It's been a while since I attempted to portray God's truth as authoritative. Here goes nothing all over again.
In Luke 8:..he spake by a parable:
[5] A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
[6] And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
[7] And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
[8] And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried,
...He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
[9] And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
.
.
.
[15] ...But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.
Puzzled about why I love the truth with such ferocious implacability? 2 Thess 2:
[7] For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
[8] And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
[9] Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
[10] And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
...because they received not the love of the truth, (that they might be saved.)
[11] And
...for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
...that they should believe a lie:
[12] That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Tim 3:
[1] This know also, that
..in the last days
perilous times shall come.
[2] For
...men shall be {bad}
lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[5] [Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:]
...(from such turn away.)
[6]For of this sort are
...they which creep into houses, and lead captive (silly) women (laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,)
[7] Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
[8] Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
[9] But they shall proceed no further: for
...their folly shall be manifest unto all men, (as theirs also was.)
[10] But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
[11] Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
[12] Yea, {yes, not hurray,} and [all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.]
[13] But
...evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
1 Tim 1:
[8] But we know that
...the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
[9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
...the lawless and disobedient,
{locks tend to keep honest men honest}
for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
[10] For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind,
...for menstealers,
for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Questions for review:
1. Do I control if my heart is good ground or path (way side,) or thorny? Does Calvin; Does Satan? Does God actually afford me choice in the matter?
2. What is the penalty for hating the truth, no matter how awful?
3. Are the last days over, with Christ fulfilling the contract, and God keeping his bargain, or do we continually await the Rapture?
4. Does a bad form of godliness have power?
5. What sort of people are kidnappers? Do they even exist?
6. Are they actually on a perennial learning curve of useless information?
7. Whose folly will be manifest (UNTO) all men? Whose was evident in the past? (Hint: It wasn't Korah!)
8. If atheists and people who actually don't WANT to _meet_ God "prove" that reality is bad, by assisting it (with such embellishments about seductions and disasters as they deem necessary to their purpose,) will they deceive? Will they in turn be deceived? In that order? Whose lies will prevail?
9. Is slavery different from "menstealing?" How old is it?
10. How old is the concept of perjury? Is this older than the old saw Ex 20:[16] "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
11. Is that the 9th or 10th commandment? Were there actually 248 do's, and 365 don'ts, for a total of 613 commands? Why did the people beg God to stop? Who did they send to make the agreement, and how many times did they have to be inscribed?
I'll endeavor to have more answers and fewer study questions for the next trial.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Judges of Evil Thoughts;
Worldly people, homosexuals among them, are not satisfied to be merely separated from Christ by separation from his children. They wish the thoughts of all to bless their choices, and infer these from our actions. Pr 20:
[11] Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.
I am not sure where they obtain their audience, but they typically subject the child of God to continual review according to this verse. 1 Pet 4:
[17] For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
As such, they also set about to expose a certain hypocrisy, that of hating the sin, but still attempting to love the sinner. This at least has precedence in Rev 2:
[6] But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
That hypocrisy is undesirable is not at issue. It is universally pejorative, but it is never specified as to whether this offense is actually any worse than having a double standard or hamming it up for an audience, like a skilled thespian.
To listen to the World tell the story, the first indictment of our earthly infallibility is sufficient cause to stop the game, and send us on to God for final analysis post haste. The lesson from earthly courts is this. Prosecutors level indictments. When responsibly brought, these are ordered according to law. This is a first step, and a Grand Jury (there's one in session at almost all times,) actually looks at the evidence and tells the District Attorney whether or not this is even worth the Court's time. If a Prosecutor proceeds on an indictment, this is understood to be a commitment that he personally thinks it has merit. He expects to win, and if he loses three in a row I estimate he has irreparable credibility problems with the people who count. How much should I actually worry about the World's indictments?
Contrast that with this view for a different perspective. 2 Tim 3:
[12] Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
This sounds like a proof that _If_ we are not persecuted, _then_ we are not true believers. For humor re-read it and add, "not just the really evil people who try to hurt them."
Meanwhile these worldly individuals are reviewing our responses to their various indictments and if our un-false or sincere responses consistently review THEM badly, THEY conclude that we have hated them completely. If they can't convict us in hypocrisy, they convict us on false charges of "hating our enemy" after the Old Testament example. If Jesus was the Christ, he was certainly correct when he said Mt 5:
[43] Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
...and contradictions are certainly not recorded here - it was a Sermon.
The righteous judge regards... Ecc 8:
[8] If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.
(Pr 29:[7] The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.) is also related.
...and is not deceived about either his preferences or our hearts.
Heb 13:
[8] Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
1 Jno 3:
[20] For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
Job had his difficulties, and an examination of context for the following should inform our faith with knowledge.
Job 24:[1] Why, seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty, do they that know him not see his days?
Job 34:
[10] Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.
[11] For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.
Job 35:[13] Surely God will not hear vanity, neither will the Almighty regard it.
Was the speaker in Job 34:[12] Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.
..inspired to speak truth or contrasting material?
We remember Ezekiel's discussion of God reaping where he did not sow with regard to the bloodshed of the guilty in Ez 3:
[16] And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
[17] Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
[18] When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
[19] Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
[20] Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
[21] Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.
As such, we can paint a brilliant image in the mind with the following suggestion to the erring:
There is Latin for "While there is life there is hope."
"While there is life, your soul has not been separated from your breathing body. While body and soul unite, you _CANNOT_ be so _comprehensively_ separated from God's love as you will be (of a certainty,) the very first day of eternal unending hell!"
