul was carried away by the philosophy of vain deceit of his time. He does use the words “wisdom” and “mystery” often in 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and in Php 4:12, “I (have) learned the secret,” he uses a word employed in the mystic cults of the time. It is quite possible that Paul took up some of the phrases of these mystery-religions and gave them a richer content for his own purposes, as he did with some of the Gnostic phraseology (pleroma, “fullness,” for instance). But Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 191 f) deals a fatal blow against the notion that the mystery-religions had a formative influence on Paul. He urges, with point, that it is only in the 2nd century that these cults became widely extended in the Roman empire. The dates and development are obscure, but it “is certain that Paul cannot have known the mystery-religions in the form in which they are known to us, because in this fully developed form they did not exist.” Cumont (Lea religions orientales dana le paganisme romain, 2nd edition, 1909 (ET)) insists repeatedly on the difficulties in the way of assuming without proof that Mithraism had any influence on Paul. But in particular it is urged that Paul drew on the “mysteries” for his notions of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as having magical effects. Appeal is made to the magical use of the name of Jesus by the strolling Jewish exorcists in Ephesus (Ac 18:13 ). Kirsopp Lake (Earlier Epistles of Paul, 233) holds that at Corinth they all accepted Christianity as a mystery-religion and Jesus as “the Redeemer-God, who had passed through death to life, and offered participation in this new life to those who shared in the mysteries which He offered,” namely, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But Kennedy (Expos, December, 1912, 548) easily shows how with Paul baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not magical sacraments producing new life, but symbolic pictures of death to sin and new life in Christ which the believer has already experienced. The battle is still raging on the subject of the mystery-religions, but it is safe to say that so far nothing more than illustrative material has been shown to be true of Paul’s teaching from this source.
There is nothing incongruous in the notion that Paul knew as much about the mystery-religions as he did about incipient Gnosticism. Indeed the two things may have been to some extent combined in some places. A passage in Col 2:18 has long bothered commentators: “dwelling in the things which he hath seen,” or (margin) “taking his stand upon the things,” etc. Westcott and Hort even suspected an early error in the text, but the same word, embateuo, has been found by Sir W.M. Ramsay as a result of investigations by Makridi Bey, of the Turkish Imperial Museum, in the sanctuary of Apollo at Claros, a town on the Ionian coast. Some of the initiates here record the fact and say that being “enquirers, having been initiated, they entered” (embateuo). The word is thus used of one who, having been initiated, enters into the life of the initiate (compare Independent, 1913, 376). Clearly, then, Paul uses the word in that sense in Col 2:18.
For further discussion see Jacoby, Die antiken Mysterienreligionen und das Christentum; Glover, Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire; Reitzenstein, Die hell. Mysterienreligionen; Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire, III; Thorburn, Jesus Christ, Historical or Mythical.
M. Bruckner (Der sterbende und auferstehende Gottheiland in den orientalischen Religionen und ihr Verhaltnis zum Christentum, 1908) says: “As in Christianity, so in many oriental religions, a belief in the death and resurrection of a Redeemer-God (sometimes as His Son), occupied a central place in the worship and cult.” To this Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters, 193) replies: “What manipulations the myths and rites of the cults in question must have undergone before this general statement could become possible! Where is there anything about dying and resurrection in Mithra?” There we may leave the matter.
5. Judaism:
Paul was Greek and Roman, but not “pan-Babylonian,” though he was keenly alive to all the winds of doctrine that blew about him, as we see in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles. But he was most of all the Jew, that is, before his conversion. He remained a Jew, even though he learned how to be all things to all men (1Co 9:22). Even though glorying in his mission as apostle to the Gentiles (Eph 3:8), he yet always put the Jew first in opportunity and peril (Ro 2:9 f). He loved the Jews almost to the point of death (Ro 9:3). He was proud of his Jewish lineage and boasted of it (2Co 11:16-22; Ac 22:3 ff; 26:4 ff; Php 3:4-6). “His religious patriotism flickered up within his Christianity” (Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism, 66). Had he not been a Roman citizen with some Greek culture and his rich endowments of mind, he would probably not have been the “chosen vessel” for the work of Christ among the Gentiles (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 15). Had he not been the thorough Jew, he could not have mediated Christianity from Jew to Greek. “In the mind of Paul a universalized Hellenism coalesced with a universalized Hebraism” (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 43). Ramsay strongly opposes the notion of Harhack and others that Paul can be understood “as purely a Hebrew.” So in Paul both Hebraism and Hellenism meet though Hebraism is the main stock. He is a Jew in the Greek-Roman world and a part of it, not a mere spectator. He is the Hellenistic Jew, not the Aramaic Jew of Palestine (compare Simon Peter’s vision on the house-top at Joppa, for instance). But Paul is not a Hellenizing Jew after the fashion of Jason and Menelaus in the beginning of the Maccabean conflict. Findlay (HDB) tersely says: “The Jew in him was the foundation of everything that Paul became.” But it was not the narrowest type of Judaism in spite of his persecution of the Christians. He belonged to the Judaism of the Dispersion. As a Roman citizen in a Greek city he had departed from the narrowest lines of his people (Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 47). His Judaism was pure, in fact, as he gives it to us in Php 3:5. He was a Jew of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a Hebrew, of the seed of Abraham (2Co 11:22). He shared in full all the covenant blessings and privileges of his people (Ro 9:1-5), whose crowning glory was, that of them came Jesus the Messiah. He was proud of the piety of his ancestors (2Ti 1:3), and made progress as a student of Judaism ahead of his fellows (Ga 1:14). His ancestry was pure, Hebrew of the Hebrews. (Php 3:5), and so his family preserved the native Palestinian traditions in Tarsus. His name Saul was a proof of loyalty to the tribe of Benjamin as his cognomen Paul was evidence of his Roman citizenship. In his home he would be taught the law by his mother (compare Ga 1:14), as was true of Timothy’s mother and grandmother (2Ti 1:5). In Tarsus he would go to the synagogue also. We know little of his father, save that he was a Roman citizen and so a man of position in Tarsus and possibly of some wealth; that he was a tent-maker and taught his son the same trade, as all Jewish fathers did, whatever their rank in life; that he was a Pharisee and brought up his son as a Pharisee (Ac 23:6), and that he sent the young Saul to Jerusalem to study at the feet of Gamaliel (Ac 22:3). Paul always considered himself a Pharisee as distinct from the Sadducaic scepticism (Ac 23:6). Many of the Pharisaic doctrines were identical with those of Christianity. That Paul did not consider himself a Pharisee in all respects is shown later by his conflict with the Judaizers (Ga 2; Ac 15; 2Co 10-13). Paul says that he was reared as a strict Pharisee (Ac 26:5), though the school of Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) was not so hard and narrow as that of Shammai. But all Pharisees were stricter than the Sadducees. So Jerusalem played an important part in the training of Saul (Ac 22:3), as Paul recognized. He was known in Jerusalem as a student. He knew Aramaic as well as Greek (and Latin), and could speak in it so as to attract the attention of a Jewish audience (Ac 22:2). Paul was fortunate in his great teacher Gamaliel, who was liberal enough to encourage the study of Greek literature. But his liberality in defending the apostles against the Sadducees in Ac 5:34-39 must not be misinterpreted in comparison with the persecuting zeal of his brilliant pupil against Stephen (7:58). Stephen had opened war on the Pharisees themselves, and there is no evidence that Gamaliel made a defense of Stephen against the lawless rage of the Sanhedrin. It is common for pupils to go farther than their teachers, but Gamaliel did not come to the rescue. Still Gamaliel helped Saul, who was undoubtedly his most brilliant pupil and probably the hope of his heart for the future of Judaism. Harnack (History of Dogma, I, 94) says: “Pharisaism had fulfilled its mission in the world when it produced this man.” Unfortunately, Pharisaism did not die; in truth has never died, not even from Christianity. But young Saul was the crowning glory of Pharisaism. An effort has recently been made to restore Pharisaism to its former dignity. Herford (Pharisaism, Its Aim and Method, 1912) undertakes to show that the Gospels have slandered Pharisaism, that it was the one hope of the ancient world, etc. He has a chapter on “Pharisaism and Paul,” in which he claims that Paul has not attacked the real Pharisaism, but has aimed his blows at an unreal creation of his own brain (p. 222). But, if Paul did not understand Pharisaism, he did not understand anything. He knew not merely the Old Testament in the Hebrew and the Septuagint translation, for he quotes from both, though usually from the Septuagint, but he also knew the Jewish Apocrypha and apocalypses, as is shown in various ways in his writings (see articles on these subjects). Schweitzer (Paul and His Interpreters) carries too far his idea that Paul and Jesus merely moved in the circle of Jewish eschatology. He makes it explain everything, and that it cannot do. But Paul does show acquaintance with some of these books. See Kennedy, Paul’s Conception of the Last Things (1904), for a sane and adequate discussion of this phase of the subject. Pfleiderer pursues the subject in his Paulinism, as does Kabisch in his Eschatologie. So Sanday and Headlam use this source in their Commentary on Romans. Paul knew Wisd, also, a book from the Jewish-Alexandrian theology with a tinge of Greek philosophy (see Goodrick, Book of Wisd, 398-403; compare also Jowett’s essay on “St. Paul and Philo” in his Epistles of Paul). Paul knew how to use allegory (Ga 4:24) in accord with the method of Philo. So then he knew how to use the Stoic diatribe, the rabbinical diatribe and the Alexandrian allegory. “In his cosmology, angelology, and demonology, as well as eschatology, he remains essentially Jewish” (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 17). When he becomes a Christian he will change many of his views, for Christ must become central in his thinking, but his method learned in the rabbinical schools remains with him (Kohler, Zum Verstandnis, etc., 7). Here, then, is a man with a wonderfully rounded culture. What of his mental gifts?
6. Personal Characteristics:
Much as we can learn about the times of Paul (compare Selden, In the Time of Paul, 1900, for a brief sketch of Paul’s world), we know something of the political structure of the Roman world, the social life of the 1st century AD, the religious condition of the age, the moral standards of the time, the intellectual tendencies of the period. New discoveries continue to throw fresh light on the life of the middle and lower classes among whom Paul chiefly labored. And, if Deissmann in his brilliant study (St. Paul, A Study in Social and Religious History) has pressed too far the notion that Paul the tent-maker ranks not with Origen, but with Amos the herdman (p. 6, on p. 52 he calls it a mistake “to speak of Paul the artisan as a proletarian in the sense which the word usually bears with us”), yet he is right in insisting that Paul is “a religious genius” and “a hero of piety” (p. 6). It is not possible to explain the personality and work of a man like Paul by his past and to refer with precision this or that trait to his Jewish or Greek training (Alexander, Ethics of Paul, 58). “We must allow something to his native originality” (same place). We are all in a sense the children of the past, but some men have much more the power of initiative than others. Paul is not mere “eclectic patchwork” (Bruce, Paul’s Conception of Christ, 218). Even if Paul was acquainted with Philo, which is not certain, that fact by no means explains his use of Philo, the representative Jew of the Hellenistic age. “Both are Jews of the Dispersion, city-dwellers, with marked cosmopolitan traits. Both live and move in the Septuagint Bible. Both are capable of ecstatic and mystical experiences, and have many points of contact in detail. And yet they stand in very strong contrast to one another, a contrast which reminds us of the opposition between Seneca and Paul….. Philo is a philosopher, Paul the fool pours out the vials of his irony upon the wisdom of the world” (Deissmann, Paul, 110). Deissmann, indeed, cares most for “the living man, Paul, whom we hear speaking and see gesticulating, here playful, gentle as a father, and tenderly coaxing, so as to win the hearts of the infatuated children-there thundering and lightning with the passionate wrath of a Luther, with cutting irony and bitter sarcasm on his lips” (ibid., 16 f).
(1) Personal Appearance.
We have no reliable description of Paul’s stature and looks. The Ac of Paul and Thecla (section3) have a protraiture thus: “Baldheaded, bowlegged, strongly built, a man small in size, with meeting eyebrows, with a rather large nose, full of grace, for at times he looked like a man and at times he had the face of an angel,” and Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, 32) adds: “This plain and unflattering account of the apostle’s personal appearance seems to embody a very early tradition,” and in chapter xvi he argues that this story goes back to a document of the 1st century. We may not agree with all the details, but in some respects it harmonizes with what we gather from Paul’s Epistles Findlay (HDB) notes that this description is confirmed by “the lifelike and unconventional figure of the Roman ivory diptych, ‘supposed to date not later than the 4th century.’ “( Lewin’s Life and Epistles of Paul, Frontispiece, and II, 211). At Lystra the natives took Barnabas for Jupiter and Paul for Hermes, “because he was the chief speaker” (Ac 14:12), showing that Barnabas had the more impressive appearance, while Paul was his spokesman. In Malta the natives changed their minds in the opposite direction, first thinking Paul a murderer and then a god because he did not die from the bite of the serpent (Ac 28:4-6). His enemies at Corinth sneered at the weakness of his bodily presence in contrast to the strength of his letters (2Co 10:9 f). The attack was really on the courage of Paul, and he claimed equal boldness when present (2Co 10:11 f), but there was probably also a reflection on the insignificance of his physique. The terrible bodily sufferings which he underwent (2Co 11:23-26) left physical marks (stigmata, Ga 6:17) that may have disfigured him to some extent. Once his illness made him a trial to the Galatians to whom he preached, but they did not scorn him (Ga 4:14). He felt the frailty of his body as an earthen vessel (2Co 4:7) and as a tabernacle in which he groaned (2Co 5:4). But the effect of all this weakness was to give him a fresh sense of dependence on Christ and a new influx of divine power (2Co 11:30; 12:9). But even if Paul was unprepossessing in appearance and weakened by illness, whether ophthalmia, which is so common in the East (Ga 4:15), or malaria, or recurrent headache, or epilepsy, he must have had a tough constitution to have endured such hardship to a good old age. He had one infirmity in particular that came upon him at Tarsus (2Co 12:1-9) in connection with the visions and revelations of the Lord then granted him. The affliction seems to have been physical (skolops te sarki, “a stake in the flesh” or “for the flesh”), and it continued with him thereafter as a messenger of Satan to buffet Paul and to keep him humble. Some think that this messenger of Satan was a demon that haunted Paul in his nervous state. Others hold it to be epilepsy or some form of hysteria superinduced by the visions and revelations which he had had. Compare Krenkel, Beitrage (pp. 47-125), who argues that the ancients looked with such dread on epilepsy that those who beheld such attacks would “spit out so as to escape the evil (compare modern knocking on wood”); compare qui sputatur morbus in Plautus (Captivi, iii.4, 17). Reference is made to Ga 4:14, oude exeptusate, “nor did ye spit out,” as showing that this was the affliction of Paul in Galatia. But epilepsy often affects the mind, and Paul shows no sign of mental weakness, though his enemies charged him with insanity (Ac 26:24; 2Co 5:13; 12:11). It is urged in reply that Julius Caesar, Alfred the Great, Peter the Great, and Napoleon all had epilepsy without loss of mental force. It is difficult to think headache or malaria could have excited the disgust indicated in Ga 4:14, where some trouble with the eyes seems to be indicated. The ministers of Satan (2Co 11:15) do not meet the requirements of the case, nor mere spiritual sins (Luther), nor struggle with lust (Roman Catholic, stimulus carnis). Garvie (Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 65, 80) thinks it not unlikely that “it was the recurrence of an old violent temptation,” rather than mere bodily disease. “Can there be any doubt that this form of temptation is more likely to assail the man of intense emotion and intense affection, as Paul was?” But enough of what can never be settled. “St. Paul’s own scanty hints admonish to caution” (Deissmann, Paul, 63). It is a blessing for us not to know, since we can all cherish a close bond with Paul. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 37 ff) calls special attention to the look of Paul. He “fastened his eyes on” the man (Ac 13:9; 14:9). He argues that Paul had a penetrating, powerful gaze, and hence, no eye trouble. He calls attention also to gestures of Paul (Ac 20:24; 26:2). There were artists in marble and color at the court of Caesar, but no one of them cared to preserve a likeness of the poor itinerant preacher who turned out to be the chief man of the age (Deissmann, Paul, 58). “We are like the Christians of Colesage and Laodicea, who had not seen his face in the flesh” (Col 2:1).
(2) Natural Endowments.
In respect to his natural endowments we can do much better, for his epistles reveal the mind and soul of the man. He is difficult to comprehend, not because he conceals himself, but because he reveals so much of himself in his epistles. He seems to some a man of contradictions. He had a many-sided nature, and his very humanness is in one sense the greatest thing about him. There are “great polar contradictions” in his nature. Deissmann (St. Paul, 62 ff) notes his ailing body and his tremendous powers for work, his humility and his self-confidence, his periods of depression and of intoxication with victory, his tenderness and his sternness; he was ardently loved and furiously hated; he was an ancient man of his time, but he is cosmopolitan and modern enough for today. Findlay (HBD) adds that he was a man possessed of dialectical power and religious inspiration. He was keenly intellectual and profoundly mystical (compare Campbell, Paul the Mystic, 1907). He was a theologian and a man of affairs. He was a man of vision with a supreme task to which he held himself. He was a scholar, a sage, a statesman, a seer, a saint (Garvie, Studies in Paul and His Gospel, 68-84). He was a man of heart, of passion, of imagination, of sensibility, of will, of courage, of sincerity, of vivacity, of subtlety, of humor, of adroitness, of tact, of genius for organization, of power for command, of gift of expression, of leadership-“All these qualities and powers went to the making of Jesus Christ’s apostle to the nations, the master-builder of the universal church and of Christian theology” (Findlay, HDB; see Lock, Paul the Master Builder, 1905; and M. Jones, Paul the Orator, 1910).
I cannot agree with Garvie’s charge of cowardice (Life and Teaching of Paul, 173,) in the matter of the purifying rites (Ac 21:23) and the dividing of the Sanhedrin (Ac 23:6). The one was a mere matter of prudence in a nonessential detail, the other was justifiable skill in resisting the attack of unscrupulous enemies. One does not understand Paul who does not understand his emotional nature. He was “quick, impetuous, strenuous, impassioned” (Bevan, Paul in the Light of Today, 1912, 26). His heart throbs through his epistles, and he loves his converts like a mother or a lover (Findlay, HDB) rather than a pastor. We feel the surging emotion of his great spirit in 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, 2 Timothy in particular. He had the spiritual temperament and reaches his highest flights in his moments of rhapsody. He has elasticity and rebound of spirit, and comes up with the joy of victory in Christ out of the severest trials and disappointments. His ambition is great, but it is to serve Christ his Lord. He is a man of faith and a man of prayer. For him to live is Christ. He has a genius for friendship and binds men to him with hooks of steel-men like Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Luke, Titus (Speer, The Man Paul, 1900, 111 ff). He is not afraid to oppose his friends when it is necessary for the sake of truth, as with Peter (Ga 2:11 ) and with Barnabas (Ac 15:35 ).” While God made Paul like the other apostles out of the clay whereof ordinary men are fashioned, yet we may say that He took extraordinary pains with his education” (Fairbairn, Studies in Religion and Theology, 471). If ever a man, full-blooded and open-eyed, walked the earth, it was Paul. It is a debatable question whether Paul was married or not. He certainly was not when he wrote (1Co 7:7; 9:5). But, if he was a member of the Sanhedrin when he cast his vote against the disciples (Ac 26:10), as his language naturally means, then he had been married.
There is in Paul the gift of leadership in a marked degree. He, though young, is already at the head of the opposition to Stephen (Ac 7:58), and soon drives the disciples out of Jerusalem.
(3) Supernatural gifts.
He had his share of them. He had all the gifts that others could boast of at Corinth, and which he lightly esteemed except that of prophecy (1Co 14:18-29). He had his visions and revelations, but would not tell what he had seen (2Co 12:1-9). He did the signs of an apostle (2Co 12:12-14). He had the power to work miracles (1Co 4:19-21) and to exercise discipline (1Co 5:4 f; 2Co 13:1-3). But what he cared for most of all was the fact that Jesus had appeared to him on the road to Damascus and had called him to the work of preaching to the Gentiles (1Co 15:8).
7. Conversion:
No other element in the equipment of Paul is comparable in importance to his conversion.
(1) Preparation.
It was sudden, and yet God had led Saul to the state of mind when it could more easily happen. True, Saul was engaged in the very act of persecuting the believers in Jerusalem. His mind was flushed with the sense of victory. He was not conscious of any lingering doubts about the truth of his position and the justice of his conduct till Jesus abruptly told him that it was hard for him to kick against the goad (Ac 26:14). Thus suddenly brought to bay, the real truth would flash upon his mind. In later years he tells how he had struggled in vain against the curse of the Law (Ro 7:7 f). It is probable though not certain, that Paul here has in mind his experience before his conversion, though the latter part of the chapter may refer to a period later. There is difficulty in either view as to the “body of this death” that made him so wretched (Ro 7:24). The Christian keeps up the fight against sin in spite of defeat (Ro 7:23), but he does not feel that he is “carnal, sold under sin” (Ro 7:14). But when before his conversion did Paul have such intensity of conviction? We can only leave the problem unanswered. His reference to it at least harmonizes with what Jesus said about the goad. The words and death of Stephen and the other disciples may have left a deeper mark than he knew. The question might arise whether after all the Nazarenes were right. His plea for his conduct made in later years was that he was conscientious (Ac 26:9) and that he did it ignorantly in unbelief (1Ti 1:13). He was not willfully sinning against the full light as he saw it. It will not do to say with Holsten that Saul was half convinced to join the disciples, and only needed a jolt to turn him over. He was “yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord” (Ac 9:1), and went to the high priest and asked for letters to Damascus demanding the arrest of the disciples there. His temper on the whole is distinctly hostile to Christ, and the struggle against his course was in the subconscious mind. There a volcano had gathered ready to burst out.
It is proper to ask whether Paul had known Jesus in the flesh, but it is not easy to give a categorical reply. It is possible, though hardly likely, that Paul had come to Jerusalem to study when Jesus as a boy of 12 visited the temple, and so heard Jesus and the doctors. That could be true only in case Paul was born 5 or 6 BC, which is quite unlikely. It is possible again that Paul may have remained in Jerusalem after his graduation the school of Gamaliel and so was present in Jerusalem at the trial and death of Jesus. Some of the ablest of modern scholars hold that Paul knew Jesus in the flesh. It will at once seem strange that we have no express statement to this effect in the letters of Paul, when he shows undoubted knowledge of various events in the life of Christ (compare Wynne, Fragmentary Records of Jesus of Nazareth, 1887). It is almost certain, as J. Weiss admits (Paul and Jesus, 41), that in 1Co 9:1 Paul refers to the Risen Jesus. The passage in 2Co 5:16 is argued both ways: “Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.” J. Weiss (ibid., 41-55) argues strongly for the view that he knew Jesus in the flesh. But in the first clause of the sentence above Paul means by “after the flesh,” not acquaintance, but standpoint. It is natural to take it in the same way as applied to Christ. He has changed his viewpoint of Christ and so of all men. Weiss pleads (ibid., p. 40), at any rate, that we have no word saying that “Paul had not seen Jesus in person.” It may be said in reply that the fact that Jesus has to tell Paul who He is (Ac 9:5) shows that Paul did not have personal acquaintance with Him. But the question may be left in abeyance as not vitally important. He certainly had not understood Jesus, if he knew Him.
(2) Experience.
Space does not, permit a discussion of this great event of Paul’s conversion at all commensurate with its significance. A literature of importance has grown up around it besides the lengthy discussions in the lives and theologies of Paul (see e.g. Lord Lyttleton’s famous Observations on Saul’s Conversion, 1774; Fletcher’s A Study of the Conversion of Paul, 1910; Gardner, The Religious Experience of Paul, 1911; Maggs, The Spiritual Experience of Paul). All sorts of theories have been advanced to explain on naturalistic grounds this great experience of Christ in the life of Paul. It has been urged that Paul had an epileptic fit, that he had a sunstroke, that he fell off his horse to the ground, that he had a nightmare, that he was blinded by a flash of lightning, that he imagined that he saw Jesus as a result of his highly wrought nervous state, that he deliberately renounced Judaism because of the growing conviction that the disciples were right. But none of these explanations explains. Mere prejudice against the supernatural, such as is shown by Weinel in his Paulus, and by Holsten in his able book (Zum Evangelium d. Paulus und Petrus), cannot solve this problem. One must be willing to hear the evidence. There were witnesses of the bright light (Ac 26:13) and of the sound (Ac 9:7) which only Paul understood (Ac 22:9), as he alone beheld Jesus. It is claimed by some that Paul had a trance or subjective vision, and did not see Jesus with his eyes. Denney (Standard Bible Dictionary) replies that it is not a pertinent objection. Jesus (Joh 21:1) “manifested” Himself, and Paul says that he “saw” Jesus (1Co 9:1), that Jesus “appeared” (1Co 15:8) to him. Hence, it was both subjective and objective. But the reality of the event was as clear to Paul as his own existence. The account is given 3 times in Ac (chapters 9; 22; 26) in substantial agreement, with a few varying details. In Ac 9 the historical narrative occurs, in Ac 22 Paul’s defense before the mob in Jerusalem is given, and in Ac 26 we have the apology before Agrippa. There are no contradictions of moment, save that in chapter 26 Jesus Himself is represented as giving directly to Paul the call to the Gentiles while in chapters 9 and 22 it is conveyed through Ananias (the fuller and more accurate account). There is no need to notice the apparent contradiction between Ac 9:7 and 22:9, for the difference in case in the Greek gives a difference in sense, hearing the sound, with the genitive, and not understanding the sense, with the accusative. Findlay (HBD) remarks that the conversion of Paul is a psychological and ethical problem which cannot be accounted for save by Paul’s own interpretation of the change wrought in him. He saw Jesus and surrendered to Him.
(3) Effect on Paul.
His surrender to Jesus was instantaneous and complete: “What shall I do, Lord?” (Ac 22:10). He could not see for the glory of that light (Ac 22:11), but he had already seen “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2Co 4:6). The god of this world could blind him no longer. He had seen Jesus, and all else had lost charm for Paul. There is infinite pathos in the picture of the blind Saul led by the hand (Ac 9:8) into Damascus. All the pride of power is gone, all the lust for vengeance. The fierceness of the name of Saul is well shown in the dread that Ananias has and the protest that he makes to the Lord concerning him (Ac 9:10-14). Ananias doubtless thought that the Lord had made a strange choice of a vessel to bear the message of Christ to the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (Ac 9:15), but there was hope in the promise of chastisement to him (Ac 9:16). So he went, and calls him “Brother Saul.” Saul was filled with the Holy Spirit, the scales fell from his eyes, he was baptized. And now what next? What did the world hold in store for the proud scion of Judaism who had renounced power, place, pride for the lowly Nazarene? He dared not go back to Jerusalem. The Jews in Damascus would have none of him now. Would the disciples receive him? They did. “And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus” (Ac 9:19). Ananias vouched for him by his vision. Then Saul took his courage in his hands and went boldly into the synagogues and “proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God” (Ac 9:20). This was a public committal and a proclamation of his new creed. There was tremendous pith and point in this statement from Saul. The Jews were amazed (Ac 9:21). This is the core of Paul’s message as we see in his later ministry (Ac 13; 17:3). It rests at bottom on Paul’s own experience of grace. “His whole theology is nothing but the explanation of his own conversion” (Stalker, Life of Paul, 45). We need not argue (Garvie, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 51) that Paul understood at once the full content of the new message, but he had the heart of it right.
Written by A. T. Robertson
*Through the Courtesy of The Blue Letter Bible
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 8:08 pm
Paul, the Apostle, 5:
V. Work.
1. Adjustment:
There was evidently a tumult in Paul’s soul. He had undergone a revolution, both intellectual and spiritual. Before he proceeded farther it was wise to think through the most important implications of the new standpoint. Luke gives no account of this personal phase of Paul’s career, but he allows room for it between Ac 9:21 and 22. It is Paul who tells of his retirement to Arabia (Ga 1:17 f) to prove his independence of the apostles in Jerusalem. He did not go to them for instruction or for ecclesiastical authority. He did not adopt the merely traditional view of Jesus as the Messiah. He knew, of course, the Christian contention well enough, for he had answered it often enough. But now his old arguments were gone an4t he must work his way round to the other side, and be able to put his new gospel with clearness and force. He was done with calling Jesus anathema (1Co 12:3). Henceforth to him Jesus is Lord. We know nothing of Paul’s life in Arabia nor in what part of Arabia he was. He may have gone to Mt. Sinai and thought out grace in the atmosphere of law, but that is not necessary. But it is clear that Paul grew in apprehension of the things of Christ during these years, as indeed he grew to the very end. But he did not grow away from the first clear vision of Christ. He claimed that God had revealed His Son in him that he might preach to the Gentiles (Ga 1:16). He claimed that from the first and to the very last. The undoubted development in Paul’s Epistles (see Matheson, Spiritual Development of Paul, and Sabatier, The Apostle Paul) is, however, not a changing view of Christ that nullifies Paul’s “original Christian inheritance” (Kohler, Zum Verstandnis des Apostels Paulus, 13). Pfieiderer (Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity, 3rd edition, 1897, 217) rejects Colossians because of the advanced Christology here found. But the Christology of Col is implicit in Paul’s first sermon at Damascus. “It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the significance and value of the Cross became clear to him almost simultaneously with the certainty of the resurrection and of the Messiahship of Jesus” (Garvie, Studies, etc., 57). The narrow Jew has surrendered to Christ who died for the sins of the world. The universal gospel has taken hold of his mind and heart, and it will work out its logical consequences in Paul. The time in Arabia is not wasted. When he reappears in Damascus (Ac 9:22) he has “developed faith” (Findlay, HDB) and energy that bear instant fruit. He is now the slave of Christ. For him henceforth to live is Christ. He is crucified with Christ. He is in Christ. The union of Paul with Christ is the real key to his life. It is far more than a doctrine about Christ. It is real fellowship with Christ (Deissmann, Paul, 123). Thus it is that the man who probably never saw Christ in the flesh understands him best (Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, I, 159).
2. Opposition:
Saul had “increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt in Damascus, proving that this is the Christ” (Ac 9:22). Now he not merely “proclaims” as before (Ac 9:20); he “proves.” He does it with such marvelous skill that the Jews are first confounded, then enraged to the point of murder. Their former hero was now their foe. The disciples had learned to run from Saul. They now let him down in a basket through the wall by night and he is gone (Ac 9:23 ). This then is the beginning of the active ministry of the man who was called to be a chosen vessel to Gentiles, kings, and Jews, There was no need to go back to the wilderness. He had gotten his bearings clearly now. He had his message and it had his whole heart. He had not avoided Jerusalem because he despised flesh and blood, but because he had no need of light from the apostles since “the divine revelation so completely absorbed his interest and attention” (Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul, 33). No door was open as yet among the Gentiles. Sooner or later he must go to Jerusalem and confer with the leaders there if he was to cooperate with them in the evangelization of the world. Saul knew that he would be an object of suspicion to the disciples in Jerusalem. That was inevitable in view of the past. It was best to go, but he did not wish to ask any favors of the apostles. Indeed he went in particular “to visit Cephas” (margin, “to become acquainted with” Ga 1:18). They knew each other, of course, as opponents. But Saul comes now with the olive branch to his old enemy. He expressly explains (Ga 1:19) that he saw no other apostle. He did see James, the Lord’s brother, who was not one of the Twelve. It seems that at first Peter and James were both afraid of Saul (Ac 9:26), “not believing that he was a disciple.” If a report came 3 years before of the doings at Damascus, they had discounted it. All had been quiet, and now Saul suddenly appears in Jerusalem in a new role. It was, they feared, just a ruse to complete his work of old. But for Barnabas, Saul might not have had that visit of 15 days with Peter. Barnabas was a Hellenist of Cyprus and believed Saul’s story and stood by him. Thus, he had his opportunity to preach the gospel in Jerusalem, perhaps in the very synagogues in which he had heard Stephen, and now he is taking Stephen’s place and is disputing against the Grecian Jews (Ac 9:29). He had days of blessed fellowship (Ac 9:28) with the disciples, till the Grecian Jews sought to kill him as Saul had helped to do to Stephen (Ac 9:29). It was a repetition of Damascus, but Saul did not wish to run again so soon. He protested to the Lord Jesus, who spoke in a vision to him, and recalls the fate of Stephen, but Jesus bids him go: “For I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles” (Ac 22:17-21). One martyr like Stephen is enough. So the brethren took him down to Caesarea (Ac 9:30). It was an ominous beginning for a ministry with so clear a call. Where can he go now?
3. Waiting:
They “sent him forth to Tarsus” (Ac 9:30). Who would welcome him there? At Jerusalem he apparently avoided Gamaliel and the Sanhedrin. He was with the Christians and preached to the Hellenistic Jews. The Jews regarded him as a turncoat, a renegade Jew. There were apparently no Christians in Tarsus, unless some of the disciples driven from Jerusalem by Saul himself went that far, as they did go to Antioch (Ac 11:19 f). But Saul was not idle, for he speaks himself of his activity in the regions of Syria and Cilicia during this “period of obscurity” (Denney, Standard Bible Dict.) as a thing known to the churches of Judea (Ga 1:21 f). He was not idle then. The way was not yet opened for formal entrance upon the missionary enterprise, but Saul was not the man to do nothing at home because of that. If they would not hear him at Damascus and Jerusalem, they would in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, his home province. We are left in doubt at first whether Paul preached only to Jews or to Gentiles also. He had the specific call to preach to the Gentiles, and there is no reason why he should not have done so in this province, preaching to the Jews first as he did afterward. He did not have the scruples of Simon Peter to overcome. When he appears at Antioch with Barnabas, he seems to take hold like an old hand at the business. It is quite probable, therefore, that this obscure ministry of some 8 or 10 years may have had more results than we know. Paul apparently felt that he had done his work in that region, for outside of Antioch he gives no time to it except that in starting out on the second tour from Antioch “he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches” (Ac 15:41), churches probably the fruit of this early ministry and apparently containing Gentiles also. The letter from the Jerusalem conference was addressed to “the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia” (Ac 15:23). Cilicia was now part of the Roman province of Syria. So then we conclude that Saul had a Gentileministry in this region. “Independently, under no human master, he learned his business as a missionary to the heathen” (Findlay, HDB). One can but wonder whether Saul was kindly received at home by his father and mother. They had looked upon him with pride as the possible successor of Gamaliel, and now he is a follower of the despised Nazarene and a preacher of the Cross. It is possible that his own exhortations to fathers not to provoke their children to wrath (Eph 6:4) may imply that his own father had cast him out at this time. Findlay (HDB) argues that Saul would not have remained in this region so long if his home relations had been altogether hostile. It is a severe test of character when the doors close against one. But Saul turned defeat to glorious gain.
4. Opportunity:
Most scholars hold that the ecstatic experience told by Paul in 2Co 12:1-9 took place before he came to Antioch. If we count the years strictly, 14 from 56 AD would bring us to 42 AD. Paul had spent a year in Antioch before going up to Jerusalem (Ac 11:29 f). Findlay (HDB) thinks that Paul had the visions before he received the call to come to Antioch. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul, 41) holds he received the call first. “Such a mood of exaltation would account for the vision to which he refers in 2Co 12:1-4.” At any rate he had the vision with its exaltation and the thorn in the flesh with its humiliation before he came to Antioch in response to the invitation of Barnabas. He had undoubtedly had a measure of success in his work in Cilicia and Syria. He had the seal of the divine blessing on his work among the Gentiles. But there was a pang of disappointment over the attitude of the Jerusalem church toward his work. He was apparently left alone to his own resources. “Only such a feeling of disappointment can explain the tone of his references to his relations to the apostles (Ga 1:11-24)” (Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul, 41). There is no bitterness in this tone-but puzzled surprise. It seems that the 12 apostles are more or less absent from Jerusalem during this period with James the brother of the Lord Jesus as chief elder. A narrow Pharisaic element in the church was active and sought to shape the policy of the church in its attitude toward the Gentiles. This is clear in the treatment of Peter, when he returned to Jerusalem after the experience at Caesarea with Cornelius (Ac 11:1-18). There was acquiescence, but with the notion that this was an exceptional case of the Lord’s doing. Hence, they show concern over the spread of the gospel to the Greeks at Antioch, and send Barnabas to investigate and report (Ac 11:19-22). Barnabas was a Hellenist, and evidently did not share the narrow views of the Pharisaic party in the church at Jerusalem (Ac 11:2), for he was glad (Ac 11:23 f) of the work in Antioch. Probably mindful of the discipline attempted on Simon Peter, he refrained from going back at once to Jerusalem. Moreover, he believed in Saul and his work, and thus he gave him his great opportunity at Antioch. They had there a year’s blessed work together (Ac 11:25 ). So great was the outcome that the disciples received a new name to distinguish them from the Gentiles and the Jews. But the term “Christian” did not become general for a long time. There was then a great Greek church at Antioch, possibly equal in size to the Jewish church in Jerusalem. The prophecy by Agabus of a famine gave Barnabas and Saul a good excuse for a visit to Jerusalem with a general collection-“every man according to his ability”-from the Greek church for the relief of the poverty in the Jerusalem church. Barnabas had assisted generously in a similar strain in the beginning of the work there (Ac 4:36 f), unless it was a different Barnabas, which is unlikely. This contribution would help the Jerusalem saints to understand now that the Greeks were really converted. It was apparently successful according to the record in Acts. The apostles seem to have been absent, since only “elders” are mentioned in 11:30.
The incidents in Ac 12, as already noted, are probably not contemporaneous with this visit, but either prior or subsequent to it. However, it is urged by some scholars that this visit is the same as that of Ga 2:1-10 since Paul would not have omitted it in his list of visits to Jerusalem. But then Paul is not giving a list of visits, but is only showing his independence of the apostles. If they were absent from Jerusalem at that time, there would be no occasion to mention it. Besides, Luke in Ac 15 does recount the struggle in Jerusalem over the problem of Gentileliberty. If that question was an issue at the visit in Ac 11:30, it is quite remarkable that he should have passed it by, especially if the matter caused as much heat as is manifest in Ga 2, both in Jerusalem and Antioch. It is much simpler to understand that in Ac 15 and Ga 2:1-10 we have the public and the private aspects of the same issue, than to suppose that Luke has slurred the whole matter over in Ac 11:30. The identification of the visit of Ga 2 with that in Ac 11:30 makes it possible to place Galatians before the conference in Jerusalem in Ac 15 and implies the correctness of the South Galatian theory of the destination of the epistle and of the work of Paul, a theory with strong advocates and arguments, but which is by no means established (see below for discussion at more length). So far as we can gather from Luke, Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem with John Mark (Ac 12:25),” when they had fulfilled their ministration” with satisfaction. The Pharisaic element was apparently quiescent, and the outlook for the future work among the Gentiles seemed hopeful. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 62 ff) argues strongly for identifying the revelation mentioned in Paul’s speech in Ac 22:20 f with this visit in 11:30 (12:25), rather than with the one in Ac 9:29 f. There is a textual problem in 12:25, but I cannot concur in the solution of Ramsay.
5. The First Great Mission Campaign:
Ac 13 and 14, 47 and 48 AD:
Paul had already preached to the Gentiles in Cilicia and Syria for some 10 years. The work was not new to him. He had had his specific call from Jerusalem long ago and had answered it. But now an entirely new situation arises. His work had been individual in Cilicia. Now the Spirit specifically directs the separation of Barnabas and Saul to this work (Ac 13:2). They were to go together, and they had the sympathy and prayers of a great church. The endorsement was probably not “ordination” in the technical sense, but a farewell service of blessing and good will as the missionaries went forth on the world-campaign (Ac 13:3). No such unanimous endorsement could have been obtained in Jerusalem to this great enterprise. It was momentous in its possibilities for Christianity. Hitherto work among the Gentiles had been sporadic and incidental. Now a determined effort was to be made to evangelize a large section of the Roman empire. There is no suggestion that the church at Antioch provided funds for this or for the two later Campaigns, as the church at Philippi came to do. How that was managed this time we do not know. Some individuals may have helped. Paul had his trade to fall back on, and often had resort to it later. The presence of John Mark “as their attendant” (Ac 13:5) was probably due to Barnabas, his cousin (Col 4:10). The visit to Cyprus, the home of Barnabas, was natural. There were already some Christians there (Ac 11:20), and it was near. They preach first in the synagogues of the Jews at Salamis (Ac 13:5). We are left to conjecture as to results there and through the whole island till Paphos is reached. There they meet a man of great prominence and intelligence, Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul, who had been under the spell of a sorcerer with a Jewish name-Elymas Bar-jesus (compare Peter’s encounter with Simon Magus in Samaria). In order to win and hold Sergius Paulus, who had become interested in Christianity, Paul has to punish Bar-jesus with blindness (Ac 13:10 ) in the exercise of that apostolic power which he afterward claimed with such vigor (1Co 5:4 f; 2Co 13:10). He won Sergius Paulus, and this gave him cheer for his work. From now on it is Paul, not Saul, in the record of Luke, perhaps because of this incident, though both names probably belonged to him from the first. Now also Paul steps to the fore ahead of Barnabas, and it is “Paul’s company” (Ac 13:13) that sets sail from Paphos for Pamphylia. There is no evidence here of resentment on the part of Barnabas at the leadership of Paul. The whole campaign may have been planned from the start by the Holy Spirit as the course now taken may have been due to Paul’s leadership. John Mark deserts at Perga and returns to Jerusalem (his home), not to Antioch (Ac 13:13). Paul and Barnabas push on to the tablelands of Pisidia. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 93) thinks that Paul had malaria down at Perga and hence desired to get up into higher land. That is possible. The places mentioned in the rest of the tour are Antioch in Pisidia (Ac 13:14), and Iconium (Ac 13:51), Lystra (Ac 14:8), and Derbe (Ac 14:20), cities of Lycaonia. These terms are ethnographic descriptions of the southern divisions of the Roman province of Galatia, the northern portion being Galatia proper or North Galatia. So then Paul and Barnabas are now at work in South Galatia, though Luke does not mention that name, using here only the popular designations. The work is wonderfully successful. In these cities, on one of the great Roman roads east and west, Paul is reaching the centers of provincial life as will be his custom. At Antioch Paul is invited to repeat his sermon on the next Sabbath (Ac 13:42), and Luke records at length the report of this discourse which has the characteristic notes of Paul’s gospel as we see it in his epistles. Paul may have kept notes of the discourse. There were devout Gentiles at these services. These were the first to be won, and thus a wider circle of Gentiles could be reached. Paul and Barnabas were too successful at Antioch in Pisidia. The jealous Jews opposed, and Paul and Barnabas dramatically turned to the Gentiles (Ac 13:45 ). But the Jews reached the city magistrate through the influential women, and Paul and Barnabas were ordered to leave (Ac 13:50 f). Similar success brings like results in Iconium. At Lystra, before the hostile Jews come, Paul and Barnabas have great success and, because of the healing of the impotent man, are taken as Mercury and Jupiter respectively, and worship is offered them. Paul’s address in refusal is a fine plea on the grounds of natural theology (Ac 14:15-18). The attempt on Paul’s life after the Jews came seemed successful. In the band of disciples that “stood round about him,” there may have been Timothy, Paul’s son in the gospel. From Derbe they retrace their steps to Perga, in order to strengthen the churches with officers, and then sail for Seleucia and Antioch. They make their report to the church at Antioch. It is a wonderful story. The door of faith is now wide open for the Gentiles who have entered in great numbers (Ac 14:27). No report was sent to Jerusalem. What will the Pharisaic party do now?
6. The Conflict at Jerusalem:
Ac 15$; Ga 2$, 49 AD:
The early date of Galatians, addressed to these churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia before the Conference in Jerusalem does not allow time for a second visit there (Ga 4:13), and requires that the Judaizers from Jerusalem followed close upon the heels of Paul and Barnabas (Ga 1:6; 3:1) in South Galatia. Besides, there is the less likelihood that the matter would have been taken a second time to Jerusalem (Ac 15:2 f) if already the question had been settled in Paul’s favor (Ac 11:30). It is strange also that no reference to this previous conference on the same subject is made in Ac 15, since Peter does refer to his experience at Caesarea (15:9) and since James in Ac 21:25 specifically (“we wrote”) mentions the letter of Ac 15 in which full liberty was granted to the Gentiles. Once more, the attack on the position of Paul and Barnabas in Ac 15:1 is given as a new experience, and hence the sharp dissension and tense feeling. The occasion for the sudden outbreak at Antioch on the part of the self-appointed (Ac 15:24) regulators of Paul and Barnabas lay in the reports that came to Jerusalem about the results of this campaign on a large scale among the Gentiles. There was peril to the supremacy of the Jewish element. They had assumed at first, as even Peter did who was not a Judaizer (Ac 10), that the Gentiles who became disciples would also become Jews. The party of the circumcision had made protest against the conduct of Peter at Caesarea (11:1 f) and had reluctantly acquiesced in the plain work of God (11:18). They had likewise yielded in the matter of the Greeks at Antioch (11:19 ff) by the help of the contribution (11:29 f). But they had not agreed to a campaign to Hellenize Christianity. The matter had to stop. So the Judaizers came up to Antioch and laid down the law to Paul and Barnabas. They did not wait for them to come to Jerusalem. They might not come till it was too late (compare Barnabas in Ac 11). Paul and Barnabas had not sought the controversy. They had both received specific instructions from the Holy Spirit to make this great campaign among the Gentiles. They would not stultify themselves and destroy the liberty of the Gentiles in Christ by going back and having the Mosaic Law imposed on them by the ceremony of circumcision. They saw at once the gravity of the issue. The very essence of the gospel of grace was involved. Paul had turned away from this yoke of bondage. He would not go back to it nor would he impose it on his converts. The church at Antioch stood by Paul and Barnabas. Paul (Ga 2:2) says that he had a revelation to go to Jerusalem with the problem. Luke (Ac 15:3) says that the church sent them. Surely there is no inconsistency here. It is not difficult to combine the personal narrative in Ga 2 with the public meetings recorded in Ac 15. We have first the general report by Paul and Barnabas to the church in Jerusalem (Ac 15:4 f) to which instant exception was made by the Judaizing element. There seems to have come an adjournment to prepare for the conflict, since in 15:6 Luke says again that “the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter.” Between these two public meetings we may place the private conference of Paul and Barnabas with Peter, John and James and other teachers (Ga 2:1-10). In this private conference some of the timid brethren wished to persuade Paul to have Titus, a Greek Christian whom Paul had brought down from Antioch (a live specimen!), offered as a sacrifice to the Judaizers (“false brethren”) and circumcised. But Paul stood his ground for the truth of the gospel and was supported by Peter, John and James. They agreed all around for Paul and Barnabas to go on with their work to the Gentiles, and Peter, John and James would push the work among the Jews (a division in sphere of work, like home and foreign missions, not a denominational cleavage). Here, then, for the first time, Paul has had an opportunity to talk the matter over with the apostolic teachers, and they agree. The Judaizers will have no support from the apostles. The battle was really won in their private conference. In the second public meeting (Ac 15:6-29) all goes smoothly enough. Ample opportunity for free discussion is offered. Then Peter shows how God had used him to preach to the Romans, and how the Jews themselves had to believe on Christ in order to be saved. He opposed putting a yoke on the Gentiles that the Jews could not bear. There was a pause, and then Barnabas and Paul (note the order here: courtesy to Barnabas) spoke again. After another pause, James, the president of the conference, the brother of the Lord Jesus, and a stedfast Jew, spoke. He cited Am 9:11 f to show that God had long ago promised a blessing to the Gentiles. He suggests liberty to the Gentiles with the prohibition of pollution of idols, of fornication, things strangled, and blood. His ideas are embodied in an unanimous decree which strongly commends “our beloved Barnabas and Paul” and disclaims responsibility for the visit of the Judaizers to Antioch. The Western text omits “things strangled” from the decree. If this is correct, the decree prohibits idolatry, fornication and murder (Wilson, Origin and Aim of the Ac of the Apostles, 1912, 55). At any rate, the decision is a tremendous victory for Paul and Barnabas. If the other reading is correct, Jewish feelings about things strangled and blood are to be respected. The decision was received with great joy in Antioch (Ac 15:30-35). Some time later Peter appears at Antioch in the fullest fellowship with Paul and Barnabas in their work, and joins them in free social intercourse with the Gentiles, as he had timidly done in the home of Cornelius, till “certain came from James” (Ga 2:11 f), and probably threatened to have Peter up before the church again (Ac 11:2) on this matter, claiming that James agreed with them on the subject. This I do not believe was true in the light of Ac 15:24, where a similar false claim is discredited, since James had agreed with Paul in Jerusalem (Ac 15:19 ff; Ga 2:9 f). The new ground for complaint was that they had not settled the question of social relations with the Gentiles in the Jerusalem conference and that Peter had exceeded the agreement there reached. Peter quailed before the accusation, “fearing them that were of the circumcision” Ga 2:12) To make it worse, “even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation” (Ga 2:13). Under this specious plea Paul was about to lose the fruit of the victory already won, and charged Peter to his face with Judaizing hypocrisy (Ga 2:11-14). It was a serious crisis. Peter had not changed his convictions, but had once more cowered in an hour of peril. Paul won both Barnabas and Peter to his side and took occasion to show how useless the death of Christ was if men could be saved by mere legalism (Ga 2:21). But the Judaizers had renewed the war, and they would keep it up and harry the work of Paul all over the world. Paul had the fight of his life upon his hands.