Rev 20:
[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Tempted and Tried;
A favorite song, known and loved by many, reads “Tempted and tried, we're oft made to wonder why it should be thus all the day long; while there are others living around us never molested, though in the wrong.” The rest of the song goes on to woo our hearts to heaven with patient continuance in well doing, per Ro 2:7, 2 Thes 3:13 and Ga 6:9. This scriptural exhortation lifts up the fallen hands, and strengthens feeble knees, giving every lawful reason to adjure us not to falter. The point of interest for today's contemplation is the perceptive nature of the opening bar's wording. As a song, we many times set aside content because of needs of rhyme and meter; God's command to sing has made use of our inability to forget lyrics, as well as our normal inability to stray from order and rhythm of presentation; there is a reason that the Negro spiritual is so moving, and that POW's are forbidden to sing in certain camps. Despite the fact that the teaching observed here comes from song, it is true that Temptation and Trial are distinct and different, and I recently heard this remarked upon from the pulpit of a youthful mission field candidate. I offered to share this blog URL\link with him (by way of encouragement,) and have mixed feelings about making his effort of that day available as “my own,” having made the determination to believe the content, without his watchful eye to stipulate the correctness of the representation.
What do we mean by “tempted” and what do we mean by “tried?” In the wilderness where Jesus retreated to fast, possibly fulfilling the prophecy in Isa 42:
[2] He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
...he was tempted by the Devil. This occasion followed Jesus immersion baptism by his cousin John (Mt 3,) at Aenon, near Salim, in the Jordan river, and immediately precedes the famous sermon on the Mount that begins with the Beatitudes (Mt 5-7.) In the 1st verse of Mt 4, the purpose of the meeting is specified, and there is no reason to suppose that this purpose was not accomplished. Jesus was tempted.
I'll take a moment, here, to pontificate upon what exactly that should mean. Jesus could easily have been certain of his own identity, and Satan (the accuser,) also knew – witness Jas 2:19. What other cause entered in to entice the not yet crowned Christ to definitively demonstrate his identity (and associated power,) to this somewhat suspect audience? Many lessons have been taught that the Prosecution addressed 1 Jno 2:
[16] For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
[17] And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
...differently with each specific temptation. This blog itself has investigated the storyline before, as a blueprint for the operation of the shield of faith. Neither of these satisfies my intellect as to what exactly might have given these temptations teeth, but the fact that Jesus was tempted is useful to know in other ways as well.
Heb 2:
[18] For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
...serving to underscore the promises of Heb 4:
[15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
..and 1 Cor 10:
[13] There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
…bearing the weight, like a weight lifters barbell is a promise, not the number of repetitions. Nor do the strong among us experience different difficulties; they are simply hardened like the soldier of 2 Tim 2:3 in the Lord’s army.
That Jesus was hungry is not difficult to believe; after 40 days, any fat a man of that era had available was assuredly exhausted, and eating was a matter of survival whether hunger pangs were in evidence or not. He could have made stones bread and “killed two birds with one stone,” ensuring his survival and silencing Satan in the process.
For the second attempt to have any telling seduction, Jesus must have been interested both to prove Satan wrong, AND test the truth of God's promise. I make this out to be a lesser temptation because Satan would have been right, not wrong about the promise, giving God (and not Satan) the pride of place in related discourse. The truth that men are not to tempt the Almighty reigned sovereign over the discussion.
In the third effort, the Devil must necessarily have had the capacity to offer these Kingdoms and the Glory of them; as I understand it, Christ would not only have become ruler, but also had the attached acclaim of being known to do so, which is different from a king maker of other discussions. If ever he had opportunity to turn from drinking the bitter cup, this was an illustrative example. Forgiveness might not have come, and the Plan of Salvation might have been aborted, but the desire to shut Satan up, shut him down, and silence his gainsaying must have been so overpowering as to assail the judgment of even the divine. His paraphrase of “Thou Shalt have no other Gods before me,” is from the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 fame.
Having looked at all three efforts, we can say that Jesus was tempted as promised. These temptations were new to my mind when I read them as a child, and I'll only take two seconds to observe that a similar offer made to my person is not the same; even if it is legitimately from the same source, I have Jesus' example; the correct answer is a “no-brainer.”
Without appeal to a dictionary, we have built from context some idea that temptations are passing desires, like the fiery darts of Eph 6:
[16] Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
To use another illustration, I can be TEMPTED to run a red light every time one turns orange in my presence, but to be TRIED in the same regard, I have to be induced to systematically contemplate how to thwart red light systems, and become a scofflaw.
God TRIED Abraham. Heb 11:
[17] By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
1 Pet 1:
[7] That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
Our FAITH is what is tried. It is TRIAL that compounds our spiritual virtues Jas 1:3, Ro 5:3. A shadow of the relationship of trial to temptation is seen in Jas 1:
[12] Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
[13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
[14] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
[15] Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Verse 12, temptation endured results in successful trial – I supposed that in a court proceeding illustration, the temptations might be questions from the prosecution and defense, and the trial would still be the total construct, from accusation to verdict, (maybe even including penalty phase.) Apparently temptation can be so distressing that we are made to fault our maker for it... else verse 13 would not be necessary.
Pausing only to notice that lust itself is defined as temptation, not specifically sin, we recall the reductio ad absurdum that to make deliberate lust a practice invites sin nonetheless. However we finalize that rabbit trail, we specify as follows: sin is sin, but temptation isn't sin. I can be tempted 20 times a day, and be “yet without sin,” as noted in Heb 4:15 above.
Without the benefit of being brief, we can now say that God tries hearts, and Satan tempts men to sin. (See more at Pr 20:27.)
How are we (men) supposed to review God regarding the same topic? We have seen “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” Reasonable minds must allow that, IF God CANNOT be tempted with evil (neither tempteth he any man,) there should be some small query as to how this can even be possible. At the outset, the occurrence appears to be preposterous.
True, this is not a matter of choice to the creator. God CANNOT lie, and he CANNOT be tempted with evil. The remaining thing I can imagine to tempt him with would be some form of “good.” How would tempting God with good of my own devising be any different from the behavior commanded in Mal 3:
[10] Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
Here the Lord reached out to the Children of his friend’s grandson and made his promise subject to experimentation. We can even suppose that this is the reason for the success of Televangelists. They certainly quote the preceding verse enough. It is simply the case that their own misappropriation of funds convicts them unintentionally like Haman in Esther 6:6,7.
The reason that this does not amount to tempting God when legitimately employed is that it is by his own agreement. If I sign a contract, absent ending clause, I expect (and am expected) to honor it whenever specified conditions are met. God may not actually contract with US as he did with Malachi and his audience of that time, but he may repeat his blessings on a discretionary basis nonetheless.
Whatever the case this is different from two identifiable cases that may be observed in society perennially.
First, the case where a person, usually an Atheist devises some plan of his own that he envisions to be “good,” by definition of that word, and put’s it to God as Satan did to Christ. “If thou art --- ---- -- God, do this good that I have devised, and I will serve you, I and all my household.” Since this is not a contract God has agreed ahead of time to honor in any way, this defines ONE aspect I conceive of tempting God.
Second, the case where a person, usually a public figure, makes a Faustian bargain with the powers that be: I will make this concession or compromise if you will accord the Lord and/or his servants [x] benefit. Since Satan is the Prince of the power of the air, he is available for bargains such as this, without being bound to honor them at the end. God puts in power the principalities we honor, we suppose that he is aware of the ‘game,’ or we too would say: How doth God know? In this case the temptation to God is to make his anger felt as broadly as he has been defamed.
If that is how it is done (this tempting of our creator,) it is good advice to aver it.
Reviewing,
God can try us and this is how our dross is refined.
Satan can tempt us and this is how we show loyalty and dexterity with our spiritual sword.
We can try God, and this is according to his law. Ro 12:2
And we can tempt God – God forbid!
What do we mean by “tempted” and what do we mean by “tried?” In the wilderness where Jesus retreated to fast, possibly fulfilling the prophecy in Isa 42:
[2] He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
...he was tempted by the Devil. This occasion followed Jesus immersion baptism by his cousin John (Mt 3,) at Aenon, near Salim, in the Jordan river, and immediately precedes the famous sermon on the Mount that begins with the Beatitudes (Mt 5-7.) In the 1st verse of Mt 4, the purpose of the meeting is specified, and there is no reason to suppose that this purpose was not accomplished. Jesus was tempted.
I'll take a moment, here, to pontificate upon what exactly that should mean. Jesus could easily have been certain of his own identity, and Satan (the accuser,) also knew – witness Jas 2:19. What other cause entered in to entice the not yet crowned Christ to definitively demonstrate his identity (and associated power,) to this somewhat suspect audience? Many lessons have been taught that the Prosecution addressed 1 Jno 2:
[16] For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
[17] And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
...differently with each specific temptation. This blog itself has investigated the storyline before, as a blueprint for the operation of the shield of faith. Neither of these satisfies my intellect as to what exactly might have given these temptations teeth, but the fact that Jesus was tempted is useful to know in other ways as well.
Heb 2:
[18] For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
...serving to underscore the promises of Heb 4:
[15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
..and 1 Cor 10:
[13] There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
…bearing the weight, like a weight lifters barbell is a promise, not the number of repetitions. Nor do the strong among us experience different difficulties; they are simply hardened like the soldier of 2 Tim 2:3 in the Lord’s army.
That Jesus was hungry is not difficult to believe; after 40 days, any fat a man of that era had available was assuredly exhausted, and eating was a matter of survival whether hunger pangs were in evidence or not. He could have made stones bread and “killed two birds with one stone,” ensuring his survival and silencing Satan in the process.
For the second attempt to have any telling seduction, Jesus must have been interested both to prove Satan wrong, AND test the truth of God's promise. I make this out to be a lesser temptation because Satan would have been right, not wrong about the promise, giving God (and not Satan) the pride of place in related discourse. The truth that men are not to tempt the Almighty reigned sovereign over the discussion.
In the third effort, the Devil must necessarily have had the capacity to offer these Kingdoms and the Glory of them; as I understand it, Christ would not only have become ruler, but also had the attached acclaim of being known to do so, which is different from a king maker of other discussions. If ever he had opportunity to turn from drinking the bitter cup, this was an illustrative example. Forgiveness might not have come, and the Plan of Salvation might have been aborted, but the desire to shut Satan up, shut him down, and silence his gainsaying must have been so overpowering as to assail the judgment of even the divine. His paraphrase of “Thou Shalt have no other Gods before me,” is from the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 fame.
Having looked at all three efforts, we can say that Jesus was tempted as promised. These temptations were new to my mind when I read them as a child, and I'll only take two seconds to observe that a similar offer made to my person is not the same; even if it is legitimately from the same source, I have Jesus' example; the correct answer is a “no-brainer.”
Without appeal to a dictionary, we have built from context some idea that temptations are passing desires, like the fiery darts of Eph 6:
[16] Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
To use another illustration, I can be TEMPTED to run a red light every time one turns orange in my presence, but to be TRIED in the same regard, I have to be induced to systematically contemplate how to thwart red light systems, and become a scofflaw.
God TRIED Abraham. Heb 11:
[17] By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
1 Pet 1:
[7] That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
Our FAITH is what is tried. It is TRIAL that compounds our spiritual virtues Jas 1:3, Ro 5:3. A shadow of the relationship of trial to temptation is seen in Jas 1:
[12] Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
[13] Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
[14] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
[15] Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Verse 12, temptation endured results in successful trial – I supposed that in a court proceeding illustration, the temptations might be questions from the prosecution and defense, and the trial would still be the total construct, from accusation to verdict, (maybe even including penalty phase.) Apparently temptation can be so distressing that we are made to fault our maker for it... else verse 13 would not be necessary.
Pausing only to notice that lust itself is defined as temptation, not specifically sin, we recall the reductio ad absurdum that to make deliberate lust a practice invites sin nonetheless. However we finalize that rabbit trail, we specify as follows: sin is sin, but temptation isn't sin. I can be tempted 20 times a day, and be “yet without sin,” as noted in Heb 4:15 above.
Without the benefit of being brief, we can now say that God tries hearts, and Satan tempts men to sin. (See more at Pr 20:27.)
How are we (men) supposed to review God regarding the same topic? We have seen “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” Reasonable minds must allow that, IF God CANNOT be tempted with evil (neither tempteth he any man,) there should be some small query as to how this can even be possible. At the outset, the occurrence appears to be preposterous.