7. The Second Mission Campaign:
Ac 15:36-18:22; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 49-51 (or 52) AD:
The impulse to go out again came from Paul. Despite the difference in Ga 2:13, he wished to go again with Barnabas (Ac 15:36), but Barnabas insisted on taking along John Mark, which Paul was not willing to do because of his failure to stick to the work at Perga. So they agreed to disagree after “sharp contention” (Ac 15:39 f). Barnabas went with Mark to Cyprus, while Paul took Silas, “being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.” Luke follows the career of Paul, and so Barnabas drops out of view (compare later 1Co 9:6). Paul and Silas go “through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches” (Ac 15:41). They pass through the Cilician gates to Derbe, the end of the first tour, and go to Lystra. Here they pick up Timothy, who more than takes Mark’s place in Paul’s life. Timothy’s mother was a Jewess and his father a Greek. Paul decided therefore to have him circumcised since, as a half-Jew, he would be especially obnoxious to the Jews. This case differed wholly from that of Titus, a Greek, where principle was involved. Here it was a matter merely of expediency. Paul had taken the precaution to bring along the decrees of the Conference at Jerusalem in case there was need of them. He delivered them to the churches. It has to be noted that in 1Co 8-10 and in Ro 14 and 15, when discussing the question of eating meats offered to idols, Paul does not refer to these decrees, but argues the matter purely from the standpoint of the principles involved. The Judaizers anyhow had not lived up to the agreement, but Paul is here doing his part by the decision. The result of the work was good for the churches (Ac 16:4).
When we come to Ac 16:6, we touch a crucial passage in the South-Galatian controversy. Ramsay (Christianity in the Roman Empire, chapters iii through vi; History and Geography of Asia Minor; Paul the Traveler, chapters v, vi, viii, ix; The Expositor, IV, viii, ix, “replies to Chase”; “Galatia,” HDB; Commentary on Gal; The Cities of Paul; The Expositor T, 1912, 1913) has become by his able advocacy the chief champion of the view that Paul never went to Galatia proper or North Galatia, and that he addressed his epistle to South Galatia, the churches visited in the first tour. For a careful history of the whole controversy in detail, see Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 90-106, who strongly supports the view of Lightfoot, H.J. Holtzmann, Blass, Schurer, Denney, Chase, Mommsen, Steinmann, etc. There are powerful names with Ramsay, like Hausrath, Zahn, Barrlet, Garvie, Weizsacker, etc. The arguments are too varied and minute for complete presentation here. The present writer sees some very attractive features in the South-Galatian hypothesis, but as a student of language finds himself unable to overcome the syntax of Ac 16:6. The minor difficulty is the dropping of kai, between “Phrygia” and “Galatic region” by Ramsay. It is by no means certain that this is the idea of Luke. It is more natural to take the terms as distinct and coordinated by kai. In Paul the Traveler, 212, Ramsay pleads for the aorist of subsequent time, but Moulton (Prolegomena, 133) will have none of it. With that I agree. The aorist participle must give something synchronous with or antecedent to the principal verb. In Expository Times for February, 1913, 220 f, Ramsay comes back to the “construction of Ac 16:6.” He admits that the weight of authority is against the Textus Receptus of the New Testament and in favor of dielthon…. koluthentes. He now interprets the language thus: “Paul, having in mind at Lystra his plan of going on to Asia from Galatia, was ordered by the Spirit not to preach in Asia. He therefore made a tour through the Phrygio-Galatic region, which he had already influenced so profoundly from end to end (13:49).” But there is grave difficulty in accepting this interpretation as a solution of the problem. Ramsay here makes the narrative in 16:6 resumptive and takes us back to the standpoint of 16:1 at Lystra. The proper place for such a forecast was in 16:1, or at most before 16:4, which already seems to mark an advance beyond Lystra to Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia: “and as they went on their way through the cities.”
Besides, “the Phrygio-Galatic region” lay between Lystra and Asia, and, according to Ramsay, after the prohibition in Lystra, he went straight on toward Asia. This is certainly very artificial and unlike the usual procedure. According to the other view, Paul had already visited the churches in Lycaonia and Pisidia on his former visit. He wished to go on west into Asia, probably to Ephesus, but was forbidden by the Holy Spirit, and as a result turned northward through Phrygia and the regions of Galatia, using both terms in the ethnographic sense. Paul was already in the province of Galatia at Derbe and Lystra. The matter has many “ins and outs” and cannot be argued further here. It is still in debate, but the present interpretation is in harmony with the narrative in Acts.
See also GALATIA; GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.
By this view Paul had not meant to stop in Galatia proper and did so only because of an attack of illness (Ga 4:13). It is possible that Luke may have come to his rescue here. At any rate, he finally pushes on opposite Mysia and Bithynia in the extreme north and was forbidden by the Spirit from going on into Bithynia. So they came down to Troas (Ac 16:7 f) when Luke (“we,” Ac 16:10) appears on the scene and the Macedonian call comes to Paul. Thus Paul is led out of Asia into Europe and carries the gospel successively to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth. The gospel is finally planted in the great provinces of Macedonia and Achaia. In Philippi, a Roman colony and military outpost, Paul finds few Jews and has to go out to a prayer-place to find a few Jewish women to whom he can tell the story of Jesus. But he gains a start with Lydia and her household, and soon arouses the hostility of a company of men who were making money out of a poor girl’s powers of divination. But before Paul and Silas leave the jail, the jailer is himself converted, and a good church is established. At Thessalonica Paul has great success and arouses the jealousy of the Jews who gather a rabble and raise a disturbance and charge it up to Paul. At Philippi appeal was made to prejudice against Jews. At Thessalonica the charge is made that Paul preaches Jesus as a rival king to Caesar. In Berea Paul and Silas have even more success till the Jews come from Thessalonica and drive Paul out again. Timothy, who has come out from Philippi where Luke has remained, and Silas stay in Berea while Paul hurries on to Athens with some of the brethren, who return with the request for Timothy and Silas “to come to him with all speed.” Apparently Timothy did come (1Th 3:1 f), but Paul soon sent him back to Thessalonica because of his anxiety about conditions there. Left alone in Athens, Paul’s spirit was stirred over the idolatry before his eyes. He preaches in the synagogues and argues with the Stoics and Epicureans in the Agora who make light of his pretensions to philosophy as a “babbler” (Ac 17:18). But curiosity leads them to invite him to speak on the Areopagus. This notable address, all alive to his surroundings, was rather rudely cut short by their indifference and mockery, and Paul left Athens with small results for his work. He goes over to Corinth, the great commercial city of the province, rich and with bizarre notions of culture. Paul determined (1Co 2:1-5) to be true to the cross, even after his experience in Athens. He gave them, not the flashy philosophy of the sophists, but the true Wisdom of God in simple words, the philosophy of the cross of Christ (1Co 1:17-3:4). In Corinth Paul found fellow-helpers in Aquila and Priscilla, just expelled from Rome by Claudius. They have the same trade of tentmakers and live together (Ac 18:1-4), and Paul preached in the synagogues. Paul is cheered by the coming of Timothy and Silas from Thessalonica (Ac 18:5) with supplies from Philippi, as they had done while in Thessalonica (Php 4:15 f). This very success led to opposition, and Paul has to preach in the house of Titus Justus. But the work goes on till Gallio comes and a renewed effort is made to have it stopped, but Gallio declines to interfere and thus practically makes Christianity a religio licita, since he treats it as a variety of Judaism. While here, after the arrival of Timothy and Silas, Paul writes the two letters to Thessalonica, the first of his 13 epistles. They are probably not very far apart in time, and deal chiefly with a grievous misunderstanding on their part concerning the emphasis placed by him on the Man of Sin and the Second Coming. Paul had felt the power of the empire, and his attention is sharply drawn to the coming conflict between the Roman empire and the kingdom of God. He treats it in terms of apocalyptic eschatology. When he leaves Corinth, it is to go by Ephesus, with Aquila and Priscilla whom he leaves there with the promise to return. He goes down to Caesarea and “went up and saluted the church” (Ac 18:22), probably at Jetus (fourth visit), and “went down to Antioch.” If he went to Jerusalem, it was probably incidental, and nothing of importance happened. He is back once again in Antioch after an absence of some 3 or 4 years.
8. The Third Mission Campaign:
Ac 18:23-21:14; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Romans, 52 (or 53)-57 (or 58) AD:
The stay of Paul at Antioch is described as “sometime” (Ac 18:23). Denney (Standard Bible Dictionary) conjectures that Paul’s brief stay at Jerusalem (see above) was due to the fact that he found that the Judaizers had organized opposition there against him in the absence of the apostles, and it was so unpleasant that he did not stay. He Suggests also that the Judaizers had secured letters of commendation from the church for their emissaries (2Co 3:1) to Corinth and Galatia, who were preaching “another Jesus” of nationalism and narrowness, whom Paul did not preach (Ga 1:6; 2Co 11:4). Both Denney and Findlay follow Neander, Wieseler, and Sabatier in placing here, before Paul starts out again from Antioch, the visit of certain “from James” (Ga 2:12), who overpowered Peter for the moment. But I have put this incident as more probably before the disagreement with Barnabas over Mark, and as probably contributing to that breach at the beginning of the second tour. It is not necessary to suppose that the Judaizers remained acquiescent so long.
Paul seems to have set out on the third tour alone-unless Timothy came back with him, of which there is no evidence save that he is with Paul again in Ephesus (Ac 19:22). What became of Silas? Paul “went through the region of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, establishing all the disciples” (Ac 18:23), the opposite order to Ac 16:6, “through the region of Phrygia and Galatia.” According to the North-Galatian view, here followed, he went through the northern part of the province, passing through Galatia proper and Phrygia on his way west to Ephesus. Luke adds, “Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus” (Ac 19:1). The ministry of Apollos in Ephesus (Ac 18:24-28) had taken place before Paul arrived, though Aquila and Priscilla were still on hand. Apollos passed over to Corinth and innocently became the occasion of such strife there (1Co 1-4) that he left and refused to return at Paul’s request (1Co 16:12). Paul has a ministry of 3 years, in round numbers, in Ephesus, which is full of excitement and anxiety from the work there and in Corinth. He finds on his arrival some ill-informed disciples of John the Baptist who are ignorant of the chief elements of John’s teaching about repentance, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Ac 19:2-7), matters of which Apollos had knowledge, though he learned more from Priscilla and Aquila, but there is no evidence that he was rebaptized as was true of the 12 disciples of John (Robertson, John the Loyal, 290-303). The boldness of Paul in Ephesus led in 3 months to his departure from the synagogue to the schoolhouse of Tyrannus, where he preached for 2 years (Ac 19:8-10) with such power that “all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord.” It is not strange later to find churches at Colosse and Hierapolis in the Lycus Valley (compare also Re 1:11). Paul has a sharp collision with the strolling Jewish exorcists that led to the burning of books of magic by the wholesale (Ac 19:11-20), another proof of the hold that magic and the mysteries had upon the Orient. Ephesus was the seat of the worship of Diana whose wonderful temple was their pride. A great business in the manufacture of shrines of Diana was carried on here by Demetrius, and “this Paul” had hurt his trade so much that he raised an insurrection under the guise of piety and patriotism and might have killed Paul with the mob, if he could have got hold of him (Ac 19:23-41). It was with great difficulty that Paul was kept from going to the amphitheater, as it was. But here, as at Corinth, the Roman officer (the town clerk) defended Paul from the rage of his enemies (there the jealous Jews, here the tradesmen whose business suffered). He was apparently very ill anyhow, and came near death (2Co 1:9). All this seems to have hastened his departure from Ephesus sooner than Pentecost, as he had written to the Corinthians (1Co 16:8). His heart was in Corinth because of the discussions there over him and Apollos and Peter, by reason of the agitation of the Judaizers (1Co 1:10-17). The household of Chloe had brought word of this situation to Paul. He had written the church a letter now lost (1Co 5:9). They had written him a letter (1Co 7:1). They sent messengers to Paul (1Co 16:17). He had sent Timothy to them (1Co 4:17; 16:10), who seems not to have succeeded in quieting the trouble. Paul wrote 1Co (spring of 56), and then sent Titus, who was to meet him at Troas and report results (2Co 2:12 f). He may also have written another letter and sent it by Titus (2Co 2:3 f). The sudden departure from Corinth brought Paul to Troas ahead of time, but he could not wait for Titus, and so pushed on with a heavy heart into Macedonia, where he met him, and he had good and bad news to tell (2Co 2:12 ff; 7:5-13). The effect on Paul was instantaneous. He rebounded to hope and joy (2Co 2:14 ) in a glorious defense of the ministry of Jesus (compare Robertson, The Glory of the Ministry; Paul’s Exultation in Preaching), with a message of cheer to the majority. of the church that had sustained Paul and with instructions (2Co 8$; 9$) about the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, which must be pushed to a completion by Titus and two other brethren (possibly also Luke, brother of Titus, and Erastus). Timothy and Erastus had been sent on ahead to Macedonia from Ephesus (Ac 19:22), and Timothy sends greetings with Paul to the Corinthians in a letter (2 Corinthians) which Paul now forwards, possibly by Titus. The latter part of the epistle (1Co 10-13) deals with the stubborn minority who still resist the authority of Paul as an apostle. On the proposed treatment of these chapters as a separate epistle see the earlier part of this article. Paul seems to wait a while before going on to Corinth. He wishes the opposition to have time to repent. During this period he probably went round about to Illyricum (Ro 15:19). He spent three months in Greece (Ac 20:2 f), probably the winter of 56 and 57.
We have placed Galatians in the early part of this stay in Corinth, though it could have been written while at Ephesus. Romans was certainly written while here, and they both treat the same general theme of justification by faith. Ramsay (Expos, February, 1913, 127-45) has at last come to the conclusion that Ga belongs to the date of Ac 15:1 f. He bases this conclusion chiefly on the “absolute independence” of his apostleship claimed in Ga 1 and 2, which, he holds, he would not have done after the conference in Ac 15, which was “a sacrifice of complete independence.” This is a curious interpretation, for in Ga 2:1-10 Paul himself tells of his recognition on terms of equality by Peter, John and James, and of his going to Jerusalem by “revelation,” which was just as much “a sacrifice of complete independence” as we find in Ac 15. Besides, in 2Co 11:5 and 12:11 Paul expressly asserts his equality (with all humility) with the very chiefest apostles, and in 1Co 15:10 he claims in so many words to have wrought more than all the apostles. Perhaps messengers from Galatia with the contributions from that region report the havoc wrought there by the Judaizers. Ga is a tremendous plea for the spiritual nature of Christianity as opposed to Jewish ceremonial legalism.
Paul had long had it in mind to go to Rome. It was his plan to do so while at Ephesus (Ac 19:21) after he had gone to Jerusalem with the great collection from the churches of Asia, Galatia, Achaia, and Macedonia. He hoped that this collection would have a mollifying effect on the Jerusalem saints as that from Antioch had (Ac 11:29 f). He had changed some details in his plans, but not the purpose to go to Jerusalem and then to Rome. Meanwhile, he writes the longest and most important letter of all to the Romans, in which he gives a fuller statement of his gospel, because they had not heard him preach, save his various personal friends who had gone there from the east (Ac 16). But already the shadow of Jerusalem is on his heart, and he asks their prayers in his behalf, as he faces his enemies in Jerusalem (Ro 15:30-32). He hopes also to go on to Spain (Ro 15:24), so as to carry the gospel to the farther west also. The statesmanship of Paul comes out now in great clearness. He has in his heart always anxiety for the churches that consumes him (2Co 11:28 f). He was careful to have a committee of the churches go with him to report the collection (2Co 8:19 f). Paul had planned to sail direct for Syria, but a plot on his life in Corinth led him to go by land via Macedonia with his companions (Ac 20:2-4). He tarried at Philippi while the rest went on to Troas. At Philippi Paul is joined again by Luke, who stays with him till Rome is reached. They celebrate the Passover (probably the spring of 57) in Philippi (Ac 20:6). We cannot follow the details in Ac at Troas, the voyage through the beautiful Archipelago, to Miletus. There Paul took advantage of the stop to send for the elders of Ephesus to whom he gave a wonderful address (Ac 20:17-38). They change ships at Patara for Phoenicia and pass to the right of Cyprus with its memories of Barnabas and Sergius Paulus and stop at Tyre, where Paul is warned not to go on to Jerusalem. The hostility of the Judaizers to Paul is now common talk everywhere. There is grave peril of a schism in Christianity over the question of Gentile liberty, once settled in Jerusalem, but unsettled by the Judaizers. At Caesarea Paul is greeted by Philip the evangelist and his four daughters (prophetesses). At Caesarea Paul is warned in dramatic fashion by Agabus (compare Ac 11:28) not to go on to Jerusalem (Ac 21:9 ), but Paul is more determined than ever to go, even if he die (Ac 20:13). He had had three premonitions for long (Ac 20:22 ), but he will finish his course, cost what it may. He finds a friend at Caesarea in Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, who was to be the host of Paul in Jerusalem (Ac 21:16).
9. Five Years a Prisoner:
Ac 21:17-28:31; Philippians; Philemon; Colossians; Ephesians, 57-62 (or 63) AD:
Paul had hoped to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (Ac 20:16). He seems to have done so. Luke gives the story of Paul in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and the voyage to Rome in much detail. He was with him and considered this period of his ministry very important. The welcome from the brethren in Jerusalem was surprisingly cordial (Ac 21:17). On the very next day Paul and his party made a formal call on James and all the elders (Ac 21:18 f), who gave a sympathetic hearing to the narrative of God’s dealings with Paul and the Gentiles. He presented the alms (collection) in due form (Ac 24:17), though some critics have actually suggested that Paul used it to defray the expenses of the appeal to Caesar. Ramsay’s notion that he may have fallen heir by now to his portion of his father’s estate is quite probable. But the brethren wish to help Paul set himself right before the rank and file of the church in Jerusalem, who have been imposed upon by the Judaizers who have misrepresented Paul’s real position by saying that he urged the Jewish Christians to give up the Mosaic customs (Ac 21:21). The elders understand Paul and recall the decision of the conference at which freedom was guaranteed to the Gentiles, and they have no wish to disturb that (Ac 21:25). They only wish Paul to show that he does not object to the Jewish Christians keeping up the Mosaic regulations. They propose that Paul offer sacrifice publicly in the temple and pay the vows of four men, and then all will know the truth (Ac 21:23 f). Paul does not hesitate to do that (Ac 21:26 ). He had kept the Jewish feasts (compare Ac 20:6) as Jesus had done, and the early disciples in Jerusalem. He was a Jew. He may have had a vow at Corinth (Ac 18:18). He saw no inconsistency in a Jew doing thus after becoming a Christian, provided he did not make it obligatory on Gentiles. The real efficacy of the sacrifices lay in the death of Jesus for sin. Garvie (Life and Teaching of Paul, 173) calls this act of Paul “scarcely, worthy of his courage as a man or his faith in God.” I cannot see it in that light. It is a matter of practical wisdom, not of principle. To have refused would have been to say that the charge was true, and it was not. So far as the record goes, this act of Paul accomplished its purpose in setting Paul in a right light before the church in Jerusalem. It took away this argument from the Judaizers. The trouble that now comes to Paul does not come from the Judaizers, but from “the Jews from Asia” (Ac 21:27). If it be objected that the Jerusalem Christians seem to have done nothing to help Paul during his years of imprisonment, it can be said that there was little to be done in a legal way, as the matter was before the Roman courts very soon. The attack on Paul in the temple was while he was doing honor to the temple, engaged in actual worship offering sacrifices. But then Jews from Ephesus hated him so that they imagined that he had Greeks with him in the Jewish court, because they had seen him one day with Trophimus in the city (Ac 21:27 ). It is a splendid illustration of the blindness of prejudice and hate. It was absolutely untrue, and the men who raised the hue and cry in the temple against Paul as the desecrator of the holy place and the Law and the people disappear, and are never heard of more (Ac 24:18 f). But it will take Paul five years or more of the prime of his life to get himself out of the tangled web that will be woven about his head. Peril follows peril. He was almost mobbed, as often before, by the crowd that dragged him out of the temple (Ac 21:30 f). It would remind Paul of Stephen’s fate. When the Roman captain rescued him and had him bound with two chains as a dangerous bandit, and had him carried by the soldiers to save his life, the mob yelled “Away with him” (Ac 21:36 f), as they had done to Jesus. After the captain, astonished that “Paul the Egyptian assassin” can speak Greek, grants him permission to stand on the steps of the tower of Antonia to speak to the mob that clamored for his blood, he held their rapt attention by an address in Aramaic (Ac 22:2) in which he gave a defense of his whole career. This they heard eagerly till he spoke the word “Gentiles,” at which they raged more violently than ever (Ac 22:21 ). At this the captain has Paul tied with thongs, not understanding his Aramaic speech, and is about to scourge him when Paul pleads his Roman citizenship, to the amazement of the centurion (Ac 22:24 ). Almost in despair, the captain, wishing to know the charge of the Jews against Paul, brings him before the Sanhedrin. It is a familiar scene to Paul, and it is now their chance for settling old scores. Paul makes a sharp retort in anger to the high priest Ananias, for which he apologizes as if he was so angry that he had not noticed, but he soon divides the Sanhedrin hopelessly on the subject of the resurrection (compare the immunity of the disciples on that issue when Gamaliel scored the Sadducees in Ac 5). This was turning the tables on his enemies, and was justifiable as war. He claimed to be a Pharisee on this point, as he was still, as opposed to the Sadducees. The result was that Paul had to be rescued from the contending factions, and the captain knew no more than he did before (Ac 23:1-10). That night “the Lord stood by him” and promised that he would go to Rome (Ac 23:11). That was a blessed hope. But the troubles of Paul are by no means over. By the skill of his nephew he escaped the murderous plot of 40 Jews who had taken a vow not to eat till they had killed Paul (Ac 23:12-24). They almost succeeded, but Claudius Lysias sent Paul in haste with a band of soldiers to Caesarea to Felix, the procurator, with a letter in which he claimed to have rescued Paul from the mob, “having learned that he was a Roman” (Ac 23:26-30). At any rate he was no longer in the clutches of the Jews. Would Roman provincial justice be any better? Felix follows a perfunctory course with Paul and shows some curiosity about Christianity, till Paul makes him tremble with terror, a complete reversal of situations (compare Pilate’s meanness before Jesus). But love of money from Paul or the Jews leads Felix to keep Paul a prisoner for two years, though convinced of his innocence, and to hand him over to Festus, his successor, because the Jews might make things worse for him if he released him (Ac 24). The case of the Sanhedrin, who have now made it their own (or at least the Sadducean section), though pleaded by the Roman orator Tertullus, had fallen through as Paul calmly riddied their charges. Festus is at first at a loss how to proceed, but he soon follows the steps of Felix by offering to play into the hands of the Jewish leaders by sending Paul back to Jerusalem, whereupon Paul abruptly exercises his right of Roman citizenship by appealing to Caesar (Ac 25:1-12). This way, though a long one, offered the only ray of hope. The appearance of Paul before Agrippa and Bernice was simply by way of entertainment arranged by Festus to relieve his guests of ennui, but Paul seized the opportunity to make a powerful appeal to Agrippa that put him in a corner logically, though he wriggled out and declined to endorse Christianity, though confirming Paul’s innocence, which Festus also had admitted (Ac 25:13-26:32). Paul was fortunate in the centurion Julius who took him to Rome, for he was kindly disposed to him at the start, and so it was all the way through the most remarkable voyage on record. Luke has surpassed his own record in Ac 27, in which he traces the voyage, stage by stage, with change of ship at Myra, delay at Fair Havens, Crete, and shipwreck on the island of Malta. More is learned about ancient seafaring from this chapter than from any other source (see the article PHOENIX, and Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul, 1866). In it all Paul is the hero, both on the ships and in Malta. In the early spring of 60 another ship takes Paul and the other prisoners to Puteoli. Thence they go on to Rome, and enter by the Appian Way. News of Paul’s coming had gone on before (his epistle had come 3 years ago), and he had a hearty welcome. But he is now an imperial prisoner in the hands of Nero. He has more liberty in his own hired house (Ac 28:16,30), but he is chained always to a Roman soldier, though granted freedom to see his friends and to preach to the soldiers. Paul is anxious to remove any misapprehensions that the Jews in Rome may have about him, and tries to win them to Christ, and with partial success (Ac 28:17-28). And here Luke leaves him a prisoner for 2 years more, probably because at this point he finishes the Book of Acts. But, as we have seen, during these years in Rome, Paul wrote Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians. He still has the churches on his heart. They send messengers to him, and he writes back to them. The incipient Gnosticism of the East has pressed upon the churches at Colosse and Laodicea, and a new peril confronts Christianity. The Judaizing controversy has died away with these years (compare Php 3:1 ff for an echo of it), but the dignity and glory of Jesus are challenged. In the presence of the power of Rome Paul rises to a higher conception than even that of the person of Christ and the glory of the church universal. In due time Paul’s case was disposed of and he was once more set free. The Romans were proverbially dilatory. It is doubtful if his enemies ever appeared against him with formal charges.
10. Further Travels:
The genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles is here assumed. But for them we should know nothing further, save from a few fragments in the early Christian writings. As it is, some few who accept the Pastoral Epistles seek to place them before 64 AD, so as to allow for Paul’s death in that year from the Neronian persecution. In that case, he was not released. There is no space here to argue the question in detail. We can piece together the probable course of events. He had expected when in Corinth last to go on to Spain (Ro 15:28), but now in Rome his heart turns back to the east again. He longs to see the Philippians (1:23 ff) and hopes to see Philemon in Colosse (Phm 1:22). But he may have gone to Spain also, as Clement of Rome seems to imply (Clement ad Cor 5), and as is stated in the Canon of Muratori. He may have been in Spain when Rome was burned July 19, 64 AD. There is no evidence that Paul went as far as Britain. On his return east he left Titus in Crete (Tit 1:5). He touched at Miletus when he left Trophimus sick (2Ti 4:20) and when he may have met Timothy, if he did not go on to Ephesus (1Ti 1:3). He stopped at Troas and apparently expected to come back here, as he left his cloak and books with Carpus (2Ti 4:13). He was on his way to Macedonia (1Ti 1:3), whence he writes Timothy in 65-67 a letter full of love and counsel for the future. Paul is apprehensive of the grave perils now confronting Christianity. Besides the Judaizers, the Gnostics, the Jews and the Romans, he may have had dim visions of the conflict with the mystery-religions. It was a syncretistic age, and men had itching ears. But Paul is full of sympathy and tender solicitude for Timothy, who must push on the work and get ready for it. Paul expects to spend the winter in Nicopolis (Tit 3:12), but is apparently still in Macedonia when he writes to Titus a letter on lines similar to those in 1 Timothy, only the note is sharper against Judaism of a certain type. We catch another glimpse of Apollos in Tit 3:13. Paul hits off the Cretans in 1:10 with a quotation from Epimenides, one of their own poetic prophets.
11. Last Imprisonment and Death:
68 (or 67) AD:
When Paul writes again to Timothy he has had a winter in prison, and has suffered greatly from the cold and does not wish to spend another winter in the Mamertine (probably) prison (2Ti 4:13,21). We do not know what the charges now are. They may have been connected with the burning of Rome. There were plenty of informers eager to win favor with Nero. Proof was not now necessary. Christianity is no longer a religio licita under the shelter of Judaism. It is now a crime to be a Christian. It is dangerous to be seen with Paul now, and he feels the desertion keenly (2Ti 1:15 ff; 4:10). Only Luke, the beloved physician, is with Paul (2Ti 4:11), and such faithful ones as live in Rome still in hiding (2Ti 4:21). Paul hopes that Timothy may come and bring Mark also (2Ti 4:11). Apparently Timothy did come and was put into prison (Heb 13:23). Paul is not afraid. He knows that he will die. He has escaped the mouth of the lion (2Ti 4:17), but he will die (2Ti 4:18). The Lord Jesus stood by him, perhaps in visible presence (2Ti 4:17). The tradition is, for now Paul fails us, that Paul, as a Roman citizen, was beheaded on the Ostian Road just outside of Rome. Nero died June, 68 AD, so that Paul was executed before that date, perhaps in the late spring of that year (or 67). Perhaps Luke and Timothy were with him. It is fitting, as Findlay suggests, to let Paul’s words in 2Ti 4:6-8 serve for his own epitaph. He was ready to go to be with Jesus, as he had long wished to be (Php 1:23).
Written by A. T. Robertson
*Through the Courtesy of The Blue Letter Bible
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
LikeLike
July 21, 2016 at 8:12 pm
Paul, the Apostle, 6:
VI. Gospel.
I had purposed to save adequate space for the discussion of Paul’s theology, but that is not now possible. A bare sketch must suffice. Something was said (see above on his epistles and equipment) about the development in Paul’s conception of Christ and his message about Him. Paul had a gospel which he called his own (Ro 2:16). I cannot agree with the words of Deissmann (St. Paul, 6): “St. Paul theologian looks backward toward rabbinism. As a religious genius Paul’s outlook is forward into a future of universal history.” He did continue to use some rabbinical methods of argument, but his theology was not rabbinical. And he had a theology. He was the great apostle and missionary to the heathen. He was a Christian statesman with far-seeing vision. He was the loving pastor with the shepherd heart. He was the great martyr for Christ. He was the wonderful preacher of Jesus. But he was also “Paul theologian” (Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul, chapter v). There are two ways of studying his teaching. One is to take it by groups of the epistles, the purely historical method, and that has some advantages (compare Sabatier, The Apostle Paul). But at bottom Paul has the same message in each group, though with varying emphasis due to special exigencies. The same essential notes occur all through. The more common method, therefore, is to Study his gospel topically, using all the epistles for each topic. A measure of historical development may still be observed. Only the chief notes in Paul’s gospel can be mentioned here. Even so, one must not turn to his epistles for a complete system of doctrine. The epistles are “occasional letters, pieces de circonstance” (Findlay, HDB), and they do not profess, not even Romans, to give a full summary of Christian doctrine. They are vital documents that throb with life. There is no theological manual in them. But Paul’s gospel is adequately stated repeatedly. Paul’s message is Christocentric. Jesus as Messiah he preached at once on his conversion (Ac 9:20,22). He knew already the current Jewish Messianism to which Jesus did not correspond. The acceptance of Jesus as He was (the facts about Him and teachings) revolutionized his Messianic conceptions, his view of God, and his view of man. “When he takes and uses the Messianic phraseology of his day, he fills it with a meaning new and rich” (Rostron, Christology of Paul, 31). Paul was not merely a new creature himself, but he had a new outlook: “Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation” (2Co 5:16-19). Perhaps no single passage in Paul’s Epistles tells us more than this one of the change in Paul’s theological conceptions wrought by his conversion. His view of Christ as the revealer of God (God in Christ) and the manifestation of love for men (of God, who reconciled us to Himself, reconciling the world to Himself) and the means (through Christ) by whom God is able to forgive our sins (“not reckoning unto them their trespasses”) on the basis of the atoning death of Christ (“wherefore”; for this see 2Co 5:14 f just before 5:16) with whom the believer has vital union (“in Christ”) and who transforms the nature and views of the believer, is here thoroughly characteristic. Paul’s passion is Christ (2Co 5:14; Php 1:21). To gain Christ (Php 3:8), to know Christ (Php 3:10), to be found in Christ (Php 3:9), to know Christ as the mystery of God (Col 2:2 f), to be hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3)-this with the new Paul is worth while. Thus Paul interprets God and man, by his doctrine of Christ. To him Jesus is Christ and Christ is Jesus. He has no patience with the incipient Cerinthian Gnosticism, nor with the docetic Gnosticism that denied the true humanity of Jesus. The real mystery of God is Christ, not the so-called mystery-religions. Christ has set us free from the bondage of ceremonial legalism. We are free from the curse of the law (Ga 3:13). Grace is the distinctive word for the gospel (Ro 3-5), but it must lead to sanctification (Ro 6-8), not license (Col 3). Paul’s Christology is both theocentric and anthropocentric, but it is theocentric first. His notion of redemption is the love of God seeking a world lost in sin and finding love’s way, the only way consonant with justice, in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ His Son (Ro 3:21-31). The sinner comes into union with God in Christ by faith in Christ as Redeemer and Lord. Henceforth he lives to God in. Christ by the help of the Holy Spirit (Ro 8; Ga 5). Paul presents God as Father of all in one sense (Eph 4:6), but in a special sense of the believers in Christ (Ro 8:15 f). Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the pre-incarnate Son of God (2Co 8:9; Php 2:5-10), who is both God and man (Ro 1:3 f). With Paul the agent of creation is Jesus (Col 1:15 f), who is also the head of the church universal (Col 1:18; Eph 1:22 f). In the work of Christ Paul gives the central place to the cross (1Co 1:17 f; 2:2; Col 2:20; Eph 2:13-18). Sin is universal in humanity (Ro 1:18-3:20), but the vicarious death of Christ makes redemption possible to all who believe (Ro 3:21 ff; Ga 3:6-11). The redeemed constitute the kingdom of God or church universal, with Christ as head. Local bodies (churches) are the chief means for pushing the work of the kingdom. Paul knows two ordinances, both of which present in symbolic form the death of Christ for sin and the pledge of the believer to newness of life in Christ. These ordinances are baptism (Ro 6:1-11) and the Lord’s Supper (1Co 11:17-34). If he knew the mystery-religions, they may have helped him by way of illustration to present his conception of the mystic union with Christ. Paul is animated by the hope of the second coming of Christ, which will be sudden (1Th 5:1-11) and not probably at once (2Th 2), but was to be considered as always imminent (1Th 5:2 ). Meanwhile, death brings us to Christ, which is a glorious hope to Paul (2Co 5:1-10; Php 1:21 ff; 2Ti 4:18). But, while Paul was a theologian in the highest and best sense of the term, the best interpreter of Christ to men, he was also an ethical teacher. He did not divorce ethics from religion. He insisted strongly on the spiritual experience of Christ as the beginning and the end of it all, as opposed to mere ritualistic ceremonies which had destroyed the life of Judaism. But all the more Paul demanded the proof of life as opposed to mere profession. See Ro 6-8 in particular. In most of the epistles the doctrinal section is followed by practical exhortations to holy living. Mystic as Paul was, the greatest of all mystics, he was the sanest of moralists and had no patience with hypocrites or licentious pietists or idealists who allowed sentimentalism and emotionalism to take the place of righteoushess. His notion of the righteousness demanded by God and given by God included both sanctification and justification. In the end, the sinner who for Christ’s sake is treated as righteous must be righteous. Thus the image of God is restored in man by the regenerating work of the Spirit of God (2Co 3:18). Paul sees God in the face of Christ (2Co 4:6), and the vision of Christ brings God to all who see.
LITERATURE.
Out of the vast Pauline literature the following selections may be mentioned:
(1) General Works:
Addis, Christianity and the Roman Empire, 1893; Bartlet, The Apostolic Age, 1899; Bohlig, Die Geisteskultur yon Tarsos, 1913; Clemen, Primitive Christianity and Its Non-Jewish Sources, 1912; Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, 1911; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1910; Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, 1912; Dollinger, Gentile and Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ, translation, 1862; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, 1882, Darkness and Dawn, 1893; Ferrero, Greatness and Decline of Rome, 1908; Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire; Glover, Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, 1910; Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verst. d. New Testament, 1903; Hausrath, Time of the Apostles, translation; Neander, Planting and Training of the Christian Church, translation; McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, 1897; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 1895, The First Christian Century, 1911; Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910; Ropes, The Apostolic Age, 1906; Schurer, HJP; Weizsacker, The Apostolic Age in the Christian Church, 1894-95.
(2) Introductions:
E. Burton, Chronicle of Paul’s Epistles; Clemen, Die Chron der Paulinischen Briefe, 1893, Die Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe, 1894; Findlay, Epistles of Paul the Apostle, 1893; Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, 1876; Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1900; Herr, Prolegomena to Romans and Ephesians, 1895; Harnack, The Ac of the Apostles, 1909, Date of the Ac and the Synoptic Gospels, 1911, History of Early Christian Literature until Eusebius, 1897; Holtzmann, Einleitung3, 1892; James, Genuineness and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, 1906; Julicher, Introduction to the New Testament, 1903; Lake, Earlier Epistles of Paul, 1911; Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 1911; Peake, Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 1909; Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 1892; R. Scott, Epistles of Paul, 1909; Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, 1903; von Soden, History of Early Christian Literature, 1906; B. Weiss, Present State of the Inquiry Concerning the Genuineness of Paul’s Epistles, 1897; Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 1909.
(3) Commentaries:
For exegetical commentaries on special epistles see special articles For the ancients see Chrysostom for the Greeks, and Pelagius for the Latins. For the Middle Ages see Thomas Aquinas. For the later time see Beza, Calvin, Colet, Estius, Grotius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wettstein, Bengel. Among the moderns note Alford, Beet (Romans-Colossians), Boise, Bible for Home and School, Cambridge Bible for Schools, Cambridge Greek Testament, New Century Bible; Drummond, Epistles of Paul, Ellicott (all but Romans and 2 Corinthians), Expositor’s Bible, Expositor’s Greek Testament; Holtzmann, Hand-Comm. zum New Testament; Jewett (1 and 2 Thessalonians, Romans, Galatians), Lightfoot (Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and Notes), Lietzmann, Handbuch zum New Testament; Meyer (translation, revised German editions), Zahn, Kommentar zum New Testament.
(4) Lives and Monographs:
Albrecht, Paulus der Apestel Jesu Christi, 1903; Bacon, The Story of Paul, 1904; Bartlet, article in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition; Baring-Gould, A Study of Paul, 1897; Baur, The Apostle Paul(2), 1845; Bevan, Paul in the Light of Today, 1912; Bird, Paul of Tarsus, 1900; Campbell, Paul the Mystic, 1907; Chrysostom, Homiliae in Laude S. Pauli, Opera, volume II, edition Montf. (more critically in Field’s edition); Clemen, Paulus, 1904; Cone, Paul the Man, the Missionary, 1898; Cohu, Paul in the Light of Recent Research, 1910; Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of Paul (many editions); Deissmann, Paul, 1912; Drescher, Das Leben Jesu bei Paulus, 1900; Drury, The Prison Ministry of Paul, 1910; Eadie, Paul the Preacher, 1859; Farrar, Life and Work of Paul (various editions); Erbes, Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus und Petrus, 1899; Fletcher, A Study of the Conversion of Paul, 1911; Forbes, Footsteps of Paul in Rome, 1899; Fouard, Paul and His Mission, 1894, Last Years of Paul, 1897; Gardner, Religious Experience of Paul, 1911; Garvie, Life and Teaching of Paul, 1909, Studies of Paul and His Gospel, 1911; Gilbert, Student’s Life of Paul, 1899; Heim, Paulus, 1905; Honnicke, Chronologie des Lebens Pauli, 1904; Iverach, Paul, His Life and Time, 1890; Johnston, The Mission of Paul to the Roman Empire, 1909; M. Jones, Paul the Orator, 1910; Kennedy, Paul and the Mystery-Religions, 1913; Kohler, Zum Verstandnis d. Apostels Paulus, 1908; Lewin, Life and Epistles of Paul, 1875; Lock, Paul the Master Builder, 1905; Lyttleton, Observations on Saul’s Conversion, 1774; Myers, Saint Paul (various editions); Matheson, Spiritual Development of Paul, 1891; Means, Paul and the Ante-Nicene Church, 1903; Noesgen, Paulus der Apostel der Heiden, 1908; Paley, Horae Paulinae, 1790; Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 1896, Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, Cities of Paul, 1908, Luke the Physician and Other Studies, 1908, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, 1910; Renan, Paul, 1869; A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul, 1909, The Glory of the Ministry or Paul’s Exultation in Preaching, 1911; Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, 1896; Selden, In the Time of Paul, 1900; Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 1912; Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul4, 1880; Speer, The Man Paul, 1900; Stalker, Life of Paul, 1889; Taylor, Paul the Missionary, 1882; Underhill, Divine Legation of Paul, 1889; Weinel, Paul (translation, 1906); Whyte, The Apostle Paul, 1903; Wilkinson, Epic of Saul, 1891, Epic of Paul, 1897; Wrede, Paulus(2), 1907 (translation); Wright, Cities of Paul, 1907; Wynne, Fragmentary Records of Jesus of Nazareth by a Contemporary, 1887.
(5) Teaching:
A.B.D. Alexander, The Ethics of Paul, 1910; S.A. Alexander, Christianity of Paul, 1899; Anonymous, The Fifth Gospel, 1906; R. Allen, Christelegy of Paul, 1912; M. Arnold, Paul and Protestantism, 1897; Ball, Paul and the Roman Law, 1901; Breitenstein, Jesus et Paul, 1908; Bruce, Paul’s Conception of Christianity, 1898; Bruckner, Die Entstehung der Paulinischen Christologie, 1903; Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulin. Predigt und die kyn. Diatribe, 1910; Chadwick, Social Teaching of Paul, 1907, Pastoral Teaching of Paul, 1907; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, 1909; Dickie, Culture of the Spiritual Life, 1905; Dickson, Paul’s Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, 1883; Du Bose, Gospel according to Paul, 1907; Dykes, Gospel according to Paul, 1888; Everett, Gospel of Paul, 1893; Feine, Paul as Theologian (translation, 1908); Greenough, Mind of Christ in Paul; Goguel, L’Apotre Paul et Jesus Christ, 1904; Harford, The Gospel according to Paul, 1912; Hicks, “St. Paul and Hellenism,” Stud. Bibl., IV; Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus, 1898; Julicher, Paulus und Jesus, 1907; Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus, 1906; Kennedy, Paul’s Conceptions of Last Things, 1904; Knowling, Testimony of Paul to Christ (3rd edition, 1911); A. Meyer, Jesus or Paul? 1909; Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism, 1910; Montet, Essai sur la christologie de Saint Paul, 1906; Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, 1905; Oehler, Paulus und Jesus, 1908; Paterson, The Pauline Theology, 1903; Pfleidercr, Paulinismus, 1873, Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity, 1885; Prat, La theologie de Saint Paul, 1907; Ramsay, The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day, 1913; Resch, Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu, 1904; Rostron, The Christology of Paul, 1912; Simon, Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus, 1897; Somerville, Paul’s Conception of Christ, 1897; Stevens, The Pauline Theology, 1894; Thackeray, Relation of Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 1900; J. Weiss, Paul and Jesus, 1909; Paul and Justification, 1913; Williams, A Plea for a Reconstruction of Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, 1912; Wustmann, Jesus und Paulus, 1907; Zahn, Das Gesetz Gottes nach der Lehre des Apostels Paulus(2), 1892.
Written by A. T. Robertson
*Through the Courtesy of The Blue Letter Bible
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
LikeLike
July 22, 2016 at 9:46 am
Frank, you have too much free time on your hands. Go read a book about evolution.
LikeLike
July 22, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Bob,
Nice & easy does it; I’ll get to it. Meanwhile, if you find the time check out Paul, the Apostle, 5: V. Work. 9. Five Years a Prisoner: in post # 125. Unless of course you don’t want to jump ahead in the narrative. I recommend it to M. Perri too.
LikeLike
July 22, 2016 at 2:28 pm
MP:
For someone who follows Jesus I give example of two of your Posts that references the name of Jesus compared to references of your Nemesis:
MP POST # 96 – Times names are referenced: Jesus 7; Paul 28……….
MP Post # 113 – Times names are referenced: Jesus 2; Paul 15………..
This reminds me of the Republican Campaign that references the name of Candidate Hillary in speeches 4 times as often as Candidate Trump…………
In fact Republicans tell us everything they are against ad infinitum but tell us nothing they are FOR, except that they are FOR everything they are against. That’s what they are for, they are FOR everything they are against, only. That’s all we know. What kind of Platform is that to promote?
The only thing about Jesus you mentioned is what he said about the greatest commandment which is a two part commandment, companion to each other, not separate. There is no First Commandment and no Second Commandment because the second part can only follow from the first part and the the first part can only be followed from the first; they are mutually inclusive, necessarily. You cannot have one without the other. Therefore if you have the first part you will have the second part and if you demonstrate the second part you are demonstrating the first part. They are not mutually exclusive, they are mutually inclusive.
Luke 10:25 One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”
27 The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“And” is a conjunction: the action or an instance of two or more events or things occurring at the same point in time or space. “And” – presents non-contrasting item(s) or idea(s)
LikeLike
July 22, 2016 at 3:08 pm
Frank Adamick,
I am devoting my time to READ THE BIBLE as you have exhorted.
My emphasis is on the beginning and middle of the Old Testament, Genesis, the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms,
and
the biographies of Jesus by the 4 Gospel writers Matthew Mark Luke & John- the beginning and the end of the New Testament, approximately half of the New Testament material.
I don’t have so much time for Paul’s autobiography, or Luke’s biography of Paul, or someone else’s analysis of these biographies, which you cut and pasted above without any interaction……
I exhort you to do that same – READ THE GOSPELS and listen to the voice of Jesus – not the voice of someone else talking about the voice and actions of PAAL.
LikeLike
July 22, 2016 at 5:24 pm
Matthew Perri:
You do not know Jesus as well as you think you do and here’s why.
When religious scholars questioned the mission of Jesus in the same way you question Paul’s appointment; namely, by what authority or by whose appointment Jesus acted and said and did what he was led to do, how did Jesus answer them?
In your case you keep railing against Paul and your constant is: “Who appointed Paul an Apostle of Jesus? NO ONE!”
This is how Jesus answered the religious scholars of his day 2000 years ago: the same answer applies to your demand about Paul’s appointment to Apostleship.
I don’t think you recall the story or just skimmed over it in your zeal about Paul otherwise you would not be asking the same question about Paul as the religious scholars asked about Jesus but the answer is the same for you.
So here is the story and I hope you have enough insight and humility to accept the parallel.
Jesus was back in the Temple, teaching. The high priests and leaders of the people came up and demanded, “Show us your credentials. Who authorized you to teach here?”
Jesus responded, “First let me ask you a question. You answer my question and I’ll answer yours. About the baptism of John—who authorized it: heaven or humans?”
They were on the spot and knew it. They pulled back into a huddle and whispered, “If we say ‘heaven,’ he’ll ask us why we didn’t believe him; if we say ‘humans,’ we’re up against it with the people because they all hold John up as a prophet.” They decided to concede that round to Jesus. “We don’t know,” they answered.
Jesus said, “Then neither will I answer your question.
So you see Matthew, the question, who appointed John as Baptizer…NO ONE!. and Jesus’ answer to the religious scholars, is a no brainer parallel to your question about Paul’s Authority to practice his Apostleship………….
………….because John’s commission to be the Baptizer came from the same place that Jesus’ commission to be the Son Of God and the same place Paul’s commission to be an Apostle…..ABOVE, from Heaven, not from humans not from any man.
Paul did not need an appointment from any man to assume the role of Apostleship to speak on behalf of Jesus anymore than I need an appointment from men to speak on behalf of Jesus and I respectfully submit that you yourself did not receive any appointment from any man to speak against Paul…so from where then does your authority to present yourself as an authority to speak against Paul, without an appointment from any man?
Like Jesus says, if the religious scholars 2000 years ago did not know from where John the Baptist received his authority ( actually they were caught between a rock and a hard place and did not want to admit to the logic Jesus tripped them up on) Jesus accordingly, refused to tell them by what authority he taught the people since they refused to answer Jesus question about who authorized the Baptism of Jesus’ cousin John.
And I further submit that you cannot avoid the reasoning of Jesus either because what he said parallels your demanding of Paul, who appointed him. NO ONE!
I rest Jesus’ case.
LikeLike
July 23, 2016 at 2:04 pm
In response to post # 94.:
1 Corinthians 12
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills.
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as He chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
And I will show you a still more excellent way.
1 Corinthians 13
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,1 but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 6:41 am
“And I will show you a still more excellent way. ….”
So for you, Paul’s teachings in his special “love chapter” are “a still more excellent way. ” ??
Poem – What is love?
Two men came to Jesus
With different motivations.
They asked Him the same question
Relevant to all the nations:
Which is the Most Important?
The answer was the same.
Jesus did not manipulate
He was not there to play a game.
“Love the Lord your God” said Jesus
as He quoted from The Law –
to fulfill and not abolish
was His purpose, full of awe.
Jesus did not make all Scripture
Into one new great commandment.
He summarized The Law and Prophets
“First and Greatest” and “The Second.”
The Love of God is higher
Than the love of any man.
Receive from God, give back to God-
Then to others, that’s His plan.
The Love of God involves much more
Than simply “love your fellow man.”
Worship, trust, and pray to God,
and obey Him – that’s His plan
To worship and pray to neighbors,
Whoever they may be,
Or trust and obey our enemies
Would be idolatry.
The love of God is first and greatest,
And the love of man is second.
“All we need is love” are words
of dead Beetles on the pavement.
“The entire law is summed up in a single command”
are not the words of Jesus our Salvation.
It’s false teaching of Paul the Pharisee
an “accuser of our brethren.”
“Love” without God is Satan’s word through Paul
in his chapter to the Corinthians.
“I will show you the most excellent way”
is the road to eternal perdition.
Where is God in Paul’s chapter on love?
Nowhere in view of the eye.
Paul sings about himself like a Mexican Mariachi
“I, I, I, I.”
Jesus is The Most Excellent Way
Not the words of a Pharisee.
The words of Jesus are very clear.
Jesus said, “You must follow ME.”
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 7:05 am
Continuing post # 132.:
Many have said that the Church is not Israel and Israel is not the Church. Why? And is that understanding correct? If it is not, then what impact does that have regarding the law of God?
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 7:23 am
Matthew Perri:
As you question the authority of certain people………………
Do you follow Jesus? hen listen if you have ears, understand if you have eyes:
“Jesus’ Authority Challenged
Matt 21…24 “I will also ask you one question,” Jesus replied, “and if you answer Me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 What was the source ofJohn’s baptism? Was it from heaven or from men?”
Now you know about Paul’s authority……according to Jesus……
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 7:25 am
MP
Why avoid the obvious?
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 8:42 am
From Posts #13 through #117 above,
I’ve carefully stated facts, answered questions, explained points, and documented them with plenty of Scripture backup.
(before the flood of cut-and-pasted spam of someone’s opinions about the Paul the Pharisee.)
In many cases, other posters are not admitting the truth, or making any attempt to interact with the text of Scripture. They just post their own opinions, or the opinions of others, make silly baseless personal attacks, ignore the answers I’ve already given to their questions, and repeat the same questions again…..
They are not following Jesus of the Gospels.
They are “following the PAALS as their fathers taught them”……
Matthew chapter 13
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56725
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 10:20 am
Matthew Perri:
If John in Revelation was talking about Paul this scripture you cite would not be written in the plural as follows, don’t you think?:
“And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars”
It seems to me that it would have more likely than not been written in the singular if it was merely talking about Paul, such as:
“And you have tested he who says he is an apostle and is not, and have found him a liar”.
Sounds logical to me, how about you?
Jesus did not write Revelation it was John. Jesus had already left the area from Bethany long, long before Revelation was written, he left after the crucifixion about 40 days after healing from the crucifixion wounds.
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 12:11 pm
LeoTheGreater,
True.
Jesus did not write ANYTHING – not Revelation nor anything else.
True.
Jesus was not “merely talking about Paul”,
not ONLY about Paul.
But if you consider the New Testament text, as I partially documented, how involved Paul was in Ephesus, for how long, and Paul’s (false) claims about himself as an apostle to the Ephesians (and to others), it’s clear the Paul would have been near the top of Jesus’ list – probably number 1 – for men who claimed to be apostles but were not…..
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 12:45 pm
1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. 4 Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.
How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. 7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.
13 Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3:1-18)
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 1:17 pm
Speaking of the “conduct” of the Church in Corinth…..
Evangelicals view Paul as the perfect pastor, a model of maturity and an example to follow. Most pastors are trying to “be like Paul’ and succeeding.
Paul does use a lot of ink in his letters defending his behavior and justifying himself, claiming he did not trick or exploit people, etc.
Regarding a charge that was made against him, Paul responded:
“Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who sit in judgment of me…” [1 Corinthians 9:1-3]
Here Paul is arguing for “relative truth.” It may not be true for others, but it’s true for you!!! As I’ve noted, (and no one in the world has refuted this,) Paul was never appointed an Apostle by anyone, and never recognized individually as an apostle by anyone in the New Testament except himself.
There is more New Testament text written specifically to – and about – the Church in Corinth than to any other church, even more than Jerusalem. 29 chapters, and also we have Luke’s account of the church’s founding in Acts.
We have more specific details about Corinth than any other church. It was anything BUT a model of maturity and a good example to follow. It was infamous for being extremely unhealthy, with deep serious long-term problems. This is a failure of leadership.
So let’s ask ourselves, when Paul wrote his two letters to the church in Corinth, who was in charge of the church?
Rather than
.1) drawing a blank and saying “what?”
.2) saying “we don’t know enough.”
.3) shifting the blame and saying “no one was qualified”
.4) denying responsibility and saying “it doesn’t matter”
Why don’t we go face to face with the text of Acts and Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians? Authority and Rights are paired with Obligations and Responsibility in healthy churches. For example, as Paul wrote to others, “an overseer must be hospitable.”
Could Paul be “hospitable” years after he abandoned the church in Corinth, and was teaching full-time at his own school hundreds of miles away in Ephesus?
Some would argue that Paul was never a true follower of Jesus. I understand their thinking, but I can’t prove that. So I must simply conclude that Paul was an extremely carnal (but gifted) follower of God, like Samson, Jonah, or King Solomon, who was wrong about many points of doctrine, was greedy, selfish, abusive, deceitful, dishonest, made things up, etc.
Jesus said to the Apostle Peter “get behind me Satan” but I don’t question Peter’s salvation. I think at times Paul was bound in spirit by Satan, but not necessarily all the time. And certainly, Paul didn’t know everything, and didn’t have “the complete revelation” even if he apparently THOUGHT he did.
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 2:12 pm
Matthew Perri:
Two important points are worth noting because of your failure to acknowledge either……..
1. My Post 131 about how Jesus handled the question about someone’s appointment. “By whose authority do you do?” When Jesus authority was questioned by the religious scholars and his reply using John the Baptist as an example of what authority is needed to fulfill a mission.
2. In Revelation 2: 1-3 The messages to the Seven Churches, The Church of Corinth is conspicuous by its absence. John did not seem to think there was anything particularly important to message to the Church of Corinth as you do. Why?
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 2:39 pm
Every man’s way is right in his own eyes,
But the LORD weighs the hearts. (Proverbs 21:2)
Does Acts 15 teach that we are not to still obey the Law of God as written by Moses, or just that we can not be saved by observing the law? To answer this, we need to know the debate and the groups involved. You may have always been told what to believe about Acts 15, now…let’s test it.
Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. (Proverbs 30:5)
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 3:10 pm
A conspiracist may suggest that Paul’s conversion to Damascus was made up and that Paul remained a persecutor of the early Christians going from Overt to Covert, under cover, a Trojan Horse at it was, traveling throughout the land seeking the Apostles in order to “finger” them to the Authorities. One particular sentence stands out that goes like this:
[ “Christianity is no longer a religion under the shelter of Judaism. It is now a crime to be a Christian. IT IS DANGEROUS TO BE SEEN WITH PAUL NOW, AND HE FEELS THE DESERTION KEENLY (2Timothy 1:15ff; 4:10). Only Luke, the beloved physician, is with Paul (2Timothy 4:11), and such faithful ones as live in Rome still in hiding (2Timothy 4:21) ]
Think of it in terms of all the early Apostles and how all of them with the possible exception of John were martyred AND PAUL SEEMED TO BE ASSOCIATION as the above sentence suggest.:
BARTHOLOMEW
There is a non-Biblical document called the “Martyrdom of Bartholomew,” which claims that Bartholomew was martyred by King Astyages in Armedia:
Bartholomew was one of the Twelve Apostles and is mentioned in the Bible’s New Testament, in Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; and Acts 1:13.
JAMES SON OF ALPHAEUS
James son of Alphaeus, according to Foxs’ Book of Martyrs, was beaten, stoned and clubbed to death.
ANDREW
Andrew might have been martyred in Achaia or Patrae, both of which are places in the western part of Greece. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “It is generally agreed that he was crucified by order of the Roman Governor, Aegeas or Aegeates, at Patrae in Achaia, and that he was bound, not nailed, to the cross, in order to prolong his sufferings. His martyrdom took place during the reign of Nero, on 30 November, A.D. 60); and both the Latin and Greek Churches keep 30 November as his feast.”
PETER
It is believed that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome during the 60s.
JUDAS
Judas Iscariot was not a martyr. He killed himself after betraying Jesus.
JOHN
John is believed to have died of natural causes, and he might have been the only Apostle to have done so.
THOMAS
Thomas was killed with a spear, according to Foxs’ Book of Martyrs: “Called Didymus, preached the Gospel in Parthia and India, where exciting the rage of the pagan priests, he was martyred by being thrust through with a spear.”
JAMES SON OF ZEBEDEE
The martyrdom of James son of Zebedee is recorded in the New Testament of the Bible, in Acts 12:1-2. He was executed, with a sword, by order of King Herod Agrippa I in the year 44 AD:
It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. – Acts 12:1-2.
We also learn in Acts, chapter 12, that King Herod Agrippa I also imprisoned Peter for a while.
PHILIP
Philip was crucified, according to Foxs’ Book of Martyrs: “He labored diligently in Upper Asia, and suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into prison, and afterwards crucified, A.D. 54.”
MATTHEW
Matthew was killed with a spear, according to Foxs’ Book of Martyrs: “The scene of his labors was Parthia, and Ethiopia, in which latter country he suffered martyrdom, being slain with a halberd in the city of Nadabah, A.D. 60.”
THADDEUS (JUDE)
Jude was crucified, according to Foxs’ Book of Martyrs: “The brother of James, was commonly called Thaddeus. He was crucified at Edessa, A.D. 72.”
SIMON
Simon was crucified, according to Foxs’ Book of Martyrs: “Surnamed Zelotes, preached the Gospel in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, in which latter country he was crucified, A.D. 74.”
And of Course STEPHEN
Acts 22:…19 ‘Lord,’ I answered, ‘they know very well that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in You. 20v And when the blood of Your witness Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’
Could this be the Overt / Covert Paul operating?
QUESTION: How did the apostle Paul die? When was apostle Paul’s death? Did he die in Rome?
ANSWER: The Bible does not tell us the exact time or manner of the apostle Paul’s death, and secular history has yet to provide us with any definitive information. However, evidence highly suggests the apostle Paul’s death occurred after his fifth missionary journey ended in 67 A.D. Paul was likely beheaded by the Romans, under Emperor Nero, sometime around May or June of 68 A.D. Nero himself died by suicide on June 9th of the same year.
Christian tradition also has Paul being beheaded in Rome around the mid 60s A.D. during the reign of Nero. Most Bible dictionaries and some commentaries can give us details on the traditions surrounding Paul’s death.
“Concerning the time, place, and manner of his death, we have little certainty. It is commonly believed that, when a general persecution was raised against the Christians by Nero, about A.D. 64, under pretense that they had set Rome on fire, both St. Paul and St. Peter then sealed the truth with their blood; the latter being crucified with his head downward; the former being beheaded, either in A.D. 64 or 65, and buried in the Via Ostiensis.
EUSEBIUS, Hist, Eccles. lib. ii. cap. 25, intimates that the tombs of these two apostles, with their inscriptions, were extant in his time; and quotes as his authority a holy man of the name of Caius, who wrote against the sect of the Cataphrygians, who has asserted this, as from his personal knowledge. See Eusebius, by Reading, vol. i. p. 83; and see Dr. Lardner, in his life of this apostle, who examines this account with his usual perspicuity and candor.
“Other writers have been more particular concerning his death: they say that it was not by the command of Nero that he was martyred, but by that of the prefects of the city, Nero being then absent; that he was beheaded at Aquae Salviae, about three miles from Rome, on February 22; that he could not be crucified, as Peter was, because he was a freeman of the city of Rome.
“But there is great uncertainty on these subjects, so that we cannot positively rely on any account that even the ancients have transmitted to us concerning the death of this apostle; and much less on the accounts given by the moderns; and least of all on those which are to be found in the Martyrologists. Whether Paul ever returned after this to Rome has not yet been satisfactorily proved. It is probable that he did, and suffered death there, as stated above; but still we have no certainty” (Commentary on the Bible by Adam Clarke, commenting on Acts 28:31).
The following excerpt is from The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, First Edition, article “Paul the Apostle.”
“When Paul writes again to Timothy he has had a winter in prison, and has suffered greatly from the cold and does not wish to spend another winter in the Mamertine (probably) prison (2Timothy 4:13, 21). We do not know what the charges now are. They may have been connected with the burning of Rome. There were plenty of informers eager to win favor with Nero. Proof was not now necessary.
“Christianity is no longer a religion under the shelter of Judaism. It is now a crime to be a Christian. It is dangerous to be seen with Paul now, and he feels the desertion keenly (2Timothy 1:15ff; 4:10). Only Luke, the beloved physician, is with Paul (2Timothy 4:11), and such faithful ones as live in Rome still in hiding (2Timothy 4:21).
“Paul hopes that Timothy may come and bring Mark also (2Timothy 4:11). Apparently Timothy did come and was put into prison (Hebrews 13:23). Paul is not afraid. He knows that he will die. He has escaped the mouth of the lion (2Timothy 4:17), but he will die (2Timothy 4:18). The Lord Jesus stood by him, perhaps in visible presence (2Timothy 4:17).
How long was the Apostle Paul in prison?
“The tradition is, for now Paul fails us, that Paul, as a Roman citizen, was beheaded on the Ostian Road just outside of Rome. Nero died June, 68 A.D., so that Paul was executed before that date, perhaps in the late spring of that year (or 67). Perhaps Luke and Timothy were with him. It is fitting, as Findlay suggests, to let Paul’s words in 2Timothy 4:6-8 serve for his own epitaph. He was ready to go to be with Jesus, as he had long wished to be (Philippians 1:23)”
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 7:11 pm
LeoTheGreater
The issue in question was NOT “what authority is needed to fulfill a mission.”
The issue was, what is an “apostle,” and whose voice gets to decide that –
.1) Jesus and the Apostles Jesus appointed, or
.2) Paul. (and other men influenced by Paul.)
Revelation is about the 7 Churches of ASIA.
Corinth is not in Asia, it’s in Europe.
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 7:49 pm
Frank Adamick,
Every man’s way is right in his own eyes,
But the LORD weighs the hearts. (Proverbs 21:2)
Amen.
What would you say to a boastful travelling teacher, who wrote to a church that his young assistant would come and do pulpit supply for a while, and
“remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.” and “I urge you to imitate me.” ?
This is not hypothetical case, it really happened.
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 7:55 pm
Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. (Proverbs 30:5)
Amen.
We take refuge in God – not in PAAL or PAAL’s words.
Paul is not God and Paul’s words are not the word God. Jesus never said they were. Neither did Peter or any other New Testament author, other than Paul in his inconsistent claims about his own words.
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 8:29 pm
Matthew:
You said QUOTE:
“Who appointed Paul an apostle, when?
No one. Never.”
Jesus said:
Who appointed John to be the Baptist, when?
No one. Never
You conveniently miss the point of Jesus …………when somebody assumes the mission to which he is called: Apostleship or Baptism, they do not need an appointment from anybody other that the spirit by which they are led. They don’t need special authority
Jesus said: What was the source of John’s baptism? Was it from heaven or from men?”
Jesus could just as easily have said of Paul
Who appointed Paul’s Apostleship, when?
No one. Never
Why are you conveniently rejecting Jesus parallelism with your own question about Paul.
Because you reject Jesus when he disagrees with you?
Who appointed you prosecutor of Paul, when?
No one. Never.
Did you need special authority or special appointment from Jesus, from anybody. IT seems you took that role upon yourself in your Seminary studies.
Jesus speaking: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
Jesus was spirit self appointed,
Mohammed was spirit self appointed,
John the Baptist was spirit self appointed
Paul was spirit self appointed,
You are spirit self appointed
I am spirit self appointed
Yet no man is an island but a bundle of experiences, thoughts, influences of education; mind, emotion, will; body, soul and spirit………………..
LikeLike
July 24, 2016 at 8:51 pm
Matthew:
You said QUOTE:
“Who appointed Paul an apostle, when?
No one. Never.”
Jesus said:
Who appointed John to be the Baptist, when?
No one. Never
You conveniently miss the point of Jesus …………when somebody assumes the mission to which he is called: Apostleship or Baptism, they do not need an appointment from anybody other that the spirit by which they are led. They don’t need special authority.
After the conversion of Paul the Apostle, he claimed the title of “Apostle to the Gentiles”.
Jesus said: What was the source of John’s baptism? Was it from heaven or from men?”
Jesus could just as easily have said of Paul
Who appointed Paul’s Apostleship, when?
No one. Never
Why are you conveniently rejecting Jesus parallelism with your own question about Paul?
Because you reject Jesus when he disagrees with you?
Who appointed you prosecutor of Paul, when?
No one. Never.
Did you need special authority or special appointment from Jesus, from anybody. IT seems you took that role upon yourself during your Seminary studies.
Jesus speaking: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
Jesus was spirit self appointed,
Mohammed was spirit self appointed,
John the Baptist was spirit self appointed
Paul was spirit self appointed,
You are spirit self appointed
I am spirit self appointed
Yet no man is an island but a bundle of experiences, thoughts, influences of education; mind, emotion, will; body, soul and spirit………………..
Matthew. It is not my intention to offend you so please understand that you are going way off base in your obstinacy about Paul’s ministry. If Paul has no appeal to you then simply leave it alone and concentrate on what is the really important message…Jesus for example. Can you be as effective a messenger FOR Jesus as you are a messenger AGAINST Paul? Maybe you are mimicking Donald Trump who tells everybody what he is against rather than what he is for.
Maybe you can identify with this saying of Jesus about approval of others such as wanting or needing or waiting for somebody to applaud you and make appointments. That’s man’s way, man’s ego demands worship and approval and groveling, kissing rings and the like.
Jesus said:
How can believers do what is right, know what is right, hear what I say, when they constantly look to each other for approval and are not concerned about the true approval that comes from the authority within of which I said, “the Kingdom is within you”. And where does the Father reside? In the Kingdom! Therefore The Father and I are one. Where do you fit?
Luke 6:26 ”There’s trouble ahead when you live only for the approval of others, saying what flatters them, doing what indulges them. Popularity contests are not truth contests—look how many scoundrel preachers were approved by your ancestors! Your task is to be true, not popular. 😕
John 5:41-44 ”I’m not interested in crowd approval. Because I know you and your crowds. I know that love, especially the Father’s love, is not on your working agenda. I came with the authority of my Father, and you either dismiss me or avoid me. If another came, acting self-important, you would welcome him with open arms. How do you expect to get anywhere with the Father when you spend all your time jockeying for position with each other, ranking your rivals and ignoring the Father?
John 12:42-43 On the other hand, a considerable number from the ranks of the leaders did believe. But because of the Pharisees, they didn’t come out in the open with it. They were afraid of getting kicked out of the meeting place. When push came to shove they cared more for human approval than for the Father’s glory.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 6:28 am
LeoTheGreater,
You quoted Jesus (from The Message I think)
“I came with the authority of my Father, and you either dismiss me or avoid me. If another came, acting self-important, you would welcome him with open arms.”
In the first paragraph of the first comment here (Comment #1)
You said QUOTE: “….I am not under the law….”
You are quoting PAUL. “…I myself and not under the law…” [1 Corinthians 9:20]
Paul was “acting self-important” and you are following Paul’s example.
In my NIV Bible, it lists where words are located, and how many times:
Apostle 21
Apostles 57
Apostles’ 5
Apostleship 2
Apostolic 1
This a fact about the text. Can you tell me, within all those, how many times did Jesus or the Apostles Jesus appointed and trained for over 3 years use these words in connection with Paul?
You can look – but I can’t waif for ever. The answer is ZERO. Never.
Jesus and the Apostles Jesus appointed have one unanimous opinion about what an “apostle” is, which I carefully laid out above.
But,
You don’t want to listen to them – you think Paul was an apostle simply and only because “Paul said so.” You listen to PAAL and ignore the voice of Jesus, so PAAL is your “god”.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 6:39 am
1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead—2 and all the brothers who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by His grace, 16 was pleased to reveal His Son to me, in order that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me. (Galatians 1:1-24)
Was Paul a people pleaser, trying to be all things to all people, and that is his reason for following and teaching and practicing Torah? That is what some teach to try to explain away the instances in which Paul clearly taught and followed the Law of God. Is that different than the Law of Christ? Is the law of God a ministry of death? Let’s test these things to Scripture.
We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, (2 Corinthians 10:5)
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 7:00 am
M. Perri,
You wrote, “In my NIV Bible, …”. Try expanding your horizons somewhat or you’ll remain in the bosom of the likes of Westcott & Hort.
https://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_08a.asp
– Frank
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 7:12 am
Continuing post # 152.:
There is something very wrong with the hundreds of modern versions released over the past century. God only wrote one book. He only wrote one Bible. Why do we have so many different Bible versions which contradict each other today? Why are there whole verses missing from the modern versions? Why do the modern Bibles attack the deity of Christ, His virgin birth and the doctrine of salvation through faith alone? Why does Satan try hard to attack the King James Bible? Is it all happening by mere coincidence? Satan hates the word of God and is working hard to convince the masses that all the Bibles are the same. He is succeeding, because modern Bibles are becoming increasingly popular as we head towards what the Bible calls the end of the world. This documentary by Paul Wittenberger and Steven L Anderson, sheds light at the Bible version issue, and shows that the King James Bible is the perfect, inerrant word of God preserved for us today in the English language.
I do recognize that there are versions of The Bible in English other than the KJV such as the NASB and the ESV which serve well in enabling us to apprehend Holy Scripture but as this video makes clear there do exist some versions that simply are abominations.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 7:55 am
Matthew Perri:
When I say I am not under the law I am quoting from my own logic; I am not quoting Paul.
I give a simple analogy of why that is. Take the “driving without wearing a seatbelt law” There are lots of people who do not want to wear a seatbelt while driving and will take every opportunity not to do so. Those people are under the law because they will be charged and fined for not doing so if the authority catches them driving a vehicle unbuckled.
Now in my case I know that the right thing to do is to wear a seatbelt, not because it is the law, I wore the seatbelt before it became Law because of righteousness not because of the Law because the Law did not apply to me. Get it? and so I do not drive a vehicle, ever, without wearing a seatbelt support. Now the reason I am not under the law is because I am doing what is right AND which is referred to biblically as being under “grace”. Now I know you will jump to the one you follow because you have his words seared into memory but Ill quo9te somebody else for the benefit of others:
John 1: 12………..as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God……………. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
Matthew do you seriously think that because I said: “Matthew Perri is right to insist that Christians define themselves by the words of Jesus rather than from the interpretations of his words by the preachers who followed after him……….” that you are my God? And that I follow you? Of course not!
If I agree with something Paul said, does that make Paul my God? Of course not!
But you don’t see it that way. Anybody who agrees with anything Paul says, you declare that person’s God is Paul.
How smart is that?
I have asked you to define God for me before a few times because you throw the word around so nonchalantly I can’t help but think you don’t know the definition or you can’t describe the definition and I believe that you can’t define God because you don’t know anything apart from the one you follow, Paul.
When Jesus talks about the God the Father what God is he talking about?
When Paul talks about God what God is Paul talking about?
When you talk about God what God are you talking about?
When I talk about God what God am I talking about?
When I talk about God I am talking about the same God Jesus is talking about but you are not because you can’t define the God that Jesus was talking about; you just don’t know. I submit You don’t even know what God you are talking about because you can’t even describe or define the God you are talking about. To merely say your God is the same God of Jesus is meaningless because not only do you not know the God of Jesus, you don’t know Jesus. In fact you don’t even know Paul but you follow him like a tail wagging the dog
Oh you think you know God but it is Paul you think about and obsess about, and that’s because Paul is your God. He makes you speak of him all the time and you follow him because he is the God that dictates your thoughts. He makes you angry, he makes you laugh derisively, he makes you write poetry and humorous sketches; you are enthralled with Paul, your God, but can’t admit what your words obviously convey in constant communication capturing your mindset day in and day out. And then you try to make everybody else out to be followers of your God Paul when you are the only one incessantly enraptured by Paul. In my University studies you would be classed as a perfect example of Projection: Here it is for you and (psychology is not my God because of the following quote by the way) Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.
Paul is your idol Perri. Paul is your God and that’s okay because you are as false as you claim Paul is, but really Matthew….come on..none of us just fell off the turnip truck. Jesus says a tree is known by its fruit and what is your fruit Matthew?
Here I’ll give you a hint from Jesus:
Luke 6
A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit and a man is known by his words:
43 “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
Out of the abundance of his heart Matthew, his mouth speaks.
Out of the abundance of your heart Mr Perri does your heart speak because out of your heart your God Paul speaks…….. over and over and over………….
You can no more define God than you can define Jesus or define any person on this board who has tried to interact with you but you would not, so now you will be left to trampled among your own thorns and bramble bushes with the God of your heart Paul. Good luck to both of you, just remember luck will not cut it with Jesus or the God of Jesus I’m afraid, so don’t worry about defining God in case you are getting a little hot around the collar; I know you cannot and you will not and you have amply demonstrated in the record but if you prove me wrong by attempting to define an Entity you know not, that’s ok too, I won’t hold it against you.
What else is there to say? Not much else, I’m afraid, you have successfully alienated everyone on this board as a follower of the God you follow, Paul, so you are on your own with your poems and fictitious sketches…hey you could become…………oh never mind, you have enough pipe dreams of your own Mr Perri. Take care and have a nice eternity rambling about Paul.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 8:58 am
Frank Adamick
You asked QUOTE:
“Was Paul a people pleaser, trying to be all things to all people.”… ??
YES – in Paul’s own words, yes.
1 Corinthians 9:22
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 9:03 am
Frank Adamick
You wrote QUOTE:
“God only wrote one book. He only wrote one Bible.”
No, God did not write ANY books. And God did not give us “The Bible” as “one book.” Jesus did not even see the “Old Testament” as “one book”. He saw an order of priority in 3 sections.
The Law of Moses
The Prophets
The Writings
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 9:22 am
LeoTheGreater
You wrote QUOTE:
“When I say I am not under the law I am quoting from my own logic; I am not quoting Paul.”
Those are Paul’s words, and no one else in the pages of the Bible ever said such a thing. So even though you are not CONSCIOUSLY quoting Paul, you have been brainwashed by Paul’s teaching. Your “own logic” has it’s source in Paul’s false teaching.
Paul said that Jesus “abolished the law” and “did away with it.” Jesus said “I did not come to abolish” it.
But, you can’t hear the voice of Jesus – because you can only hear the voice of PAAL.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 10:06 am
Frank Adamick,
You wrote that you don’t like my “NIV Bible, …”.
and you exhorted me to “Try expanding your horizons somewhat …”
You mentioned
“versions of The Bible in English other than the KJV such as the NASB and the ESV which serve well in enabling us to apprehend Holy Scripture ”
Great – lets compare and contrast.
NIV vs your choice – KJV, NASB, or ESV
In the NIV Bible, this is how many times the following words appear:
Apostle 21
Apostles 57
Apostles’ 5
Apostleship 2
Apostolic 1
What are the statistics on these words on YOUR choice?
This then will be a comparison of facts in particular texts – not opinions.
If there are differences, we can look at those…..
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 10:52 am
Matthew Perri:
The Beginning:
OMG! MP in a nutshell
1. You practiced psychological projection unconsciously until I told you; now, you practice psychological projection CONSCIOUSLY, because after I made it known to you, you choose to continue the projection.
2. You quote one verse from the bible and you think that makes you a follower of Jesus. I’m afraid not.
3. Jesus was not under the Law because he always wore his righteous seatbelt.
4. You say Jesus did not come to abolish the Law. BUT you do not say the reason Jesus did come? Let’s hear it.
5. I AM sick and tired and bored with your accusations and obsessive demon-stration idolizing your God.
Grammar lesson:
6. Jesus did not come TO abolish the law; Jesus came AND abolished the Law, pure and simple and to establish a “New Law”….(Oh my what was that I wonder, better ask your God)…..AND that’s not all Jesus came to accomplish…..( but you’ll never know )……..
7. He came also to shut up religious whackos like you and expose you for the charlatan deceiver you show yourself to be. “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” Looking for splinters with a log in your eye.
8. Now we rest: “For the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, he who accuses them day and night before our God. They have conquered him ……..by the Lamb and by the word of their testimony.”
9. “But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
The End
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 11:30 am
FRANK:
I NOTE THE LATEST WORTHLESS TRIPE: A CHALLENGE OF WORD COUNT TO DETERMINE THE BEST BIBLE. Ludicrous or what:
Reminds me of Jesus comment:
“to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, 17 and saying:
‘We played the flute for you,
And you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’
There is no single correct way to translate the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Bible manuscripts into English. The grammar, structure, and style of those languages are very different from English, and a literal word-for-word translation is impossible. Therefore, the number of times a particular word appears is usually different for each version of the Bible.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 1:53 pm
Lots of talk here of following Paul and not Jesus….Paul actually addressed this issue in his epistle to the Corinthians.
1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
1Co 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
So how is what Paul preached different than what Jesus preached regarding the new covenant ? I don’t see what the problem is….
Naz
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 2:12 pm
Naz:
Where have you been?
Actually Perri has injected his obsession about Paul into the conversation so that everybody quoting the New testament outside the four books of the gospels about Jesus shows they are followers of Paul and not followers of Jesus. Apparently if you quote anything Paul said renders you a follower of Paul and therefore ipso facto he who is quoted becomes your God according to Perri.
Perri obviously is suffering a delusional episode which places him on the cusp of a nervous breakdown and I would suggest if anybody knows Perri they get in touch with the mental health authorities in the area to mitigate his psychological profile.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 2:42 pm
Leo, I’ve been on vacation, thanks for asking.
I see what you’re saying about Perri…..does he really think that or are you taking him out of context ? Maybe he just wants to stay true to Jesus’ words, like these ones ..
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
Jesus is praying for those that would believe on him through the apostles word. Although Paul did not know Jesus at this time, Jesus was speaking of a time when His apostles would have the unction from the Spirit to speak the Word of God which happened after Pentecost. This same unction is seen in Paul’s writings. So to believe on Jesus through the preaching of the apostles is actually an answer to Jesus’ prayer to the Father.
Believers in Christ are unified in the Spirit, which is based on the message of Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the dead. We are not unified by the written word, but the spirit of the written word. There is a big difference. If we throw out the apostles writings then we miss the unique ministry of the Spirit that was given to the apostles to help us understand the grace of God and salvation through epistles such as Romans and Ephesians etc… In fact, Jesus never wrote anything but was quoted by His disciples, so by definition you would have to throw out the 4 gospels too !
As you can see, this line of thinking is badly flawed.
Naz
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 2:58 pm
Naz
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
“Their word” is the word of the 11 Apostles in the room with Jesus at the Last Supper. Three of these men were directly authors – Matthew John and Peter. It seems obvious that some of these men were the sources for Mark in writing his Gospel, and secondarily Luke’s Gospel too.
“Their word” does not refer to Paul’s words, or “The Bible” or “All Scripture”. and as I’ve proved, Paul was not an “apostle” in anyone’s mind except his own.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 2:59 pm
ltg,
They say, “Music has charms to soothe the savage breast”. Maybe this will help him?
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 3:13 pm
OK Matthew, if I concede that those words of Jesus was not meant for Paul, what is it about Paul’s writings that contradicts Jesus’ teachings ?
Naz
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Naz,
You can start here – and there is plenty more in the next 100 posts or so….
How appropriate that a PAAL worshipper would quote from “Dead Beetles on the pavement…..”
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56667
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 3:27 pm
Good luck Naz;
your work is cut out for you. It won’t be long you willbe accused of being a follower of Paul and not of Jesus therefore you God is Paul hehehhahahhoohoh
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Matthew, I don’t have time to read the next 100 or so posts, but did not Paul preach Christ crucified and raised from the dead ?
I don’t think everything Paul ever did or say did was necessarily correct or even right, he’s just a man after all, but that doesn’t discount the message of Christ that he preached. It’s easy to pick and poke at these guys because they are just like us, flawed imperfect human beings. But you must look past that and look at the message he preached.
I’m not impressed by any man or marvel at any writer of scripture because I know that if there is anything there that is of lasting value it is from the Spirit of God and nobody else. Paul the man is the farthest thing from my mind when I read the words that he wrote, to me that is the most interesting thing about it which is the whole point of discerning what the Spirit is saying regardless of the writer. To me, there is no doubt that Paul was anointed to understand the deep truths of the grace of God and as Peter said, sometimes it’s difficult to even comprehend what he was saying.
Lastly there is no indication in the book of Acts that Paul was looked upon as a false apostle by the other apostles. Paul even had to rebuke Peter because Peter would not eat with the Gentiles, surely you would agree with Paul on that point would you not ?
Naxz
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 3:39 pm
A few signs of demon possession….
Denying the words of Jesus are true.
Attacking true followers of Jesus of the Gospels.
Taking God’s name in vain – repeatedly.
Using vulgar curse words (in full or abbreviated forms)
Crazy laughter……
Sounds like Dr. Jekyl – Leo and Mr. Hyde – The Greater….
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Naz,
You wrote to me earlier #19
and I responded directly and specifically, addressing your points, in #24, here
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56725
After you read that, and respond to that, I can see about answering more questions.
LikeLike
July 25, 2016 at 9:18 pm
Here’s where M. Perri gets his “theology”.:
http://www.problemswithpaul.com/Apostle_Paul.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 25, 2016 at 9:31 pm
Checkmate, Perri.
Additional Biblical evidence exists that shows, and reaffirms, Paul’s calling as an apostle. In Acts 13 the church in Syrian Antioch is told by God (The Holy Spirit) to “separate both Barnabas and Saul to Me for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2). The church soon lays hands on the two men and sends them out to evangelize (verses 3 – 4). After this event Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, labels both men as apostles (Acts 14:14).
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/was-paul-really-an-apostle.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 26, 2016 at 6:48 am
Matthew, I re-read post #24 and you are really coming down hard on Paul for some reason. Your little poem is a gross misrepresentation of Paul as you have taken many scriptures out of context.
Paul never thought himself to be without sin, nor did he think of himself better than anyone one else. I really think you have been derailed and distracted from the core message by your Paul witch hunt. I must say that I have never heard anyone talk about Paul in this manner in all the conversations and blogs I’ve participated in. Your view is truly unique and I don’t know how or who bewitched you into following this line of thinking because it’s totally off base.
I could take the same stance against Peter, and say, that man was a racist, he wouldn’t even eat with the Gentiles because he thought he was so self righteous. So because of that, I’m throwing out and ignoring all of Peter’s writings. I have more evidence to discount Peter than you have to discount Paul, if we want to strictly look at the man and their behavior.
I must ask again, what is it about Paul’s writings that so offend you ??
Naz
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 8:35 am
Naz and Frank Adamick,
For the last time,
Jesus was asked twice which Commandment is the greatest or most important one, (Matthew 22 and Mark 12)
Both times Jesus answered quoting the same two commandments, from the Law of Moses.
Jesus said that one of these two commandments is the first and greatest most important one. Which one is it? The one in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, or the one in Leviticus 19:18 ?
If we don’t agree on the most important question, it seems pointless to debate others…..
I’ve already addressed the questions and points you raise above. I’ve written dozens of posts, backed up with Scripture. If you “don’t have time” to scroll up and read them, and respond with specifics and Scripture backup, that is up to you.
You can respond as I have been doing, to facilitate respectful dialogue.
.1) You wrote QUOTE
X
.2) I say
Y
.3) Scripture passage
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 9:00 am
If I was betting man, I would surmise that the Mathew Perri is none other than Leo in disguise ?
Naz
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 12:01 pm
A few signs of demon possession….
Obsessive delusional commentaries about Paul……
Denouncing Jesus’ words that refutes the commentaries…..then claiming to follow him…..
Compulsive repetitive questions without understanding that the two Commandment questions are inseparable the one from the other and disobeying both…..
Compulsive Psychological Projection behavior.
Demonstrating direct disobedience to the New Commandments Jesus gave his followers:
John13:34:
Jesus said, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Matt 5:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 12:44 pm
Naz:
As always Naz, in love, it is my prayer that you will be drawn by the Father within you, nigh unto the real Jesus so that his words may offer you some comfort and release from a mindset in bondage and that he will help lift from your heart the mean-spiritedness you so dexterously and dispassionately dispense, cool as a cucumber at the drop of a hat.
Love and the Spirit Good.
Love is not a feeling..Love is a spirit that will make you feel good.
Love knows no boundaries, transcends all nations, speaks ievery tongue; is the dream of every man, woman and child…….
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up, does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity but rejoices in truth, bears all things, endures all things.
The fruit of the spirit of good is love, joy, peace, longsuffering (patience), kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control.
Against such there is no law and all laws are supplanted thereby.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 26, 2016 at 1:00 pm
“love” without God is Satan’s word – through PAAL and his followers today too.
He who has ears to hear the voice of The Good Shepherd, Jesus of the Gospels, let him hear….
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56667
Frank Adamick,
So who appointed Paul an apostle, when?
Based on what you said above, it wasn’t
the prophets and teachers in Antioch,
or the Holy Spirit,
or Luke.
So who was it, and when? Can you quote chapter and verse?
(I won’t hold my breath waiting…..)
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 1:37 pm
Leo, what did I say that was so mean spirited ?
I thought you might have been playing us disguised as Mathew Perri….I remember you going on about how we need to use Jesus’ words instead of Paul so I thought maybe Matthew Perri was one of your aliases to defend your anti-Paul scriptural view.
Tell me if I’m wrong…..
Naz
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Good work researching that website Frank.
I find it noteworthy that Perri wants people to quote chapter and verse about who appointed Paul, where and when but when asked the same question that Jesus asked regarding John’s Baptism …..who appointed John as “the Baptist”, he refused to answer because to acknowledge Jesus in this matter it would nullify his demand that Paul needed to be appointed by an authority. But it is the Christ Clear Comment by Jesus that if John was not appointed by anybody why would Perri refute Jesus and demand that Paul needed an appointment. HUH?
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 2:12 pm
Naz:
I may change names but my message is consistent. Comparing me to the flawed messages of Perri is the same as calling me a Devil’s Advocate and that Naz is a way of communicating not my style; it is insulting and mean-spirited.
In love I correct you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 26, 2016 at 3:07 pm
M. Perri,
15 But the Lord/YHWH said to him [Ananias], “Go, for he [Saul/Paul] is a chosen instrument of Mine to carry My name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. 16 For I [YHWH] will show him [Saul/Paul] how much he [Saul/Paul] must suffer for the sake of My name.” (Acts 9:15-16)
Like I said, checkmate.
– Frank
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 26, 2016 at 3:13 pm
Naz,
You are not wrong. You are right.
You make a valid observation of fact about the earlier posts on this particular thread above by “LeoTheGreater.” (compared to his later posts against Paul.)
#20
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56705
#31
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56786
It doesn’t sound like the same person to me either. Dr. Jekyl & Mr. Hyde?
I know nothing of “LeoTheGreater” other than what is posted above, starting at his comment #1. (Although I was reading and interacting with him for quite some time, I have not been reading his most recent comments- I don’t have time to entertain demons.) No, I’m not him.
All glory be to Jesus of the Gospels.
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 3:18 pm
Frank
All true followers of Jesus are “chosen instruments” and “beloved brothers”. So am I.
But there are only 12 Apostles, and Matthias is the 12th and final one – according to Jesus and the Apostles Jesus appointed.
LikeLike
July 26, 2016 at 4:00 pm
Perri:
Be man enough and,
Admit you’re ego has been checkmated, first by Jesus own words, that exposed your false commentary demanding Paul’s appointment by some authority other than the spirit that leads us, and secondly by Frank giving you chapter and verses.
Naz already explained my position about Paul over the past years but I can only guess why you conveniently twisted his words trying to denigrate me further than you are capable of doing yourself!
Looking for a proselyte?
You were for me (Post # 31) when I sided with you before you were against me but my agreement with you was not because of what you said but what I believe anyway as Naz rightfully pointed out about my being against Christians quoting everybody in the bible except Jesus to make their points and counter points.
But I, like Jesus, need not the approval of men(and that includes your approval) to speak truth about Jesus of which your knowledge of him is slim to none!
LikeLike
July 27, 2016 at 6:07 am
Frank Adamick,
Why don’t we finish our “chess game” about the question,
“Who appointed Paul an apostle, when” ?
It’s a very small board to play on anyway. We both agree we should READ THE BIBLE. But for this particular question, we can completely eliminate the Old Testament, the Gospels, and Paul’s letters, since Paul’s testimony about himself is not valid without another witness.
Your chess board is 2 feet square, and you are trying to cover it with a tablecloth that is only 1 foot square – Paul’s claims about himself. If you pull the tablecloth to one corner (like Acts 14) the other corners are exposed. (Acts 1, 6, 9, 13, 15). All you have is Acts, (AKA Acts of the Apostles) and Peter saying that Paul is a “beloved brother”, which applies to any follower of Jesus. So why not stop going around and around the table trying in vain to “cover for Paul”.
No one appointed Paul an apostle. Never.
Not Jesus speaking to Paul in Acts 9
Not Jesus speaking to Ananias in Acts 9
Not in Paul’s exaggerated testimony in Acts 22
Not in Paul’s fictional account in Acts 26
Not the prophets and teachers of Antioch in Acts 13
Not the Holy Spirit in Acts 13
Not Luke in Acts 14
Not Peter in 2 Peter 3
You believe Paul was appointed an apostle, and was “The Apostle to the Gentiles,” simply and ONLY because “Paul said so.” You are free to make that choice – but be honest and admit it.
Blessings following Jesus of the Gospels.
LikeLike
July 27, 2016 at 1:55 pm
M. Perri,
You can continue to slither and slide on the back of the hollow “theology” of
http://www.problemswithpaul.com/Apostle_Paul.html or you can do as the One you claim to be your Lord and Savior to be declares:
Luke 6
43 “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. 46 “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? 47 Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and does them, I will show you what he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.”
LikeLike
July 27, 2016 at 2:33 pm
Frank Adamick,
Jesus of the Gospels asks YOU if you will listen to HIS voice
– or to the voice of PAAL and PAAL’S hollow theology of “love without God”….
46 “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-57172
LikeLike
July 27, 2016 at 7:02 pm
M. Perri,
And He [Messiah Yahshua/Christ Jesus] has said to me [Paul], “My [Messiah Yahshua] grace is sufficient for you [Paul], for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I [Paul] will rather boast about my [Paul’s] weaknesses, so that the power of Christ/Messiah may dwell in me [Paul]. (2 Corinthians 12:9)
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Audio.details/ID/559/Countering-Presumptuousness.htm#top
May this teaching bless you,
– Frank
LikeLike
July 27, 2016 at 7:30 pm
Frank,
That is Paul talking about himself and what he claims Jesus said to him.
Maybe Jesus said it to Paul, maybe not. It doesn’t really matter that much. Jesus has spoken to me many times too – but I am not an apostle.
We know that almost everything Paul claimed Jesus said to him in Acts 26 is fiction, when we compare it with the facts recorded by Luke in Acts 9, and Paul’s contradictory testimony in Acts 22……
Thank you for the site
http://www.problemswithpaul.com/Apostle_Paul.html
Yes, I agree with most of what he said there – maybe 95% +
I already knew maybe 80% of that, but he saw a number of things I had not noticed, so I am always glad to learn new facts about topics that are important. Also I noticed some things he missed. We can all learn from each other.
Here’s another one that I mostly agree with.
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/56-marcionism.html
Can you quote something specific I’ve said, or from that site, that you think is wrong, and explain why, with Scripture backup?
LikeLike
July 27, 2016 at 11:16 pm
M. Perri,
Regarding the 1st par. of post # 191.:
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/was-paul-really-an-apostle.html
QUESTION: How could Paul be an apostle since he was NOT one of Jesus’ original twelve disciples?