True, this is not a matter of choice to the creator. God CANNOT lie, and he CANNOT be tempted with evil. The remaining thing I can imagine to tempt him with would be some form of “good.” How would tempting God with good of my own devising be any different from the behavior commanded in Mal 3:
[10] Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
Here the Lord reached out to the Children of his friend’s grandson and made his promise subject to experimentation. We can even suppose that this is the reason for the success of Televangelists. They certainly quote the preceding verse enough. It is simply the case that their own misappropriation of funds convicts them unintentionally like Haman in Esther 6:6,7.
The reason that this does not amount to tempting God when legitimately employed is that it is by his own agreement. If I sign a contract, absent ending clause, I expect (and am expected) to honor it whenever specified conditions are met. God may not actually contract with US as he did with Malachi and his audience of that time, but he may repeat his blessings on a discretionary basis nonetheless.
Whatever the case this is different from two identifiable cases that may be observed in society perennially.
First, the case where a person, usually an Atheist devises some plan of his own that he envisions to be “good,” by definition of that word, and put’s it to God as Satan did to Christ. “If thou art --- ---- -- God, do this good that I have devised, and I will serve you, I and all my household.” Since this is not a contract God has agreed ahead of time to honor in any way, this defines ONE aspect I conceive of tempting God.
Second, the case where a person, usually a public figure, makes a Faustian bargain with the powers that be: I will make this concession or compromise if you will accord the Lord and/or his servants [x] benefit. Since Satan is the Prince of the power of the air, he is available for bargains such as this, without being bound to honor them at the end. God puts in power the principalities we honor, we suppose that he is aware of the ‘game,’ or we too would say: How doth God know? In this case the temptation to God is to make his anger felt as broadly as he has been defamed.
If that is how it is done (this tempting of our creator,) it is good advice to aver it.
Reviewing,
God can try us and this is how our dross is refined.
Satan can tempt us and this is how we show loyalty and dexterity with our spiritual sword.
We can try God, and this is according to his law. Ro 12:2
And we can tempt God – God forbid!
Monday, January 26, 2009
We may have equal fruit of converts with Noah!
Observing Pr 2:
[6] For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
...we see that one good and perfect gift (Jas 1:13) that God gives us is "understanding." I infer that he doesn't use the square distribution system to "not respect persons," (Ro 2:11,) by the verses in 2 Cor 3:
[13] And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
[14] But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
[15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
[16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
The square distribution would give all men equal understanding. I suppose the "vail" is accorded notice in our current language (Ps 19:3,) in the phrase, "pull the wool over his eyes." It is interesting that in the current day, the textile obscuring the vision of the intellect is "wool," a product inextricably linked to the common Israelite herder illustration, Sheep. It is as if to say, "Christians themselves are the reason worldly people cannot understand!" (1 Cor 2:14.)
A physical manifestation of the New Covenant being ratified may have been Mt 27:
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
I don't know why the New Testament Authorized Version accords itself two spellings, but it is intriguing. Perhaps it is to avoid the literalistic requiring just such a literal rendering exhaustively.
It also quietly accommodates a speedy consummation theory of Eph 5:
[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
...he died and the veil was torn immediately.
Other than that, God's fulfillment of Lk 18:
[7] And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
[8] I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
... would be on a timetable of a thousand years 2 Pet 3:8. It is because of just such considerations that the latter half of verse 18 remains an open question. A “Rapture” can't happen on an earth where there is no Faith. 2 Thess 4:16 was optional, conditional on contingencies we can anticipate but not prove.
Another commentary on the Lord's timetable is in Ro 9:
[27] Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
[28] For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
This follows a Hosea quote, and is non-specific about how the haste in question is to be accomplished. One theory on how, is that it will be similar to the US Desert Storm (in 100 hrs,) after Desert Shield prep work for 6 months.
When Christ comes again, (Ro 14:
[11] For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.)
...the phrase "shock and awe," will take new meaning one last time.
[6] For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
...we see that one good and perfect gift (Jas 1:13) that God gives us is "understanding." I infer that he doesn't use the square distribution system to "not respect persons," (Ro 2:11,) by the verses in 2 Cor 3:
[13] And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
[14] But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
[15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
[16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
The square distribution would give all men equal understanding. I suppose the "vail" is accorded notice in our current language (Ps 19:3,) in the phrase, "pull the wool over his eyes." It is interesting that in the current day, the textile obscuring the vision of the intellect is "wool," a product inextricably linked to the common Israelite herder illustration, Sheep. It is as if to say, "Christians themselves are the reason worldly people cannot understand!" (1 Cor 2:14.)
A physical manifestation of the New Covenant being ratified may have been Mt 27:
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
I don't know why the New Testament Authorized Version accords itself two spellings, but it is intriguing. Perhaps it is to avoid the literalistic requiring just such a literal rendering exhaustively.
It also quietly accommodates a speedy consummation theory of Eph 5:
[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
...he died and the veil was torn immediately.
Other than that, God's fulfillment of Lk 18:
[7] And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
[8] I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
... would be on a timetable of a thousand years 2 Pet 3:8. It is because of just such considerations that the latter half of verse 18 remains an open question. A “Rapture” can't happen on an earth where there is no Faith. 2 Thess 4:16 was optional, conditional on contingencies we can anticipate but not prove.
Another commentary on the Lord's timetable is in Ro 9:
[27] Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
[28] For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
This follows a Hosea quote, and is non-specific about how the haste in question is to be accomplished. One theory on how, is that it will be similar to the US Desert Storm (in 100 hrs,) after Desert Shield prep work for 6 months.
When Christ comes again, (Ro 14:
[11] For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.)
...the phrase "shock and awe," will take new meaning one last time.
A Sower went forth to Sow; as Jesus observed.
A sower went forth to sow. Pr 11:
[24] There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.
...may have been the inspiration for a parable of Jesus Christ. While that water of life soaks into a flowerpot of soil in your mind, I'll attend to an item of business that we overlooked last entry.