ANSWER: Paul can rightfully be called an apostle because he fulfilled the same three basic requirements the specially-selected twelve original disciples met. After the death of Judas, the church (totaling about 120) met in Jerusalem to decide who among them would be uniquely qualified to replace him (Acts 1). Those to be considered for this awesome responsibility had to have been personally called by Christ, taught by him directly for several years, and seen him alive after his resurrection (Acts 1:17, 22, 25).
Saul of Tarsus, whose name would later be changed to Paul, was initially a zealous persecutor of those who believed Christ was the Messiah (Acts 9). While traveling to Damascus in 33 A.D., three years after Jesus was resurrected, he was was miraculously confronted by the Lord and brought to repentance (verses 3 to 6). While he stayed in Damascus, a believer named Ananias received a vision that revealed why Paul was called and chosen to ultimately take on the responsibility of an apostle.
15. But the Lord said to him (Ananias), “Go, for this man (Paul) is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel; 16. For I will show him what great things he must suffer for My name” (Acts 9:15 – 16, HBFV throughout)
After Paul was baptized in Damascus he began to powerful preach that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 9:20 – 22). Death threats from Jews living in the city, who rejected his message, drove him to flee to Arabia. During his three years of exile in Arabia he was personally taught by Jesus (Acts 9:20 – 25, Galatians 1:11 – 12, 15 – 18). At this point in his life he fulfilled the same basic criteria the original disciples did in regard to being considered an apostle.
Timeline of Jesus’ ministry after his resurrection!
Map showing all cities visited by the Apostle
Can ANYONE preach the gospel?
Additional evidence
Additional Biblical evidence exists that shows, and reaffirms, Paul’s calling as an apostle. In Acts 13 the church in Syrian Antioch is told by God to “separate both Barnabas and Saul to Me for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2). The church soon lays hands on the two men and sends them out to evangelize (verses 3 – 4). After this event Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, labels both men as apostles (Acts 14:14).
Paul himself, in many of his writings, asserts his right to be called an apostle (1 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 11:5, Galatians 1:1, Colossians 1:1, 1 Timothy 1:1, etc.). Defending his unique calling to the churches in the Roman province of Galatia he writes the following.
1. Paul, an apostle, not sent from men nor made by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father . . . 11. But I certify to you, brethren, that the gospel that was preached by me is not according to man; 12. Because neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it by man; rather, it was by the revelation of Jesus Christ . . . 15. But when it pleased God, Who selected me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace, 16. To reveal His own Son in me, in order that I might preach Him among the Gentiles . . . (Galatians 1:11 – 12, 15 – 16)
Flexible requirements
The word “apostle,” used eighty-one times in the New Testament, simply means “a delegate, an ambassador of the gospel, or one that is sent” (Strong’s Concordance #G652). Surprisingly, the Bible does not limit the use of this term to Jesus’ innermost twelve followers or even to the Paul. As stated previously, Barnabas was also given this designation by Luke (Acts 14:14). Paul, defending himself against those critical of his ministry, asserts to the Corinthians that both he and Barnabas have the same right to be financially supported as the other apostles (1 Corinthians 9). Barnabas was considered “one sent” by God to preach the gospel even though (as far as the Biblical record is concerned) Scripture does not state he was personally taught by Christ or saw him after his resurrection.
Regarding the 2nd par. of post # 191.:
You need to present what you’re claiming as definitive PROOF of your assertion. Vacuous declarations do NOT constitute factual evidence. Offering nebulous references to other chapters of The Bible as evidence proves illogical at best and duplicitous at worst. If you contend there are lies or misrepresentations in one portion of Scripture then how do you warranty veracity in other portions of The Bible to support your position?. The Bible is either God-breathed and INERRANT or it’s not. Otherwise you can just trash the whole package. Jesus/Yahshua Himself said, Scripture can’t be broken [John 10:35].
If you want to know what I think of Marcionism read this:
Click to access SEPOCT98.PDF
I can explain how I understand the relationship between faith & works by presenting you this:
What is grace… What is faith… What is obedience… And to make matters more complicated, how do they all relate to each other… Are they against each other like some teach, or do they work together in His perfect design… Instead of examining each component individually, this study investigates the relationships in detail as scripture teaches it. This study covers material that offers critical scriptural understanding that needs to be a part of every believer’s walk. DVD also available at TestEverything.net
and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. (John 5:27)
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 4:29 am
Frank Adamick
…”The word “apostle,” used eighty-one times in the New Testament,…..”
Used by WHOM?
The “New Testament” was not given to us by God as “one book.”
I’ve already laid it out for you above, if you have ears to listen – rather than just cutting and pasting some else’s ideas.
There are 2 opinions about what an “Apostle” is in the New Testament.
.1) Jesus and the Apostles Jesus appointed have one opinion.
.2) Paul has a different opinion.
The two exceptions which require some explanation are
Acts 14 and Hebrews 3.
That’s it. Biblically speaking either you believe Jesus and the Apostles Jesus appointed, or you believe Paul and people who follow Paul’s ideas. I’ve proved it above – if you have ears to listen.
I don’t accept Pau’s opinion, or your dictionary opinion, or your personal opinion – I accept the opinion of Jesus and the Apostles Jesus appointed personally, who knew Him personally and were witnesses of His entire ministry of 3+ years. (Paul was not.)
What is “grace”?
Jesus spoke of many things and used many words- but we can’t say definitively what “grace” means to Jesus, since we can’t say for sure that Jesus ever said that word.
If you look at the words of Jesus, the Red Letters penned by the Gospel writers Matthew Mark Luke John, including Acts and Revelation, Jesus Himself never used the word “grace.” Not one time.
Only Paul claimed Jesus personally told him something, once – and it’s a provable fact that Paul often lied and exaggerated.
OPEN THE GOSPELS. LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF JESUS.
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 4:35 am
Frank
You wrote QUOTE:
“The Bible is either God-breathed and INERRANT or it’s not.”
Please provide your Biblical basis for this assertion, and for the meaning of the terms “The Bible”, “God-breathed”, and “Inerrant.” (2 out of 3 terms are not in “The Bible.”)…..
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 5:24 am
M. Perri,
This will go nowhere unless and until you resolve your problem of presumptuousness. Return to post # 190 and learn from the attached teaching.
All the best,
– Frank
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 5:54 am
“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” (John 6:45)
https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1343/our-godbreathed-bible
https://bible.org/seriespage/6-bible-inerrant-word-god
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 6:32 am
Frank Adamick,
You won’t listen to the words of Jesus and think,
because you have been brainwashed through reciting your
“mantra” – “all scripture is God-breathed.”
This “Evangelical Mantra” has been accepted by the collective subconscious mind of “The Evangelical Church” without thought, question, reflection, or even 2 witnesses from the Scripture itself. It’s based on a misinterpretation, out of context, of one verse in one letter written by one man, Paul the Pharisee, who was unfamiliar with the personal ministry and teaching of Jesus.
But, “Once an idea has been accepted by your subconscious, it remains there and it governs your behavior until it is replaced or changed.” [ as a pastor named Bishop Dale C. Bronner observed in one of his sermons]
(Definition from the American Heritage Dictionary.) Mantra (noun) (Hinduism.) A sacred formula believed to embody the divinity invoked and to possess magical power, used in prayer and incantation.
When cult members repeat their mantra, it makes them deaf to the voice of God, unable to hear God. Instead, it puts their focus on their one “special man” above all others – his personality, words and teachings, character, life example, feelings, experience, intentions, mind, will, emotions, etc. Their cult leader is their hero – he is always right, could never be wrong about anything specific, and he must be obeyed in all things and never questioned. He will give himself a special title, write at least one special book, and claim special authority, with no need for a second witness to back him up.
Here are 3 examples.
.1) Fuhrer. The title of Adolf Hitler as the leader of the German Nazis, author of “Mein Kamph”. Mantra: “Heil Hitler.”
.2) The self-appointed Prophet Muhammad, author of The Koran. Mantra: …..”and Muhammad is his prophet.”
.3) Paul the Pharisee, the self-appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, whose 13 letters comprise one third of what, today, we call the “New Testament.” (The first, original “New Testament” was composed by the second century heretic Marcion, and he coined the term “New Testament.” His new “book” contained nothing except 10 of Paul’s letters and an abbreviated Gospel of Luke. There were no other “New Testament” books, and the Hebrew Scriptures were the “Old Testament” which was irrelevant, according to the heretic Marcion.) Mantra: “All Scripture is God-breathed….”
I got my Masters Degree at Dallas Theological Seminary. I was attracted to the school because they put Paul’s mantra of “All Scripture is God-breathed” above everything else, and I wanted to heed Paul’s command and “Preach the Word” like Paul….
This mantra is a misinterpretation out of context of 2 Timothy 3:16. It ignores the previous verse, 2 Timothy 3:15, which clearly indicates that Paul was NOT referring to his own letters when he wrote the words “All Scripture.”
Paul was probably making reference to some of the Hebrew Scriptures, quite likely including the Law and the Prophets. We cannot be completely certain exactly which “Scriptures” Paul meant in “All Scripture”, and what Paul meant by “God-breathed.” Why can’t we be certain?
Because we must establish a matter by the testimony of two or three witnesses, especially something as important as “What is the Word of God.” No one else in the pages of the Bible besides Paul ever said anything like “All Scripture is God-breathed”. And Paul only said it here, one time, in the middle of a personal letter.
The Apostle Peter made reference to “Prophecy of Scripture,” not “All Scripture,” and no it’s not the same thing at all. Jesus never said anything like that. And no one, not even Paul, ever said that all Scripture was equal.
I remember the general approach to the Bible at Dallas being that “every word in the 66 Books is the Word of God”….. and we should interpret it based on “the intended meaning of the author in the historical grammatical context.”
That is the basic idea of the heavy-duty seminary language we were being trained in. It sounds so right, so intelligent, so professional, so “godly”….. but it is fundamentally flawed.
When we look at Paul’s teachings and testimony about himself, (in his letters that make up 1/3 of the New Testament,) we should NOT immediately ask ourselves; “what did Paul say, what did Paul mean, and how does this apply to my life?” The fundamental question is NOT “what was in the mind of Paul?”
Before any of that, the FIRST question to ask is; “does Paul agree with Jesus, who came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets?”
Paul contradicted himself, and his teachings and testimony about himself don’t harmonize with the teachings of Jesus (or with Luke’s record of his life.) Let’s not waste our time with endless debates about “what Paul really meant” with his wacky teachings about “baptizing the dead” or “there is neither male nor female.” Paul was wrong. Jesus reminds us from The Law “at the beginning, the Creator made them male and female.” [Matthew 19:4, Genesis 1:27]
As to the question of “whether the Bible is ALL truly Gods WORDS”…
The underlying unspoken assumption is that “The Bible” (66 Books) was given to us by God as “one book” and it’s all “equal” in level of authority, priority, and importance. This comes from unconsciously believing Paul’s mantra, the “Evangelical Mantra”, that “All Scripture is God-breathed”, and falsely assuming Paul was referring to every word in the 66 Books of the Bible. Yet even here, not even Paul, not even once, ever said that “All Scripture is EQUAL” in authority, priority, and importance.
No one in the pages of the Bible ever said or wrote that “all Scripture,” or “the Bible,” is “all truly God’s words”. Jesus never said anything like that, and Jesus did not see it that way. Jesus did not see even the Hebrew Scriptures, what we call the “Old Testament”, as a whole unit or book that was all equal or “all truly God’s words.” Jesus spoke of The Law, or The Law and the Prophets, holding these 2 sections of the Old Testament above the third, least important sections the “Writings.” And Jesus held the Psalms, the first book of the “Writings” section, above the other books in the “Writings” section in importance, since some parts of some Psalms are prophetic.
Obviously, the New Testament Scriptures were not written when Jesus was walking the earth. But if we want to get closest to The Source, Jesus himself, it makes sense that we should look first to the eyewitness testimony of two of His appointed Apostles who walked with Him faithfully for over 3 years, Matthew & John. (Also to other eyewitness testimony, recorded by Mark and Luke.) This is more accurate, important, and authoritative than personal letters written by Paul the Pharisee, who never knew Jesus personally, had no part in His ministry, and had no eyewitness testimony.
We should follow the Jesus of the Gospel writers. We should not follow the “jesus” of Paul the Pharisee or Muhammad or any other man, who had their own ideas of who “jesus” was and what He did.
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 6:33 am
“What is “grace”?
Jesus spoke of many things and used many words- but we can’t say definitively what “grace” means to Jesus, since we can’t say for sure that Jesus ever said that word.”
Matthew, are you saying grace is a concept that is foreign to Jesus and foreign to the gospels ?
We believe in the gospel of grace. Without grace we have nothing but Law and we will all be condemned by the Law if that’s all we have. Do you agree ?
Naz
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 7:34 am
Naz
Before we talk about our opinions, can we agree about facts regarding the Bible text?
If you look at the words of Jesus, the Red Letters penned by the Gospel writers Matthew Mark Luke John, including Acts and Revelation, Jesus Himself never used the word “grace.” Not one time.
Do you agree?
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 8:39 am
Yes I agree, Jesus did not use the literal word “grace” in the Red Letters.
Do you agree that Jesus lived in a time when the old covenant was still in force ?
Do you agree that the new covenant started when Jesus died on the cross and not in Matthew 1:1 ?
Do you agree that the apostles, not including Paul, used the word grace ?
Do you agree there is a difference between the literal letters of the Word and the “spirit” of the Word ?
Naz
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 9:29 am
Secularism says, Hey you just made that up. And religion says no, this is what we call theology.
What’s the difference between a Doctor of Medicine and a Doctor of Theology? One prescribes drugs and the other may as well be on drugs. A theologian is somebody who is an expert in the unknowable. And has all the qualifications to prove it, a real specialist.
And this is why I think the question we should be asking is why theology is regarded as a branch of philosophy and not as a creative art? Because it is very creative. You can dress your god up in whatever set of the king’s new clothes you like and it must be great fun for all concerned. But personally I don’t see any more reason to teach it in universities than there is to teach astrology.
Now you see, we’re without excuse because the Lord Jesus deliberately chose to sanctify himself, so that we in him would know the truth whereby we too may be sanctified. Sanctify them through thy word, they word is truth; in other words, God’s word contains a principle; it’s a principle to live by. I don’t mean pretty little bible stories that you simply know, textually, so that you can tell the story of Daniel and the lion’s den; or, David and Goliath, but you see if you just memorize bible stories or for that matter memorize bible verses but you don’t understand the truth, the principle that God is communicating, then you might just as well recite three blind mice and this is the tragedy with countless evangelical, born again believers, they have a bible that they’ve come to know textually but they’ve never learned the truth!
If I were to come to your home and found you reading a book, and it’s my first visit to your home I probably wouldn’t be discourteous and ask you what the book you were reading. I’d just notice you were reading a book. And you’d look up maybe and engage in conversation. But next time I visit you, you’re still reading the same book. Maybe even on that occasion I don’t happen to mention it but I notice it’s the same book. And I come again and you’re still reading that book, and every time I come you’re still reading the same book; well finally, I’d pluck up enough courage and say that book must be very fascinating.
“Oh yes you see, I get up at six o’clock every morning; I get up and I read several chapters; as a matter of fact I’ve analyzed several chapters.”
“Well”, I’d say, “it must be very, very intriguing and….”
“Oh it is”, you’d say; “as a matter of fact I’ve set several verses to music, I bought a guitar and I sing it”.
“Well great”,
“As a matter of fact I’m training a choir”.
“Well fine. What is the book”?
“Why, it’s the manual on my new car. And you see, we’re going to sing at the next motor show”.
“Well great. Tell me about the car. Tremendous acceleration? Great braking power? Rides smoothly over all the bumps?”
“Uh uh”, you might say, “I really don’t know. Because you see it’s in the garage; I’ve never been for a ride”.
Well wouldn’t that be an exercise in stupidity? To analyze a book, read it every morning, sing it, set it to music, memorize it, and never go for a ride.
Sane Sermons Serving Simple Saints:
WHY GOD IS WITHIN YOU.
PART FOUR
CONVERSION:
There are countless converted men and women who can say I made my decision for Jesus. And now they read the bible, memorize some verses, set it to music, buy a guitar, train choirs but quite frankly, never been for a ride. This was like the Scribes and the Pharisees. The Lord Jesus said to them: “You search the scriptures.” In the original it’s the imperative. Or rather it’s a categorical statement of fact, not just the imperative. He didn’t say “search the scriptures”, he said, “You search the scriptures” because he knew they did. This was their stock in trade; this was their text book.
“You search the scriptures; in them you think you have eternal life.”
But there’s no eternal life to be found in the bible. Said the Lord Jesus:
“These scriptures are they that testify of me and you will not come to me that you might have life.” So you’ve got a bible you study and you flatter yourself on your biblical scholarship. You derive from it your theological and philosophical propositions but you examine that book without any revelation of the one who authored it and you fail to recognize the one of whom it testifies and because you will not come to me, that in me you might have that life that only I can give you, you’ve got a dead bible and a dead religion and it won’t be long before you have a dead Christ because you see if you study the bible long enough without coming to the one of whom it speaks you’ll crucify him. And then you’ll say,
“We buried him in our generation”.
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 9:40 am
THE TOTAL MAN.
Now how did the Lord Jesus present his body, soul and spirit to the Father. Two verses only, very quickly; make a note of it if you don’t turn to it. Hebrews 9:14; Christ who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God; how did the lord Jesus without spot, without blemish, totally unsullied, present his body, soul and spirit to the Father, thirty three years on earth, until he could cry,“finished”? Through the eternal spirit. Because he as god had created man to be inhabited by God through the holy spirit and the Lord Jesus had placed his humanity at his Father’s disposal through the indwelling presence of the one through whom the Father exercised in the son his divine jurisdiction. The Father through the holy spirit indwelling the human spirit of Jesus Christ was given total, unchallenged access to every area of his personality and the Father through the holy spirit could teach his mind, control his emotions, so direct his will so that he, the Father, in the son could govern his behavior and the Lord Jesus said, without him I can do nothing. Sanctified. So the Lord Jesus gave himself to the Father through the holy spirit, how did the Father give himself to the son? John 3: 34, make a note of it, John 3:34: let me write it for you. I like it from the Amplified New Testament, makes it very succinct, 34th verse 3rd chapter of John: “ Since he whom God has sent, the Lord Jesus, speaks the words of God; in other words, his lips make articulate what the Father as God wanted to say through the son. He, the son, proclaims God’s own message. God does not give him his spirit sparingly or by measure but boundless is the gift God makes to him of his holy spirit.
In other words, the Lord Jesus, presented his humanity to the Father, as God, through the holy spirit and the Father, as God, presented himself in deity to the son, as man, through the holy spirit. So the holy spirit is the third co-equal member of the triune Godhead through whom a man makes himself available to God and through whom God shares his deity with a man. Fantastic. Let me put it in a nutshell this way, “All there is of God is available to the man who is available to all there is of God.” For he that cometh to God must first believe that God IS and that being who he IS, he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. All there is of God is available to the man who is available to all there is of God. How available was the Lord Jesus, as man, to his Father, as God? Totally. How available was the Father, as God, to his son, as man? Totally. So there was total, mutual, inter-availability and if you want a definition of being filled with the holy spirit, that is it!
Mutual inter-availability. So that a man on earth, though he now doesn’t deserve it, but on the grounds of redemption having been created that way, re-invaded by deity makes himself in totality, available to the total availability of God. Has nothing to do with psychedelic experiences, going high, goggling your eyes or thumping chairs; it only has to do with your humanity, body, soul, spirit, mind, emotion and will being as available now to the Lord Jesus, as God in you, as he, as man was then available to his Father, as God in him, that’s all. That’s normality.
And because there was mutual inter-availability there was no margin of difference between what the Lord Jesus did as man and the Father did as God. No margin of difference between what the Lord Jesus said as man and the Father said as God. No margin of difference between what he was as man and the Father was as God except that God is invisible and the Lord Jesus in a physical visible humanity gave a physical, visible expression of an invisible self intimately identified with an invisible God so he could take God out into the open where he could be seen and that’s exactly why he made you and me. That’s normality.
And only when we recognize normality do we recognize the abnormality of a dirty human race that is nothing but a nasty caricature of what God intended man to be. Of course a pig living in a pigsty doesn’t know what it means to live in your sitting room. Wouldn’t feel at home; would feel beastly uncomfortable. If you tried to teach it manners and left the door open, at the first opportunity, it would streak across the fields and find the dirtiest mud puddle it can find and rolling over and over with its feet in the air and its face covered in a vast grin would say Home Sweet Home. Of course, pig is pig. And the unregenerate man has absolutely no appetite whatever for those things that God intended for a man in harmony with his maker.
Christ was normal.
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 9:50 am
Leo, I agree with you. If we merely have the bible then we have missed it, this is about Christ in us, the hope of glory.
Joh_14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Naz
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 10:15 am
Leo, I agree with you conceptually in your post #202.
Yes, the human race is a nasty caricature of what God intended and only those that are regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit can realize the true purpose God has for them.
Christ died and rose again so He could give us a new heart (regeneration) through the Spirit.
Joh 16:6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.
Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Titus 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Titus 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Titus 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Naz
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 10:16 am
Naz:
Thank you.
I submit that the new covenant of which you speak did not begin with the crucifixion(which you call Jesus death) but that is the Pharisaical philosophy because they continued to express the fact that the remission of sins could only be accomplished by spilling blood and that was false before and after Jesus and only applied to the Law since Moses and the offerings and sacrifices of sprinkled blood.
Hebrews in chapter 10 and look at the 5th and 7th verse.
“Hence when Christ entered into the world he said sacrifices and offerings you have not desired”; in other words, the pragmatic, externals of mere religion are not satisfying to you Father. It isn’t that a man goes once a week in a piece of real estate. Or simply undergoes as a matter of tradition and form certain sacraments. Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired but instead Father you have made ready a body for me to offer.”
Jesus expressed the New Covenant by his life, the way he lived, what he did and said and was by offering his body.
The Lord Jesus had placed his humanity at his Father’s disposal through the indwelling presence of the one through whom the Father exercised in the son his divine jurisdiction. The Father through the holy spirit indwelling the human spirit of Jesus Christ was given total, unchallenged access to every area of his personality and the Father through the holy spirit could teach his mind, control his emotions, so direct his will so that he, the Father, in the son could govern his behavior and the Lord Jesus said, without him I can do nothing. Sanctified. So the Lord Jesus gave himself to the Father through the holy spirit, how did the Father give himself to the son? John 3: 34, make a note of it, John 3:34: let me read it for you. I like it from the Amplified New Testament, makes it very succinct, 34th verse 3rd chapter of John: “ Since he whom God has sent, the Lord Jesus, speaks the words of God; in other words, his lips make articulate what the Father as God wanted to say through the son. He, the son, proclaims God’s own message. God does not give him his spirit sparingly or by measure but boundless is the gift God makes to him of his holy spirit.
In other words, the Lord Jesus, presented his humanity to the Father, as God, through the holy spirit and the Father, as God, presented himself in deity to the son, as man, through the holy spirit. So the holy spirit is the third co-equal member of the triune Godhead through whom a man makes himself available to God and through whom God shares his deity with a man. Fantastic. Let me put it in a nutshell this way, “All there is of God is available to the man who is available to all there is of God.”
For he that cometh to God must first believe that God IS and that being who he IS, he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. All there is of God is available to the man who is available to all there is of God. How available was the Lord Jesus, as man, to his Father, as God? Totally. How available was the Father, as God, to his son, as man? Totally. So there was total, mutual, inter-availability and if you want a definition of being filled with the holy spirit, that is it!
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 10:48 am
Naz
You wrote QUOTE:
“Do you agree that the apostles, not including Paul, used the word grace ?”
Paul was not an apostle – you are subtly “begging the question.”
But to the substance of your question,
Yes – IN THEIR EDITORIAL COMMENTS.
The 4 Gospels are biographies of Jesus. Although there are not strict rigid categories, and there is sometimes overlap and some ambiguity, generally you can see these texts as composed of
.1) the words of Jesus
.2) the actions of Jesus
.3) the actions and words of others
.4) The author’s editorial comments. (the “Epistles” are pretty much entirely editorial comments.)
I put the priorities of the New Testament texts that way, from top to bottom- words of Jesus on top, followed by His actions recorded by the Apostles & Gospel writers, with editorial comments on the bottom.
If you are talking about the voice of the Apostle Peter recorded by Luke in Acts 15, that would be lower in priority and authority than the words and actions of Jesus. And it was a short statement out of context which was part of a long discussion, recorded by Luke, Paul’s Gentile travelling companion, who was not an apostle either.
The words of Jesus, recorded by His appointed Apostles, are more important than words of the Apostles speaking for themselves, or than anyone else’s words.
Do you agree? It seems the Apostle Peter did. 2 Peter 3:2
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 10:52 am
Naz:
Obviously John knew what Grace was and Grace according to Jesus was righteousness and truth and letting the Father “Do it” because when you do and say and live what is right and proper without guile and deceit one is not under the “seatbelt” Law of Justice but under Grace that automatically belts up unto righteousness under God’s Justice…..in other words, under Grace!
John 1:16 From His fullness we have all received grace upon grace. 17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.…
Paul expounded further this concept when he wrote:
Ephesians 2:
2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 12:15 pm
Naz:
It is not at all surprising that just as John was divinely called (appointed) to Baptize and to introduce Jesus, others can be divinely called (appointed) to perform roles according how they are lead. As many as are lead by the spirit they are called the sons of God.
John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
When the religious scholars came to ask Jesus by what authority did he teach he told them he would answer if they answered his question which was “from where did John’s Baptism come from heaven or from men”? They refused to tell him because they were between a rock and a hard place so they said they did not know. Jesus told them that neither would he therefore tell them from where his authority came or his appointment, as some who do not listen to Jesus, demand of others. What man among us can judge, even dare to assume to judge, the Divine that operates within you.!
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 1:10 pm
Matthew, if the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write scripture then their words have equivalent weight to Jesus’ words since they would both be coming from the same source. So I do not segregate the apostles words and the literal words of Christ as you do. I see them as being unified by the Spirit of God which gives the unction and inspiration.
Another question for you, how would you summarize the message of Christ ? Would you say He gave us a new set of commandments for us to follow that is better than Moses or something else ?
In other words, how would you describe the gospel ? What is the gospel and how does it save me ?
Naz
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 1:14 pm
Leo, the death and sacrifice of Christ is central to the theme of Hebrews. You would have to do extensive mental gymnastics to disregard this plain fact.
The whole point of the book of Hebrews is to demonstrate how the one time offering of Christ as a sacrifice for sins is better than the OT repeated sacrifices of bulls and goats.
Sorry, but I can’t agree with you on this one.
Naz
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 3:56 pm
Naz – response to your 3 paragraphs in #209
.1) Why?
(You are basically “begging the question” and don’t give any Scriptural basis for it.)
.2) First and Greatest Most Important Commandment,
and the Second
in that order.
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/5541/#comment-56667
.3) I would say that The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus in the Gospels – who He was, what He taught, and what He did, recorded by faithful eyewitnesses who knew Him personally for 3+ years – The Apostles.
(It’s not simply a short summary statement of propositional truth written by a man who never new Jesus personally in the flesh – namely Paul.)
LikeLike
July 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm
Psalm 119
Your Word Is a Lamp to My Feet
Aleph
119 1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless,
who walk in the law of the Lord!
2 Blessed are those who keep his testimonies,
who seek him with their whole heart,
3 who also do no wrong,
but walk in his ways!
4 You have commanded your precepts
to be kept diligently.
5 Oh that my ways may be steadfast
in keeping your statutes!
6 Then I shall not be put to shame,
having my eyes fixed on all your commandments.
7 I will praise you with an upright heart,
when I learn your righteous rules.
8 I will keep your statutes;
do not utterly forsake me!
Beth
9 How can a young man keep his way pure?
By guarding it according to your word.
10 With my whole heart I seek you;
let me not wander from your commandments!
11 I have stored up your word in my heart,
that I might not sin against you.
12 Blessed are you, O Lord;
teach me your statutes!
13 With my lips I declare
all the rules of your mouth.
14 In the way of your testimonies I delight
as much as in all criches.
15 I will meditate on your precepts
and fix my eyes on your ways.
16 I will delight in your statutes;
I will not forget your word.
Gimel
17 Deal bountifully with your servant,
that I may live and keep your word.
18 Open my eyes, that I may behold
wondrous things out of your law.
19 I am a sojourner on the earth;
hide not your commandments from me!
20 My soul is consumed with longing
for your rules at all times.
21 You rebuke the insolent, accursed ones,
who wander from your commandments.
22 Take away from me scorn and contempt,
for I have kept your testimonies.
23 Even though princes sit plotting against me,
your servant will meditate on your statutes.
24 Your testimonies are my delight;
they are my counselors.
Daleth
25 My soul clings to the dust;
give me life according to your word!
26 When I told of my ways, you answered me;
teach me your statutes!
27 Make me understand the way of your precepts,
and I will meditate on your wondrous works.
28 My soul melts away for sorrow;
strengthen me according to your word!
29 Put false ways far from me
and graciously teach me your law!
30 I have chosen the way of faithfulness;
I set your rules before me.
31 I cling to your testimonies, O Lord;
let me not be put to shame!
32 I will run in the way of your commandments
when you enlarge my heart!
He
33 Teach me, O Lord, the way of your statutes;
and I will keep it to the end.
34 Give me understanding, that I may keep your law
and observe it with my whole heart.
35 Lead me in the path of your commandments,
for I delight in it.
36 Incline my heart to your testimonies,
and not to selfish gain!
37 Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things;
and give me life in your ways.
38 Confirm to your servant your promise,
that you may be feared.
39 Turn away the reproach that I dread,
for your rules are good.
40 Behold, I long for your precepts;
in your righteousness give me life!
Waw
41 Let your steadfast love come to me, O Lord,
your salvation according to your promise;
42 then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me,
for I trust in your word.
43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth,
for my hope is in your rules.
44 I will keep your law continually,
forever and ever,
45 and I shall walk in a wide place,
for I have sought your precepts.
46 I will also speak of your testimonies before kings
and shall not be put to shame,
47 for I find my delight in your commandments,
which I love.
48 I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love,
and I will meditate on your statutes.
Zayin
49 Remember your word to your servant,
in which you have made me hope.
50 This is my comfort in my affliction,
that your promise gives me life.
51 The insolent utterly deride me,
but I do not turn away from your law.
52 When I think of your rules from of old,
I take comfort, O Lord.
53 Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked,
who forsake your law.
54 Your statutes have been my songs
in the house of my sojourning.
55 I remember your name in the night, O Lord,
and keep your law.
56 This blessing has fallen to me,
that I have kept your precepts.
Heth
57 The Lord is my portion;
I promise to keep your words.
58 I entreat your favor with all my heart;
be gracious to me according to your promise.
59 When I think on my ways,
I turn my feet to your testimonies;
60 I hasten and do not delay
to keep your commandments.
61 Though the cords of the wicked ensnare me,
I do not forget your law.
62 At midnight I rise to praise you,
because of your righteous rules.
63 I am a companion of all who fear you,
of those who keep your precepts.
64 The earth, O Lord, is full of your steadfast love;
teach me your statutes!
Teth
65 You have dealt well with your servant,
O Lord, according to your word.
66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge,
for I believe in your commandments.
67 Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I keep your word.
68 You are good and do good;
teach me your statutes.
69 The insolent smear me with lies,
but with my whole heart I keep your precepts;
70 their heart is unfeeling like fat,
but I delight in your law.
71 It is good for me that I was afflicted,
that I might learn your statutes.
72 The law of your mouth is better to me
than thousands of gold and silver pieces.
Yodh
73 Your hands have made and fashioned me;
give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.
74 Those who fear you shall see me and rejoice,
because I have hoped in your word.
75 I know, O Lord, that your rules are righteous,
and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me.
76 Let your steadfast love comfort me
according to your promise to your servant.
77 Let your mercy come to me, that I may live;
for your law is my delight.
78 Let the insolent be put to shame,
because they have wronged me with falsehood;
as for me, I will meditate on your precepts.
79 Let those who fear you turn to me,
that they may know your testimonies.
80 May my heart be blameless in your statutes,
that I may not be put to shame!
Kaph
81 My soul alongs for your salvation;
I hope in your word.
82 My eyes long for your promise;
I ask, “When will you comfort me?”
83 For I have become like a wineskin in the smoke,
yet I have not forgotten your statutes.
84 How long must your servant endure?
When will you judge those who persecute me?
85 The insolent have dug pitfalls for me;
they do not live according to your law.
86 All your commandments are sure;
they persecute me with falsehood; help me!
87 They have almost made an end of me on earth,
but I have not forsaken your precepts.
88 In your steadfast love give me life,
that I may keep the testimonies of your mouth.
Lamedh
89 Forever, O Lord, your word
is firmly fixed in the heavens.
90 Your faithfulness endures to all generations;
you have established the earth, and it stands fast.
91 By your appointment they stand this day,
for all things are your servants.
92 If your law had not been my delight,
I would have perished in my affliction.
93 I will never forget your precepts,
for by them you have given me life.
94 I am yours; save me,
for I have sought your precepts.
95 The wicked lie in wait to destroy me,
but I consider your testimonies.
96 I have seen a limit to all perfection,
but your commandment is exceedingly broad.
Mem
97 Oh how I love your law!
It is my meditation all the day.
98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
for it is ever with me.
99 I have more understanding than all my teachers,
for your testimonies are my meditation.
100 I understand more than the aged,
for I keep your precepts.
101 I hold back my feet from every evil way,
in order to keep your word.
102 I do not turn aside from your rules,
for you have taught me.
103 How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 Through your precepts I get understanding;
therefore I hate every false way.
Nun
105 Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light to my path.
106 I have sworn an oath and confirmed it,
to keep your righteous rules.
107 I am severely afflicted;
give me life, O Lord, according to your word!
108 Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O Lord,
and teach me your rules.
109 I hold my life in my hand continually,
but I do not forget your law.
110 The wicked have laid a snare for me,
but I do not stray from your precepts.
111 Your testimonies are my heritage forever,
for they are the joy of my heart.
112 I incline my heart to perform your statutes
forever, to the end.
Samekh
113 I hate the double-minded,
but I love your law.
114 You are my hiding place and my shield;
I hope in your word.
115 Depart from me, you evildoers,
that I may keep the commandments of my God.
116 Uphold me according to your promise, that I may live,
and let me not be put to shame in my hope!
117 Hold me up, that I may be safe
and have regard for your statutes continually!
118 You spurn all who go astray from your statutes,
for their cunning is in vain.
119 All the wicked of the earth you discard like dross,
therefore I love your testimonies.
120 My flesh trembles for fear of you,
and I am afraid of your judgments.
Ayin
121 I have done what is just and right;
do not leave me to my oppressors.
122 Give your servant a pledge of good;
let not the insolent oppress me.
123 My eyes long for your salvation
and for the fulfillment of your righteous promise.
124 Deal with your servant according to your steadfast love,
and teach me your statutes.
125 I am your servant; give me understanding,
that I may know your testimonies!
126 It is time for the Lord to act,
for your law has been broken.
127 Therefore I love your commandments
above gold, above fine gold.
128 Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right;
I hate every false way.
Pe
129 Your testimonies are wonderful;
therefore my soul keeps them.
130 The unfolding of your words gives light;
it imparts understanding to the simple.
131 I open my mouth and pant,
because I long for your commandments.
132 Turn to me and be gracious to me,
as is your way with those who love your name.
133 Keep steady my steps according to your promise,
and let no iniquity get dominion over me.
134 Redeem me from man’s oppression,
that I may keep your precepts.
135 Make your face shine upon your servant,
and teach me your statutes.
136 My eyes shed streams of tears,
because people do not keep your law.
Tsadhe
137 Righteous are you, O Lord,
and right are your rules.
138 You have appointed your testimonies in righteousness
and in all faithfulness.
139 My zeal consumes me,
because my foes forget your words.
140 Your promise is well tried,
and your servant loves it.
141 I am small and despised,
yet I do not forget your precepts.
142 Your righteousness is righteous forever,
and your law is true.
143 Trouble and anguish have found me out,
but your commandments are my delight.
144 Your testimonies are righteous forever;
give me understanding that I may live.
Qoph
145 With my whole heart I cry; answer me, O Lord!
I will keep your statutes.
146 I call to you; save me,
that I may observe your testimonies.
147 I rise before dawn and cry for help;
I hope in your words.
148 My eyes are awake before the watches of the night,
that I may meditate on your promise.
149 Hear my voice according to your steadfast love;
O Lord, according to your justice give me life.
150 They draw near who persecute me with evil purpose;
they are far from your law.
151 But you are near, O Lord,
and all your commandments are true.
152 Long have I known from your testimonies
that you have founded them forever.
Resh
153 Look on my affliction and deliver me,
for I do not forget your law.
154 Plead my cause and redeem me;
give me life according to your promise!
155 Salvation is far from the wicked,
for they do not seek your statutes.
156 Great is your mercy, O Lord;
give me life according to your rules.
157 Many are my persecutors and my adversaries,
but I do not swerve from your testimonies.
158 I look at the faithless with disgust,
because they do not keep your commands.
159 Consider how I love your precepts!
Give me life according to your steadfast love.
160 The sum of your word is truth,
and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Sin and Shin
161 Princes persecute me without cause,
but my heart stands in awe of your words.
162 I rejoice at your word
like one who finds great spoil.
163 I hate and abhor falsehood,
but I love your law.
164 Seven times a day I praise you
for your righteous rules.
165 Great peace have those who love your law;
nothing can make them stumble.
166 I hope for your salvation, O Lord,
and I do your commandments.
167 My soul keeps your testimonies;
I love them exceedingly.
168 I keep your precepts and testimonies,
for all my ways are before you.
Taw
169 Let my acry come before you, O Lord;
give me understanding according to your word!
170 Let my plea come before you;
deliver me according to your word.
171 My lips will pour forth praise,
for you teach me your statutes.
172 My tongue will sing of your word,
for gall your commandments are right.
173 Let your hand be ready to help me,
for I have chosen your precepts.
174 I long for your salvation, O Lord,
and your law is my delight.
175 Let my soul live and praise you,
and let your rules help me.
176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant,
for I do not forget your commandments.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/grace.html
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 5:54 am
Frank Adamick,.
You have forgotten God’s commandments that Jesus spoke about..
Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and Leviticus 19:18 .
Which one of these two commandments is the most important one?
Frank, this verse applies to YOU.
176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant,
for I do not forget your commandments.
Jesus was asked twice which Commandment is the greatest or most important one, (Matthew 22 and Mark 12)
Both times Jesus answered quoting the same two commandments, from the Law of Moses.
Jesus said that one of these two commandments is the first and greatest most important one. Which one is it? The one in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, or the one in Leviticus 19:18 ?
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ [Mark 12:29-30, Deuteronomy 6:4-5]
Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.” [Matthew 22:37-38, Deuteronomy 6:5]
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 9:05 am
Mathew, thanks for your response.
The Holy Spirit is the One who inspired the prophets and new testament writers to pen the scriptures and reveal to us the understanding of God. There is plenty of scriptural support for this.
You said the gospel is the good news of Jesus and His life. What is good about it ? What is the good news ? You still didn’t really answer the question. What is the news flash all about ?
Naz
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 9:23 am
Naz
.1) “There is plenty of scriptural support for this. ”
So quote something specific, and lets discuss it. Chapter and verse.
.2) “What is the news flash all about ? ”
You are sort of “begging the question” in this case too – it’s NOT a “news flash.” It’s NOT a short statement of propositional truth written by Paul (or spoken by Jesus).
It’s like asking “what’s marriage? What’s the news flash?”
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 9:51 am
The deceitfulness of religion is repetitious ritualism; say it over and over enough and you will believe that a lie is the truth.
Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 10:42 am
Matthew, this is getting tiresome, if I cannot even use my own words to describe a thought then I’m not willing to continue this conversation. Your manner of conversation is very combative. Sorry, but I can’t continue.
Naz
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 11:03 am
PART ONE:
“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made homosexuals and heterosexuals, and that true humanity consists of male and female’
PART TWO:
‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? Both homosexual and heterosexual communities consist of male and female.
The ancient Patriarchal Law of Moses began to be abolished by Jesus two thousand years ago and continues today by modern civilizing secular forces leading to the Kingdom because “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into (three measures) about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.”
If God exists outside the humanity of mankind, I’d like to meet her.
The Law also says:
‘These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth:
The Hyrax.
The words “rabbit,” “hare,” or “coney” appear as terms for the hyrax in some English translations of the Bible. Early English translators had no knowledge of the hyrax (Hebrew שָּׁפָן shaphan),and therefore no name for them. There are references to hyraxes in the Old Testament (Lev 11:4-8; Deut 14:7; Ps 104:18; Prov 30:26) and notably Leviticus 11 in which they are described as lacking a split hoof and therefore being not kosher. It also incorrectly claims that the hyrax chews its cud. Some of the modern translations refer to them as rock badgers. ABOLISHED
The hare, the swine, their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you. ABOLISHED
But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, lobsters, crabs, oysters, clams, shrimp or shell fish of any kind, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. ABOLISHED
A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God. ABOLISHED
You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together. ABOLISHED
You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself. ABOLISHED
One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord. ABOLISHED
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; ABOLISHED
You shall not charge interest to your brother—interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest. ABOLISHED
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 12:26 pm
Like the spots on a leopard, a combative ego is unchangeable, only the target prey changes.
A Raven, which you know is black as coal, was envious of the Swan, because her feathers were as white as the purest snow. The foolish bird got the idea that if he lived like the Swan, swimming and diving all day long and eating the weeds and plants that grow in the water, his feathers would turn white like the Swan’s.
So he left his home in the woods and fields and flew down to live on the lakes and in the marshes. But though he washed and washed all day long, almost drowning himself at it, his feathers remained as black as ever. And as the water weeds he ate did not agree with him, he got thinner and thinner, and at last he died.
Moral
A change of habits will not alter nature.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 12:27 pm
““Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made homosexuals and heterosexuals,”
Leo, nice try, once again you re-write the scriptures to your own liking. By doing that you are being intellectually dishonest……
Mat 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,….
Naz
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 1:08 pm
Naz:
You’re so innocently naive. And I chose “innocently” to be gentle.
You have to know that in the homosexual community he made them male and female, spiritually and psychologically. In the gay community there is always one in the role of the male and one in the role of the female.(That is the model of male and female made he them) And in most cases gender is determined between your ears and corresponds what’s between your legs but not always, sometimes Nature (God) gets it wrong and this has always occurred since the days of the ancients when they had temple harlots and priest pimps. Deut 23:18, “You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.
The religious clerics, mind you, were the ones who hated gays, not God, for he made both and as Jesus pointed out in Matt 5:45-46; you, and we need to love everybody for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same?…be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.
You can’t really believe that the Lord God detests those humans he also made because they are different than you, do you? They are in the military, police force, hospital, first responders, they are all over the planet as Pride Parades around the world testify but religion has always marginalized others, it was religion that prevent women to vote up until ……….Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote and look at how far women have come since those dark days of patriarchal hierarchy.
Now ask yourself from where the homosexual community comes from the homosexual community or from the heterosexual community and don’t you believe that the gay community comes from the same source as straight people.
I am not rewriting scriptures but I am also not limited to the literal text words without understanding the context, the meaning and nuances text readers conveniently reject who seem to be hard wired to retain only what they want to retain to suit the dogma they have been brainwashed with.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Leo, the context is not sexual preference, the context is gender. This passage has nothing to do with sexual behavior. There are many other passages that clearly state homosexuality is sinful behavior.
Naz
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 1:27 pm
Guided by language of 5 or 10 thousand years ago or longer doesn’t prove your smart, that just exposes your ignorance and shows how your are brain dead and living in a past world of imaginative mythology ideas of Zeus and Poseidon, Neptune, Mars, Venus and the other planetary bodies in the solar systems.
The closest the world came to knowing about the real God of humans was when Jesus came and demonstrated that God was within man, not an external entity patrolling the galaxies looking to exterminate gays and non believers, that was not God that was self righteous religion telling you to wear, what to eat, what to do, when to do it, who to do it with, how to love by the Cleric Controllers of Mankind by fear and death.
Get your mind out of that ancient gutter where no man was safe from persecution for whatever reason that the clergy disliked in your behavior or for simply disobeying the clergy who ruled in Tyranny by the Laws he fashioned after his idea of what was right for the nation, the Donal Trumps, Hitlers and Nazis of antiquity. People who are too much like religion.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 1:30 pm
Frank and Naz:
Here’s a glimpse of future come……
This German author is a very interesting, forward thinking entrepreneur. You can Google him for more information. Definitely worth a peek and a read!
Into the future
By Udo Gollub at Messe Berlin, Germany
I just went to the Singularity University summit. Here are the key points I gathered.
Rise and Fall: In 1998, Kodak had 170,000 employees and sold 85% of all photo paper worldwide. Within just a few years, their business model disappeared and they were bankrupt. What happened to Kodak will happen in a lot of industries in the next 10 years – and most people don’t see it coming. Did you think in 1998 that 3 years later you would never take pictures on paper film again? Yet digital cameras were invented in 1975.
The first ones only had 10,000 pixels, but followed Moore’s law. So as with all exponential technologies, it was a disappointment for a long time, before it became superior and mainstream in only a few short years.
This will now happen with Artificial Intelligence, health, self-driving and electric cars, education, 3D printing, agriculture and jobs.
Welcome to the 4th Industrial Revolution. Welcome to the Exponential Age. Software and operating platforms will disrupt most traditional industries in the next 5-10 years. Uber is just a software tool. They don’t own any cars, but they are now the biggest taxi company in the world. Airbnb is the biggest hotel company in the world, although they don’t own any properties.
Artificial Intelligence: Computers become exponentially better in understanding the world. This year, a computer beat the best Go player in the world, 10 years earlier than expected. In the US, young lawyers already don’t get jobs. Because of IBM Watson, you can get legal advice, (so far for more or less basic stuff), within seconds. With 90% accuracy, compared with 70% accuracy when done by humans. So if you are studying law, stop immediately. There will be 90% fewer generalist lawyers in the future; only specialists will be needed.
‘Watson’ already helps nurses diagnose cancer, four times more accurately than doctors. Facebook now has pattern recognition software that can recognize faces better than humans. By 2030, computers will have become ‘more intelligent’ than humans.
Cars: In 2018, the first self driving cars will be offered to the public. Around 2020, the complete industry will start to be disrupted. You don’t want to own a car anymore. You will call a car on your phone; it will show up at your location and drive you to your destination. You will not need to park it, you only pay for the driven distance and you can be productive whilst driving. Our kids will never get a driver’s licence and will never own a car. It will change the cities, because we will need 90-95% fewer cars for our future needs. We can transform former parking spaces into parks. At present,1.2 million people die each year in car accidents worldwide. We now have one accident every 100,000 kms. With autonomous driving, that will drop to one accident in 10 million km. That will save a million lives each year.
Electric cars will become mainstream around and after 2020. Cities will be cleaner and much less noisy because all cars will run on electricity, which will become much cheaper. Most traditional car companies may become bankrupt by tacking the evolutionary approach and just building better cars; while tech companies (Tesla, Apple, Google) will take the revolutionary approach and build a computer on wheels. I spoke to a lot of engineers from Volkswagen and Audi. They are terrified of Tesla.