We looked at Satan's premier lie, and his first. We also took a run at what might have been a premier truth of God's. For completeness, we should take a moment to know his 1st truth. Gen 1:
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Evolutionists, for some reason, think that IF there IS a God, this God should still accommodate their own theory of the order in which things should have been created, such that God _should_ have created a Universe, and then proceeded to solar system and earth by some ordered process, finishing up with man. In fact, by whatever process or mechanism Time came to be, at that point the stuff that there was had no form, and was defined as empty. God's first utterance in Time was a potentially untrue statement: "Light." He could not lie, and thus there was light. As we have seen before, in Isa 45:7, God created evil. If the light had been evil, it could not have tempted him (per Jas 1:13,) but this is a good time to examine the context of my previous allusion to Isa 45:
[5] I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
[6] That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
[7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
[8] Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
While Isaiah did not accommodate a bullet point outline, and he uses language from which it is hard to build syllogisms, he still conveys meaning and communicates with poetic beauty. Since God dictated it, we should observe that God is capable of figurative argumentation, as well as literal.
Whatever the case, God evaluated the light, and found it met the criterion of being good, noted it, and went on about the rest of Creation accordingly... we may not have all the info there is to know about the process.
That being taken care of, we return to Christ's parable of The Sower. So far, we have restricted ourselves to abstract arguments, including a limited number of logical constructs, but since the Gospel of forgiveness was implemented by Jesus, it is appropriate that we should give his own illustrations their due (I have previously suggested a contemplation of "The Parable of the Talents.") He opens the discussion with the elementary illustration of the occasion upon which a liberal distributer increases - a farmer sowing seed. He got a lot of mileage out of this one, as I hope to note elsewhere, but in this context, we should not neglect to answer a basic question: Could Jesus lie? As a man, I think that he had the ability, but he may have been restricted in that regard too, like his God (Ps 22:1, Mt 27:46, see here also, with regard to the quote "The LORD said unto my Lord,") Regardless, he surely did not say that there was a sower he knew for purposes of deceiving us... I think there was, because most other parables begin with: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..."
This sower, then, sowed seed as follows: Mt 13:
[3] And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
[4] And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
[5] Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
[6] And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
[7] And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
[8] But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
[9] Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
[10] And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
[11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
[12] For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
[13] Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
[14] And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:...
The next three verses are richly instructive, but I'll limit our consideration here on the basis of Ps 119:103... I am aware that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. The obverse argument is that his audience of multitudes exhibited ignorance, and didn't understand. For this reason, he went ahead and explained himself to his future apostles, then known as 'the twelve,' as follows:
[18] Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
[19] When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
[20] But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
[21] Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
[22] He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
[23] But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
The point I would like to draw out here is this: By the same process that we are supposed to obey Jno 14:
[1] Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
...we are not helpless to be made whatever soil the devil chooses... we have control over the process. To be sure, Ecc 10:
[2] A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.
...it may be an exercise in dexterity to control it, but we CAN choose to understand and obey as good ground. What we may not be in a position to control is the extent of the harvest. In the effort to control my own heart, I have been able to observe the following.
1. If we continually find the Bird's taking away the seed for their OWN use, like verse 4 implies, we can still till the soil by obeying Ps 1:
[2] But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
...just as Jesus must have been doing, just to get the idea.
2. The dexterity can be improved by prayer: Jas 1:
[5] If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Jesus tended to use very simple examples, so I hope this is of some use to all and sundry. If we get temporarily off course, there is no need to return to the starting point and begin again. Like an intercontinental jetliner, just make a course adjustment, and keep a vector on for that place where our treasure should be.
[24] There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.
...may have been the inspiration for a parable of Jesus Christ. While that water of life soaks into a flowerpot of soil in your mind, I'll attend to an item of business that we overlooked last entry.
We looked at Satan's premier lie, and his first. We also took a run at what might have been a premier truth of God's. For completeness, we should take a moment to know his 1st truth. Gen 1:
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Evolutionists, for some reason, think that IF there IS a God, this God should still accommodate their own theory of the order in which things should have been created, such that God _should_ have created a Universe, and then proceeded to solar system and earth by some ordered process, finishing up with man. In fact, by whatever process or mechanism Time came to be, at that point the stuff that there was had no form, and was defined as empty. God's first utterance in Time was a potentially untrue statement: "Light." He could not lie, and thus there was light. As we have seen before, in Isa 45:7, God created evil. If the light had been evil, it could not have tempted him (per Jas 1:13,) but this is a good time to examine the context of my previous allusion to Isa 45:
[5] I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
[6] That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
[7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
[8] Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
While Isaiah did not accommodate a bullet point outline, and he uses language from which it is hard to build syllogisms, he still conveys meaning and communicates with poetic beauty. Since God dictated it, we should observe that God is capable of figurative argumentation, as well as literal.
Whatever the case, God evaluated the light, and found it met the criterion of being good, noted it, and went on about the rest of Creation accordingly... we may not have all the info there is to know about the process.
That being taken care of, we return to Christ's parable of The Sower. So far, we have restricted ourselves to abstract arguments, including a limited number of logical constructs, but since the Gospel of forgiveness was implemented by Jesus, it is appropriate that we should give his own illustrations their due (I have previously suggested a contemplation of "The Parable of the Talents.") He opens the discussion with the elementary illustration of the occasion upon which a liberal distributer increases - a farmer sowing seed. He got a lot of mileage out of this one, as I hope to note elsewhere, but in this context, we should not neglect to answer a basic question: Could Jesus lie? As a man, I think that he had the ability, but he may have been restricted in that regard too, like his God (Ps 22:1, Mt 27:46, see here also, with regard to the quote "The LORD said unto my Lord,") Regardless, he surely did not say that there was a sower he knew for purposes of deceiving us... I think there was, because most other parables begin with: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..."
This sower, then, sowed seed as follows: Mt 13:
[3] And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
[4] And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
[5] Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
[6] And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
[7] And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
[8] But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
[9] Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
[10] And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
[11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
[12] For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
[13] Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
[14] And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:...
The next three verses are richly instructive, but I'll limit our consideration here on the basis of Ps 119:103... I am aware that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. The obverse argument is that his audience of multitudes exhibited ignorance, and didn't understand. For this reason, he went ahead and explained himself to his future apostles, then known as 'the twelve,' as follows:
[18] Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
[19] When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
[20] But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
[21] Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
[22] He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
[23] But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
The point I would like to draw out here is this: By the same process that we are supposed to obey Jno 14:
[1] Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
...we are not helpless to be made whatever soil the devil chooses... we have control over the process. To be sure, Ecc 10:
[2] A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.
...it may be an exercise in dexterity to control it, but we CAN choose to understand and obey as good ground. What we may not be in a position to control is the extent of the harvest. In the effort to control my own heart, I have been able to observe the following.
1. If we continually find the Bird's taking away the seed for their OWN use, like verse 4 implies, we can still till the soil by obeying Ps 1:
[2] But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
...just as Jesus must have been doing, just to get the idea.
2. The dexterity can be improved by prayer: Jas 1:
[5] If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Jesus tended to use very simple examples, so I hope this is of some use to all and sundry. If we get temporarily off course, there is no need to return to the starting point and begin again. Like an intercontinental jetliner, just make a course adjustment, and keep a vector on for that place where our treasure should be.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The difference between Premier and First.
Satan is a liar and the father of lies. His first official act was to tell one. His first lie was elegant in it's simplicity; God said "...thou shalt surely die." Satan simply said "...thou shalt NOT surely die." Satan has since improved his efforts, until now he has a single Premier lie: "I do not exist!" This lie has the effect of making people neglect the urgency of spiritual growth on a daily basis. Seeing then that Satan had a difference between his first and his premier arguments, is the Bible any different? The New Testament self consistently claims to be premier but not first. Jesus looked at the Old Testament, which had a record of the initial ten unwritten commands, and came up with a premier one. The context of this discussion came up when he had just gotten done refuting gainsaying Sadducees by showing that God was the God of the living and that marriage would not be in heaven. Mt 22:23-46.
Christ took a moment then, so I'll do the same now, and chase a rabbit trail. He took that moment to note that if Sadducees knew the scriptures, that they would not have come up with the foolishness of the "seven brothers" example; it implied that there are more inspired writings out there than those to which we have contemporary access. Another example of this might be that he observed that Baptism was a Messianic prophecy. When he said Mt 3:
[15] And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
...that he wanted to fulfill ALL righteousness in this way, he was EITHER stating that there was a Messianic reference to baptism, OR that he was fulfilling the reflexive case for future Christians. A similar example is that Paul, when writing Timothy, alluded to Jannes and Jambres who are not associated with Korah in the Torah or any other part of the Talmud. The fact that they could allude to information external to what we now have does not prove them incompetent. On the other hand, Christians are promised that 2 Pet 1:
[3] According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
...we have all things that pertain to spiritual life. For more study, look at "all things whatsoever," and "pertaining to," as Bible phrases. Whatever the case, we accept only scripture validated by miracle and do not add (per 2 Jno 1:9, and Pr 30:6.) Pr 30:6 was available to Jesus' audience and they did not use it in the Matthew 22 discussion, so we suppose that the works alluded to were part of the body of "as it is written," that they used for memorization. Hopefully that rabbit stew is not too gamey.
Having silenced the Sadducees, he was probably prepared to take his rest, but the Pharisees showed up, Johnny on the spot, to add to his troubles from a different play book. In Mt 22:
[34] But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
[35] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
...they apparently wanted to get at this first v premier discussion. His answer in verses
[37] 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.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
was appropriate to the extent that no individual seemed inclined to disagree. Like Lk 4:22, they didn't get mad in his presence, so there must have been at least SOME basis for the discussion. To those inclined to argue that the scribes were merely reporting selectively, I'll ask, "If this was fable, how would I fail to rehabilitate the witness of his cousin against Nepotism?" I instead affirm that these same scribes reported dispositions of crowds as they occurred, for example showing different reactions in Ac 2:37 and Ac 7:54.
Having silenced the Pharisees as well, Jesus left them with food for thought.
[41] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
[42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
[43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
[44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
The identification of the coming Christ is the main preoccupation of the sincere Jew, and this was the subject of his question. The Messianic prophecy alluded to in verse 45 is that the Christ would come from the lineage of David. How was a subject of a Patriarchal system to have authority over a progenitor? Verse 46 record their reaction:
[46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
In this case the response might call for research. I am not yet prepared to say if either the Scribes OR the Pharisees ever spoke to him again in the interrogative voice. I suppose that all future communications were arranged by speaking of him in the third person in his presence, or addressing him in the imperative voice only. Whatever the case, their diplomacy must have suffered politically. In refusing to dignify the queries of a Messianic pretender with response, they also departed from decorum by slighting a potential rightful heir.
Today the main prophecy he is thought to have failed to fulfill is Isa 9:
[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
[7] Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
By specificity, the increase of his peace shall be eternal. Assuming that the prospective Christ accomplishes world Peace to establish his credentials, how is his Peace to continue increasing? The story of Jesus has an answer, if one cedes a little latitude. We know that the subject of "The throne of David," was under discussion, because in Jno 6:
[15] When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
..the people seemed intent on putting Jesus on an earthly throne. While an earthly/heavenly discussion is commonplace today, it was somewhat radical in his day, witness the discussion above with the Sadducees. Radical too, was his discussion on turning the other cheek, instead of enforcing a true tit-for-tat "eye for an eye." If it was a successful move on the part of a populist, he failed to capitalize on it adequately in Jno 6. I bring it up to contrast it with Jno 18:
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
...where he states that his kingdom is NOT of this world. In this blog, we have previously referenced this same passage to show that earthly nations have a right to self defense. The question here supplied is this: Does the Kingdom of Heaven obtain the same affection in the army of the Lord? If it did, the verse in Mt 11:
[12] And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
...both motivates and sets precedent that the violence is not a Crusade. I'll note in passing that the temporal "now" alludes to a place in time when the Tax Collector was writing.