Insurance companies will have massive trouble, because without accidents, the insurance will become 100 times cheaper. Their car insurance business model will disappear.
Real estate values based on proximities to work-places, schools, etc. will change, because if you can work effectively from anywhere or be productive while you commute, people will move out of cities to live in more rural surroundings.
Solar energy production has been on an exponential curve for 30 years, but only now is having a big impact. Last year, more solar energy was installed worldwide than fossil. The price for solar will drop so much that almost all coal mining companies will be out of business by 2025.
Water for all: With cheap electricity comes cheap and abundant water. Desalination now only needs 2k Wh per cubic meter. We don’t have scarce water in most places; we only have scarce drinking water. Imagine what will be possible if everyone can have as much clean water as they want, for virtually no cost.
Health: The Tricorder X price will be announced this year – a medical device (called the “Tricorder” from Star Trek) that works with your phone, which takes your retina scan, your blood sample and your breath. It then analyses 54 bio markers that will identify nearly any diseases. It will be cheap, so in a few years, everyone on this planet will have access to world class, low cost, medicine.
3D printing: The price of the cheapest 3D printer came down from$18,000 to $400 within 10 years. In the same time, it became 100 times faster. All major shoe companies started printing 3D shoes. Spare airplane parts are already 3D-printed in remote airports. The space station now has a printer that eliminates the need for the large amount of spare parts they used to need in the past. At the end of this year, new smart phones will have 3D scanning possibilities. You can then 3D scan your feet and print your perfect shoe at home. In China, they have already 3D-printed a complete 6-story office building. By 2027, 10% of everything that’s being produced will be 3D-printed.
Business opportunities: If you think of a niche you want to enter, ask yourself: “in the future, do you think we will have that?” And if the answer is yes, then work on how you can make that happen sooner. If it doesn’t work via your phone, forget the idea. And any idea that was designed for success in the 20th century is probably doomed to fail in the 21st century.
Work: 70-80% of jobs will disappear in the next 20 years. There will be a lot of new jobs, but it is not clear that there will be enough new jobs in such a short time.
Agriculture: There will be a $100 agricultural robot in the future. Farmers in 3rd world countries can then become managers of their fields instead of working in them all day. Aeroponics will need much less water. The first veal produced in a petri dish is now available. It will be cheaper than cow-produced veal in 2018. Right now, 30% of all agricultural surfaces are used for rearing cattle. Imagine if we don’t need that space anymore. There are several start-ups which will bring insect protein to the market shortly. It contains more protein than meat. It will be labeled as “alternative protein source” (because most people still reject the idea of eating insects).
Apps: There is already an app called “moodies” which can tell the mood you are in. By 2020 there will be apps that can tell by your facial expressions if you are lying. Imagine a political debate where we know whether the participants are telling the truth and when not!
Currencies: Many currencies will be abandoned. Bitcoin will become mainstream this year and might even become the future default reserve currency.
Longevity: Right now, the average life span increases by 3 months per year. Four years ago, the life span was 79 years, now it is 80 years. The increase itself is increasing and by 2036, there will be more than a one-year increase per year. So we all might live for a long, long time, probably way beyond 100.
Education: The cheapest smartphones already sell at $10 in Africa and Asia. By 2020, 70% of all humans will own a smartphone. That means everyone will have much the same access to world class education. Every child can use Khan Academy for everything he needs to learn at schools in First World countries. Further afield, the software has been launched in Indonesia and will be released it in Arabic, Swahili and Chinese this summer. The English app will be offered free, so that children in Africa can become fluent in English within half a year.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 1:54 pm
Sin, primarily is the transgression of the Laws penned by men of religion..
And you are wrong about sexual preference….gender always determines sexual preference whether you are a man or a woman, with few exceptions as pointed out by Jesus, but what determines gender, hence sexual preference is determined by your brain gender. The Brain is the Base Commander of all human activity. If the internal brain gender expressed emotionally, spiritually, hormonally and psychologically is in sync with biological gender expressed externally, then that is the natural course of mammalian life.
On the other hand, if the internal gender differs from the external gender then you have conflict within the individual and when one cannot be what one is not born to be, this conflict transfers over to the general community who sees the conflict from a religious point of view as sinful, abominable, detestable or otherwise incompatible with normal society. Then you have marginalization, discrimination, violence, hate and for some fundamentalists, thinking they are doing a wonderful work for their God, justifies killing the minority.
Matt 19:11-12.…11 “Not everyone can accept this word,” Jesus answered, “but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Can you accept it? Jesus did and I do too. I am not so quick to denounce someone for sin because sin is mote the subjective preference of the accuser than the objective compassion Jesus taught us.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 1:56 pm
King James Bible
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 8:50 pm
In Matthew chapter 19, Jesus reminds us from the Law that God created us male and female.
And He reminds us that marriage was created as one man and one woman. The words on this subject in Genesis and Matthew say so much in such a short text, it’s a shame more people don’t stop to read them.
Jesus tells us what marriage IS.
He doesn’t make a list of what IS NOT. Because the list would be endless. No, God didn’t say you can’t marry a tree, or your computer – or a robot – but it would be insanity to do so. Two men cannot marry each other in the eyes of God.
LikeLike
July 29, 2016 at 9:57 pm
In the eyes of God which is the God within me, two men and two women can marry because they are the role models of male and female. Jesus never said that marriage was one man and one woman based on genitalia because genitalia does not determine gender, the brain determines gender as the brain determines everything the physical body experiences…..no where did Jesus differentiate between them other than the message about homosexuality as he noted about Eunuchs….
He said that marriage was when a man leaves his home and cleaves to his wife and the two become one flesh…that is marriage….when they cleave to each other and the two become one flesh…in a two men or two women relationship one is the role model man and one is the role model woman.
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 3:17 am
The god within YOU is Satan.
But, if a lie is repeated often enough, and people are too lazy to open their Bibles and listen to the voice of God in the Law, the Prophets, and Jesus in the Gospels, they start to believe it.
The people of God, the now church, is the BRIDE of Christ, (Isaiah 62, Jeremiah 2, Matthew Mark Luke John Revelation. )
(Not the body of Christ – that was PAAL’s false teaching, and no one agreed with him.)
If they don’t have ears to hear, the can’t hear the voice of God. But if they seek first the Kingdom of God, AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, they will find Him.
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 3:45 am
It’s so easy for the self righteous to cast stones at their adversaries day and night. In ignorance they display the wrath that only man-ego can muster while claiming to know the unknowable and try shoving it down the throats of others without an ounce of goodness within their heart, they project their evil ways.
That is, man without God; man without good.
Satan is not an entity in and of itself; Satan is the absence of Good in a man as demonstrated by combative behavior, flagrant ego, lies, false teachings and incessant accusations against truth for there is no truth in the accuser’s heart, only lies and condemnation.
This is what makes a bigot, a bigot; what makes a racist, a racist; what makes the self-righteous an abomination in the eyes of the Gods within mankind’s humanity.
In the hearts of good men there is no room for such ego is and they are cast out…………….
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 3:50 am
Only a blasphemer would say Jesus possessed a demon……John 8:…49 “I do not have a demon, Jesus replied, “but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me………….
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 5:25 am
Jesus said:
“At the beginning of creation God made them male and female. FOR THIS REASON a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
[Mark 10:6-8]
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 7:46 pm
ltg,
Re: post # 218.:
CONSISTENCY MATTERS –
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 7:53 pm
M. Perri,
You’re suffering from presumptuousness while you’re singing to the choir.
Published on Jul 19, 2016
Have you really heard the WHOLE gospel? What is the Gospel? There are many responses you will get if you randomly ask this question. The popular Christian definition of the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Then, there is the gospel of the kingdom which John the Baptist and Christ himself preached. Also the book of Revelation refers to the end-time preaching of the eternal gospel. And Paul speaks of the mystery of the gospel…which the majority today still do not understand…What are these gospels, and what are the similarities and differences between them? These and other questions will be answered in this study.
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 7:56 pm
M. Perri,
Published on Oct 23, 2013
Have you really heard the WHOLE gospel? What is the Gospel? There are many responses you will get if you randomly ask this question. The popular Christian definition of the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Then, there is the gospel of the kingdom which John the Baptist and Christ himself preached. Also the book of Revelation refers to the end-time preaching of the eternal gospel. What are these gospels, and what are the similarities and differences between them? And Paul speaks of the mystery of the gospel…which the majority today still do not understand…These and other questions will be answered in this study.
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 8:29 pm
ltg,
As to the issue of Scriptural Authority in the debate on about homosexuality:
http://www.robgagnon.net/homoAuthorityScripture.htm
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 8:34 pm
ltg,
Published on Jun 23, 2015
(2014) – Christian scholar Robert Gagnon (author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics) speaks on homosexual practices in context to the Bible. This video comes from the ‘Bible and Homosexual Practice’ Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 9:05 pm
ltg,
What do you think?
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 10:35 pm
Frank:
I have formulated my beliefs about homosexuality enough, so that what I do not do now, is follow a video trail of people discussing the question whether gays are born that way or not. Jesus and I are on the same page about gays.
If you want to discuss homosexuality you’ll have to do so in your own words and not post other peoples beliefs, ideas and biases. Even though you provide a library of books or videos I will not follow them, read them or watch them because I don’t care. I already know and I am unanimous in that.
LikeLike
July 30, 2016 at 10:56 pm
Frank:
You ask “what do you think”?
I have written extensively on the gay syndrome over the last few years so you should know exactly what I think, why I defend the gay community and their lifestyle as part of who they are, not as part of who I am or maybe even not part of who you are but that’s just the point, it is their business to exercise their humanity with anybody who practices a similar code and that does not affect me or make me quake or shiver or suffer in any way whatsoever as long as they do not harm or injure others and respect the life I must follow as I respect the life they must follow.
And one thing is absolutely certain, no ancient uneducated, religious theotard dictates to me who to kill and hate and abhor as they dictated to others on pain of death, ten thousand centuries ago and expect me to grovel to kiss their ring finger. This is now, and that was then, ……eras apart and not part of my perspective.
There is no supernatural that influences my behavior as far as I know and I like it that way. And I like the hours, 24/7.
LikeLike
July 31, 2016 at 11:43 am
ltg,
Here’s your personal challenge:
“Certainly to be included among Scripture’s core values are values that are held
1. pervasively throughout Scripture (at least implicitly),
2. absolutely (without exceptions), and . . .
3. strongly (as a matter of significance).
This applies all the more in instances where:
4. such values emerged in opposition to prevailing cultural trends and . . .
5. prevailed in the church for two millennia.
The limitation of acceptable sexual intercourse to sexually complementary partners and the strong abhorrence of same-sex intercourse is just such a value.
What is the bottom line here? It is this: If the authority of Scripture means anything, those who seek to overturn its core values must meet an extraordinary burden of proof. The evidence adduced must not only be so strong and unambiguous that it makes the strong and unambiguous witness of Scripture pale by comparison; it must also directly refute the reasons for the Bible’s position.”
* * * * *
The Authority of Scripture in the “Homosex” Debate
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
rgagnon@pts.edu
Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Note: This is an expanded version of a presentation made to the Southeastern ELCA synod in Atlanta on June 1, 2002.
I want to begin the discussion, first, by offering a “mainline view” of biblical authority, where due weight is given to Scripture’s core values; second, by discussing what the best analogies are to changing or retaining Scripture’s views on homosexual practice; third, by examining how Jesus himself understood the double love commandment; and, fourth, by examining Paul’s views on law and grace.
I. A Mainline View: Giving Due Weight to the Core Values of Scripture
It may be helpful to begin by saying something about how I come to Scripture. Some on both the right and the left of the homosexuality debate may be discomfited by the fact that I do not approach this sensitive subject as a biblical fundamentalist or inerrantist. I make full use of historical-critical methodology, see development and significant tensions within the canon, take account of metaphors and the imaginative power of stories, and recognize the necessity of interpreting texts anew in our contemporary context. This last named step of “translating” the Bible into our own day, of developing principles of interpretation for moving from “what it meant” to “what it means,” is called hermeneutics. I consider the hermeneutical aspect of the homosexuality debate so important that I devote a third of my book to it. One cannot rule out change, particularly when it involves going further than the biblical witness without radically contravening it. Women’s ordination is a case in point.
When all is said and done, however, Scripture must retain its status as the single most important authority for faith and practice. The great Reformers recognized the primacy of Scripture for the church. If that primacy counts for anything, certainly it counts for core values. The question then arises: what constitutes a core value?
Certainly to be included among Scripture’s core values are values that are held
1. pervasively throughout Scripture (at least implicitly),
2. absolutely (without exceptions), and . . .
3. strongly (as a matter of significance).
This applies all the more in instances where:
4. such values emerged in opposition to prevailing cultural trends and . . .
5. prevailed in the church for two millennia.
The limitation of acceptable sexual intercourse to sexually complementary partners and the strong abhorrence of same-sex intercourse is just such a value.
What is the bottom line here? It is this: If the authority of Scripture means anything, those who seek to overturn its core values must meet an extraordinary burden of proof. The evidence adduced must not only be so strong and unambiguous that it makes the strong and unambiguous witness of Scripture pale by comparison; it must also directly refute the reasons for the Bible’s position.
For example, it is not enough to prove that the primary expression of homosexuality in antiquity was an inherently exploitative form (pederasty or cult prostitution) or that modern science has demonstrated that homosexuality is primarily a genetic phenomenon—two dubious claims. One must also prove that the Bible condemned homosexual practice primarily on the grounds of the exploitative mismatch created by pederasty or on the grounds that homosexual behavior was a willfully chosen rejection of God’s design for sexuality. Otherwise, even if these claims were valid (and they are not), they would still have little relevance for ascertaining the deficiencies in the Bible’s reasons for condemning homosexual behavior. As it is, none of these points can be substantiated. There were non-exploitative models for same-sex intercourse in antiquity (by ancient standards) and the Bible’s critique of same-sex intercourse was not aimed primarily at typically exploitative features. Modern science has not demonstrated that homosexuality is a direct result of conditions present at birth and the notion of a partially innate character to homoerotic desires fits quite well with a number of ancient theories and Pauline perspectives on sin generally.
II. The Proper Use of Analogies
Yet are there not instances where we have deviated from Scripture’s stance, including the New Testament? The analogies usually cited are slavery, women’s roles, and divorce. As with any application of analogies, the key question is: what are the best analogies? There are significant points of difference between these alleged analogies and the Bible’s stance on homosexual practice.
As regards slavery and women’s roles:
There is tension within the canon itself on these issues; there is no scriptural tension on the question of homosexual behavior.
Moreover, the Bible’s stance on slavery and women’s roles looks fairly liberating in relation to the broader cultural contexts out of which the Bible emerged. The exact opposite is the case for the Bible’s stance on homosexual practice. Scripture is far less accommodating to homosexual practice than the surrounding cultures and remains so throughout the history of Judeo-Christian faith covered by the canon. The trajectory is entirely in the direction of countercultural disapproval of all homoerotic dimensions to human sexuality.
As for divorce:
Here too, while Scripture’s stance on same-sex intercourse is unequivocal, there is tension within Scripture on the question of divorce. The Old Testament permits divorce and both Matthew and Paul make exceptions to Jesus’ teachings.
Even more to the point, neither Scripture nor the contemporary church celebrates divorce as part of the glorious diversity of the body of Christ. Divorce and same-sex intercourse share in common the fact that both are forgivable sins for those who repent. The church works to end the cycle of divorce and remarriage, just as it ought to work towards the goal of ending the cycle of serial, unrepentant same-sex intercourse. Mainline denominations take a dim view of candidates for ordination who have had a string of divorces. Why, then, should they look the other way when a candidate for ordination not only has repeatedly engaged in same-sex intercourse in the past but also plans to continue such practice on a recurring basis? It is the serial and unrepentant character of much homosexual behavior that sets it apart from divorce issue.
I propose that the best analogies are those that most closely correlate with the distinctive elements of the Bible’s opposition to same-sex intercourse:
sexual behavior
proscribed by both Testaments and pervasively within each Testament (at least implicitly)
strongly and absolutely proscribed
with the proscription making sense
Here we would include among analogies the Bible’s stance against adultery, prostitution, incest, and bestiality—all forms of sexual behavior that the church continues to proscribe. Incest is a particularly strong analogue, not only because it elicits comparable revulsion in Scripture—actually less revulsion than for same-sex intercourse—but also because the reason for its proscription is comparable. Why is incest wrong, even when it is conducted between committed consenting adults? The Levitical proscriptions make clear why: first and foremost it is sex with the “flesh one’s own flesh” (Lev 18:6). A “one-flesh” union—that is, the establishment of kinship across blood lines—cannot be created between two people who are already of the same “flesh,” i.e., close blood relations. Incest is sex with someone who is too much of a “like” or “same” on the familial level. Similarly, same-sex intercourse is proscribed because it is sex with a non-complementary sexual “same” or “like.”
The weakness of a number of arguments commonly used to advocate homosexual unions becomes apparent when the same arguments are applied to incest.
As with male-male intercourse, incest is strongly proscribed in Levitical law, incurring the death penalty. We do not say: “Incest is just an outdated purity rule like some other legislation in Leviticus.” Nor do we say: “The fact that incest is regarded as a capital crime in Leviticus is reason enough to disregard altogether the Levitical stance against incest per se.” No, we recognize that in the dispensation of the new covenant, Paul (and undoubtedly Jesus) maintained rigorous opposition to incest. Paul did not apply the death penalty to incest, just as Jesus did not apply the death penalty prescribed by Mosaic law to the case of the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11. Yet both maintained that serial unrepentant sexual sin, including incest and adultery, could get one excluded from the kingdom of God and thrown into hell—a fate worse than capital punishment in this life (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9; 1 Thess 4:3-8; Eph 5:3-5; Matt 5:27-32). In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul argued that the incestuous man should be subject to the discipline of the church—here temporary exclusion from the life of the believing community—in the hope of saving his spirit on the day of judgment. Capital punishment for sexual immorality is deferred in the new covenant not because sexual immorality is regarded as a light matter but because a dead person cannot repent and so be saved for God’s coming eternal kingdom. Today there might be some quibbling over how much time to give a person an opportunity to repent before implementing church discipline, what form the discipline should take, and whether to apply it only to church officers or to members as well. But there would be little disagreement that the church should stand solidly against incestuous behavior, even in committed adult relationships. So the passage of two millennia does not significantly alter the contemporary church’s stance on this comparable core value in sexual ethics. Why then should we alter it for same-sex intercourse?
Cross-culturally we know that most people develop an early instinctive aversion to incest. But some do not. Who would choose to have incestuous desires if it were purely a matter of choice? How then can anyone with incestuous desires be held morally accountable for acting on them? Most recognize that such an argument carries little moral weight because, while people may not be responsible for possessing sinful desires, they are morally accountable for what they do with such desires. Yet pro-homosex apologists often argue for the acceptance of homosexual behavior from the involuntary quality of homosexual desire, without recognizing the illogic of the argument.
Even in the absence of scientifically measurable proof that incest harms all participants in all circumstances, we proscribe the phenomenon as a whole, regardless of whether the relationships are committed and caring. Why? Because we recognize that there is something developmentally wrong about someone wanting to have sex with someone who is too much of a same or like. The combination of (i) a strong scriptural stance against incest, (ii) the unnatural character of incest, and (iii) the disproportionately high rate of problems associated with it are sufficient grounds for rejecting every conceivable form. These are precisely the same grounds for rejecting every conceivable form of same-sex intercourse.
Who would argue that to maintain an absolute and strong ecclesiastical proscription of all incest is to forsake grace for law and to abandon love for intolerance? Possibly this is what the Corinthians might have argued. But Paul made quite clear that sex, unlike food, was not a matter of indifference (1 Cor 6:12-20). Grace and love in no way lead to the toleration of sinful behavior. We shall say more about this below.
Who would argue: Jesus said nothing about incest so it must not have been important to him? Obviously Jesus did not need to address the issue in his own cultural context because (1) he agreed with Scripture’s strong proscription of it and (2) encountered no “incest problem” in first-century Israel. Does this silence mean that Jesus thought divorce and remarriage was a greater wrong than incest? Surely not. The same points can be made with respect to the absence of a specific Jesus saying about same-sex intercourse.
What I am emphasizing here is that the choice of analogy can make an enormous difference in how one frames the issues. No analogy is perfect—that’s what makes it a mere analogy—but as regards Scripture’s stance against same-sex intercourse the analogy of incest is clearly superior to the usual analogies of slavery, women’s roles, and divorce.
III. Jesus on the Double Love Commandment
I do not believe that everything in Scripture carries equal weight. The central lens through which the witness of Scripture must be read is the gospel message regarding the grace and love of God, the redemption in Christ, and the liberating power of the Spirit for a life of holiness. Too often in contemporary church circles themes such as love, grace, redemption, and liberation have been severed in an unbiblical way from concepts of holiness, transformation into the image of Christ, and obedience to Christian norms of behavior.
Take, for example, Jesus’ view of love. The meaning of love in our day has erroneously merged with the meanings of tolerance and even acceptance of various lifestyles incongruent with Scripture. Advocates of this view then utilize Jesus’ appeal to the double love commandment (Mark 12:30-31)—love of God (Deut 6:5) and love of neighbor (Lev 19:18)—as a “screen” to eliminate from other parts of Scripture judgmental commands that conflict with modern-day notions of tolerance and acceptance. What’s the problem with this?
First, advocates of this “screen method” often start with a definition of love to which Jesus did not subscribe. If love for Jesus meant a non-judgmental acceptance of various lifestyles, especially sexual lifestyles, then Jesus’ own carefully thought-through position on divorce and remarriage and on adultery-of-the-heart must be viewed as eminently unloving (Matt 5:27-32). For Jesus did not broaden the array of sexual expression allowable to humans but took an already narrow understanding of human sexuality available to him in the Hebrew Scriptures and narrowed it even further. He also declared that sexual misbehavior could get one thrown into hell. Did Jesus not understand the very commandments that he lifted up? Or are we the ones in error?
Second, this “screen method” usually collapses “the great and first commandment” (Matt 22:38), love of God, into the second, love of neighbor, and then defines the latter broadly to embrace all sorts of behavior that Scripture categorically rejects. But this is precisely what Jesus did not do. Persons who violate the strongly attested commands of God in Scripture—for example, regarding sexual behavior—cannot be said to love the God whose will they reject, nor the persons made in God’s image whom they involve in their corruption.
Third, Jesus’ appeal to Lev 19:18, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”—incidentally a command from the much-maligned Holiness Code (Lev 17-26)—reverberates with the echo of Lev 19:17:
You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall firmly reprove your fellow-countryman and so not incur guilt because of him. You shall not take revenge and you shall not hold a grudge against any of your people.
Love never takes personal a wrong committed: it does not hate, take revenge, or hold a grudge against another. Yet love often entails reproving another in order to reclaim that person for the kingdom of God. If a child is about to touch a hot stove it is not loving to withhold warnings. So love in Jesus’ understanding cuts against contemporary notions of tolerance and acceptance of behaviors that Scripture proscribes.
Fourth, Jesus’ understanding of love combined a radical outreach to sinners with an intensification of God’s ethical demand. This is amply illustrated in Jesus’ dealings with tax collectors. Tax collectors had a justly deserved reputation of not only collaborating with an oppressive foreign power but also profiting by collecting more from the poor than the tax owed (Luke 19:8). Two of the most secure elements of the scholarly reconstruction of the historical Jesus are: (a) on the one hand Jesus spoke out against the love of money and sided with the poor; and (b) on the other hand Jesus fraternized with tax collectors who profited from ripping off the poor. Here is a classic example of the intersection of grace and holiness in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus extended God’s offer of grace to a group of sinners while simultaneously warning of the eternal consequences of continuing their sinful practices. Why is it so hard for us to accept today that Jesus did the same with respect to the sexually immoral? He reached out in love to sexual sinners while intensifying God’s demand in the area of sexual ethics. The Pharisees were unable to get their theological imaginations around this way of thinking and acting. They assumed that Jesus’ fraternization with sinners meant that Jesus was cutting ethical corners and they were unhappy with the latter. We today are like the Pharisees, except that we are happy with the idea of a diminished role for obedience. In both instances there is a misunderstanding. Jesus calls his family, those who actually do the will of God (Mark 3:34-35), to reach out to sinners without softening by one iota the ethical imperatives of the kingdom of God.
Fifth, the stereotype of a Jesus who put love over commandments and eschewed all judgment simply does not square with the range of evidence from the preserved sayings of Jesus. For example (note that “Q/Luke” indicates Lukan texts with Matthean parallels): Salt that loses its taste will be thrown out (Q/Luke 14:34-35; Mark 9:48-50); the weeds will be separated from the wheat and thrown into the fire (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43); the bad fish in the net will be thrown out (Matt 13:47-50); the goats will be separated from the sheep (Matt 25:31-46). Those who do not do anything with the investment God gives will have even the little they do have taken away (Q/Luke 19:11-27). Many of the “children of the kingdom” will be thrust into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Q/Luke 13:28-29). The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment and condemn this “evil generation” (Q/Luke 11:29-32). These judgment sayings could easily be multiplied. As two liberal scholars, Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, argue in their seminal work The Historical Jesus (Fortress): “There is no reason to deny that Jesus preached judgment. The tradition of this is too broad.” Indeed, the major theme of the Sermon on the Mount is that Jesus has not come to relax the moral demands of the law. Quite the contrary: Jesus has come to up the demand for righteousness and to close the loopholes in the law (Matt 5:17-20). The six antitheses regarding murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, and hating one’s enemy all take the form: you use to be liable to divine judgment only for doing ‘x’; but I say to you that you will be liable to judgment not only for ‘x’ but also for ‘y’ (Matt 5:21-48). The Sermon ends with a series of judgment sayings regarding the narrow gate, throwing trees that bear bad fruit into the fire, the surprising retort “I never knew you” to many who call Jesus “Lord,” and the destruction that befalls those who build their house on sand by not doing what Jesus says (Matt 7:13-27, with parallels in Luke).
To the church’s shame we have taken the central theme of love and mercy in Jesus’ ministry and message and contorted it in ways that demean calls for holiness and radical obedience as necessarily legalistic. If it were so, then Jesus himself would be the prime proponent of legalism—surely an absurdity. Legalism comes when the church uses the commands of God as an excuse for not making every effort to find the lost and to reclaim them for God’s kingdom; or when believers forget the huge debt that God has forgiven them, lose humility, and fail to extend forgiveness repeatedly to serial backsliders who repent (see especially Luke 17:3-4; Matt 18:21-35). However, the church is most emphatically not legalistic when it recognizes that critical importance of leading a transformed life, including in the sexual sphere, and warns of the great risk of God’s judgment upon those who fail to exhibit such transformation. As Jesus put it: all who want to follow me must take up their cross and deny themselves; otherwise, they will lose their lives (Mark 8:34-37; Q/Luke 17:33; John 12:25).
IV. Paul on Law and Grace
A similar distortion of the authoritative contents of Scripture comes from truncated notions of the “law/gospel” grid in Paul’s letters. In its more extreme form this grid is used to characterize as legalism any emphasis on the importance of obeying God’s commands and on the risk to salvation of gross disobedience.
Let there be no misunderstanding: Paul did declare the Mosaic Law to be abrogated in Christ. No one can be justified on the basis of doing “the works of the Law.” No one can merit the salvation accomplished through Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. In Christ we are no longer “under the law.” But consider the following:
When Paul refers to the Law being abrogated he has in view the Law of Moses as the ruling power over Adam’s descendants. Christ’s death makes amends for human iniquity and makes possible a new creation in the Spirit. What was defective about the Law of Moses? According to Paul’s argument in Romans and Galatians, (1) the Law of Moses with its distinctive Jewish identity-markers excluded Gentiles. (2) It did not have its basis in the climactic redemptive work of God in Christ but rather stressed human doing and could thus lead to boasting in self. And (3) it was helpless to empower obedience in the face of the strong sinful impulse operating in Adamic flesh but powerful to curse those who violated its commands.
Paul recognized considerable continuity, especially in sexual ethics, between the will of God reflected in the Law of Moses and the will of God reflected in the leading of the Spirit. This is not surprising. The God who gave the Law to Moses is the same God who gives the Spirit to those who believe in Christ. Indeed, the Spirit is the Law now written on our hearts, no longer mere “letter” or script (Jer 31:31-34; Rom 2:29; 7:6). While the Law of Moses contained many elements applicable only to Israel’s specific circumstances pre-Christ, its core values remained in place, for the Law’s commandments are “holy and righteous and good” (Rom 7:12). Christ died for our sins and ended sin’s reign in human flesh “in order that the just requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who are walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:3-4). For Christ “died for all, in order that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for them died and was raised. . . . God made him who did not know sin to be sin for us, in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor 5:15, 21). This is the great purpose of Christ’s death, not that we should be free to do what we want, but that we should be “free” to live a life of righteousness, no longer enslaved to sin’s power (Rom 6:18-22).
At the center of the center-section of Romans (6:1-8:17) Paul asks and answers the question of whether believers should continue to sin since they “are not under the (Mosaic) Law but under grace” (6:14-15). The answer is an emphatic “May it not happen!” For if being “under the law” meant being under subjection to sinful impulses operating in the human frame, then being “under grace” must mean liberation from a sin-controlled life and for service to God through the power of the Spirit (6:16-23; 7:5-6). This precise point is made by Martin Luther in his commentary on Rom 6:14.
· That is why Paul can assert in 6:15-23 that the indispensable middle term between freedom from the law through Christ’s death and eternal life is the new obedient or righteous conduct of the believer. “Having fruit for holiness” is a necessary intermediate step in a redemptive process that leads to eternal life (6:19-23). Otherwise, the grace of God is short-circuited in the life of the Christian. As Martin Luther himself put it (commenting on Rom 6:19): “The one who serves uncleanness, that is, sexual uncleanness, is already becoming more and more unrighteous, for sin now rules over him, and he has lost faith and has become an unbeliever.” Or as John Calvin stated (commenting on Rom 8:9): “Those in whom the Spirit does not reign do not belong to Christ; therefore those who serve the flesh are not Christians, for those who separate Christ from His Spirit make Him like a dead image or a corpse. . . . free remission of sins cannot be separated from the Spirit of regeneration. This would be, as it were, to rend Christ asunder.” To return to the sexual “uncleanness” mentioned in 1:24, a context that features prominently same-sex intercourse (1:26-27), is to find one’s primary identity in the flesh rather than in the Spirit. That in turn places one back under the Law of Moses, the binding legal authority with jurisdiction over the old fleshly creation. “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law” (Gal 5:18). Conversely, if you are not led by the Spirit, then you are—precisely as fleshly beings—subject to the law’s jurisdiction and so condemnation.
· Yes, there is no condemnation (8:1), but the “no condemnation” is for those who are “in Christ Jesus,” who by definition are those “who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (8:4). Nobody merits eternal life. But this free gift (6:23) is only available to those joined to Jesus who is life itself. And there is no being joined to Jesus without being regulated by the Spirit of Christ. There is no sin transfer to Christ apart from self-transfer to Christ. No living in Christ without dying to sin and crucifying the old human with its sinful desires (6:1-14; Gal 5:24). No “new creation” without the old passing away (2 Cor 5:17). No citizenship in heaven for those not being conformed to Christ’s death by living out of heaven’s power, the Spirit (Phil 3:10-11, 20). The trip to heaven is free, all expenses paid by Christ’s death, but you have to get on and remain on the plane that God provides to get us there (the Spirit). So long as we live as fleshly beings our citizenship is not in heaven but on earth; we are still very much on the tar mat. Our confession to being citizens of heaven, under the lordship of Christ, is empty.
· Accordingly, Paul’s ultimate answer to the question “Should we sin because we are not under the Law but under grace?” (6:15) is given in 8:12-14: “So then, brethren, we are debtors not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh, for if you live according to the flesh, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live. For as many as are being led by the Spirit, these are the sons (children) of God.”
What is “faith” according to Paul? Is it some mere intellectual assent to the truth? A “take-the-money-and-run” approach to God’s gracious offer of salvation through Christ? No, it is rather the kind of trust in God and in God’s work in Christ that issues in a “yes” to God and “no” to self, a dying to self and a living for God. So Paul could say in Gal 2:19-20: “I through the law died to the law in order that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ; and I no longer live but Christ lives in me and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself over for me.” If we do otherwise, if we live for self and die to God by pursuing desires contrary to God’s will, can we really say that we are trusting Jesus who loved us enough to die for us?
Suppose a married man wants to have sex with a drop-dead gorgeous woman who happens not to be his wife. What does faith mean in this context? Does it mean believing Jesus died for me, knowing that I’m going to heaven, and then having sex with the other woman? May it not be so! Faith here means: because I am so grateful for salvation through Christ and am convinced that what God has in store for me—forming Christ in me—is better than the gratification of this sinful impulse, I will not yield to that sinful impulse. In other words, one can’t live according to the flesh and then say that one is living by the conviction of being justified by faith. If one is conforming to the sinful impulse in the flesh then one is not walking in faith. This is God’s doing but we must comply; otherwise it becomes our doing (living out of our flesh) and the outcome of that is death rather than life.
It is hardly surprising, then, that Paul can refer to “the law (i.e., regulating force) of the Spirit” freeing us “from the law of sin and death (i.e., the regulating force of the sinful impulse in human flesh). The abrogation of the Law of Moses does not leave believers “lawless.” To the contrary: we are subject to the regulating power of the Spirit. The difference between this “law” and the Law of Moses is threefold, answering to the threefold defect in the Mosaic law cited above: (1)This “law” does not set up barriers to Gentiles. (2) This “law” is made possible by the amends-making death of Christ, allowing us to be purified to receive God’s Spirit. And (3) this “law” not only commands us to live righteously but empowers such obedience. Again, Paul could say to the Corinthian Christians: “To those without the law I became as one without the law—though I am not without a law toward God but in Christ’s law” (1 Cor 9:21). “Bear one another’s burdens,” Paul exhorts the Galatian Christians, “and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).
Paul does not expect perfection, but neither does he expect the Christian life to be static. A sanctified life does not happen all at once. Even so, in the main, one will serve Christ as Lord by the Spirit’s power rather than sin as lord by human power. As he says in his letter to the Philippians, “with fear and trembling work at your own salvation; for God is the one who is at work in you, [effecting] both the willing and the working for his good pleasure” (2:12-13). Note the wonderful balance here: we are to work at our own salvation but such working is nothing else than letting God work in us. Not to progress in holiness is to resist actively the work of God in one’s life. And as Paul says later in the same letter: “not that I have already been made perfect (or: reached the goal), but I press on to make it my own. . . . forgetting what lies behind and straining to what lies ahead” (3:12-14). When we fail, we get up, push on, and forget about the failures of the past. We renew our resolve to crucify the sin-controlled life, not by our own efforts but by the power of God, and thereby to reach the goal of eternal life.
It is entirely consistent with this view of things that Paul regards serial unrepentant participation in porneia (the Greek word for “sexual immorality,” including bestiality, same-sex intercourse, incest, adultery, and solicitation of prostitutes) as incompatible with the grace of God and life in the Spirit. Thus he could say to the Thessalonian believers, in the earliest extant NT document:
For you know what commands we gave to you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God: your holiness, that you abstain from porneia . . . [and not live] like the Gentiles who do not know God. . . . because the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things. . . . For God called us not to (sexual) uncleanness but in holiness. Therefore the one who rejects [these commands] rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit to us. (1 Thess 4:2-8)
And to the Galatian Christians:
The works of the flesh are obvious, which are: porneia, (sexual) uncleanness, licentiousness . . . , which I am warning you about, just as I warned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. . . . Stop deceiving yourselves; God is not to be mocked, for whatever one sows this one will also reap. For the one who casts seed into one’s flesh will reap a harvest of destruction and decay from the flesh, but the one who casts seed into the Spirit will reap a harvest of eternal life from the Spirit. And let us not grow tired of doing what is right for in due time we will reap, if we do not relax our efforts. (Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9)
And again to the Corinthians, in the context of how to deal with a practicing, self-affirming Christian participant in an incestuous adult union:
Or do you not realize that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s kingdom? Stop deceiving yourselves. Neither the sexually immoral (the pornoi), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate males who play the sexual role of females, nor men who lie with males . . . will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)
In 2 Corinthians Paul expresses deep concern that
I may have to mourn over many who have continued in their former sinning and did not repent of the (sexual) uncleanness, porneia, and licentiousness that they practiced. (12:21)
The message of Ephesians is identical:
“Porneia and (sexual) uncleanness of any kind . . . must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints. . . . Be sure of this, that no sexually immoral person (pornos) or (sexually) unclean person . . . has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you . . . , for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient. (5:3-5; similarly, Col 3:5-6)
What could be clearer? Sex matters. Persistent unrepentant sexual behavior can put a believer at risk of not inheriting the coming kingdom of God. That included for Paul same-sex intercourse, which he defined as sexual uncleanness in Rom 1:24-27 (cf. 6:19) and porneia in 1 Cor 6:9. What shall we say? That Paul did not have a good grasp of the distinction between law and grace? Preposterous. Paul’s views coincide with Jesus’ views; if anything, Paul is more law-free than Jesus, not less (Paul spoke of the abrogation of the Mosaic law; Jesus did not.) It is we who have truncated the gospel of grace by voiding its irrevocable connection to a transformed life in the Spirit.
If anyone tells you that keeping the commands of God is not an essential part of the Christian life, don’t believe it for a moment. Believe Paul instead who said that what matters is “keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19). If anyone tells you that our adherence to God’s commands does not please or glorify God, prefer Paul’s words instead. For it is Paul who urges believers to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God” (Rom 12:1). It is Paul who exhorts believers to “glorify God in your body” by fleeing porneia (1 Cor 6:18, 20). Does this undermine the message of grace and redemption in Christ? Far from it. It is that very redemption or “buying back” that compels Paul to ask rhetorically: “Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit that is in you . . . and [that] you do not belong to yourself? For you were bought with a price” (6:19). What price? The price of the precious blood of Christ. Precisely because we no longer belong to ourselves but to the God who bought us back, our whole lives now revolve around doing God’s will rather than our own.
© 2002 Robert A. J. Gagnon
http://www.robgagnon.net/homoAuthorityScripture.htm
* * * * *
You yourself again, as is your proclivity, brought up this topic of homosex. And since you have I’ll take the opportunity to address your fallacious posturing. As you persistently choose to deny, the problem lies within each heart. Are you in accordance with God or in rebellion with God? I conclude by what’s stated above and what you’ve previously written you’re in stark contrast, not agreement, with the teaching of Scripture’s core values on this matter. If you think Scripture agrees with your view then simply show how that proves true.
– Frank
LikeLike
July 31, 2016 at 12:06 pm
Jesus said:
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then, not…. “Love your neighbor as yourself”………..
The Mosaic Law says, Love your neighbor as yourself, except if your neighbor is gay.
Leviticus 20:13 “If a man has sex with a man as he does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.” ABOLISHED
Does Love kill your neighbor? Or does justification for killing your neighbor come from self righteous, angry, hateful ego-filled man in a Theocracy ruled by the Religious Despot?
It is unnatural to kill people merely because of disagreements because to the ancient cleric mindset disagreement was disobedience to the clergy and disobedience to the clergy was disobedience to God because the clergy is the voice of God: ABOLISHED
You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; …….Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. ABOLISHED
LikeLike
July 31, 2016 at 12:34 pm
With who one has sexual relationships with, is no more a core value, than it is to kill those with whom man decides that your behavior crosses over their personal values;
It is no more a core value not to work on the Sabbath, than it is to kill those who do work on the the Sabbath a core value;
It is no more a core value, not to eat lobsters or shrimp or oysters, than it is a core value to eat only fish with fins;
No more a core value not to eat pork, than it is a core value to stone those who disobey self righteous, hateful, ego filled, theocrats who claim to speak with the voice of God.
We should have a 7 day work week; individuals can work five days or six or seven if they want for when the Pharisees criticized Jesus and his disciples for plucking corn to eat on the Sabbath, Jesus’ simple answer was that “The Sabbath was made for man not Man for the Sabbath therefore man is master of the Sabbath. But it was indeed a religious ritual born of stoneagism. Put religion in its place; tell it as it is, a hideous excuse cum for man to perform his evils will proclaiming his self righteousness.
Fairness, morals and giving alms? all from the goodness inborn and innate but honed in discipline and correction by adults in the human spirit was recognized as attributes of Deity by one of the greatest men who came out of the closet to testify against the Law and the religious authority that imposed the Law and was subsequently condemned for blasphemy because of it, Jesus.
True worshippers worship in spirit and in truth; not on a certain day, in a certain place, at certain times and events at certain festivals.
We must remember that religion CAN be a great source of humor as well as great tragedy, guilt, self-loathing, fear, misery, cruelty and pain. And one could argue that anyone who gets their morals from some ancient text might as well get their personality from a micro chip and I find it hard to argue with that point of view.
LikeLike
August 1, 2016 at 2:17 pm
Matthew chapter 5 verses 17-20
if you have ears to hear the voice of Jesus of the Gospels – not PAAL.
LikeLike
August 2, 2016 at 4:53 pm
What Is a Hermaphrodite?
It is currently estimated that about one in every 2,000 babies born have “confusing” or ambiguous genitalia. In raw numbers in a world population of 7.4 billion equals 3,700,000 and that is just a small portion that have two sets of genitals… that is male and female and the brain is determinate in which way the person feels in their comfort zone.
There is little doubt that this is ahuge percentage of the population endowed (or afflicted depending on your empathy) with confused sexual orientation and neither Moses nor the prophets understood or even hinted at the immense population they were wanting to stone if caught in the act. This is progress just as the progress only 100 years ago when women could not vote and the “against” faction of that progress was led primarily by the religious community.
A person who is a hermaphrodite has both female and male genital characteristics and can also be called intersex people. This typically means that the organs on the inside are of one sex, while the organs on the outside are of another sex; for example, a hermaphrodite might have a penis and testicles, but inside, there are ovaries and possibly a uterus. In more rare cases, the chromosomes say a person is male or female, but the genitals say otherwise.
Only occasionally do hermaphrodites actually exhibit the genitalia of both a male and a female; for example, a person might have a penis as well as a vagina. In many of these cases, the doctors aren’t sure which genitalia the person has at birth: For instance, a female might appear to have a very large clitoris, or a male might appear to have a very small penis. This ambiguous genitalia is often cause for further testing on DNA to determine whether the child is a boy or a girl.
It is currently estimated that about one in every 2,000 babies born have “confusing” or ambiguous genitalia. In cases like this, the parents might make the decision to put their child through surgery to determine a physical gender, or they might opt to wait until the child is older and can decide for themselves which gender is dominant in their body and mind.
LikeLike
August 2, 2016 at 4:56 pm
Spirit Giganticus Says:
August 2, 2016 at 4:53 pm
What Is a Hermaphrodite?
It is currently estimated that about one in every 2,000 babies born have “confusing” or ambiguous genitalia. In raw numbers in a world population of 7.4 billion equals 3,700,000 and that is just a small portion that have two sets of genitals… that is male and female and the brain is determinate in which way the person feels in their comfort zone.
There is little doubt that this is ahuge percentage of the population endowed (or afflicted depending on your empathy) with confused sexual orientation and neither Moses nor the prophets understood or even hinted at the immense population they were wanting to stone if caught in the act. This is progress just as the progress only 100 years ago when women could not vote and the “against” faction of that progress was led primarily by the religious community.
A person who is a hermaphrodite has both female and male genital characteristics and can also be called intersex people. This typically means that the organs on the inside are of one sex, while the organs on the outside are of another sex; for example, a hermaphrodite might have a penis and testicles, but inside, there are ovaries and possibly a uterus. In more rare cases, the chromosomes say a person is male or female, but the genitals say otherwise.
Only occasionally do hermaphrodites actually exhibit the genitalia of both a male and a female; for example, a person might have a penis as well as a vagina. In many of these cases, the doctors aren’t sure which genitalia the person has at birth: For instance, a female might appear to have a very large clitoris, or a male might appear to have a very small penis. This ambiguous genitalia is often cause for further testing on DNA to determine whether the child is a boy or a girl.
It is currently estimated that about one in every 2,000 babies born have “confusing” or ambiguous genitalia. In cases like this, the parents might make the decision to put their child through surgery to determine a physical gender, or they might opt to wait until the child is older and can decide for themselves which gender is dominant in their body and mind.
LikeLike
August 3, 2016 at 9:50 am
The Bible and Homosexual Practice:
Theology, Analogies and Genes
by Robert A. J. Gagnon
Click to access NovDec01.PDF
LikeLike
August 3, 2016 at 11:28 am
Frank:
In your own words I am interested. I am not a student on assignment, so I don’t follow somebody else’s response to comments posed to you….Please don’t play the fool.
LikeLike
August 3, 2016 at 5:08 pm
ltg,
Re: your post # 242. –
Aside from your view on homosex in relation to biblical Scripture, you also have a peculiar view of Jesus/Yahshua Messiah in relation to the Sabbath. Evidently, you’re just as obsessed with clergy as M. Perri is with the Apostle Paul. Again, I’ll offer you an assist:
HISTORY OF THE SABBATH
and
FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK
by J. N. Andrews
From the Preface:
“THE history of the Sabbath embraces the period of 6000 years. The seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord. The acts which constituted it such were, first, the example of the
Creator; secondly, his placing his blessing upon the day; and thirdly, the sanctification or
divine appointment of the day to a holy use. The Sabbath, therefore, dates from the beginning
of our world’s history. The first who Sabbatized on the seventh day is God the Creator; and
the first seventh day of time is the day which he thus honored. The highest of all possible
honors does, therefore, pertain to the seventh day. Nor is this honor confined to the first
seventh day of time; for so soon as God had rested upon that day, he appointed the seventh
day to a holy use, that man might hallow it in memory of his Creator.
This divine appointment grows out of the nature and fitness of things, and must have been
made directly to Adam, for himself and wife were then the only beings who had the days of
the week to use. As it was addressed to Adam while yet in his uprightness, it must have been
given to him as the head of the human family. The fourth commandment bases all its
authority upon this original mandate of the Creator, and must, therefore, be in substance what
God commanded to Adam and Eve as the representatives of mankind.
The patriarchs could not possibly have been ignorant of the facts and the obligation which the
fourth commandment shows to have originated in the beginning, for Adam was present with
them for a period equal to more than half the Christian dispensation. Those, therefore, who
walked with God in the observance of his commandments did certainly hallow his Sabbath.
The observers of the seventh day must therefore include the ancient godly patriarchs, and
none will deny that they include also the prophets and the apostles. Indeed, the entire church
of God embraced within the records of inspiration were Sabbath-keepers. To this number
must be added the Son of God.
What a history, therefore, has the Sabbath of the Lord! It was instituted in Paradise, honored
by several miracles each week for the space of forty years, proclaimed by the great Lawgiver
from Sinai, observed by the Creator, the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, and the Son of
God! It constitutes the very heart of the law of God, and so long as that law endures, so long
shall the authority of this sacred institution stand fast.”