A self consistent commentary on the subject is available in 2 Cor 10:
[3] For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
[4] (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
[5] Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
[6] And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Associated armor is listed in Eph 6:
[10] Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
[11] Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
[12] For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
[13] Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
[14] Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
[15] And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
[16] Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
[17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
[18] Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
[19] And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel...
Here we see that while an adversarial relationship may prevail, the dedicated target of the Christian is "every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God," and "spiritual wickedness in high places," rather than the Jew. For more on specific usage of the armor of God, review at Why do we sin? or search "shield of faith" in Straight Skinny or the "Authorized Version."
Returning to considerations of Heaven from Mt 11:12 above, when did this alleged increase of peace begin? To speak further, we must begin by agreeing that Christ will never be at peace with the accuser at least until the accuser owns the lowest position in all of Hell, defining subjugation. Our contemporary icons for peace inform the discussion with the "V" for victory becoming "peace" after WW II, and the inverted cross, with broken crossbar, being used for the same purpose, encircled with a ring like line. The Lord refers to "peace that passes understanding," in Phil 4:7, and most suppose that this refers to the depth, width, and urgent flowing current of the corresponding river, but I occasionally consider (Ecc 7:14) that even "such peace as we have," surpasses the comprehension of our worldly foes. This is because of the contention and strife that I have seen. Regardless, it is still the case that if evil men move kingdom against kingdom on earth to fight against his followers, an increasing peace might not prohibit the return of armed conflict to the earth. Mt 24:6 and Mk 13:7 use the future tense to refer to wars as a phenomenon to be remarked upon, rather than a commonplace, leading me to ask "During Jesus' day, were there any documentable wars?" If not, I'll share that when my cat takes ill, it occasionally eats grass, and suggest that during Jesus' day just such a sick big cat lay down with a lamb, and he came to earth to begin his efforts at eternal reconciliation as a little child.
Christ took a moment then, so I'll do the same now, and chase a rabbit trail. He took that moment to note that if Sadducees knew the scriptures, that they would not have come up with the foolishness of the "seven brothers" example; it implied that there are more inspired writings out there than those to which we have contemporary access. Another example of this might be that he observed that Baptism was a Messianic prophecy. When he said Mt 3:
[15] And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
...that he wanted to fulfill ALL righteousness in this way, he was EITHER stating that there was a Messianic reference to baptism, OR that he was fulfilling the reflexive case for future Christians. A similar example is that Paul, when writing Timothy, alluded to Jannes and Jambres who are not associated with Korah in the Torah or any other part of the Talmud. The fact that they could allude to information external to what we now have does not prove them incompetent. On the other hand, Christians are promised that 2 Pet 1:
[3] According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
...we have all things that pertain to spiritual life. For more study, look at "all things whatsoever," and "pertaining to," as Bible phrases. Whatever the case, we accept only scripture validated by miracle and do not add (per 2 Jno 1:9, and Pr 30:6.) Pr 30:6 was available to Jesus' audience and they did not use it in the Matthew 22 discussion, so we suppose that the works alluded to were part of the body of "as it is written," that they used for memorization. Hopefully that rabbit stew is not too gamey.
Having silenced the Sadducees, he was probably prepared to take his rest, but the Pharisees showed up, Johnny on the spot, to add to his troubles from a different play book. In Mt 22:
[34] But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
[35] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
...they apparently wanted to get at this first v premier discussion. His answer in verses
[37] 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.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
was appropriate to the extent that no individual seemed inclined to disagree. Like Lk 4:22, they didn't get mad in his presence, so there must have been at least SOME basis for the discussion. To those inclined to argue that the scribes were merely reporting selectively, I'll ask, "If this was fable, how would I fail to rehabilitate the witness of his cousin against Nepotism?" I instead affirm that these same scribes reported dispositions of crowds as they occurred, for example showing different reactions in Ac 2:37 and Ac 7:54.
Having silenced the Pharisees as well, Jesus left them with food for thought.
[41] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
[42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
[43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
[44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
The identification of the coming Christ is the main preoccupation of the sincere Jew, and this was the subject of his question. The Messianic prophecy alluded to in verse 45 is that the Christ would come from the lineage of David. How was a subject of a Patriarchal system to have authority over a progenitor? Verse 46 record their reaction:
[46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
In this case the response might call for research. I am not yet prepared to say if either the Scribes OR the Pharisees ever spoke to him again in the interrogative voice. I suppose that all future communications were arranged by speaking of him in the third person in his presence, or addressing him in the imperative voice only. Whatever the case, their diplomacy must have suffered politically. In refusing to dignify the queries of a Messianic pretender with response, they also departed from decorum by slighting a potential rightful heir.
Today the main prophecy he is thought to have failed to fulfill is Isa 9:
[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
[7] Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
By specificity, the increase of his peace shall be eternal. Assuming that the prospective Christ accomplishes world Peace to establish his credentials, how is his Peace to continue increasing? The story of Jesus has an answer, if one cedes a little latitude. We know that the subject of "The throne of David," was under discussion, because in Jno 6:
[15] When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
..the people seemed intent on putting Jesus on an earthly throne. While an earthly/heavenly discussion is commonplace today, it was somewhat radical in his day, witness the discussion above with the Sadducees. Radical too, was his discussion on turning the other cheek, instead of enforcing a true tit-for-tat "eye for an eye." If it was a successful move on the part of a populist, he failed to capitalize on it adequately in Jno 6. I bring it up to contrast it with Jno 18:
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
...where he states that his kingdom is NOT of this world. In this blog, we have previously referenced this same passage to show that earthly nations have a right to self defense. The question here supplied is this: Does the Kingdom of Heaven obtain the same affection in the army of the Lord? If it did, the verse in Mt 11:
[12] And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
...both motivates and sets precedent that the violence is not a Crusade. I'll note in passing that the temporal "now" alludes to a place in time when the Tax Collector was writing.