Click to access History_of_the_Sabbath.pdf
Take note:
The wise of heart will receive commands,
But a babbling fool will be ruined. (Proverbs 10:8)
LikeLike
August 3, 2016 at 8:46 pm
ltg,
Re: post # 249. –
More assistance:
Published on May 30, 2013
We’ve all been told that the Sabbath is now on Sunday. But how many of us have truly tested that? Have we truly examined the basis of this belief? Or have we just blindly accepted what we have been taught over the years based on the interpretations of man’s views of the scriptures that have been passed down through the generations?
We at 119 Ministries present this examination of the scriptures regarding the one day that was given as a sign and covenant for those who choose to follow our Heavenly Father.
LikeLike
August 4, 2016 at 6:37 am
Frank, the day of the week the Sabbath lands is irrelevant to us, it was a shadow of the rest that was to come in Jesus Christ. If you are in Christ you have entered into His rest and let no man judge you regarding holy days or Sabbath days.
If you are a Jewish person who does not believe in Christ, then I suppose which day the Sabbath is would be more important since you would be under the Law and obligated to keep perfectly all 613 commands of the Law.
We should be careful not to teach those that don’t know Christ that the way to God is through the Law. The scripture is abundantly clear that no man shall be justified by the Law in God’s eyes.
Naz
LikeLike
August 4, 2016 at 7:19 am
Naz,
As I recall we’ve been down this road before so I’ll repeat, I don’t subscribe to legalism. As to the hallowed Sabbath being the 7th day of the week this was instituted by God long before Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Genesis 2 [Gen 2:1-4]. People often will rationalize and do what’s right in their own sight. Messiah didn’t come to nullify the Law of God. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8) Jesus/Yahshua kept the Sabbath faithfully. I follow Him, so I do also. The information in my last two posts explains my thinking on the matter. Of course we are all free agents. Each must decide for himself/herself which path we take. So be it.
– Frank
LikeLike
August 4, 2016 at 8:14 am
Frank, very well, you can choose to observe whichever day you see fit if that’s your conviction. I respect that. That too is what liberty is all about.
However, you allude to Jesus keeping the Sabbath and therefore you do also because you follow Him. Are you saying I am not following Jesus because I don’t keep the Sabbath or am I really a free agent ? Which is it ? Because I want to follow Jesus too.
Do you really keep the Sabbath ? Do you refrain from any yard work, driving your car, emails etc… on the Sabbath ? If you do any of these things you are not keeping the Sabbath. Do you agree ?
Mar 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Naz
LikeLike
August 4, 2016 at 9:46 pm
The truth is that man ordained the Sabbath and CLAIMED it was from God, not that any man has seen God or heard God speak, it was man who created the Gods and gave God all the attributes that man felt was suitable for everybody else to live by according to their dreams and visions and imagination.
So you see it was the Theocrats who ruled on pain of death; they were the ISIL of the ancient days…….God was not involved in anything because God was a Caricature Concept Created in the image of man according to the patriarchal theocracy of their day; hence, the hundreds and thousands of Gods created in mythology carried over .
You are barking up a tree trying to claim the Divinity and God said this and God ordained that, that is all caca del toro created by the rulers of the day that spilled over and morphed into today’s big religions but it means nothing in reality and that’s exactly what Jesus revealed by his life and railed about during his short campaign until they caught him and stopped his torment against the evil rulers.
And Naz is right, Jesus justified his disciples plucking corn and eating as David did when he and his men were hungry essentially profaning the sanctuary, and there are other examples about your child or cattle falling in a pit and who would not hesitate to pull it out of the trap………..if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? … And he answered, “If you had a sheep that fell into a well on the Sabbath, …. relieving the poor, helping those who need speedy relief, teaching the young … Deuteronomy 22:4 You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down by the …
Common sense man, not supernatural creation of imaginative fabrication of made up precepts of men.
Who makes the laws we follow today….Men, the rulers, the government and it has always been that way…Of course if the rulers who makes the rules and claim God is the Maker then that’s the way society will focus since the days of old and who can argue?
But today we are shedding the shackles of religious tyranny and the tyranny of earthly regimes like Assad and his ilk. The Egos in Power, the rulers and principalities in high places, has always reigned supreme and who can complain when you are outmanned and outgunned by your rulers and their military willing to kill you under orders of the King?.
We are powerless, for we have only our life to protect and by self preservation to keep it…………and we do……
Common sense you have slim to none but creative fabrication you have a massive load of crock and the world’s brokers and carnival barkers are rampant as their days are numbered and they glamor to yell. And they who yell in Jesus name the loudest are they who know him the least!
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 8:05 am
Leo, bottom line is that anybody can hold any day sacred if they want or if they don’t want. That is what liberty is all about. We are not under obligation or Law to observe days and we will not be judged by God for it nor can we judge anybody else for not doing so as well.
Any notion that implies not observing the Sabbath is sinful disregards the purpose for which Jesus came, which was to fulfill the Law. When you have Jesus you have the Sabbath rest, the Sabbath an all other “commandments” are redundant and have no power over you because a person in Christ is free from law-based living and is alive to God. If one does not believe this then they do not understand what the gospel is all about. The gospel is radical and life transforming, not an add-on to Moses.
If you flirt with Moses, you are cheating on Jesus. The best way to honor God’s Law is to believe in Christ and let Him fulfill it for you. Then you will understand the gospel and then you will be free from self effort and self righteousness that plagues so many of us and trips us so easily.
Naz
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 11:19 am
Published on Feb 6, 2014
Is the 10 commandments the only commands given to us from God? Were the rest given to us by Moses? Some believe this to be the case. They claim that the 10 commandments are the Law of God and those that came from Moses are called the Law of Moses. And many believe that it was the Law of Moses that Yeshua came to deliver us from. Could this really be the case. Join us as we examine the scriptures to find the truth of the matter.
11 For it is written,
“AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”
12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. (Romans 14:11-12)
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 11:48 am
FA:
There is no such thing as the Law of God….it was all made up by men throughout the bible generations staring with Moses, theoretically, until Jesus came to explain who God was, and where s/he lives, in you. And you are to love that God within you(your essence of design) and your neighbour that lives without you the same as you love the Design within you. Thus is the Law fulfilled by Jesus recognizing and revealing the God of Humanity which is also claimed to be the Law of God; AKA, the Law of Love within you…… Humanity Unites Humans (HUH)
Gods divide it, Religion divides it, Culture divides it, Language divides it, Food divides it, Nationalism divides it, Sports divide it and Humans using all of the above deny it. Like the Oceans divided by humans but there is only One Global Ocean, just look at an Atlas World Globe.
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 12:04 pm
Joh 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Naz
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 1:18 pm
Frank, I know you desire to honor God and His Law and that your intention is good. I too also honor God and His Law. I think the Law of God versus the Law of Moses is getting into semantics, so I’m not going to try and split hairs but would rather take a big picture approach to the topic of Law in general. Contrary to what Leo thinks, all of the Law is from God and it serves a purpose.
I refrain from talking too much about Law in context to God because the Law entices sin, it does not restrain us from sin. Paul said, “I would not covet unless there was a law that said, thous shall not covet” (paraphrase).
The best way to honor the law of God is to admit you cannot keep it and that punishment for disobedience of the law is death, speaking in general terms. The purpose of the Law is to reveal or highlight SIN. The Law is not there to prevent us from sinning, it actually makes us sin more. The law does not teach us not to sin, it commands us not sin ! There is a big difference between commands and teaching.
Grace is what teaches us not to sin. This is why I am very careful to simply quote laws or commands as a means to obtain righteousness. I don’t deny the law of God, rather I hold it in the highest esteem realizing the law will crush me and I need the grace of God to save me from this wretched man that I am. I also realize that the penalty for breaking God’s laws is not loss of fellowship with God, or God being angry at you, the penalty is death. I cannot be restored to God by apologies or confessions of my mistakes. The only way I can be restored is through blood, that blood was poured out by Christ on the cross for us. This is what salvation is all about. Jesus did what I could not do for myself, He has fulfilled the Law and has taken the punishment or judgement of the Law upon Himself for the sins of the whole world. He did this for us so we would be free. It is this grace and forgiveness that teaches me not to sin, not because of commandment, but because of what Jesus has done in me.
Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 3:53 pm
Nah
You are so out of touch with Jesus reality.
“The only way I can be restored is through blood, that blood was poured out by Christ on the cross for us.”
That statement is straight from the Pharisaical handbook….But Jesus said sacrifices and offering you have not desired Lord but here you have offered me a body…NOT A BODY TO SPILL BLOOD FROM…that is the way of Pharisees ……..but a body to demonstrate that you are operating invisibly within my human spirit so that I may give a valid expression by everything I do, and say and am as the Father operating in the son.
If you cannot stop parching about the foolishness of spilling blood because something has to die you are promoting the Law of Moses and of the Pharisees and the religion that Jesus hated and for which he was crucified because Jesus told the religionists of his day that their blood spilling for the sacrifices of sins was evil.
That’s why the Law represents death, it was born of death and practiced in death for the remission of sin. I cannot for the life of me understand how that simple concept eludes your brain.
Hence when Christ entered into the world he said sacrifices and offerings you have not desired”; in other words, the pragmatic, externals of mere religion are not satisfying to you Father. It isn’t that a man goes once a week in a piece of real estate. Or simply undergoes as a matter of tradition and form certain sacraments. Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired but instead Father you have made ready a body for me to offer.
“Then I said” verse 7, “Lo here I am come to do your will oh God, to fulfill what is written of me in the volume of the book. The volume of what book? Well the Old Testament Scriptures. Thank you Father for the body that you prepared for me to offer. Miraculously conceived, fashioned in the womb of a virgin girl according to the scriptures, born at Bethlehem of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, the house of David, according to the scriptures. Thank you Father for the body that you have prepared for me to offer you so that I can do your will oh God everything that is written of me in the volume of the book. But the time has come Father for that story to be told in terms of the flesh and blood of my incarnate humanity so I want you to know Father that the body you prepared for me and gave me when I was born at Bethlehem I now present to you to do your will. His body…….Not the Pharisees spilling his blood in death for the remission of sin………… You don’t know that because you don’t know anything about Jesus the man who offer his life to demonstrate his humanity. If you can see the Father, if you just can’t understand the Father just look at me and in me, in what I do and say and am you see the Father..that’s all… just look at him.
That’s why when you look at me you see him. Because you see, the Lord Jesus was not only the truth about God.
Now if ever there was a man who walked this earth who knew the truth about a man’s humanity and that relationship that must govern that man’s humanity, with God and God with him, that man was Jesus Christ. He just happened to be God who engineered man and who deliberately, though never himself never less than God stepped out of eternity into time and insisted of his own free volition, something he need never ever have done, being never ever less than God came into this world to behave as though he were never ever more than man. As opposed of course to man, who being never ever more than man, struts across this planet and behaves as though he were never ever less than God. That’s the essential difference. Jesus Christ never ever less than God behaved as though he were never ever more than man; man never ever more than man behaves as though he was never ever less than God.
“……….Sacrifices and offerings you did not desire……..” over and over and over: Hebrews 10:4-10, 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Mark 12:33, Matthew 9:13, Psalm 51:16-17, Proverbs 21:3, Amos 5:21-24, Jeremiah 7:22-23, Micah 6:6-8, Matthew 12:7, Psalm 40:6-8, Ecclesiastes 5:1, Psalm 50:8-9, Isaiah 1:11-17: “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.
The author of Hebrews indicates that Jesus came to redeem sin; more specifically still, Jesus came to redeem the sin of misusing the law. It is this issue that concerns the author of Hebrews.
Hebrews 9:22 says there is purification and forgiveness Without Blood
Second, it is important to note that even in Hebrews 9:22, the author pretty adamantly states that there is purification and forgiveness apart from the shedding of blood. The author says, “almost all things are purified with blood …” If we went back to read the Levitical law, we would see that purification and forgiveness was extended under a variety of circumstances, including the washing with water (Lev 15:16-17; 17:15), anointing with oil (Lev 14:29), burning flour (Lev 5:11-13), giving money (Exod 30:11-16), or releasing an animal into the wild (Lev 16:10). And in fact, when it comes to intentional sins, there was no offering of any kind which was prescribed by the law. All the sacrifices and offerings of the law are for unintentional sins only. This means that when an Israelite sinned intentionally (as they most certainly did, just as we do), the only way they could receive forgiveness from God was to look to Him for it in faith (just like us)! The author of Hebrews knows all this, which is why he says that almost all things are purified by blood.
But the Pharisees..practiced the Sin Offering of the Priest: Leviticus 16:14-15″Moreover, he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; also in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times. 15″Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.…
Get over the blood sacrifice of Jesus, it is the sacrifices of fools that the Lord does not desire…….
What part of “KNOW” don’t you understand?
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 4:08 pm
Leo, you throw out half the bible while not realizing the shadows and foreshadowing contained in the old testament. You make a huge error there.
You are disgusted by blood because you abhor the barbaric nature of sacrifice and death. If you fail to understand this, then you will never know the depths of the love of God and the depths of the evil of sin and you will continue to live in your country club existence in the fairy tale land you created in your own mind.
Its all about the blood and it will always be about the blood, your denial of it proves you’re not of Him, because if you were of Christ you would recognize and understand your need for it and realize how blind, poor and wretched you really are.
These are the words of Jesus Christ Himself in Luke. if you have ears to hear, hear it and accept it.
Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 You are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Naz
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Can you read English ?
Naz
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 6:05 pm
ltg,
You are in sore need of instruction concerning the Old Testament Scriptures. Haven’t you ever read Isaiah 53?
Behold, My servant will prosper,
He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.
14
Just as many were astonished at you, My people,
So His appearance was marred more than any man
And His form more than the sons of men.
15
Thus He will sprinkle many nations,
Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;
For what had not been told them they will see,
And what they had not heard they will understand.
Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2
For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
3
He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
7
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
8
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
9
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
10
But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
11
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors. (Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12)
Give particular attention to verse 52:15 of Isaiah then think about this verse:
And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mark 14:24)
Click to access 1010NL.pdf
– Frank
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm
Naz,
I understand your point of view towards the Law of God as expressed in post # 259. If you’d care to understand mine then read Psalm 119.
– Frank
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 8:50 am
Nah:
““Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,……….”
Yes and he did suffer and he did rise from the place of the dead, from the tomb but like Jonah he was not dead but was in the place of the dead and therefore rose from the dead…..it’s a metaphor. He did not rise dead because he was alive and was not dead and when he had risen from that place because he survived the suffering he appeared as flesh and bone just as he was before but bore the scars of the suffering and then he ate with the disciples, he rose because he was still alive not a ghost…touch me feel me, said he….”Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it’s really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don’t have bodies, as you see that I do.”………….Now tell me he was dead, his talking is very plain about the matter.
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 9:03 am
Nah:
Your post 262 simply shows that the author of Hebrews did not know Jesus any more than you do and had to skirt around with words to justify the crucifixion and his understanding that Jesus actually died from the ordeal but that was not the case………….most all of Christianity is suffering from the same nonsense because of their skewed supernatural mindset of fallacy. As long as you stay there, you cannot know Jesus the way he wanted to be known and understood.
And the author also along the same supernatural lines said that Jesus went to heaven, well that’s impossible because Jesus tells us that heaven is the Father’s Kingdom and that kingdom is within you (Lk17:2021) as it was in him and which he clearly demonstrated. Nobody goes to heaven because heaven is within you and nobody goes to hell because hell too is within you if you have a profound absence of good operating in your spirit, you are already there. Heaven and hell are not places you go, they are places in your spirit that you need to bring out into the open to be seen by others which is exactly what Jesus did and why he could say, “……….he that has seen me has seen the Father………..!
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 9:05 am
Traditionally, Paul the Apostle was thought to be the author. However, since the third century this has been questioned, and the consensus among most modern scholars is that the author is unknown.
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 9:28 am
Nah:
Your comments show you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Your denial of the physical death and physical resurrection forces you to use metaphor instead of reading the plain words of the accounts in the gospel. Your metaphor theory does not stand against the totality of the scripture. You are deceiving yourself in this train of thought, or maybe you are being deceived by something else unwittingly….
Your statement on Hebrews shows that you don’t trust any of the writings to be true or accurate which makes any comment you say, using the scriptures as a reference, null and void. You need to throw the whole bible out and start your own movement. Don’t embarrass yourself by using scripture to make your case for a Jesus that never died and never rose again.
Naz
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 9:43 am
FA:
If you think that Isaiah is writing abut Jesus you are erroneously lulled into a sleepy eyed Christian whose neutrons have ceased firing because of your incessant rapture over the supernatural…Isaiah is not talking about Jesus at all, Isaiah is talking about Israel, that is the “servant” collectively, being swarmed by aggressors and led into exile.
Here is a lesson for you to learn:
This is one of the most well known passages in the entire Old Testament. Yet, when we interpret this passage we need to be careful precisely because we are so familiar with it.
The interpreter should keep three things in mind in studying this passage. First, we should not invert the Bible by working backward through history and using the events of the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament. God worked through historical events, not apart from them.
Second, we need to view this passage in the literary context of Isaiah 40-55 (see The Turn Toward Hope: Isaiah 40:1-15). This passage reflects the major concerns of this part of the book of Isaiah, not our concerns.
Third, we need to overcome the common misconception that prophets simply predicted the future. The future did concern the prophets, but predicting it was not their primary mission. Prophecy served two functions: 1) to proclaim God’s will to the people and 2) to interpret events in light of God’s will. In this passage, we are “listening in” as the prophet addressed events of his day and brought God’s new word to despairing exiles.
This poetic passage has three major parts. It opens with a declaration by God contrasting the servant’s external appearance with his true status (52:13-15). The report concerning the servant’s sufferings and their purpose follows (53:1-11a). The passage concludes with a renewed declaration by God of the servant’s triumph (53:11b-12).
The Text
1. God’s Servant Will Be Exalted (Isaiah 52:13-15)
13 See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. 14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him– his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness– 15 so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.
13. It is important to understand how the author uses servant in this section of Isaiah. In all nine occurrences in the first 39 chapters the word simply means “one who serves” in various senses (slave, 14:2; a king’s official, 36:9; a messenger, 37:24, 20:3; a term of respect, 36:11).
There is an unmistakable shift in how the word is used in the rest of the book. “Servant” occurs 31 times in Isaiah 40-66. Only twice is it used as in chapters 1-39 (44:26, 50:10). In all the remaining occurrences, “servant” is used in a figurative sense. The “servant” is usually the collective nation of Israel as the chosen people of God. “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen . . .you are my servant, I have chosen you . . .for I am your God” (41:8-9).
The book continues to use this imagery. In chapter 44, God promises the community of Israel, in the figure of the servant, forgiveness and a day of new things. In chapter 49, the community speaks as a servant commissioned to bear witness of God’s deliverance “to the ends of the earth” (49:1-13; note v.3). In Isaiah 56-66, “servant,” usually occurring in the plural, always depicts the restored community of God’s people who will faithfully follow Him (65:9-15).
In only two passages is the servant not clearly identified as the nation of Israel (chs. 42 and 53). But the context suggests that the imagery is the same in these as well. The servant is a poetic symbol to describe the community of God’s people.
So you see Frank, Isaiah has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus other than the hope of all people that eventually a champion will come to the cause as the Syrian people are waiting for their champion to end the brutality they are suffering daily.
And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mark 14:24) NOTHING TO DO WITH ISAIAH, I’m afraid……you are woefully misguided and your advice is woefully inadequate as usual listening to the winds blowing from the stumps of other half witted Christian waiting for the hocus locus magic of a miracle….sorry, ain’t gonna happen.
You think you know but you don’t. Sacrifices and offering you have not desired Father but YOU HAVE A BODY so make it work for the Father as revealed by Jesus’ life and get your foot out of the grave and rise from the dead!
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 9:57 am
FA:
Both you and Naz only need to know one Law of God, one Law of Good and that is not the lengthy words of a song as in Psalm 119:
Luke 10:26
Jesus answered, “What’s written in God’s Law? How do you interpret it?”
27 He said, “That you love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and muscle and intelligence—and that you love your neighbor as well as you do yourself.”
28 “Good answer!” said Jesus. “Do it and you’ll live.”
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 10:01 am
Frank, yes I understand your point of view from Psalms 119, It is a beautifully expressed Psalm.
To me, David sounds like a person who loves God and His word. My comments and thoughts on the Law in no way conflict with David’s affection for God.
The question is, who holds the Law of God in the highest esteem, those who think they can keep it, or those who know they can’t ?
Reading David, it appears that he was well acquainted with his weakness and inability to keep the Law of God.
Psa 119:5 Oh that my ways may be steadfast in keeping your statutes!
In contrast, look at the Pharisees of Jesus day and you’ll see what I mean.
Naz
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 10:09 am
ltg,
From Yahshua’s own lips:
10:1 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2 But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4 When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5 A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”
6 This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
12 He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
13 He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
17 For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.
18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” (John 10:1-18)
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 10:34 am
ltg,
The Messiah in Isaiah
Isaiah 53:4-6 — The Substitute
http://jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/Isaiah53-4-6.htm
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 10:44 am
ltg,
This may clear up your confusion concerning the identity of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53:
The Messiah in Isaiah
The Suffering Servant
http://jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/MessiahinIsaiah.htm
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 10:50 am
ltg,
The Messiah in Isaiah
Chapter 40: Behold… Here is your God!
http://jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/Isaiah40.htm
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 10:55 am
ltg,
The Messiah in Isaiah
Chapter 42: Behold My Servant
http://jesusplusnothing.com/studies/online/Isaiah42.htm
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 11:19 am
Naz,
I agree with your point concerning the Pharisees. This was of prime concern to Jesus/Yahshua as well. He constantly called them out on this twisting perverting and adding to the word of God for their own deceptive manipulative purposes [Mark 7:1-13]. It’s the traditions & precepts of men that cause the mayhem.
Your word is very pure,
Therefore Your servant loves it. (Psalm 119:140)
This is Yahshua’s Way and what He fulfills.
– Frank
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 12:02 pm
Naz:
My case is that Jesus was crucified but never died, entombed by his two best friends, one of whom had hewn out the tomb for two years prior to the crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea, that both he and Nicodemus engineered an ingenious escape tunnel within the tomb like Top Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman had escaped from a maximum security prison for a second time, that the friends secreted Jesus out through the tunnel where he immediately was treated for his wounds and the healing process begun. When he was sufficiently healed he appeared to his few disciples, and laughed at their looks on their faces because they thought they were seeing a ghost. No not touch me feel my flesh and bones, a spirit does not have a flesh and bones body as you see I have…come see my scars for I have risen from the belly of the earth, escaped the jaws of Sheol….I’m hungry, anything to eat? And he did eat of their food and still in awe were they amazed having believed Jesus to have been entombed in death but was now alive before them!
Oh and about this comment:
“The Epistle to the Hebrews of the Christian Bible is one of the New Testament books whose canonicity was disputed. Traditionally, Paul the Apostle was thought to be the author. However, since the third century this has been questioned, and the consensus among most modern scholars is that the author is unknown.”
This is not from me; this is from modern biblical scholars:
Church tradition teaches that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, and until the 1800s, that issue was closed. However, though a vast majority of Christians—both and scholars and the laity—still believe Paul wrote the book, there are some tempting reasons to think otherwise.
First and foremost is the lack of a salutation. Some sort of personal salutation from Paul appears in all of his letters. So it would seem that writing anonymously is not his usual method; therefore, the reasoning goes, Hebrews cannot be one of his letters. Second, the overall composition and style is of a person who is a very sophisticated writer. Even though he was certainly a sophisticated communicator, Paul stated that he purposely did not speak with a commanding vocabulary (1 Corinthians 1:17; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 11:6).
The book of Hebrews quotes extensively from the Old Testament. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been familiar with the Scripture in its original Hebrew language. In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul’s usage. Finally, Paul was an apostle who claimed to receive his revelations directly from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:12). The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an apostle (Hebrews 2:3).
If Paul didn’t write the letter, who did? The most plausible suggestion is that this was actually a sermon Paul gave and it was transcribed later by Luke, a person who would have had the command of the Greek language which the writer shows. Barnabas is another likely prospect, since he was a Levite and would have been speaking on a subject that he knew much about. Martin Luther suggested Apollos, since he would have had the education the writer of this letter must have had. Priscilla and Clemet of Rome have been suggested by other scholars.
However, there is still much evidence that Paul wrote the letter. The most compelling comes from Scripture itself. Remember that Peter wrote to the Hebrews (that is, the Jews; see Galatians 2:7, 9 and 1 Peter 1:1). Peter wrote: “…just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him [emphasis added]” (2 Peter 3:15). In that last verse, Peter is confirming that Paul had also written a letter to the Hebrews!
The theology presented in Hebrews is consistent with Paul’s. Paul was a proponent of salvation by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, 9), and that message is strongly communicated in this epistle (Hebrews 4:2, 6:12, 10:19-22, 10:37-39, and 11:1-40). Either Paul wrote the epistle, or the writer was trained by Paul. Although it is a small detail, this epistle makes mention of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23), and Paul is the only apostle known to have ever done that in any letter.
So, who actually wrote Hebrews? The letter fills a needed space in Scripture and both outlines our faith and defines faith itself in the same way that Romans defines the tenets of Christian living. It closes the chapters of faith alone and serves as a prelude to the chapters on good works built on a foundation of faith in God. In short, this book belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews, and of all Scripture, even though we don’t know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words.
I don’t know who wrote Hebrews, I wasn’t there and one thing for sure Paul never met Jesus as far as we know but he may have attended and acquiesced to the crucifixion of Jesus since he was a severe persecutor of the followers of Jesus, and Paul also admits that he acquiesced to the stoning of Stephenas well.
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 12:05 pm
Living God’s Way with conviction and without compromise:
http://www.theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.showBerean/BereanID/833/bblver/NKJV/John-17-3.htm
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm
Nah:
The difference between you and I is that I get my belief about Jesus directly from the bible without a supernatural slant and you get your beliefs from the bible with a supernatural slant.
Now I know the paranormal does not exist and mankind has had ten thousand centuries to prove otherwise but cannot.
You believe the supernatural exists so you cannot possibly interpret the real Jesus, his words or his messages without the hocus locus of the supernatural whereas I can explain everything purely by common sense which to me Jesus was a most common sensical guy but you just can’t get the “miracle water in a ketchup package” out of your mindset; you are hardwired by your indoctrinators but not by Jesus the common sense man.
That, Naz, is why you are all mixed up and have to call everything a miracle, like floating upon into the clouds to heaven which is itself rather an insane view that any man could do that and why would he go up into the sky in the first place, since heaven is nowhere to be found up in the sky and Jesus already told you where the Kingdom is, who reigns in that Kingdom, yet you do not accept Jesus’ words about that and that’s in the bible Luke 17:20-21…read it over and over until you get it or …………not………so clearly you are not so clearly thinking in your mind.
I interpret scripture perfectly just like Jesus taught me to and which was the the way he interpreted scripture. Jesus never cited one single supernatural miracle in any of his references to the Old Testament either and you cannot list one thing he ever said that would prove that not to be the case. Go ahead and look; he never ever did because he did not believe in the paranormal nonsense of the scribes and the pharisees but you do! But why do you believe something that Jesus did not and never referenced? Because you are not normal when you think in the paranormal. Jesus was normal.
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 1:03 pm
5:1 After these things there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes.
3 In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, [waiting for the moving of the waters;
4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]
5 A man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years.
6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he had already been a long time in that condition, He said to him, “Do you wish to get well?”
7 The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am coming, another steps down before me.”
8 Jesus said to him, “Get up, pick up your pallet and walk.”
9 Immediately the man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk.
Now it was the Sabbath on that day.
10 So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet.”
11 But he answered them, “He who made me well was the one who said to me, ‘Pick up your pallet and walk.’”
12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up your pallet and walk’?”
13 But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away while there was a crowd in that place.
14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you.”
15 The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.
16 For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.
17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”
18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.
21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.
28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
30 “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.
32 There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.
33 You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth.
34 But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.
35 He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.
36 But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish–the very works that I do–testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.
37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
38 You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.
39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
41 I do not receive glory from men;
42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves.
43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.
44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.
46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:1-47)
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 1:28 pm
FA:
There’s no confusion in Isaiah on my end. He is talking about Israel, the servant, period.
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 1:48 pm
ltg,
Ephesians 4
17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,
18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.
20 But you did not learn Christ in this way,
21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus,
22 that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 2:29 pm
FA:
“The book of Isaiah is amazing. Why? Well, it was written over 700 years before Jesus came to this earth yet it contains clear and accurate prophecies concerning His birth, life and death”
That is so much BS, it is no small wonder your mind is totally twisted by the clerics who will read anything into everything to meet their expectations of supernaturalism and psychics and prophets and put everything in their conspiracy. No reputable scholar would extrapolate from Isaiah’s lamentation over what Isaiah himself clearly says who the Servant is: Israel,The Jewish Nation, Zion. Not Jesus. That’s like the conspiracists who follow Nostradamus do with every event;m they find a mouse hole with which to peg the event as that prophesized by Nostradamus. Clerics do it with everything they can find in the bible because they believe it is totally related whereas the truth is it is totally unrelated to the events in each generation; there may be similarities but we call that, trending; it’s normal progressive reporting and speculating, not predictions or prophecies. Did you ever read the headline Psychic wins Lottery, no but you can find them in many street corners with little shops covered with drapes offering to tell your fortune, your future, your financial expectations.
Isaiah had nothing to do with Jesus but what Clerics read into it and indoctrinate you with and man you are so brainwashed, you can’t think for yourself anymore. Can I give you my address to send your tithes. lol
The Schools of the Sons of the Prophets no more turned out psychics than any modern day seminary or divinity school teaching theological nonsense to its students and that’s all they were. Today we call them ministers, priests, preachers, jehovah witnesses and mormons; in the ancient days they were simply called prophets.
A student with an education in theology; that is, an education in the unknowable is the same as a prophet that graduated from the Schools for Prophets in ancient times. They were not psychics then and they are not psychics now so get that supernatural Caca del toro out of the outhouse in your yesteryear’s mind.
You are so bleak.
Your cuckoo crowing is astonishing.
You have nothing to offer.
LikeLike
August 6, 2016 at 2:46 pm
FA:
“………..an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”
You are the dead Frank and I am the Son, will you hear my voice and live?
And it was by this saying that you can understand why Jesus said about the difference between the resurrection of the dead, dead and the walking dead while yet alive…….So if you are clever enough to see the witticism in the riddle: Jesus is not talking about the dead, dead but the walking dead because he said “……as to the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what God said to you………. He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” THE WALKING DEAD. When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.…
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 9:24 am
Leo, you’re stretching it still, and comparing this to “El Chapo” !! Really, come on please …
The dialogue about not being a ghost is to let the disciples know he was physically resurrected, not that He never died in the first place.
How do explain Thomas’s reaction to seeing Christ ?
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Joh 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Why would Thomas call Jesus Lord and God if he was just a guy that was treated for wounds ? Why is belief in Jesus a factor when Thomas can see Jesus ? What did Thomas have to believe ? What was Jesus talking about ? Believe what ? Certainly it was not hard to believe Jesus was alive, He was standing right there.
The answer is in the last verse. it’s right there in front of you ! Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God !
Naz
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 9:42 am
Continuing post # 277.:
Published on Sep 21, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – What was Nailed to the Cross?
• Colossians 2 – ANSWERS
• What was nailed to the cross?
• What is the “handwriting of requirements”?
• What does it mean to be free in Yahushua?
• What is meant by “Let no one judge you in food, drink, . . . a New Moon or Sabbaths”?
In this video:
A Biblical examination of Colossians 2
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 9:49 am
Published on Oct 7, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – When Does a Day Begin?
• Satan has stolen worship due to the Creator
• Jews & SDAs begin their day at sunset
• Creation week began with “Let there be light”
• The sun was given to rule over the day
• Yahushua: “Are there not 12 hours in a day?”
• Restoring the TRUE Sabbath Day
In this video:
When the BIBLE says a day begins!
Sunrise, sunset, dawn, dusk, morning, evening, midnight??? When does a day begin? Throughout time, different cultures have begun the day at different times. The Romans began the “day” at midnight, a practice continued to this day in the modern Gregorian calendar which itself is a modification of the Roman Julian calendar. Jews and many Saturday-Sabbatarians begin their Sabbath Friday evening at sunset. Scripture itself reveals when a day begins, and it is neither midnight nor sunset. Watch this video and learn when the Bible says a day begins.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 9:56 am
Published on Jul 13, 2014
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Biblical Lunar Sabbaths and the Lunar Solar Calendar: The Creator of the world designed an elegant and precise system of time-keeping to regulate life. The modern solar calendar is a counterfeit of the Creator’s calendar. In order to worship on the true seventh-day Sabbath, set apart at Creation as holy time, the Creator’s original calendar must be used. It is not possible to find the true Sabbath on the modern calendar. This video explains the original calendar established at Creation.
• Restoration of Yahuwah’s Calendar
• Sun, moon, & stars appointed for time-keeping
• Most elegant & precise of all calendars
• The Biblical calendar is luni-solar
• Modern solar calendar is a counterfeit
• Restoring the TRUE 7th Day Sabbath
In this video:
The Original Calendar established at Creation!
The Lunar Solar Calendar:
http://www.worldslastchance.com/yahuw…
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:04 am
Published on Oct 9, 2015
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – The Saturday Swindle: Hiding the Sabbath – Part 1
• Constantine… standardized the planetary week, making Sunday the first day of the week.
• Constantine… exalted dies Solis (Sunday) as worship day for pagans and Christians.
• Constantine… exalted Easter over Passover.
In this video:
Constantine outlaws the Biblical Calendar!
https://www.worldslastchance.com/yahu…
One of the greatest frauds in the history of the world was perpetrated almost 1,700 years ago by the actions of two men. The Roman emperor, Constantine, committed a portentous act: he unified his empire by promoting Sunday as the day of Yahushua’s resurrection and outlawed the use of the Biblical calendar for calculating Passover. This set in motion a series of reactions. Jewish leader Hillel II (covered in Part 2 of this series – “The Saturday Swindle”) responded to the persecution following this legislation by a modification of the Biblical calendar. This supplanted the true Sabbath with the pagan Saturday. It was a chain of actions and reactions of epic proportions. The ramifications continue to this day with every Christian and Jew that worships by the Gregorian calendar.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:10 am
Published on Nov 17, 2015
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – The Saturday Swindle: Hiding the Sabbath – Part 2
• In the fourth century, Hillel II modified the Biblical Calendar!
• Jews worship on Saturday because Talmudic law justifies the act.
• True Sabbath NOT on modern calendar!
In this video:
Hillel II transfers Sabbath observance to Saturday!
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:15 am
Published on Oct 4, 2014
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – New Moons: Gift of the Creator
• New Moon Days = A distinct class of worship days all by themselves
• A time for reflection, contemplation, and examination of one’s spiritual health
• A time to seek forgiveness for past failings and help for the coming month
In this video:
New Moon Day… the glorious gift of Yahuwah!
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:21 am
Published on Sep 28, 2015
Check out the article for a more in-depth study of this most important issue: https://www.worldslastchance.com/yahu…
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Lunar Sabbath Vindicated by “70 Weeks” Prophecy!
• Daniel’s “70 Weeks” (Daniel 9)
• Crucifixion in Spring of 31 AD
• Crucifixion on 14th day of lunar month
• Crucifixion on 6th day of the week
• Crucifixion NOT on a “Friday”!
In this video:
Ancient Prophecy proves Lunar Sabbath!
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:42 am
Nah:
I wonder sometimes if you are just a kid teenager without any understanding until someone spells something out to you completely.
I didn’t compare El Chapo with Jesus; I compared the tunnel El Chapo escaped through and the tunnel that Joseph had hewn for just such a day as he inevitably knew was coming because Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin and had all the intelligence briefings like Nicodemus. And that tunnel Joseph had hewn included the escape tunnel for Jesus as the tunnel hewn for the escape tunnel of El Chapo. So this comparison is not about El Chapo and Jesus but the “tunnel to tunnel” escape conduit “comparison”. Why do you act so obtuse? You act like a little child.
To your questions:
(1)
Why would Thomas call Jesus Lord and God if he was just a guy that was treated for wounds ?
Well, why would Nathanael call Jesus, the Son of God and the King of Israel because Jesus said he saw him under the fig tree?
Know the story?
Nevertheless, Nathanael’s response is one of the great confessions of faith, parallel to Thomas’ later in the book – “my Lord, and my God!”
But it wasn’t that they saw Jesus and believed; it was that they did not believe their colleagues, on the part pf Nathanael when Philip said: “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” and on the part of Thomas who did not believe the other disciples when they said, “We have seen the Lord.” But Thomas replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.”…….. that you have seen the Lord.
So it wasn’t Jesus that Thomas did not believe; it was the other disciples that Thomas did not believe when they said they saw the Lord…The same for Nathanael: Thomas Doubted the other disciples and Nathanael doubted Philip Not Jesus.
Now ask yourself: What is the significance of Jesus seeing Nathanael under the fig tree, that this one short statement by Jesus: “I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you.”………would turn Nathanael’s skepticism to such reverence?
(2)
Why is belief in Jesus a factor when Thomas can see Jesus ?
It wasn’t a factor as OI just pointed out in (1)
(3)
What did Thomas have to believe ?
Thomas had to believe the disciples and Nathanael had to believe Philip and neither one did, that’s what Jesus was talking about.
(4)
The answer to your own misunderstanding about escape from the tunnel is your own last statement after the questions…
you said: Certainly it was not hard to believe Jesus was alive, He was standing right there.
Exactly the point; Jesus was alive because he survived the suffering and wounds, escaped the the tomb through the tunnel and winds had healed but the scars were present still.
So there’s nothing supernatural about this, the bible tells us so and that’s why Jesus remained alive; you just can’t seem to intelligently answered the question, How? Without resorting to the mythical paranormal that just never happened as Jesus clearly revealed himself alive.
The only thing you said that is correct is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ! because he said so himself and presented the scripture that confirmed it in
Psalms 82:6
“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High”.
So Naz, we also, like Jesus, are the Sons of God and we are the children of the most High. That is clear.
and as to being the Christ again Jesus said so himself:
John 4:
19 The woman saith unto Jesus, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
See, this too, is a Christ Clear Comment from Jesus himself in the same Book you revere but you just can’t see through your super unnatural blinkers.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:46 am
FA:
The earth rotates on its axis; when half of the earth is facing the sun it is day; when the other half is not facing the sun it is night so the earth in in contact day and constant night.
This has nothing to do with the bible and just proves your nonsensical obsession with a book.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:52 am
Re: post # 94.
Published on May 30, 2013
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – 144,000: The Bride of Yahushua
• One with the divine mind and will
• Perfectly reflecting Yahuwah’s character
• Full surrender to the will of Yahuwah
• No guile found in their mouths
• The spotless bride of Yahushua
• Following the Lamb wherever He goes
In this video:
Discovering the identity of Revelation’s 144,000!
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:53 am
Frank:
A book that Religious Clerics have worked their calculators to the bone to make it work to the conclusion of prophetic numbers and rendered it into a Nostradamus Conspiracist Prophecy Book has made you stupid. I’m sorry to have to tell you this but its for your own good because right now you have none.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:56 am
Frank:
What you have is the curse of the Theory GodMother coursing its way through you.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 12:16 pm
ltg,
Continuing post # 241.
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/04/the-gospel-of-jesus-on-sexual-binaries
118
You have rejected all those who wander from Your statutes,
For their deceitfulness is useless. (Psalm 119:118)
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 5:17 pm
ltg,
From your post # 254.
The truth is that man ordained the Sabbath and CLAIMED it was from God, not that any man has seen God or heard God speak, it was man who created the Gods and gave God all the attributes that man felt was suitable for everybody else to live by according to their dreams and visions and imagination.
* * * * *
DID CHRIST/MESSIAH ABOLISH THE SABBATH?
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/7149.24.124.0/religion/did-christ-abolish-the-sabbath
READ THE BIBLE.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 5:55 pm
FA:
I just explained the bible from Jesus perspective in Post # 254 but you refuse to know what Jesus taught and you live in a blind vacuum of supernatural nonsense and there you are stuck and will remain stuck as long as you refuse to accept Jesus without your stupid supernaturalism tags on him.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm
FA
Everything you read in the bible you take out of context because of your skewed brain in the paranormal magical miracles about Jesus walking through walls…imagine how stupid that is to reasonable people.
Every single thing in the bible you take out of context and you are made stupid by religious theotards of which you are one hell of a proselyte and twice as fit for the darkness as those who taught you because you continue crucifying Jesus and wasting his message and words with your nonsensical theocratic stupidity.
Get a grip on life and life by his words not your supernatural slant.
Give me one instance where Jesus ever referenced one single paranormal, supernatural event in his lifetime or in the Old Testament Bible…I ASKED YOU BEFORE to give me one example…..just one….BUT YOU ALWAYS REFUSE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT FIND ONE SINGLE REFERENCE BY JESUS. Because Jesus was NORMAL and you are not! And you try to turn Jesus into something abnormal like yourself but you can’t do and none of your teachers have been able to in the two thousand years they’e been trying; it’s why you will never progress, never grow up, never see life, never know Jesus, never understand his message or his life and why he came and undertook upon himself the Messianic Mission that NEEDED TO BE TOLD TO A WORLD full of egocentrism and mythological retardation.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 6:42 pm
ltg,
From your post # 239.:
Jesus and I are on the same page about gays.
* * * * *
As believers, we must wrestle deeply with what legitimizes sexual expressions, the reality of our wants or the revelation of God’s will. If our desire is ultimately authoritative, then sin no longer has any meaning whatsoever and each man becomes his own standard and judge. Though our eyes may burn as they are adjusted to the light of God’s Word, the result is that we might better see our fallen selves and the radiance of our exalted Savior. Scripture must be the lens through which we view all things and it must be the standard by which we measure them.
JESUS and HOMOSEXUALITY | THE VILLAGE CHURCH
http://www.thevillagechurch.net/sermon/jesus-and-homosexuality/
* * * * *
2 Corinthians 5
5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,
3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.
4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.
5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.
6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord–
7 for we walk by faith, not by sight–
8 we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.
9 Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 7:03 pm
ltg,
From your post # 302.:
Give me one instance where Jesus ever referenced one single paranormal, supernatural event in his lifetime or in the Old Testament Bible…
* * * * *
Matthew 12
12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”
3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions,
4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?
5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?
6 But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.
7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
9 Departing from there, He went into their synagogue.
10 And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”–so that they might accuse Him.
11 And He said to them, “What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out?
12 How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13 Then He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand!” He stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other.
14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.
15 But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all,
16 and warned them not to tell who He was.
17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
18
“BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN;
MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED;
I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM,
AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.
19
“HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT;
NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS.
20
“A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF,
AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT,
UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY.
21
“AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE.”
22 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw.
23 All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?”
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”
25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.
26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?
27 If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges.
28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.
30 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
31 “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.
34 You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
35 The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.
36 But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.
37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
42 The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
43 “Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and does not find it.
44 Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came’; and when it comes, it finds it unoccupied, swept, and put in order.
45 Then it goes and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation.”
46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.
47 Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”
49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!
50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 7:18 pm
Published on Sep 10, 2014
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – His Name is Wonderful | Part 1 – Call Upon His Name!
• יהוה
• “I AM that I AM”
• The Creator’s Sacred Name
• “LORD” is not His Name
• “God” is not His Name
• The Creator urges ALL to call upon His Name
In this video:
Discover the Heavenly Father’s Sacred Name!
His Name is Wonderful! Throughout scripture, the heavenly Father urges all to call upon His name. Only those who know His name can call upon it. Learn the personal name of the Almighty Creator. His name itself is a promise that He will BE all that you need Him to be!
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 7:55 pm
FA:
I will only answer to the first par of your comment which I believe you actually wrote….the references for videos or what other think about..I do not care as they are not blogging to me.
First of all, what you perceive to be sin is not necessarily a sin to others so you err when you try to lump everybody into one size fits all. When a person is born from the womb, that so the way that person shall grow up and into, and that is his normality. That normality you nor I or anybody else can attribute that normality as sin because sin like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it does not mean that the beauty you perceive or the sin you perceive is fitting for another person…only for your self.
You have there idea that what the cleric says is sin, is sin by disobedience but they too can only perceive sin as they see sin in themselves because it is impossible to know the motive , the beauty or the sin that lies in the privacy of the treasure of somebody else’s heart and spirit.
When I say Jesus and I are on the same page about homosexuality, I mean that Jesus never said that homosexuality was sin and never mentioned homosexuality, except in the context of the Eunuch and of the Eunuch he described three types of Eunuchs…….
(1) the Eunuch who practices celibacy for the Kingdom as he perceives that to mean to himself, such as priests in the Catholic church who take a vow of celibacy and I suppose there are other groups similarly persuaded;
(2) Eunuchs that are made that way by others for the sake of being managers of the King’s harem of concubines for example; these Eunuchs may be made so by castration or they may also be Eunuchs who are homosexual by nature and therefore are not impassioned by women but by men only. It may also include the Temple Priests who make Eunuchs of men to serve as Temple Pimps for the priests of the Temple which would serve the purposes for homosexual priests; these Eunuchs would perhaps be bought from families for that purpose or slaves and if not gay are brought up to believe that they are gay by habitual influence that can determine the way they perceive themselves by the environment they are exposed to; in other words, the way they were trained and brought up from childhood to serve the Temple Priests.
(3) This is the main group that Jesus said are Eunuchs (homosexuals) made that way from their mothers womb.
Just to refresh your mind this conversation took place when addressing the question of marriage and divorce when the disciples said, if that is the case of adultery as cause for divorce; that is, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
And then the subject turns into the celibacy that some men who do not want to marry and one of the reasons they do not marry text runs into the question that brought celibacy into question and follows through with other Eunuchs who do not marry. So the Eunuch example was a natural progression about not marrying in answer to the observation of the Disciples: “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” leading to Jesus referring to reasons that some people do not marry such as the way it is with Eunuchs who do not marry.
But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
And I for one, am one, to whom it is given to accept Jesus saying.
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
And it is for this reason that I declare that Jesus and I are on the same page and neither Jesus nor I hold those Eunuchs to be accountable for sin, not those who abstain from sexual activity, not those who were made that way by men and not those who were so born from their mother’s womb.
As far as I am concerned Frank there are no videos you can post that will teach me anything about the bible because I know the bible and I know its meaning and I understand Jesus sayings and I interpret the scriptures perfectly, exactly like Jesus did.
Not everybody can accept this saying of Jesus about gays and neither can everybody accept this saying of mine, save they to whom it is given. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
That is my position and the reason your videos cannot teach me anything and the reason I will not review them or view them because whatever I say will not teach the videographers anything either,because they are not privy to this blog and will never read my comments.
But you are, so please comment to me accordingly and we can dialogue one to one. Reference the bible is okay as I do myself but I don’t need the teachings of people misinterpreting and misunderstanding the bible and scriptures generally and Jesus in particular and who themselves are out of touch with reality.
Thank you.
ltg
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 9:17 pm
FA:
In those days, times were very tough for people and sometimes people went to the synagogue to beg for help, many of them would feign afflictions so as to gain sympathy and donations.
Whether the man had a withered hand or not I do not know but what I do know is that Jesus was familiar with all those who went to the places where many feigned infirmities to garner some amount of sympathy money and there were people then, as there are today, who beg at the churches and street corners in wheel chairs and use crutches and other props but when they finished begging and left their “spot” of choice they returned to their normal lives not afflicted at all.
I also know that Jesus was very familiar with those who had infirmities and familiar with those who were faking infirmities and I believe that on some occasions Jesus confronted the fakers and gave them a choice to either get out of their pretence or face being exposed, at which time the faker made the decision not to be exposed and so feigned their cure attributing the cure to Jesus just as they had been feigning their infirmity. And there are several examples in the New Testament that this has happened.
Now I can tell you that there is no such diagnosis as demon-possession that causes a man to be blind and mute; that is a hollywood/religious supernatural make believe for movie entertainment or anecdotal stories to increase tithing in the collection plate. So what the man had I do not know but what I know is that he was not blind and if he was mute he was deliberately so..but out of respect perhaps of Jesus made his normality known.
As far as Jonah, Jonah struggled when he was cast overboard claiming he was responsible for the terrible storm the ship encountered. if you read the story it tells about Jonah’s struggle from drowning and how the seaweed wrapped around Jonah’s head, how he was dragged down into the depths of the ocean and Jonah promising to go to Nineveh if he was saved and eventually the waves washed him upon the shore (the embellished fish belly vomited Jonah onto the land) and he was safe from the ocean’s belly, the fish’s belly, from the Belly of the Sea, the Belly of the Fish, the Belly of Sheol the Fish is a metaphor for the Ocean and possible death and rage by drowning death in his throat………
The 3 day is a period of time, not necessarily the actual time, Jonah spent fighting for his life amid the storm’s waves.
Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly,
2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
3 For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.
4 Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.
5 The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.
7 When my soul fainted within me I remembered the Lord: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.
8 They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.
9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the Lord.
10 And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.
It is obvious from the description of the water and weeds and dragged to the bottom in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me….” that Jonah was describing the belly of the ocean, not the belly of a fish.
This is simply a man struggling in the tempest into which Jonah asked the sailors to cast him because he did not want to go to Nineveh and would rather risk his life in the ocean storm. (thinking I suppose that he would be strong enough to reach the shore because it was visibly close by.)
So struggling in the grips of the closeness of death by drowning as in the case of Jonah and by the crucifixion wounds and suffering in the case of Jesus was the sign that Jesus said would be the only sign the pharisees would be given this evil generation since it was them trying to kill him.
And Jesus one exactly how they wanted to kill him!
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 9:44 pm
ltg,
From your posts #s 302. & 306.:
“First of all, what you perceive to be sin is not necessarily a sin to others so you err when you try to lump everybody into one size fits all. When a person is born from the womb, that so the way that person shall grow up and into, and that is his normality. That normality you nor I or anybody else can attribute that normality as sin because sin like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it does not mean that the beauty you perceive or the sin you perceive is fitting for another person…only for your self.”
“You have there idea that what the cleric says is sin, is sin by disobedience but they too can only perceive sin as they see sin in themselves because it is impossible to know the motive , the beauty or the sin that lies in the privacy of the treasure of somebody else’s heart and spirit.”
* * * * *
WRONG. Your presumption leaves you in error. Clerics don’t define sin and neither do you. YHWH does this. You’re the one entertaining ideas about clerics. I’m disinterested in clerics of any sort. You on the other hand demonstrate consistently you’re obsessed with them.
* * * * *
“When I say Jesus and I are on the same page about homosexuality, I mean that Jesus never said that homosexuality was sin and never mentioned homosexuality”
“Everything you read in the bible you take out of context because of your skewed brain in the paranormal magical miracles about Jesus walking through walls…imagine how stupid that is to reasonable people.”
“Every single thing in the bible you take out of context and you are made stupid by religious theotards of which you are one hell of a proselyte and twice as fit for the darkness as those who taught you because you continue crucifying Jesus and wasting his message and words with your nonsensical theocratic stupidity.”
* * * * *
WRONG. You should have taken the opportunity to open & read the links I posted. If you had you’d learn that Jesus spoke repeatedly about homosexuality. Only he didn’t use that particular word to describe the behavior since it wasn’t invented until the 19th century. He calls it fornication (porneia in the Greek) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g4202 In fact we know that Yahshua’s standard for sexual morality is significantly stricter than what was usual in His time and place for He said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28) If you believe Yahshua/Jesus is the God of the Bible then you also believe He’s the Word of YHWH and as such He’s the Truthful living expression of all Biblical Scripture; i.e., Old and New Testament Scripture wherein homosexuality is condemned throughout regardless of how you’d attempt to rationalize it otherwise. At least make a minimal effort to read the facts for yourself instead of leaning constantly on the Jeezus of your predilections. The way I see it you’re nothing more than a masochistic useful idiot.
LikeLike
August 7, 2016 at 10:05 pm
FA:
Your are so crazy…God does not define sin…..the clerics claiming to be his spokespeople define sign…Did God ever talk you, to anybody…NO because people in those days drew straws to determine who was evil, clerics defined sin according to their precepts and claimed them to be from God and fornication was Jesus talking about homosexuality is out to lunch because if that was the case then fornication could be offset simply by getting married which homosexuals cannot do they they constantly live in sin but only according to you Frank because you don’t know anything….fornication is sex before marriage but after marriage sex is cool says who? says the clergy and the church…..
THIS IS THE Ancient Religious Tradition:
God’s will, so called, is revealed in the “holy” scriptures. The sacred book formulates the will of God and specifies what is to be given to the clergy. Clergy become parasites. “… All things of life are so ordered that the clergy is everywhere indispensable; at all the natural events of life, at birth, marriage, sickness, death. Natural values become utterly valueless. The Clergy sanctifies and bestows all value. Disobedience of God (the clergy) is ‘sin.’ Subjection to God (the clergy) is redemption. Clergy use ‘sin’ to gain and hold power.
Sex without Clergy permission is sinful, lust, fornication, adultery.
This is not from God because God has no care about what we do when we are naked only the clergy and the church and religious prudes do:
Imagine
God that you believe in is essentially an invisible person, a creator deity, who created the universe to have a relationship with one species of primate. Lucky Mankind.
And he’s got galaxy upon galaxy to attend to but he’s especially concerned with what we do, and he’s especially concerned with what we do when naked. And he almost certainly disapproves of homosexuality and he’s created this cosmos as a vast laboratory in which to test our powers of credulity. And the test is this: Can you believe in this God on bad evidence, which is to say on faith? And the word of other men who call themselves prophets? And if you can, you will win an eternity of happiness after you die. That some payment for a place filled with clergy and born again believers and bible thumping whoopees who will determine your sins for you.
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 7:57 am
FA:
“…….Jesus’ standard for sexual morality is significantly stricter than what was usual in His time and place………”
This is also ridiculous….All Jesus meant was that the act itself did not only constitute the sin because the sin process actually starts in the mind ……which is the same meaning he referred to when he said….”You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder,’ and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell.…”
You see it starts in the mind Frank….in the mind….but in your mind because that’s the only mind you can confirm; the motives of others are hidden from you as well as the sins that may reside there unless openly communicated.
Oh by the way let me ask you again.
The only bible Jesus ever had was the Old Testament; of all the so called supernatural miracles which of these did Jesus ever reference as supernatural…I already debunked your Jonah supernatural as anyone with intelligence will note.
Jesus did not have the New Testament just in case you think he did which is what you said Jesus referenced about the supernatural in the healing examples you guessed at.
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 8:11 am
JESUS ESCAPES THE TOMB THROUGH A TUNNEL:
Tunnels have a long history in warfare stretching back to biblical times. For at least 3,000 years, embattled populations have used them to hide from, and strike at, stronger enemies. Ironically, this has been especially so in the region where present-day Israel and Palestine are located. Archaeologists have found more than 450 ancient cave systems in the Holy Land, including many that were dug into mountainsides, which the Jews used to launch guerrilla-style attacks on Roman legionnaires during the Great Jewish Revolt from ad 66 to 70.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 8, 2016 at 8:45 am
fa
What is the difference between what the Mosaic Law says in Leviticus 19:18
Leviticus 19:18
18 Thou shalt not seek vengeance, neither thou shalt be mindful of the wrong of thy citizens (nor shalt thou remember the wrong-doings of thy fellow citizens); thou shalt love thy friend (neighbor) as thyself; I am the Lord.
And what Jesus said in John
John13:34: Jesus said, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 1:40 pm
This Post 313:
for FA and Naz when reason encounters logic; and,
Bob Mason whom I believe already gets it; and,
Paul V whom I believe is on the cusp of a profound ability not to reason against logic.
A central claim of religion is about the virgin birth and also a claim about biology. The claim and Jesus rose from the dead and that he will return to earth is a claim about history, it’s a claim about the human survival of death; it’s apparently a claim about human flight without the aid of technology.
Jews, Christians and Muslims, while they disagree on many things all agree on the day of judgment, every person who ever lived will be physically resurrected. Just which scientific laws does this violate?
One is tempted to say all of them.
If the basic claims of religion are true, science is so blind that science is underlying reality. And the laws of nature are so susceptible to supernatural modifications as to render the whole enterprise of science ridiculous. If on the other hand the basic claims of religion are false, most of the people on this planet are profoundly confused about the nature of reality and beset by quite irrational hopes and fears. And many people are simply wasting their lives and spreading delusions, often with tragic results. It seems to me no thinking person can be indifferent between the two sides of this dichotomy.
So I want to suggest to you that whatever is true about our circumstance, ethically and spiritually, can be discovered now and can be talked about in language compatible with our growing scientific understanding of the world and of the human mind. Whatever discoveries are there to be made about how to maximize human well being can be talked about in language that is not an affront to all we’ve come to know in the last few thousand years.
And to subscribe to one of the iron age religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam is to make the tacit claim that, that is impossible. That there is in fact no way to understand our circumstance using the tools of our modern understanding of the world. That some measure of superstition is necessary, some measure of mythology, that we have to lie just this much.
The point is we can place our confidence only in human conversation and the question is; do you want to place it in the 21st century conversation where we have all of the world’s literature and learning available to us; or, do you want to place it in a 1st century or a 7th century conversation as preserved in one of our holy books?
Thank you very much
sharris
——————————————————————————END PART 1
Well, as we’ve begun to see, one of the problems with arguing in defence of God is that the evidence in your favor is either terrible or non existent. What we’ve heard from the other side and from the middle is that science is so complicated and counter intuitive and obviously incomplete that this leaves room for the God of Abraham. Now that’s basically the argument. Scientists don’t understand everything; we don’t understand how the first complex molecule self assembled; indeed we don’t. Scientists are the first to admit when they don’t know. The arrogance is very much on the side of those who would put their iron age faith in the place of genuine scientific ignorance.
Now the other side has been playing “hide the ball” with the articles of faith. Okay, let’s be very clear about this. And we’ll speak about Christianity specifically just for ease. Christianity is based on the notion that the Gospel account of the miracles of Jesus is true. This is what you have to reject to reject Christianity; you don’t have to prove the universe to be absent of God, in the same way that you don’t have to go find that Poseidon or Zeus or any of the thousands of other dead Gods are absent from the universe. But Christianity, it is a textual claim about the veracity of the bible.
Consider what this amounts to. Bible scholars agree that the first Gospels were written decades after the life of Jesus, decades, and of course we don’t have the original manuscripts; we have copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek manuscripts which have thousands, literally thousands, of discrepancies between them, many of which show signs of later interpolations, which is to say that people added passages that then became part of the canon. There are whole books of the canon, like the “Book of Revelation” which for hundreds of years were not included because they were deemed false gospel. There are other whole books like the “Shepherd of Hermas” which you probably haven’t heard of but for centuries it was considered part of the canon and then was later jettisoned as false gospel. Generations of Christians lived and died being guided by gospel that is now deemed both incomplete and mistaken. Think about that.
So this process, this all too human process, of cobbling together this supposed authoritative word of God is a very precarious basis to assert the claims of Christianity. But the truth is even if we had multiple, contemporaneous claims of the miracles of Jesus this would not be good enough because miracle stories abound even in the 21st century.
The deviltries of the South India Guru, Sathya Sai Baba, ascribe all of the miracles of Jesus to himself; he reads minds; he foretells the future; he heals; he raises the dead; born of a virgin. Sathya Sai Baba is not a fringe speaker. You may not have heard of him but they had a birthday party for him a few years ago and a million people showed up. There are vast numbers of people who think he’s a living God.
So Christianity is predicated on the claim that miracle stories, exactly of the kind that today surround the person like Sathya Sai Baba become especially credible when you place them in the pre scientific religious context of the 1st century Roman Empire, decades after their supposed occurrence as attested to by copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek and largely discredited manuscripts.
We have Sathya Sai Baba’s miracle stories attested to by thousands upon thousands of living eye witnesses and they don’t even merit an hour on cable television. And yet you put a few miracle stories in an ancient book and half the people on earth think it a legitimate project to organize their lives around.
Does anyone else see a problem with that?
sharris
———————————————————END PART TWO
I want to return to this core issue, which is belief, because without belief religion evaporates; without belief science evaporates. We’re talking about claims and their evidence. We’re talking about what you think is true about the nature of the universe. Presumably you don’t believe in Zeus, if someone stood here and said Zeus was the greatest scientist, you would not have applauded.
Let’s talk honestly about what we think is true. The truth is that religion as we speak of it, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, is based on the claim that God dictates certain books. He doesn’t code software, he doesn’t produce films, he doesn’t score symphonies, he’s an author. This claim has achieved credibility because these books are deemed so profound they could not possibly have been written by human authors. Please consider for a moment how differently we treat scientific claims, text and discoveries:
Isaac Newton went into isolation for 18 months starting in the year 1665. When he came out of his solitude he had invented the calculus, he had discovered the laws of motion and universal gravitation, he had single handedly created the field of optics. No one thinks this was anything other than a man’s labor. And it took two hundred years of continuous ingenuity for some of the smartest people who ever lived to substantially improve upon Newton’s work.
How difficult would it be to improve the bible? Anyone in this room could improve this supposedly inerrant text scientifically, historically, ethically, spiritually, in moments! If God loves us and wanted to guide us with a book of morality, it’s very strange to have given us a book that supports slavery, that demands that we murder people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft.
The true basis for hope in our world is open ended conversation and religion has shattered our world into competing moral communities. What we have to convince ourselves of is that love and curiosity are enough for us and intellectual honesty is the guardian of that.
And the message of Jesus for anyone who is intellectually honest enough to receive it, is exactly that!
———————————————END PART THREE
ltg
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 1:54 pm
Published on Aug 30, 2015
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Jews & the Sabbath
• Millions wrongly assume Saturday is the Bible Sabbath because it is when the Jews worship.
• Jewish scholars acknowledge that Saturday is not the ancient, original Sabbath of Scripture.
• Gregorian Calendar IS NOT Yahuwah’s Calendar.
Saturday IS NOT the Bible Sabbath!
In this video:
The forgotten cover up!
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 2:27 pm
Published on Nov 27, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – SDAs & the Lunar Sabbath
• How can the lunar Sabbath be in harmony with the Three Angels’ Messages?
• Didn’t Ellen White state that the week had been preserved since Creation?
• Isn’t worshipping on the 7th day of the calendar society is using all that matters?
In this video:
Lunar Sabbath: Answers to common SDA questions and objections!
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 2:33 pm
Published on Oct 30, 2015
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Ellen White, Errors & Assumptions: When does Sabbath start?
• Can a true prophet ever be mistaken?
• Did Ellen White claim to be infallible?
• Did Heaven confirm Ellen White’s understanding of when the Sabbath begins?
• Is light advancing? or has all been revealed?
In this video:
Ellen White’s understanding of when Sabbath begins…
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 2:44 pm
Frank, I was curious as to why you are posting so many videos on the Sabbath ?
Do you think this makes any difference to our faith ? Or, are you just providing this for reading/viewing material for those who want to know and are curious about the topic ?
In a sort of parallel question…are you offended when we use the name “Jesus” instead of “Yahushua” ?
Naz
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 2:51 pm
fa:
It does not matter one iota what day the sabbath is on or after or before lunar soleil or otherwise..or anything…it is irrelevant and means nothing except o Jews I suppose and nigglers.
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 3:32 pm
Naz,
I’m not offended when anyone uses the name Jesus or Yahushua. I use the name Yahshua when referring to the Son of God, the Messiah. It means Yahweh is our salvation. My God is the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That’s Who I speak of when I speak of God.
The answer to your other question is somewhat more complicated. I think it important that when we worship our Creator we do it as He sees fit not as we see fit. He reveals that to us through His Word. Yahshua tells us we should worship God in spirit and in truth. We must learn what those terms mean and their full implications. We must search out those things. That’s what I’m doing. Anyone who cares to join is welcome and if we can all benefit by it even better.
Published on Sep 19, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Obtaining Yahuwah’s Righteousness
• What is the gospel that is “to be preached to every creature”? (Mark 16:15)
• How does the gospel of Yahushua represent the power of Yahuwah to save everyone?
• How can we do the works of Yahuwah?
• How can we obtain Yahuwah’s righteousness?
In this video:
What it means to walk righteously by faith!
– Frank
LikeLike
August 8, 2016 at 4:08 pm
Published on Nov 9, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Vindicating the Lunar Sabbath… The International Date Line illustrates the fallacy of the continuous weekly cycle theory.
The International Date Line:
• Is a fairly recent man-made invention
• Is completely arbitrary
• Can be and has been moved at will
• Disproves the continuous weekly cycle
• Requires a one-day adjustment to reconcile East and West.
In this video:
The “Continuous Weekly Cycle” is proven FALSE!
LikeLike
August 9, 2016 at 8:53 pm
Frank, I looked into WLC, run for the hills my friend !!
This is yet another cultish movement with a false prophet Ellen White giving us so called “revelation” through her writings.
Another group that says they are the only ones that got it right …please..
Naz
LikeLike
August 9, 2016 at 9:40 pm
Naz,
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
WLC states they’re non-denominational and repeatedly urge that their claims be tested against Scripture. That doesn’t make them correct but it does say they recognize they must withstand scrutiny. They insist each person should reach their own conclusion after a careful thorough examination on their own part. As to Ellen White she states she’s not infallible. Only God is. I definitely agree with that. Only God Himself is infallible. Each person is free to choose so takes responsibility for their own choices.
– Frank
LikeLike
August 10, 2016 at 7:46 am
Frank, it goes without saying that there are false prophets out there but any group which proclaims that everyone else is wrong has already implicated themselves as a group to stay away from.
What is the goal here anyway ? Are we striving to be doctrinally correct ? I thought we were supposed to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus ?
I used to be in a church that thought just like WLC so I see the snare this group has fallen into. In there attempt to honor God and the truth of scripture, they have separated themselves based on what I would call mostly secondary or auxiliary issues such as the lunar Sabbath and so forth. So much so that their web site is so littered with all of these side topics that the gospel is almost no where to be found !
Groups like this, and there are many of them, have become distracted from the main goal of preaching the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ. Ultimately groups like these that insist on such “scriptural precision” fall into legalism and that legalism they will call Truth.
As you said, we are all free agents and what we choose to feed on will be an expression of how far we have grown spiritually. Although some teachings may appear wise and something to be desired, it may actually stunt our spiritual growth. A good way to judge a particular teaching is to ask yourself, does this teaching set me free ? The truth will always make you free.
Naz
LikeLike
August 11, 2016 at 2:56 pm
Naz,
And obviously whatever PARTICULAR VIDEOS I posted by WLC I found instructive. That doesn’t mean I commend them as a group or advise anyone to subscribe to their channel. I don’t condemn them either for Yahshua is the final Judge. As I think you’d agree, ONLY GOD HIMSELF IS INFALLIBLE. Meanwhile, I, like anyone, act based upon separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak. And each of us acts based upon their individual set of values and priorities that constitute their worldview.
– Frank
LikeLike
August 11, 2016 at 3:11 pm
Revelation 14
6 And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; 7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”
LikeLike
August 11, 2016 at 7:48 pm
Continuing post # 324.:
Romans 3
10 as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
13
“THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
“THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
14
“WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
15
“THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16
DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17
AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
18
“THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
http://www.theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.showBerean/BereanID/141/bblver/NKJV/Romans-3-28.htm
James 4
5 Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us”?
6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.”
7 Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
9 Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom.
10 Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.
11 Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it.
12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?
13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.”
14 Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away.
15 Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.”
16 But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.
17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.
LikeLike
August 11, 2016 at 8:48 pm
“You shall reverence only the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name.” (Deuteronomy 6:13)
http://www.theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.showBerean/BereanID/27/bblver/NKJV/Romans-1-24-25.htm
“But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day. It shall come about if you ever forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I testify against you today that you will surely perish. Like the nations that the LORD makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the LORD your God.” (Deuteronomy 8:18-20)
Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’” (Matthew 4:10)
LikeLike
August 12, 2016 at 1:03 pm
Frank are those scriptures directed at me ?
Am I in trouble ?
Naz
LikeLike
August 13, 2016 at 2:51 pm
Naz,
Posts # 326. & 327. explain how I value and prioritize worshipping the Creator.
Are you in God’s will?
– Frank
LikeLike
August 13, 2016 at 2:58 pm
Published on Aug 10, 2016
Calvary Chapel Downey (June 2016) – Lecture by Alan Shlemon. Shlemon deals with many of the arguments that LGBT make to justify homosexuality.
LikeLike
August 13, 2016 at 5:06 pm
Typical religious dogma regurgitation said in the same boring way to appeal to the same boring people about about sex discrimination. Now when you add sex before marriage or sex after marriage and try to explain the difference exposes the ignorance of religious prudes.
That is a typical nonsense statement because the truth is that “sex is marriage” and “marriage is sex” so it is impossible to have sex before or after marriage…becaus sex you see marriage is also known as a religious ceremony to consent to you having sex but that’s a nonsense statement too that exposes the ignorance of the religious community.
LikeLike
August 13, 2016 at 5:11 pm
Because sex you see, IS marriage; marriage is not a religious ceremony to give religious consent to have sex; that’s another nonsense statement that exposes the ignorance of the religious community in their understanding if not the Old Testament but what Jesus said as well.
True Marriage is not a church ceremony; true marriage is the sexual act! That’s why a man leaves his mother and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh in the act of sex; in other words, in the act of marriage. It’s not a piece of paper blowing in the wind from the priest or minister, that is dogma nonsense trying to make marriage a churchy thing for consent by the religious.
LikeLike
August 13, 2016 at 5:17 pm
This is one of the main reasons that is typical of the religious community destined to remain in the dark blindness of non understanding. And worse: trying to associate this nonsense with Jesus is what false proselytes do…blind and lost they try to let on they know what they are talking about but they are wandering souls looking for a pasture to lay down their wasted lives. Keep going that way and you will find that lost pastures full of cow pies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 14, 2016 at 8:41 am
Published on Aug 16, 2014
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Prophet to the Remnant
• Preparing daily to enter the Heavenly Promised Land
• “These are they which follow the Lamb wherever He goes.” (Revelation 14:4)
• An identifying hallmark of the remnant
• All have a responsibility to study!
In this video:
Spirit of Prophecy: Heaven’s Gift to the Remnant!
LikeLike
August 14, 2016 at 8:43 am
Published on Aug 13, 2016
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Ellen White & The False Test of Infallibility
• Was Ellen G. White a true prophet?
• Was she mistaken in some areas?
• Did she claim to be all-knowing or infallible?
• Did she elevate her writings above Scripture?
• Did she teach that we should reject anything that does not agree with previously held doctrines?
In this video:
Must we reject Ellen White to accept New Light?
LikeLike
August 14, 2016 at 8:46 am
Published on Jul 27, 2014
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – The Secret of Overcoming
• Gaining the victory over sin and self!
• Standing without fault before the throne of Yahuwah
• Choosing to trust in the Father’s love
• Perfecting faith in Yahuwah’s promises
• “The Anointed in you, the hope of glory”
In this video:
Possessing the Faith of Yahushua!
LikeLike
August 14, 2016 at 8:49 am
Published on Sep 13, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Come Out of Her, My People!
• The last message of mercy ever to be given.
• Time will soon be no more!
• The climax of all the ages is soon to break upon the world.
• Yahuwah’s people must flee Babylon.
• Only those who heed the call will be safe.
In this video:
Yahuwah’s final plea for His people!
LikeLike
August 14, 2016 at 11:32 am
Frank, I am sorry to see you as a wretch of such poordom as to miss the reasoned life of a man with a mind of his own.
Where in the world do you get such nonsense videos and why do you insist on putting them on Jason’s blog?
They should be called: Brain Dead Series; AKA, Caca Del Toro, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7…..
In every generation, century 1, century 2….century 7….century 10, century 16, century 19, century 21……. the same nonsense after nonsense after nonsense, century after century……. etc………….expploring the way to make proselytes of the superstitious weak minds of men capable only of accepting supernaturalism.
There has been no more sense made in the 21st century as there was in the 1st century….flogging dead horses…Christian religion was summed up most succinctly by Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States:(1801-09)
NO REASONABLE MAN AFTER READING THE FOLLOWING COULD DO OTHER THAN QUESTION THE VERACITY OF HIS OWN BELIEF SYSTEM.
“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.”
Frank: This one describes you to a “Tee”:
“Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against the most monstrous absurdities, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.”
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.”; that is, Jesus Christ.
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and in-grafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.”
“I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
“There are, I acknowledge, passages [in the Bible] not free from objection, which we may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence from the circumstances under which he acted. His object was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration. Moses had either not believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly taught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis and precision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and insignificance. The one (i.e. Moses) instilled into his people the most anti-social spirit towards other nations; the other preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence. The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion: and a step to right or left might place him within the grip of the priests of the superstition, a blood thirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel.”
“The whole history of these books (i.e. the Gospels) is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
AND FINALLY THE SUMMATION:
“It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (i.e. the Book of Revelations), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams.”
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 1:24 pm
ltg,
Jefferson was a far better politician than a Bible scholar or theologian. He knew much more about public finance [“A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”] than YHWH or Yahshua of the Bible. Nonetheless, here’s something else he had to say: “It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason.” The Bible has withstood that test for some 3500 years now. Not to denigrate it in any way but how long has Jeffersonian democracy been in operation? One important idea he did stress was freedom of the press. Isn’t America founded on freedom of religion, speech and press? Have a look at the Bill of Rights, Amendment I:
First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Although it can’t be said Jefferson was consistent because he didn’t hold the same to be true for his black slaves. Maybe he was trapped by his time & culture? God only knows.
Once again you prove yourself to be the useful idiot. As you squawk about the “supernatural” and the “virtues” of materialism I’ll take the opportunity to offer a means by which you can bring yourself up to speed. Here’s another video:
Published on November 1, 2013
“Materialism has been dead for decades now and recent research only reconfirms this and goes even further, as this video will show. It ends with a brief introduction to the Cosmic Conscious Argument for God’s existence.”
– Frank
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 1:57 pm
Luke 11
11:1 It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples.”
2 And He said to them, “When you pray, say:
‘Father, hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
3
‘Give us each day our daily bread.
4
‘And forgive us our sins,
For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation.’”
5 Then He said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight and says to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves;
6 for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’;
7 and from inside he answers and says, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been shut and my children and I are in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’
8 I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs.
9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
10 For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.
11 Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?
12 Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?
13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”
14 And He was casting out a demon, and it was mute; when the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke; and the crowds were amazed.
15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.”
16 Others, to test Him, were demanding of Him a sign from heaven.
17 But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls.
18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul.
19 And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges.
20 But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.
22 But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder.
23 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters.
24 “When the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and not finding any, it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’
25 And when it comes, it finds it swept and put in order.
26 Then it goes and takes along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.”
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.”
28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
Published on Aug 12, 2016
http://www.aroodawakening.tv/shabbat
What does the Bible say about keeping the Sabbath?
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 3:29 pm
Cosmic Conscious Argument for God’s existence. Says everything you need to know about the test for immaterialism.
In a theocratic world under pain of death for disobedience to, the bible stood the test, until Jesus came and destroyed its veracity……and even after he interceded, his proponents, the Christians, disregarded his intercession and maintained the bible because they just can’t let go of the old despite it valueless offerings.
So we give nothing a name IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND IT; and THEN, with a name and a convoluted set of other REAL things, it ENTERS reality? Kind of “sneaks” into our reality?
I don’t think so.
You see, we are past masters at complicating the issue because “NOTHING” turns us on! So we hold onto nothing and describe it as reality.
NOTHING (0); AKA, SUPERNATURAL AND THE UNIVERSE AROSE
NOTHING (0); AKA, GOD CREATED AND THE UNIVERSE AROSE
NOTHING (0); AKA, BIG BANG AND THE UNIVERSE AROSE
Because NOTHING TURNS US ON ! Reality does not turn us on because it is limits human imagination, not something any respectable religious fanatic would accept
rather that the common sense of
SOMETHING; AKA, THE UNIVERSE ALWAYS EXISTED AND IS THE CAUSE OF ITS OWN EFFECT.
UH UH. You might say….COMMON SENSE DOES NOT TURN US ON !
All Religion derives from a person and appeared on the world scene from the year dot when the armies of Religion began their conquest of the World’s people We should be very clear that this was a military conquest, disguised as a missionary enterprise, and through the use of force, authorized by a declaration of the one true God against infidels, Religion was able to forcibly convert and assimilate non-religious and non-believers into their fold. Very few indigenous communities of the world survived this.
There are minorities and people struggling for survival in the religious ocean of the world and we must be very sensitive not to unwittingly and inadvertently support religious Imperialism, with their attempts to wipe out all other cultures and civilizations, among them Atheism, the LBGT community, gay marriage, scientific research and space exploration for the origin of the cosmos and life itself.
Religious ideology had run amuck in the New testament era when Jesus came into the picture. Jesus was a man full of common sense, sensibilities and love for humanity. Of all the things Jesus despised, he hated religion the most along with the perpetrators of religious hoaxes of miracles, myths, magic, mayhem, ritualism and the supernatural notion of ghosts and the paranormal, of angels and demons. This supernatural folly was used by the Religious Powers of the day to ostracize the poor, the disabled and the sick citing their afflictions as consequences of their sins.
The real prisoners of the world were slaves of religion, the downtrodden masses, in thrall to the tyranny of religion. It was the masses that Jesus wanted to liberate, by showing compassion, by helping and healing, feeding, clothing, forgiving, showing tender loving care to; in other words, giving the basic human rights to the rejects of society by the power base of Religious zealots. Religious zealots who even today in Israel still rail against people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath and religious fundamentalists who willingly killl people for disobeying sexual laws laid down by religious ancestors.
Jesus’ began his campaign against the cruelty of religion toward the masses they governed by announcing that his mission and purpose in life was to release the downtrodden and set free the captives of religion, to show them the acceptable way of the Father, innate from the womb through natural forces endowed in every person which was contrary to the teachings of mankind by the promoters of the supernatural pseudo-God of religion’s invention..
I rejoice daily that I do not have your faith and that leaves me to use common sense and natural explanations for supernatural and tired expressions of theological dogma, exactly what Jesus came to set the downtrodden and captives, free from.
Some people blog like a Ferrari but by lacing it with supernatural nuts and bolts, end up with the Model T of antiquity.
I hope you found this information enlightening
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 3:45 pm
FA:
You would not hold a candle to Jefferson but of course you feel Trumpish who so casually denigrates the President of the United States. Ahhhh the nature of religion……..of ego of the Theotard.
His (Jesus) object was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration.
Moses had either not believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly taught to his people.
Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis and precision.
Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and insignificance.
The religious community rejects Jesus but retains the Mosaic futility and insignificance of idle ceremonies, mummeries and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; such a one is the keeping of the Sabbath. A useless ritual for everyone but the clergy to ensure their weekly tithes and collections of homage……public acknowledgment of feudal allegiance.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 4:12 pm
Believing in a supernatural God is like believing in a hole in the bucket. You know that water will leak out of the hole you apparently see in the bucket but there is no hole in the bucket; what you think you see as a hole is really “nothing”, the “hole’ is an absence of a piece of the bucket that would otherwise cause it to be leakproof.
We say, we “see” the hole for convenient communication but there is nothing of a “hole” to see; in that sense God is a hole in a person’s mind in the same way that satan is a hole in the mind, both are the essence of absence like darkness is the absence of light. Darkness has no existence by itself any more than a mirror that reflects your image; your image is not in the mirror, the image is a mirage, not there.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 6:14 pm
It’s a shame Jefferson didn’t avail himself of competent scholarship:
Published on Oct 10, 2013
Peter J. Williams speaks on the moral objections atheists (like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett) have of God in the Old Testament when it comes to violence, “genocide” and slavery.
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 6:24 pm
The Bible History, Old Testament by Alfred Edersheim was originally published 1876-1887 in seven
volumes. This electronic version of his work is from an edition that appeared in 1890 which contains
all seven volumes.
Click to access BibleHistoryOldTestament-Edersheim.pdf
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 6:28 pm
About The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim
Title: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
URL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.html
Author(s): Edersheim, Alfred (1825-1889)
Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Print Basis: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953
Rights: Public Domain
This text has been proofread and corrected. Hebrew text has not been
entered.
Status:
Contributor(s): Dr. Chris Benner (Digitizer)
CCEL Subjects: All; Classic; History;
LC Call no: BT301
LC Subjects: Doctrinal theology
Christology
Life of Christ
Click to access The%20Life%20and%20Times%20of%20Jesus%20the%20Messiah.pdf
LikeLike
August 15, 2016 at 6:32 pm
About Alfred Edersheim:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim
LikeLike
August 18, 2016 at 1:54 pm
Published on Aug 18, 2016
Does Isaiah 58:13-14 mean that we cannot have any pleasure on the Sabbath? Once again, context is everything…
LikeLike
August 18, 2016 at 3:46 pm
Continuing post # 344.:
The Mercy of God as Found in the Old Testament
by Rich Deem
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/mercy_of_god.html
From the Introduction to the above article:
According to Richard Dawkins, Yahweh, the God of the Bible, is “jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”1 Absent from any of Dawkins’ description of God is His mercy. People tend to think of the God of the Old Testament as cruel and unforgiving, whereas the God of the New Testament is seen as the God of mercy, who sent Jesus to atone for the sins of the world. The Old Testament prophets were always warning the people about the wrath of God should they stray from the path of righteousness. However, what is usually ignored by atheists is God’s mercy for those who did repent of doing evil. Yes, God judged many people groups, but not before warning them.
LikeLike
August 18, 2016 at 4:01 pm
Ezekiel 18
18:1 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying,
‘The fathers eat the sour grapes,
But the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
As I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.
“But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness, and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period– if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man, if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully–he is righteous and will surely live,” declares the Lord GOD.
“Then he may have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother (though he himself did not do any of these things), that is, he even eats at the mountain shrines, and defiles his neighbor’s wife, oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore a pledge, but lifts up his eyes to the idols and commits abomination, he lends money on interest and takes increase; will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.
“Now behold, he has a son who has observed all his father’s sins which he committed, and observing does not do likewise. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife, or oppress anyone, or retain a pledge, or commit robbery, but he gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing, he keeps his hand from the poor, does not take interest or increase, but executes My ordinances, and walks in My statutes; he will not die for his father’s iniquity, he will surely live. As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity.
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
“But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?
“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. But the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?
“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.” (Ezekiel 18:1-32)
LikeLike
August 24, 2016 at 8:16 pm
Re: post # 282.
“There’s no confusion in Isaiah on my end. He is talking about Israel, the servant, period.”
* * * * *
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (Luke 22:37)
Mark 15
15:1 Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, immediately held a consultation; and binding Jesus, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate.
2 Pilate questioned Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And He answered him, “It is as you say.”
3 The chief priests began to accuse Him harshly.
4 Then Pilate questioned Him again, saying, “Do You not answer? See how many charges they bring against You!”
5 But Jesus made no further answer; so Pilate was amazed.
6 Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they requested.
7 The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.
8 The crowd went up and began asking him to do as he had been accustomed to do for them.
9 Pilate answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?”
10 For he was aware that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy.
11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask him to release Barabbas for them instead.
12 Answering again, Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews?”
13 They shouted back, “Crucify Him!”
14 But Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him!”
15 Wishing to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.
16 The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium), and they called together the whole Roman cohort.
17 They dressed Him up in purple, and after twisting a crown of thorns, they put it on Him;
18 and they began to acclaim Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!”
19 They kept beating His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and bowing before Him.
20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put His own garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him.
21 They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross.
22 Then they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull.
23 They tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh; but He did not take it.
24 And they crucified Him, and divided up His garments among themselves, casting lots for them to decide what each man should take.
25 It was the third hour when they crucified Him.
26 The inscription of the charge against Him read, “THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
27 They crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left.
28 [And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And He was numbered with transgressors.”]
29 Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,
30 save Yourself, and come down from the cross!”
31 In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes, were mocking Him among themselves and saying, “He saved others; He cannot save Himself.
32 Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!” Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him.
33 When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour.
34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”
35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying, “Behold, He is calling for Elijah.”
36 Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down.”
37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.
38 And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
39 When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
40 There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome.
41 When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.
42 When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath,
43 Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
44 Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead.
45 And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.
46 Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.
47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were looking on to see where He was laid.
Brit Hadasha – Part 2: The Fourth and Seventh Day Part 1 – 119 Ministries
Published on May 28, 2013
Discover how the 7 days of creation and tabernacle reveals the first and second coming of the Messiah, as Messiah ben Yoseph and Messiah ben David. See what so many others have missed regarding the Messiah Yeshua.
LikeLike
August 24, 2016 at 8:21 pm
Continuing post # 351.
Brit Hadasha – Part 2: The Fourth and Seventh Day (Part 2) – 119 Ministries
Published on May 28, 2013
Discover how the 7 days of creation and tabernacle reveals the first and second coming of the Messiah, as Messiah ben Yoseph and Messiah ben David. See what so many others have missed regarding the Messiah Yeshua.
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 1:47 pm
FA:
And He answered him, “It is as you say.” This was not an admission to the question “Are You the King of the Jews?”. It was an affirmation that it was being said of him and the fact is that that is what Jesus meant when he said “It is as you say”.
Whether it was true or not was not the answer so in the following “verse 4” Pilate said “Do You not answer?”: because the answer Jesus gave him was not the answer to Pilate’s question.
If I said, Frank you are an idiot and Pilate asked you Frank are you an idiot, you might answer, it is as Leo says. Now if I was the Power, Judge and Jury and had jurisdiction over your life and there was nothing you could say to dissuade me from the fact that I wanted to crucify you because I hated you and was bent on your sentence because whatever the Pharisees and Scribes says “t is as they say”.
See you still don’t read the bible as it should be read. You seem to think that Jesus was admitting that he was the King of the Jews and that was not the intent of the answer at all.
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 6:37 pm
Isaiah 66
23
“And it shall be from new moon to new moon
And from sabbath to sabbath,
All mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the LORD/YHWH.
* * * * *
Published on Dec 13, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Various objections to the concept of a lunar Sabbath have been raised by many sincere people. Some of these objections may appear sound. However, when carefully compared with Scripture, these objections are found to be groundless. This three-part series provides answers to commonly voiced objections to the lunar Sabbath and provides a well-reasoned defense of the lunar Sabbath.
Defense of the Lunar Sabbath | Part 1
• Would Yahuwah allow the Sabbath to be lost?
• But the moon was created on the 4th day…?
• Is the moon used only to calculate the annual feasts?
• Has the weekly cycle ever been interrupted?
• Do you ever get 8-9 days between Sabbaths?
• Does John 7-9 prove a Saturday Sabbath?
• Do the Jews not worship on the true Sabbath?
• Does the Bible truly vindicate a lunar Sabbath?
In this video:
Learn the answers to these questions and more!
“The New Moon is still, and the Sabbath originally was, dependent upon the lunar cycle.” (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, page 410)
In Defense of the Lunar Sabbath | Part 1
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 6:42 pm
Published on Aug 6, 2014
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – In Defense of the Lunar Sabbath | Part 2
• Does the Lunar-Solar Calendar have “non-days”?
• Does the Exodus disprove the lunar Sabbath?
• Does the Sabbath “float” through the week?
• 7th day called “Sabbath” in many languages?
• Is New Moon Day the same as a Sabbath?
• Did early Christians observe lunar Sabbaths?
In this video:
Learn the answers to these questions and more!
In Defense of the Lunar Sabbath | Part 2
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 6:46 pm
Published on Dec 27, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – In Defense of the Lunar Sabbath | Part 3
• Does the luni-solar calendar work at the North & South poles?
• Does the Talmud disprove the lunar Sabbath?
• Why do some Roman historians refer to the Israelites refusing to fight on “the day of Saturn”?
• Does the Pentecost count disprove the lunar Sabbath?
• Is lunar Sabbath observance simply a revival of the ancient moon cult?
• Does the definition of “Sabbath” prove a Saturday Sabbath?
In this video:
Learn the answers to these questions and more!
For more on how the count to Pentecost addresses the lunar Sabbath, please visit this link: http://www.worldslastchance.com/yahuw…
In Defense of the Lunar Sabbath | Part 3
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 8:32 pm
This is a summary of more than 20 years of scientific research into homosexuality. It draws on more than 10,000 scientific papers and publications from all sides of the debate.
The research is orthodox, and objective.
It is essentially a summary of our book, My Genes Made Me Do It! – a scientific look at sexual orientation (published USA, 1999, revised 2010, 2013 and kept current on this website. )
Those researchers who know most about genes and same sex attraction say “Your genes did not make you do it”. Let’s review the evidence bearing in mind that many of the following arguments apply to all human behaviours. These summary statements are much more deeply explored in each chapter.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 8:59 pm
Burning Love: Big Tobacco Takes Aim at LGBT Youths
Harriet A. Washington
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222279/
From the above article:
Today, tobacco firms are emerging from their corporate closets to openly engage in every type of marketing targeted at gay adults. Most alarmingly, the targeted marketing focuses on LGBT youths, but the cynical marketing snares for the young are carefully hidden and slyly labeled. Today, tobacco’s corporate language is sanitized in a Newspeak of acronyms and is bowdlerized to delete any overt reference to youth marketing. The industry whose internal memos once blithely spoke of recruiting Black 14-year-olds is now careful to refer in print and in public only to “young smokers 18 and older.”
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 9:24 pm
Healthcare and the LGBT community
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_and_the_LGBT_community
From the above article:
LGBT topics in medicine are those that relate to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people’s health issues and access to health services. According to the US Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), besides HIV/AIDS, issues related to LGBT health include breast and cervical cancer, hepatitis, mental health, substance abuse, tobacco use, depression, access to care for transgender persons, issues surrounding marriage and family recognition, conversion therapy, and refusal clause legislation, and laws that are intended to “immunize health care professionals from liability for discriminating against persons of whom they disapprove.”[1]
Studies show that LGBT people experience health issues and barriers related to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression. Many avoid or delay care or receive inappropriate or inferior care because of perceived or real homophobia or transphobia, and discrimination by health care providers and institutions.,[2] in other words reason is negative personal experience, the assumption or expectation of negative experience based on knowing of history of such experience in other LGBT people, or both….
LikeLike
August 26, 2016 at 6:17 am
Heb 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.
Heb 7:13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
Heb 7:15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek,
Heb 7:16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.
Heb 7:17 For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”
Heb 7:18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness
Heb 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Heb 7:20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath,
Heb 7:21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.'”
Heb 7:22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
Heb 7:23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office,
Heb 7:24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.
Heb 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
Heb 7:27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
Heb 7:28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
Naz
LikeLike
August 26, 2016 at 9:16 am
Jesus has all the answers, the Mosaic Laws, not so much, now that theocracy is losing the battle worldwide Jesus’ secular society is winning out.
LikeLike
August 27, 2016 at 11:46 am
Hebrews 7
119 Ministries
Published on Jan 22, 2016
Is the Law of God the same in the New Covenant, or did it change? According to some, Hebrews 7:12 clearly points out that the Law of God changed. Let’s test that…
LikeLike
August 27, 2016 at 11:49 am
Are you in the New Covenant? – 119 Ministries
Published on Jan 6, 2016
What does it mean to be in the New Covenant? You might be surprised.
LikeLike
August 27, 2016 at 11:52 am
What is New about the New Covenant? – 119 Ministries
Published on Feb 27, 2016
New Covenant with better promises, or a new law? Some might be surprised to learn that prophets stated that the new covenant would consists of the same law…
LikeLike
August 27, 2016 at 12:31 pm
Here, in the proverbial nutshell, is the “New Covenant” that doesn’t take hours to sermonize one to understand:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” 28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus said. “Do this and you will live.”
That is there New Covenant of Jesus for humanity
——————————————————————
There is a similar verse in Exodus 6:4-19 that does not mention your neighbour but is only for the Israelites and the neighbours among the people of Israel and not all humanity.
——————————————————————–
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
10 And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
12 Then beware lest thou forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
13 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
15 (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
16 Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.
18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers.
19 To cast out all thine enemies from before thee, as the Lord hath spoken.
——————————————————————————-
Affirmation that the neighbour is your own people is found in Lev 19:18:
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself:
LikeLike
August 27, 2016 at 12:35 pm
What Jesus Said About The Sabbath
SureWordProphecy
Published on Oct 27, 2014
What is the Sabbath and why is it important? How can we know which day is the Sabbath? What do Jesus and the Bible say about this?
LikeLike
August 27, 2016 at 12:43 pm
Hebrews 4: In His Rest Now or Later? – 119 Ministries
Published on Mar 15, 2016
It is common to hear that we are already in the rest of our Messiah. This doctrine exists to support a theory that we are to no longer literally rest every Sabbath. Do you know where that doctrinal support is found? Have you ever tested that doctrine? You might be surprised to learn when we actually enter that rest.
LikeLike
August 27, 2016 at 12:52 pm
The Sabbath scriptural references have no connection with what Jesus said about the Sabbath and totally out of context with reality of Jesus life and the Sabbath…plus rest,, hallowed or otherwise…those are precept son men, not of God. Jesus said Man is m,aster of the Sabbath and therefore can do whatever he wants to on the Sabbath as necessary for life and compassion and love. Christians are so out of touch they think they can take any verse from anywhere and connect it to any other verse anywhere and they will be in sync which is utter nonsense.
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 6:30 am
Frank, sorry I do not agree in the “transfer” concept.
The Greek word in question can mean to remove, transfer or change. So to decipher what this means we must look at the context. The following verses show that the “former commandment was set aside” not transferred. Moreover, this is not a transfer of administration, this is a change. A priest cannot come from the tribe of Judah but only Levi under the Law. There is no law stating that a transfer could take place from Levi to another tribe, namely Judah.
Heb 7:18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness
Heb 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Naz
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 6:39 am
Frank, all these discussions about the lunar Sabbath, the priesthood etc…begs me to ask the question…what is your motivation for this ?
I know that you previously stated something to the effect that you wanted to worship God in spirit and in truth.
From my perspective you are trying to marry the Law with Christ and think by doing so you are honoring God and worshiping Him in spirit and in truth. This is exactly the opposite of what you are doing.
Consider the following verses.
Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?
Rom 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.
Rom 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Rom 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Naz
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 10:39 am
Lunar Sabbaths: Three Months in a Row
Published on Dec 26, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Biblical Lunar Sabbaths and the Lunar Solar Calendar: Lunar Sabbaths, as they are revealed in the Mosaic account of the Exodus for 3 Months in a Row, are now being restored to those who will faithfully follow the Lamb wherever He goes!
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 10:42 am
Forget it Frank:
You are way off base. At least this time I agree with Naz that he is correct. You are too dogmatic and refusing to let the old begone satan, begone.
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 11:09 am
What was Nailed to the Cross? | Understanding Colossians 2
Published on Sep 21, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – What was Nailed to the Cross?
• Colossians 2 – ANSWERS
• What was nailed to the cross?
• What is the “handwriting of requirements”?
• What does it mean to be free in Yahushua?
• What is meant by “Let no one judge you in food, drink, . . . a New Moon or Sabbaths”?
In this video:
A Biblical examination of Colossians 2
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 11:23 am
Obtaining Yahuwah’s Righteousness: Faith in the Gospel Understood!
Published on Sep 19, 2012
http://www.worldslastchance.com/ – Obtaining Yahuwah’s Righteousness
• What is the gospel that is “to be preached to every creature”? (Mark 16:15)
• How does the gospel of Yahushua represent the power of Yahuwah to save everyone?
• How can we do the works of Yahuwah?
• How can we obtain Yahuwah’s righteousness?
In this video:
What it means to walk righteously by faith!
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 11:37 am
James 1
21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.
27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 3:06 pm
No Law No Love – 119 Ministries
Published on Nov 26, 2013
Many are quick to say that the New Testament is all about love, not law. What the same fail to realize is that the law of God defines how to love God and how to love others. Thus, law and love are not against each other, but critically related. Sadly, so few realize this in the end, that our Lord declares that many fail to focus on the law of God, and thus the love of many grows cold.
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 3:10 pm
Don’t Be Under The Law – 119 Ministries
Published on Apr 22, 2014
“Have you ever heard that we should be ‘Under the Law?’ What does that mean?”
LikeLike
August 29, 2016 at 9:11 pm
Bound to Righteousness – 119 Ministries
Published on Nov 12, 2014
In the Torah, we learn that a Hebrew slave is a servant for six years. What does that mean prophetically? What does it mean to be a servant to YHWH? Find out, in Bound to Righteousness.
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 10:31 am
Frank, biggest #1 LIE from the enemy is that God empowers us to keep the law.
The law is the ministration of death and its function is to reveal and empower sin.
Rom 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
2Co 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
Living and walking in the Spirit is NOT the same as keeping the law. God did not save me and empower me so I could properly observe lunar Sabbaths or keep all the 10 commandments. God saved me despite my works and gave me His life, eternal life. How I conduct myself is a matter of the renewal of my mind, when I sin I go against the holy nature God has imparted to me, when I do right I live according to who I really am in Christ.
You cannot mix law and faith because when you do law overtakes you and you become legalistic.True righteousness is by faith in Christ, its His righteousness that becomes our righteousness. Although our conduct may not always express Christ, who we are does not change. We are the righteousness of God based on what Jesus accomplished and not by my performance. Anything else is NOT the gospel and is a death sentence of condemnation.
Php 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—
Php 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, ….
Naz
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 12:13 pm
Naz,
I’m certain you’ll have your opportunity to present your case someday to the One to Whom it truly matters; the One Who institutes & judges by Divine Law: Messiah Yahshua. Meanwhile, James makes his case crystal clear in James 1:21-27.
All the best,
Frank
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 12:26 pm
Is the Law of Moses Difficult? – 119 Ministries
Published on Nov 26, 2013
God abolished or changed His law because it was simply too difficult, right? Some teach this, many don’t test this doctrine to His Word. If you find men telling you that the Law of Moses is difficult, perhaps we should consider what God Himself said about it.
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 1:02 pm
The Prayer of Salvation – 119 Ministries
Published on Sep 28, 2014
… Just say this prayer and you’ll be saved… And then they’d say … Because Romans 10:9 says … Have you tested this yet or do you just trust what they tell you? 119 Ministries invites you to join them in watching this video as they put this to the test. You might be surprised what you find.
LikeLike
August 30, 2016 at 3:13 pm
Frank, are you tired yet……when will you let Jesus take your burdens and give you true Sabbath rest.
It is clear I cannot persuade you to see the simple truth of the gospel and what the finished work of Christ really means. However, I am certain that one day it will all come to a boiling point for you as it did for me and many others who tried to live by the rule of law. It simply doesn’t work no matter how spiritual you try to make it. I used to believe just as you do now and I had no peace, no assurance and no rest.
As for James, what do you see when you look in the mirror ?
a) A sinner
OR
b) A holy and righteous person
I never advocated living a lifestyle of sin although you seem to think that is what I am alluding to. Sin doesn’t fit any longer for a true believer. We are called to express Christ in how we live. At the same time our humanity is flawed and we can live with the assurance that Christ has taken (pass tense) away all of our sins and that there is no condemnation (forever) for those in Christ Jesus.
The “prayer of salvation” is a modern construction to help people come to faith in Christ. Saying words doesn’t save a person any more than keeping the 10 commandments does. The point of Romans 10 is to understand that this is something that is done and comes from the heart.
God’s salvation is a work done in people’s hearts, I can’t wait to stand before my Father and thank Him for all He has done for me because I’m not scared of my Father, because perfect love casts out all fear, because where there is fear, there is punishment.
Naz
LikeLike
August 31, 2016 at 8:49 am
The Brit Hadasha Series: Paul and Genealogies – 119 Ministries
Anti-missionaries use 1 Timothy 1 and Titus 3 to indicate that
Paul is anxious about avoiding the topic of genealogies. If it’s
true, why is it? If it’s not, then why does Paul tell us to avoid
the topic? Find out in the latest installment of the
Brit Hadasha Series.
Titus 3
3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed,
2 to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.
3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.
4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
LikeLike
September 3, 2016 at 10:28 pm
Romans 2
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God,
18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law,
19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth,
21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?
24 For “THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU,” just as it is written.
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
LikeLike
September 10, 2016 at 9:01 pm
Refuting Pro-Gay Arguments and Theology | Part 1 | Joe Dallas
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Sep 10, 2016
Joe Dallas, who was once a practicing homosexual who defended gay theology, speaks on and responds to pro-gay arguments made typically from the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender alliance. This video is part of the Refuting Pro-Gay Arguments and Theology playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
Related:
Science Shows Gay People Can Change Their Sexual Orientation:
Celibate Gay Christian Says Marriage Should Be Between One Man and One Woman:
Slavery in the Bible?:
FAQs About Christian Bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein:
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/art…
The Bible and Homosexuality:
Christianity and Homosexuality:
Ex-Gay people who converted:
Same-Sex Marriage: How Should Christians React:
Children of Gay Couples Oppose Same-Sex Marriage:
Black Preacher Says Gay Is Not The New Black:
Proof Religious Freedom at Risk Because of Same-Sex Marriage:
Court Forces Christian to Violate Religious Freedom!:
Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Gay Marriage Hurts Everyone:
Is God Anti-Gay?:
LikeLike
September 10, 2016 at 9:06 pm
Refuting Pro-Gay Arguments and Theology | Part 1 | Joe Dallas
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Sep 10, 2016
Joe Dallas, who was once a practicing homosexual who defended gay theology, speaks on and responds to pro-gay arguments made typically from the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender alliance. This video is part of the Refuting Pro-Gay Arguments and Theology playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
LikeLike
September 10, 2016 at 9:10 pm
Refuting Pro-Gay Arguments and Theology | Part 2 | Joe Dallas
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Sep 10, 2016
Joe Dallas, who was once a practicing homosexual who defended gay theology, speaks on and responds to pro-gay arguments made typically from the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender alliance. This videos is part of the Refuting Pro-Gay Arguments and Theology playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
LikeLike
September 10, 2016 at 9:24 pm
Romans 1
1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake,
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
LikeLike
September 12, 2016 at 8:10 am
Are People Born Gay? Genetic and Epigenetic Determinism in Homosexuality
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Mar 15, 2015
Assemblies of God (2014) – Joseph Davis provides an overview of recent studies in genetics whose findings do not support the self-reporting deterministic claims in homosexuality. Rather, they provide evidence that there is no gene that exclusively determines homosexual sexual identity. This lecture is part of the 2014 Faith and Science Conference. Here is the playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
LikeLike
September 14, 2016 at 11:45 pm
Isaiah 56
6:1
Thus says the LORD/YHWH,
“Preserve justice and do righteousness,
For My salvation is about to come
And My righteousness to be revealed.
2
“How blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who takes hold of it;
Who keeps from profaning the sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”
3
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD/YHWH say,
“The LORD/YHWH will surely separate me from His people.”
Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
4 For thus says the LORD/YHWH,
“To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant,
5
To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.”
Lee Strobel – The Case for Grace
Woodlands Church
Published on Mar 10, 2015
LikeLike
September 15, 2016 at 8:14 am
Is God Anti-Gay? Conference // Session 1: Is it good news? Homosexuality and the Gospel
Westside Church
Published on May 16, 2016
Christians, the church, and the Bible seem to be at radical odds with modern attitudes towards homosexuality.
Our speaker, author and Pastor Sam Allberry, shares his approach to this topic while having lived with same-sex attraction since his early teen years. [f]or more on Sam and his ministry visit http://www.livingout.org
This conference is based on his book “Is God Anti-Gay?” and aims to equip Christians and skeptics alike to be able to understand and articulate the message of the Bible on this issue, and answer some modern questions and objections surrounding the historical Biblical position.
LikeLike
September 16, 2016 at 8:49 am
Ryan Sorba Discusses The Born Gay Hoax Part 1 of 2
Ryan Sorba
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
(John 7:24)
Published on Dec 31, 2014
“No one is born gay, the idea is ridiculous.” -Quote from homosexual activist Lillian Faderman In this lecture, Ryan Sorba discusses the reason some people still believe the lie that being gay is a natural and unchangeable condition even though there is zero scientific evidence and plenty of admissions that the claim was made for political purposes. Ryan Sorba sets the record straight.
LikeLike
September 16, 2016 at 8:53 am
Ryan Sorba Discusses The Born Gay Hoax Part 2
Ryan Sorba
Published on Dec 31, 2014
LikeLike
September 16, 2016 at 9:00 am
The “Born Gay” Hoax
by Ryan Sorba
Click to access TheBornGayHoax.pdf
From the above book:
What if being “Gay” was Natural?
Nature and Morality
Ostensibly unaware of The Gay Agenda, pro‐sodomy columnist Robert
Scheer has noted that, “Homosexuality in the vast majority of cases is a condition
that is given and not chosen, and must therefore be honored as part of the
natural order of things.” Scheer’s comments reflect a standard misconception
about sodomy and ethics: If we can find a connection between same‐sex
attraction and nature, then we must surrender our moral objections to same‐sex
relationships and sodomy as an expression of that attraction. The error is in
thinking that one has anything to do with the other. It doesn’t.
Philosophers David Hume and George Edward Moore argue that it is
impossible to produce a deductively valid argument with factual premises and
an ethical conclusion. In short, you can’t get an “ought” from an “is.” This is
called the naturalistic fallacy. In layman’s terms, just because a behavior or
feeling comes “natural” does not make it right. This becomes obvious on a
moment’s reflection. Does a natural tendency towards violence justify assault?
Does a natural desire for food justify theft? Does a natural aversion to men and
women who engage in sodomy justify “gay”‐bashing?
Ethicist C. Ben Mitchell agrees when he writes, “… even if researchers
found a so‐called ‘gay’ gene, that would not change the immorality of
homosexuality. Science cannot do moral work. That is, science does not have the
power to determine what’s right and wrong.” If, for example, a genetic link to
alcoholism is proven, Mitchell noted that it would just “make it more urgent to
avoid taking the first drink.”
Animals do what comes naturally. We are not mere beasts, but human
beings protected by morality from the tyranny of our irrational “natural”
appetites, impulses, and inclinations. The difference between “just doing what
comes naturally” and principled self‐restraint is called civilization.
Further, persisting in this line of reasoning annihilates the argument for
adoption rights for the so‐called “homosexual” couples. If sodomy is right
because it is natural, then allowing so‐called “homosexuals” to adopt must be
wrong because it is unnatural for them to have children. If nature alone dictates
morality, and the natural consequence for those who engage in sodomy is to be
childless, then it is unnatural and therefore immoral for so‐called “homosexuals”
to have and raise children. Artificial insemination of “lesbians” or adoptions by
“homosexual” couples would be wrong by their own argument. The same
principle governs both issues; they can’t pick and choose. That’s cheating.
My goal here has not been to prove that sodomy is immoral just yet;
although I am convinced that it is, but rather to refute one of its common
justifications. The morality of sodomy can never be defended by any appeal to
nature, but only by an appeal to moral rules. Nature alone can never provide us
with those. Pro‐sodomy activists will have to find another way to make their
case.
LikeLike
September 16, 2016 at 9:47 am
About our birthright:
Genesis 25:34
(34) And Jacob gave Esau bread and stew of lentils; then he ate and drank, arose, and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.
http://www.theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.showBerean/BereanID/3688/bblver/NKJV/Genesis-25-34.htm
From the above article:
So, what is our particular “bowl of lentils”? For what would we give up everything God has offered us? For what are we giving up our fabulous birthright? What sinful pattern of living could be keeping us from inheriting all things? Is it worth it?
We would like to say, “Nothing,” but actions speak louder than words. Our behavior reveals our beliefs. If we are acting in a way that despises our birthright, we are showing that our beliefs are no different from Esau’s. In fact, if we are participating in behavior contrary to God’s standards, that behavior has become our bowl of lentils.
LikeLike
September 16, 2016 at 11:46 am
Frank:
Of course (and unfortunately), those concerned about homophobia in the Bible can find plenty to worry about in the text. But it’s time we stop letting “sodomy” mean something it was never intended to mean.
Gay sex does not have a monopoly on sodomy. The dictionary defines sodomy as the anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also, copulation with an animal. sodomitic; aka, bestiality.
I know of no heterosexual relationships that does not involve oral sex; in other words sodomy. So to use sodomy as the exclusive pejorative for homosexual activists is immoral, unethical and akin to bearing false witness against thy neighbour for the purpose of self aggradization and we know lots of pastors who preached that way only to be later exposed as sexual deviants themselves according to their own preachings.
Sexual kissing could be construed as oral, sexual activity or sodomy whether you’re kissing the lips or other parts of the anatomy makes no difference. It is all part of the sexual and sensual activity of sexual conduct with a member of the same or opposite sex.
See righteous prudes will deny having sex altogether; sex was a taboo topic only a few short years ago and even today is still consider politically incorrect.
And the Sabbath has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of life or the truth about God because the truth about God was said to be given to a few self appointed messengers of the God they created and whose laws, men made according to their own interpretation of how other people should behave.
But the ancients who organized religion so it would be more than just a personal belief, their religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what’s got us into the mess that we’re in.
The effects of religion passed on through the corridors of times is a state of mental illness has been taught us a long time and is still with the deranged among us who persist in dictating their laws: from picking up sticks on the Sabbath to picking corn in the harvest when you are hungry even if you are hungry on the Sabbath as the religionists accused Jesus and his followers of disobedience worthy of capital punishment for disobeying the appointed clergy of the “God” of the ancients who made the seventh day a holy day according to their imaginative take on the genesis of humankind.
And they will still get it wrong until their last breath; and that my friend, is when religious nonsense will breathe it last also. The Bitter Pill of Religion’s last breath. Amen!
Better sooner than later and better later than not at all! These are the last days………………of religion and the religious fraudsters.
LikeLike
September 16, 2016 at 4:02 pm
ltg,
The human legal definition of sodomy takes various meanings over time as this article attests –
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy
From the above article:
sodomy
n. anal copulation by a man inserting his penis in the anus either of another man or a woman. If accomplished by force, without consent, or with someone incapable of consent, sodomy is a felony in all states in the same way that rape is. Homosexual (male to male) sodomy between consenting adults has also been found a felony, but increasingly is either decriminalized or seldom prosecuted. Sodomy with a consenting adult female is virtually never prosecuted even in those states in which it remains on the books as a criminal offense. However, there have been a few cases, including one in Indiana, in which a now-estranged wife insisted that a husband be charged with sodomy for sexual acts while they were living together. Traditionally sodomy was called “the crime against nature.” Sodomy does not include oral copulation or sexual acts with animals (bestiality). (See: rape, bestiality)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
SODOMY, crim. law. The crime against nature, committed either with man or beast.
2. It is a crime not it to be named; peccatum illud horrible, inter christianos non nominandum. 4 Bl. Com. 215; 1 East, P. C. 480, 487; Bac. Ab. h.t.; Hawk. b. 1, c. 4; 1 Hale, 669; Com. Dig. Justices, S 4; Russ. & Ry. 331.
3. This crime was punished with great severity by the civil law. Nov. 141; Nov. 77; Inst. 4, 18, 4. See 1 Russ. on Cr. 568; R. & R. C. C. 331, 412; 1 East, P. C. 437.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
* * * * *
The relevant fact remains it’s well established how Yahshua/Jesus of Nazareth views homosexuality.
LikeLike
September 16, 2016 at 4:08 pm
God’s Design for Human Sexual Behavior – Dr. Robert Gagnon – Pt 1
David Kyle Foster
Published on Sep 30, 2015
A masterful exposition of the biblical texts concerning human sexuality (and homosexuality in particular) by the world’s foremost scholar on the subject.
LikeLike
September 16, 2016 at 4:12 pm
God’s Design for Human Sexual Behavior – Dr. Robert Gagnon – Pt 2
David Kyle Foster
Published on Sep 30, 2015
Part 2 of a masterful exposition of the biblical texts concerning human sexuality (and homosexuality in particular) by the world’s foremost scholar on the subject.
LikeLike
September 24, 2016 at 1:31 pm
Exodus 31:17
(17) It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD/YHWH made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.””
http://www.theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.showBerean/BereanID/35/bblver/NKJV/Exodus-31-17.htm
From the above article by John W. Ritenbaugh:
If He created the Sabbath only because we need to rest physically, any old time would do, but ultimately, how and why we keep the Sabbath is what becomes the real sign. God is working out a purpose. He has invested a tremendous amount in us in the creation and in the death of His Son. The Sabbath serves as a major means by which He protects that investment. He made a specific period of time special so He can meet with His people and take major steps to make them different—holy.
* * * * *
And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD/YHWH am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. (Leviticus 20:26)
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1 Peter 1:16)
LikeLike
September 26, 2016 at 4:57 am
Responding to John MacArthur’s Sabbath Article
David Wilber
Published on Jul 27, 2016
Should Christians keep the Sabbath? David Wilber responds to an article from John MacArthur’s ministry, Grace to You. Twelve objections to keeping the Sabbath are addressed.
Here’s a link to John MacArthur’s original article, “Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?”: https://www.gty.org/resources/questio…
LikeLike
September 26, 2016 at 10:05 am
Jesus did not affirm the Sabbath for in Matthew 5: 17 and 18 he explains that
“17 ………………………………..the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 …………………………………….one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Well, Jesus fulfilled the Law as indicated and therefore they passed away…….simple logic in these two verses will tell you that.
Furthermore the Commandments and all the Laws are not from God but from Man, God is merely the scapegoat to credit or debit what Man want you to do to follow man…witness Shariah Law….exactly the same thing in modernity as in Antiquity.
LikeLike
September 27, 2016 at 11:06 am
How the Gay Agenda Began – FULL DOCUMENTARY
TheCompleteTruthBlog
Published on Sep 20, 2015
Alfred Kinsey is the monster who’s research can be found solely responsible for the advancement of the homosexual agenda in the world today.
This Satanic sick paedophile who tortured and abused children, lied about numbers and statistics to encourage a gay revolution in America and set the tone for the rest of the world.
It is a satanic agenda, and this amazing look at how it began and who it began with, will explain a lot.
LikeLike
September 29, 2016 at 5:23 am
Homosexuality: Truth in Love – part 1 of 4
Mike Winger
Published on Jul 15, 2015
Pt. 1: What the OLD Testament teaches about HOMOSEXUALITY.
This 4 part series will address:
Understanding, very clearly, what the Bible teaches about homosexuality.
Understanding the new pro-gay theology which has recently become the fuel of the modern “gay reformers” movement.
Understanding how the pro-gay movement is wrong about the Bible and being able to help others understand it.
Having a thorough secular case against homosexuality (for those conversations with non-Christians).
Answering the pro-gay slogans like “love is love” “two people should be able to do what they want in their own bedroom” “as long as it’s two consenting adults” “equal marriage rights” “your bigotry is why so many gays commit suicide” etc.
Looking at the legal case against same-sex marriage.
Dealing with the anger of pro-gay friends and family.
How to truly love gay friends and family in a Christ-like way.
Teacher: Mike Winger
Occasion: From the Sunday evening service at Hosanna Christian Fellowship in Bellflower CA
LikeLike
September 30, 2016 at 9:51 am
When Christians and haters of homosexuality quote Jesus they have a secret caveat that is there but is invisible and silent and here is what their quote really says….about the greatest commandments.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself…….except if they are gay or part of the LGBTQ or the community of the “LGBTTTQQIAA”:
LGBTQ is an initialism that means:
L
Lesbian G
Gay B
Bisexual T
Transgender Q
Queer or
Questioning
“LGBTTTQQIAA”
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender
Transsexual
Two-spirited
Queer
Questioning
Intersex
Asexual
Ally
Your neighbour is also known as humanity…………….
LikeLike
October 4, 2016 at 12:17 pm
THE TWO TREES Part 1 of 2: The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
Corner Fringe Ministries
Published on Nov 10, 2013
The Two Tree teaching is a two-part study on the Tree of Life and The Tree of Good and Evil. How do these two trees relate to us today and what does it all mean? Listen today!
If you have any questions or comments regarding any of our videos, please feel free to contact us through our website: http://CornerFringe.com
Bible verses covered:
Genesis 2:8-9, 15-17; 3:1-7, 21-24
Deuteronomy 30:15-18
Psalms 107:20; 119:50
Proverbs 3:18
Ezekiel 28:12-17
John 1:14; 10:10
Romans 8:13
2 Corinthians 2:14-17; 14:20
Jude 1:14
Revelation 22:1-2, 12-16
Other sources cited:
Book of Enoch 24:1-6; 25:1-6; 32:3-6
LikeLike
October 4, 2016 at 12:21 pm
THE TWO TREES Part 2 of 2: The Two Women
Corner Fringe Ministries
Published on Nov 24, 2013
Please enjoy this sequel to the teaching “The Two Trees”….
If you have any questions or comments regarding any of our videos, please feel free to contact us through our website: http://www.CornerFringe.com
Bible verses covered:
Genesis 3:1
Deuteronomy 4:5-6
Ruth 1:8-16
Proverbs 3:13-18; 8:1-5, 32-36; 9:1-6, 13-18
Matthew 12:48-50; 23:37
John 12:48
Revelation 12:1-5, 13-17; 17:1-6
Other sources cited:
Book of Enoch 42:1-3
LikeLike
October 6, 2016 at 7:35 pm
Colossians 2:16-17
(16) So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, (17) which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
http://www.theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.showBerean/BereanID/11/bblver/NKJV/Colossians-2-16-17.htm
From the above article by Earl L. Henn (1934-1997):
For centuries, people have tried to use Colossians 2:16-17 to say that Christians are not required to observe the Sabbath and holy days. This distortion stems partly from a misunderstanding of Colossians 2:14, which many claim says that the law was abolished and nailed to the cross, and partly from having a carnal mind, which is enmity against God and His law (Romans 8:7). They reason that Paul is saying in verse 16, “Therefore [since the law is done away] don’t let anyone condemn you for eating unclean meats or not observing the Sabbath or holy days.” Consequently, they interpret verse 17 to mean that Paul dismisses the Sabbath and holy days as unimportant symbols of future events, while emphasizing that the only truly substantive Christian need is belief in Christ. From this, they conclude that we should not concern ourselves about these days because, since Christ died, their observance is not required. This is not true.
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 5:48 am
1 John 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Dr. David Wood Proves the Resurrection of Christ
Trinity Apologetics
Published on Sep 17, 2016
David Wood (Ph.D) presents an excellent case for the historicity of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. And these are just a few pieces of evidences – volumes of scholarship have been done on the resurrection! The empty tomb is also very well attested even by the enemies of the disciples. If the disciples stole the body (as the ancient Jews held to) then this would never result in the conversion of Paul (an enemy of the church) and James (the skeptic unbelieving brother of Jesus). And why would the disciples knowingly suffer and die for something they know is a lie? This idea simply cannot account for all the facts.
Christianity would have DIED in the 1st century hadn’t Jesus rose from the dead!
See also my own video on the historic evidence: http://bit.ly/2bGGJ5k
LikeLike
October 18, 2016 at 7:21 am
Debate: Does Paul Give Us the Truth about Jesus? David Wood (Christian) vs. Shabir Ally (Muslim)
Acts17Apologetics
Published on Oct 4, 2015
http://www.answeringmuslims.com
Christians believe that the Apostle Paul was one of history’s most faithful men of God. Muslims, however, often claim that Paul was a deceiver who corrupted Christianity. Can an examination of the evidence help us decide who’s right? In this debate, David Wood and Shabir Ally debate the question, “Does Paul give us the truth about Jesus?”
LikeLike
October 23, 2016 at 10:49 am
Slippery slope into what love truly is. Not something defined with artificial limits, instead, love is love and take may different forms.
LikeLike
October 24, 2016 at 5:07 am
I Believe in Muhammad (David Wood)
Acts17Apologetics
Published on Jun 9, 2015
http://www.answeringmuslims.com
Muslims are quick to point out that they believe in Jesus. However, they only claim to believe in Jesus because Muhammad rewrote the history of Jesus to portray him as a Muslim. What happens when we rewrite the history of Muhammad to portray him as a Christian? Let’s find out as David Wood declares, “I believe in Muhammad.”
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm
How To Make A Valid Secular Case Against Homosexual Practice
© 2004, 2006 Robert A. J. Gagnon
http://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm
From the above article:
6) The normalization of all consensual sexual relationships, irrespective of number and degree of blood relatedness. The whole push to normalize homosexual relationships is predicated on the assumption that there are no structural prerequisites to valid sexual relationships; that commitment and fidelity are sufficient criteria, unless society can prove harm to all participants, in all circumstances, and in scientifically measurable ways. Given such premises, there is no logically consistent reason why society should resist various forms of multiple-partner sexual unions, whether traditional polygyny, “threesomes,” or some other arrangement. Since the restriction of the number of sex partners at any one time to two persons is predicated on the existence of two distinct and complementary sexes as necessary and sufficient to produce a sexual whole, the elimination of such a premise must result in the eventual elimination of a number requirement. It is not surprising that the recent Supreme Court decision that found a right to same-sex “sodomy” in the Constitution has sparked a lawsuit to validate polygamy; nor it is surprising that the ACLU has filed a brief on behalf of the polygamist, citing the sodomy ruling and insisting that the burden of proof is on the state to prove that polygamy is always harmful (for the record: It isn’t). Similarly, if consent, commitment, and fidelity are adequate for establishing a sexual union and, further, if the concept of too much structural sameness becomes irrelevant, then there is no reasonable basis for withholding public recognition of man-mother or adult brother-sister unions. One wonders, in the face of such an assault, how long resistance to adult-adolescent unions and, eventually, adult-child unions can be maintained. Note that I am not saying that by approving homosexual unions we may open the door to something worse: polygamy and incest. There are good grounds for arguing that homoerotic unions are worse for society than polygamy and adult consensual incest. Nevertheless, approving homosexual unions will, in the end, have the effect of discounting any concept of inherent structural incongruity as regards sexual unions. See my online discussion in “Why the Disagreement…?” pp. 35-45 here.
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 11:42 pm
Sorry Frank, you make no case about the topic…none whatsoever; we don’t care what your heroes say, what do you say?
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 6:08 pm
The Tech Online Edition
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
ADAM KOLASINSKI
February 17, 2004
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
From the above article:
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing….
LikeLike
November 1, 2016 at 9:24 pm
WHY THE DISAGREEMENT OVER THE BIBLICAL WITNESS
ON HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE?
A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?
ROBERT A. J. GAGNON
Click to access Gagnon-ReformedReview.pdf
From the above article pp. 56-59:
2. Jesus’ view: Silence as approval or indifference?
Like many supporters of homosexual unions, Myers and Scanzoni interpret the
fact that we have no saying of Jesus expressly forbidding same-sex intercourse as
evidence for Jesus’ lack of disapproval for committed homosexual unions.
a. Did Jesus not pick up on sexual differentiation in Gen 1:27 and 2:24?
Myers and Scanzoni react negatively to the following sentences from my short
article, “Why ‘Gay Marriage’ Is Wrong”:
Jesus adopted a “back-to-creation” model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27
and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In
contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed the one
explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be a male and
female, man and woman, to effect the “one flesh” reunion.90
According to Myers and Scanzoni, Jesus’ citation and interpretation of Gen 1:27
and 2:24 when dealing with the question of divorce in Mark 10:6-9 did not
presuppose a male-female prerequisite to marriage but simply addressed, in
generic terms, the issue of marital permanence.
Jesus’ point in Mark 10:6-9 was not about sexual differentiation. . . . Jesus was
talking about husbands and wives, males and females, who were already in a
marriage relationship, because that was what the religious leaders were asking about.
This was not a philosophical or theological discussion about sexual differences
and the need for a merger between two incomplete halves.
However, Myers’ and Scanzoni’s supposition that Jesus in Mark 10:6-9 was
giving a generic interpretation to the creation texts, where the sex of the partners
was incidental or irrelevant, is simply not credible in light of the historical and
literary context. It is obvious that Jesus presupposed a two-sex requirement for
marriage and that this presupposition was essential for his argument. First, the
one common denominator between Gen 1:27 (“male and female he [God] made
them”) and Gen 2:24 (“For this reason a man . . . will be joined to his woman [wife]
and the two shall become one flesh”) is the premise that marriage is constituted
by the joining of two sexes into one: male/female, man/woman. Second, we
have no evidence that anyone in Second Temple Judaism thought that the two-sex
dimension of marriage found in the creation texts, or any other text of
Scripture, was a merely incidental feature that could be supplanted by two men
or two women without doing great injury to Scripture. Third, Jesus’ back-to-back
citation of Gen 1:27 and 2:24 highlights more strongly the connection between the
joining and sexual differentiation: “For this reason”—namely, because God
“made them male and female” sexual counterparts—“a man . . . will be joined to
his woman and the two will become one flesh.” Fourth, Jesus clearly predicated
his opposition to remarriage after divorce and (implicitly) to polygyny on the
‘twoness’ or dimorphic character of human sexuality. Two and only two, Jesus
insisted, become one flesh: “so they are no longer two but one flesh” (Mark 10:8).
The number two is not pulled from thin air. It is derived from the creation
splitting of the original human into two sexes: “male and female,” “a man [and]
his woman.” The union of the only two sexes that God ordained recreates a
complete and sufficient sexual whole that is the basis for excluding additional
parties. As we have argued above, the creation story in Gen 2:21-24 itself
presupposes the necessity of two sexes in a marital bond.
b. Ten reasons for assuming Jesus’ opposition to homosexual practice. There
are others sayings of Jesus, besides (1) Jesus’ interpretation of Genesis 1:27 and
2:24 in Mark 10:6-9 (above). These other sayings, when taken in the context of
early Judaism, implicitly forbid same-sex intercourse. These sayings of Jesus
include:
(2) Defilement from desires for various kinds of porneia. According to Mark
7:21 Jesus interpreted his own saying about what defiles a man to refer to the
self-defiling character of desires for “sexual immoralities” (porneiai) and the
comparatively non-defiling character of foods ingested. Porneia in early Judaism
consistently meant, at the top of the list of sexual offenses, same-sex intercourse,
incest, adultery, and bestiality (cf. the prohibition of porneia in the Apostolic
Decree in Acts 15). The saying also establishes that an analogy between food
laws and sex laws, which Myers/Scanzoni and others make, is misguided (cf. 1
Cor 6:12-20 for a similar point by Paul).
(3) The adultery commandment as heading for other sex laws. In the context of
early Judaism, Jesus’ affirmation of the Decalogue commandment against
adultery (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18) in Mark 10:17-22 implies opposition to
homosexual practice. Given the context of the fifth and tenth commandments
(“honor your father and mother” and “you shall not covet your neighbor’s
wife”), the seventh commandment clearly presupposed a man-woman union as
the one valid form of marriage. Moreover, Jews in antiquity treated the seventh
commandment as an overarching rubric for the major sex laws of the Old
Testament, including prominently the prohibition of male-male intercourse.
(4) Singling out Sodom. Jesus’ acknowledgement of Sodom’s role in Scripture
as the prime OT example of abuse of visitors (Matt 10:14-15 par. Luke 10:10-12)
does not occur in a vacuum. A comparison with other Jewish interpretations of
the Second Temple period suggests that a key factor for such an assessment was
revulsion for the attempt at treating males sexually as females.
(5) Not giving “what is holy to the dogs.” Jesus’ warning against giving “what
is holy to the dogs” in Matt 7:6 probably echoes Deut 23:17-18, which forbids the
wages of a “dog” or so-called “holy man” [qadesh] from being used to pay a vow
to the holy “house of Yahweh.”
In addition to these sayings, a number of contextual factors also confirm Jesus’
opposition to homosexual practice. These include:
(6) Jesus’ general view of the law of Moses. If Jesus retained the law of Moses
even in relatively light matters (cf. Matt 23:23 par. Luke 11:42 on minute tithing),
what is the likelihood that he rejected or ignored a prohibition as strong and
intense as the one against male-male intercourse? If Paul retained strong
opposition to homosexual practice even though he spoke of the law’s abrogation
in Christ, what is the likelihood that Jesus, who did not speak of such abrogation,
would have held some secret acceptance of homosexual practice?
(7) Jesus’ approach to sexual ethics. Jesus intensified the law’s demand in
sexual ethics (divorce/remarriage and adultery of the heart), closing remaining
loopholes and inconsistencies in the law’s commandments. In addition, he
insisted that serial, unrepentant sexual offenses were serious enough to get one
thrown into hell (Matt 5:27-32; 19:3-12 par. Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; cf. 1 Cor
7:10-11). His outreach to sexual sinners was predicated not on personal
indifference to sexual sins but rather on the conviction that unrepentant sexual
sinners would perish when God’s kingdom came.
(8) Jesus and John the Baptist. The man to whose baptism Jesus submitted
and whom Jesus assessed as the greatest “among those born of women” (Matt
11:11 par. Luke 7:28), John the Baptist, felt strongly enough about Levitical sex
laws to risk execution for criticizing Herod Antipas for a case of adult consensual
incest (cf. Mark 6:17-29; Lev 18:13, 16; 20:21).94 Does this suggest that Jesus would
have thought violation of the Levitical prohibition against male-male intercourse
an offense to be ignored—for example, if Herod Antipas had taken a male lover?
(9) The univocal stance of early Judaism. Jesus was a mid-first-century Jew.
From extant texts we know of no other Jew within a couple of centuries of Jesus’
life with any degree of openness to homosexual unions. Early Judaism
maintained a universally intense stance against same-sex intercourse and for a
male-female prerequisite for a valid sexual union.
(10) The univocal stance of the early church. The early church was completely
united in the understanding that sexual relations had an inviolable two-sex
prerequisite. No one had the slightest inkling that this universal view in the
church might be misreading the teaching of Jesus.
It is historically untenable, to the point of being ludicrous, to suggest that Jesus
secretly supported a form of behavior that (a) conflicted with his own use of the
creation texts and other texts in context; and (b) was strongly rejected by his
Scripture, the whole of Second Temple Judaism, the man who baptized him, and
all his followers for centuries to come.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 12:56 pm
Trumps uses words like “probably” to substantiate what he wants the words to mean.
LikeLike
November 2, 2016 at 1:09 pm
Post 417 is as ludicrous as the claim that Jesus should have voted to stone the woman caught in adultery as per the Law of Moses except that Jesus was secretly against that kind of killing too.
LikeLike
November 4, 2016 at 1:47 pm
WHY THE DISAGREEMENT OVER THE BIBLICAL WITNESS
ON HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE?
A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?
ROBERT A. J. GAGNON
Click to access Gagnon-ReformedReview.pdf
From the above article pp. 35-38:
3. The effect of sexual sameness on male homosexual promiscuity
There is thus an inherent deficiency in homosexual unions: the absence of a
sexual counterpart to moderate the extremes of, and fill the gaps in, the
distinctive features of one’s own sex. This deficiency is largely responsible for the
disproportionately high rate of scientifically measurable, negative harm that
attends homosexual activity, at different rates for homosexual males and
homosexual females respectively. This includes higher rates of sexually
transmitted disease (especially among homosexual males), higher rates of mental
health problems (especially among homosexual females), higher numbers of sex
partners lifetime (especially among homosexual males), shorter-term
relationships (especially among homosexual females), and a higher correlation
with adult-adolescent or adult-child sexual activity (among male homosexuals).
Although proponents of homosexual unions attribute these higher rates
exclusively, or nearly so, to societal homophobia, a significant causation factor is
likely the distinctive excesses of each sex that are not moderated in same-sex
unions….
Similarly, Marvin Ellison, professor of Christian ethics at Bangor Theological
Seminary and an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) (and a
homosexual man), calls for a “broader debate” on the subject of multiple partners
in his recent book Same-Sex Marriage?:
Should marriage, as the legal sanctioning of an intimate sexual affiliation, be
limited to two and only two persons . . . ? Should religious communities bless
multiple coexisting sexual partnerships? Surely one concern with polyamorous
affiliations is exploitation, or what feminist critics of polygamy have called an
“excess of patriarchy.” But how exactly does the number of partners affect the
moral quality of the relationship? This question requires a serious answer. Could
it be that limiting intimate partnerships to only two people at a time is no
guarantee of avoiding exploitation, and expanding them to include more than
two parties is no guarantee that the relationship will be exploitative?
He also asks, “How might it be possible to break with compulsory monogamy
and make marriage genuinely elective, as a vocation (or calling) for some but not
all?”
Ellison is, incidentally, a member of The Gay Men’s Issues in Religion Group in
the American Academy of Religion. This group adopted as a theme for one of
their two sessions at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the AAR “Love Is a Many
Splendored Thing: Varied Views on Polyamory.” Essentially this was an
advocacy session for “faithful” multiple-partner relationships, even going so far
as to use the Trinity as a model for such. Not that this Group is monolithic in its
concerns: The theme for one of their two sessions in the following year’s national
meeting was “Power and Submission, Pain and Pleasure: The Religious
Dynamics of Sadomasochism.” One paper, for example, advocated:
“Sadomasochistic homoerotic desire is part of what makes the spectacle of the
crucifixion attractive and desirable.”
LikeLike
November 4, 2016 at 5:04 pm
“twinkling of the eye”.
LikeLike
November 6, 2016 at 9:42 am
Quote from Post August 27, 2013:
Another example of how same-sex marriage won’t affect anyone, #2
“…………In today’s legal world, violating one’s conscience by participating in actions that you deem morally unacceptable is “the price of citizenship.” Either comply, or find another career………”
only applies because of indoctrination of a moral code defined by ancient stoneage religion, which is as subjective as morality can get since all religion its dogma and codes derive from a person.
When such a moral code gets drummed into society, of which disobedience to is punishable death, it is no small wonder that it takes on a life of its own impact for future generations to beware. After being imbedded by centuries of rigid conditioning few can climb out of the “tradition hole”.
The most necessary rational thought the Supreme Court MUST take into consideration and rule on it once and for all is this: Sexual orientation is determined between your ears, in the brain and not between your legs. Gender is not in the genitalia, it’s in the grey matter.
Two examples:
1. “Hearing and ears is like gender and genitalia: its a purely mechanical process.
I use my thoracic and abdominal muscles so that I can use my thoracic cavity as a bellows to produce a draft of air that will pass across my larynx and by tautening or slackening the vocal chords, I’ll produce vibrations that are projected into the atmosphere and caught by two cup shaped appendages which you have on the side of your head and they’re focused on the outer membrane called the eardrum that begins to vibrate in harmony with the vibrations that I’m producing in my throat and you see, attached to that outer membrane, the eardrum, there’s a little bone called the hammer that’s in contact with another little bone called the anvil and it begins to strike it, motivated by the eardrum in harmony with the vibrations that I’m producing in my throat and that little bone, the anvil, is in touch with another little bone called the stirrup, so called, because it’s like what you might use if you were riding a horse and that, in its turn, is in contact with an inner membrane that contains fluid and the vibrations are communicated through the fluid to the nerve end that then convey an impulse to a certain area of your brain; and then, you know exactly what I’m talking about. You see, it’s purely a mechanical process. You don’t hear anything with your ear, you know that, vibrations are simply communicated, where you hear is in the brain.” And where you sexualize, (perceive your gender), is in the brain.
2. Cleft lip (cheiloschisis) and cleft palate (palatoschisis), which can also occur together as cleft lip and palate, are variations of a type of clefting congenital deformity caused by abnormal facial development during gestation.
Substituting the term homosexuality for the clefting example; otherwise, known as “same sex” attraction, I submit that some bodies develop genitalia anomalies in gestation separately and differently from brain gender development (religion might refer to this as: devil-opment) in the same way as cleft occurs in the human population in both sexes and the outcomes of anomaly development is significant in both cases.
I further submit that a surgical operation to correct the gestation anomaly that reverses the physical genitalia anomaly (sex change) to conform with the brain gender (the real determinant gender seat) is every bit as valid and should be every bit as acceptable as an operation to repair the cleft anomaly.
Furthermore I submit that the Brain/Body anomaly while as unseemly perhaps as the cleft lip anomaly may be to the majority of society, is not an abomination by any means; certainly, not to those who understand this as a biological function.
In addition this anomaly occurs in the general population from normal heterosexual activity more than general society cares to admit, (all homosexuality comes from the heterosexual community) especially religious societies that have readily adopted, approved “The Biblical Word” and admonish others because of ancient religious tradition, tradition formulated by societies that did not understand gestation deficiencies any more than they understood “demonic possession” (of epileptics) as a function of neurological anomalies(brain biology).
Whether the gender anomaly is corrected by physical surgery or not is not the issue here entirely however, the main issue is that society in general and religious sects in particular must recognize the anomaly for what it is and accept it with understanding, especially in light of the preponderance of evidence that many parishioners, priests and preachers in all walks of religion are themselves afflicted by this anomaly and therefore (treating others as they want to be themselves treated) should be tolerant of their fellow humans out of compassion if not outright shame for ostracizing the LGBT Community amid the LGBT’s many pleas (prayers) to be accepted as normal human beings freckles and all.
Having a gender anomaly does not inevitably lead to a psychosocial problem. However, adolescents with gender anomalies are at an elevated risk for developing psychosocial problems especially those relating to self-concept, peer relationships and appearance. A gender anomaly may impact an individual’s self-esteem, social skills and behavior and contribute to the Closet Syndrome by the hate culture most responsible for alienating them, Religion. This alienation may also a carry over from gender different units who raise children who themselves may not have the gender anomaly but may still experience the intolerance of their peers who have yet to civilize enough to accept others in their society who have different experiences.
What have we learned here:
1.) There are no same sex couples, homosexual couples or lesbian couples; all couples are heterosexual and all couples relate to each other in a heterosexual way; In other words in every couple there is a male/female identity interaction.
2.) Marriage was religion’s way of controlling human sexuality not by the men directly but by treating the women men love, like cattle; men were fornicators if they did not marry yet engaged in sexual activity, women were called harlots, whores and sluts and their children; well,
3.) The children of women out of wedlock were as degraded as the woman out of wedlock and were called in terms to degrade the woman further by referring to her children as illegitimate, irregular, inferior, spurious, unusual, vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person; in one negative perjorative: bastards! And even since the days of ancient ignorance, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.” Deut 23:2
The Catholic Church is also changing its attitude toward unwed mothers and baptism of the children. In criticizing the priests who refused to baptize out-of-wedlock children, Pope Francis argued that the mothers had done the right thing by giving life to the child and should not be shunned by the church:
In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don’t baptise the children of single mothers because they weren’t conceived in the sanctity of marriage. These are today’s hypocrites. Those who clericalise the church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it’s baptised!
And thus SCOTUS has adjudicated correctly that role-assuming in same sex loving relationships must have the same and equal force of Law and Human Rights as the so called “opposite sex marriage”.
LikeLike
November 13, 2016 at 11:48 am
Child Sex Trafficking of the Elite
Tsiyon Tabernacle
Published on Nov 5, 2016
Hillary Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew, [H]uma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, and John Podesta, Jerry Sandusky –
Really, I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to hear about sexual abuse of children. The very thought of such behavior is not only disgusting, but understandably engenders rage toward those responsible. Nobody wants to experience those feelings, so most people turn away from topics that are so “unpleasant.”
Yet, I know from my research that abusers count on your natural inclination to turn away from abuse, not to believe it even, to keep the way clear for them to keep abusing the innocent. This is why we must be informed of the truth, even the dark truth, so that we are aware enough to protect the innocent ones in our sphere. These may be our children or other children in our community. Either way, if the righteous adults around those children are not aware of the horrible truth then the odds against those kids go way up.
What horrible truth? Well, that’s what I’m going to explain. Here, suffice it to say that the attack against children has NEVER been more intense than it is right now. The attack against children is global in scope. Children are literally being destroyed, ruined, by the millions. Yet, you seldom see anything about it in the news. The truth is being suppressed by those who have an interest in the destruction of the innocent – who, unfortunately, also are in positions of control over the media, and most everything else in this world.
Messiah is going to deal with those evil perverts in His own time. However, in the meantime the righteous need to know what is really going on, so we can protect our children from those people, to preserve a righteous seed in the earth. The devil and his friends are working overtime to deny YHWH a righteous seed in the earth, which is why this battle is getting so intense as we get nearer to the End. Everything is at stake now, so we must be aware. And we must fight the good fight.
LikeLike
January 1, 2017 at 6:46 am
The effects of polygamy conducted on an industrial scale as presented by Islam’s Sharia law and Germany’s suicidal multiculturalism’s “tolerance”:
Islamic Polygamy in Germany is Practiced on a Massive Scale! 2016 Documentary
RawDocs24
Published on Dec 19, 2016
This is a ticking time bomb for europe. Muslims are going viral and EU welfare systems have to take care of them. 80% of muslims in EU live from welfare and as refugees come in millions – this means tens of billions of euros extra cost for tax payers. Sweden’s 160 000 refugees taken last year means approximately 5 billion euros extra cost for swedish government. 5 billion euros every year – big money for a country that has only 9 million citizens.
LikeLike
January 1, 2017 at 6:51 am
What Is Taqiyya?
Acts17Apologetics
Published on Jun 10, 2015
http://www.answeringmuslims.com
Taqiyya (taqiya, taqiyah, taqiyyah) is a form of Islamic deception. The Quran (16:106 and 3:28) allows Muslims to lie in order to protect themselves or to protect the Muslim community. In this video, David Wood explains the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya.
LikeLike
January 1, 2017 at 10:47 am
Cologne One Year On: Germany Embraces Sharia
Black Pigeon Speaks
Published on Jan 1, 2017
LikeLike