A self consistent commentary on the subject is available in 2 Cor 10:
[3] For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
[4] (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
[5] Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
[6] And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Associated armor is listed in Eph 6:
[10] Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
[11] Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
[12] For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
[13] Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
[14] Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
[15] And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
[16] Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
[17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
[18] Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
[19] And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel...
Here we see that while an adversarial relationship may prevail, the dedicated target of the Christian is "every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God," and "spiritual wickedness in high places," rather than the Jew. For more on specific usage of the armor of God, review at Why do we sin? or search "shield of faith" in Straight Skinny or the "Authorized Version."
Returning to considerations of Heaven from Mt 11:12 above, when did this alleged increase of peace begin? To speak further, we must begin by agreeing that Christ will never be at peace with the accuser at least until the accuser owns the lowest position in all of Hell, defining subjugation. Our contemporary icons for peace inform the discussion with the "V" for victory becoming "peace" after WW II, and the inverted cross, with broken crossbar, being used for the same purpose, encircled with a ring like line. The Lord refers to "peace that passes understanding," in Phil 4:7, and most suppose that this refers to the depth, width, and urgent flowing current of the corresponding river, but I occasionally consider (Ecc 7:14) that even "such peace as we have," surpasses the comprehension of our worldly foes. This is because of the contention and strife that I have seen. Regardless, it is still the case that if evil men move kingdom against kingdom on earth to fight against his followers, an increasing peace might not prohibit the return of armed conflict to the earth. Mt 24:6 and Mk 13:7 use the future tense to refer to wars as a phenomenon to be remarked upon, rather than a commonplace, leading me to ask "During Jesus' day, were there any documentable wars?" If not, I'll share that when my cat takes ill, it occasionally eats grass, and suggest that during Jesus' day just such a sick big cat lay down with a lamb, and he came to earth to begin his efforts at eternal reconciliation as a little child.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What is the best group of Christians with whom to associate?
To answer this question we should first identify which one was the New Testament group, and then ask whether the modern day practitioners are keeping faith with the original.
I wrote precis of Acts 19-23, with a view to understanding the group that Saul of Tarsus identified.
Background on this Saul/Paul character. From his speeches (and his itinerary is also extensively noted,) he claimed that although he was a Jew of the Pharisee persuasion, he claimed Roman citizenship. A major turning point in his life came when he was in Caesarea, Israel. As a product of a disagreement with the ranking Roman Captain (Claudius Lysias) over why the province Philippi was _called_ "Philippi" (he apparently was supposed to have argued that it was named after his buddy Philip who lived there, but the province was obviously older than the man,) the Roman Captain nearly had his local Centurion (roman rank over 100 men,) submit Paul to corporal punishment. On a technicality this would have been a crime (presumably with consequences,) and Paul had to make the point that in spite of the fact the he was from Cilicia (known Jewish territory,) he legitimately held Roman Citizenship (Tarsus was his home town in the province of Cilicia.) Things were apparently pretty confused, because the Captain started out under the impression that Paul was Egyptian (of all things.) In trying to straighten things out, Mr. Lysias spared little effort, and had Paul remanded to the local Jail, with the contemporary equivalent of armored transport to the Religious Court in town (the Jews were self governing by arrangement with Italy.) In a tip of the hat to conspiracy, Paul's nephew sussed out a plot to have him put out of the way, and clued the Captain in, with good results. Mr. Lysias wrote the Governor (Felix) and made the point that Jews were trying to do away with a Roman citizen (big news in the provinces.) He (Lysias) kept Paul on ice in Antipatris while the situation developed. It's worth noting at this point that back then they went by elevation, not by North, South, East, West, so when they said 'up to Jerusalem,' it was pretty much true, no matter where you were coming from - it was not the Capital in absence of military thinking. Pretty quick (administratively speaking,) the Jewish Leader Ananias came down from Jerusalem, bringing with him one of Paul's old competitors from Gamaliel.edu days - Tertullus. Despite the historical significance of Jerusalem, the Romans appeared to have used Caesarea as their governmental hub, and Felix was already there, Lysias just hadn't bothered him before (he was no less than Governor.) I'm not sure how long the trial went on, but it appears to have been short and sweet. The Jews had their say, and Paul had his, but he was moved from remand to house arrest while Felix waited around TWO YEARS for a bribe. They didn't have gubernatorial races back then, but the next Governor was Festus. Well Festus wasn't one to let justice be denied, and he hadn't been in office three days, before he was going up to Jerusalem to get the lowdown on why exactly the Jews were all so hot. When he got back, he called Paul into his court/office, and asked him if he was willing to stand trial in Jerusalem proper (in a reverse application of a Change of Judicial Venue for a fair trial.) I'm pretty sure Paul expected the same sort of treatment that Jesus got, before he joined 'The Way,' (as Saul he had been right there with the 'in crowd,' of the Pharisees,) and deemed it prudent and necessary to invoke the Roman right to appeal to Caesar. Now if you thought the Philip/Philippi discussion was a problem, wait till you get the point of the Caesarea/Caesar discussion, bearing in mind that Caesar was in no way older than Caesarea. Now things did not really move along too quickly, because Paul was still not at liberty when Festus had to take time off to entertain some foreign dignitaries. Not only so, but these dignitaries hung around and didn't leave very quick until Festus told them about Paul out of pure boredom. Well then it turns out that this visiting King had administrative jurisdiction in Caesarea by the Jewish system, and wanted to hear the case. So Paul gave him his whole long spiel about how Jesus was not dead, but not still alive because he had been killed and resurrected, and so on and so forth. Festus got really nervous and started politically distancing himself from Paul, even going so far as to call him a mad scientist. Well, for whatever reason Agrippa didn't take the Jews' side (without being truly convinced of Paul's side either,) but wanted to let him go; but when they looked it up in a book, Paul wasn't free to go; on a technicality he still had to go before Caesar. The rest of the 'story' appears to be a retelling of all the drama involved in the trip to Rome for the trial. Augustus Caesar delegated one of his own Centurions (Julius - go figure,) to the job. They traveled to the city of Myra by way of Sidon and Cyprus, and Julius bought commercial tickets to Italy from Myra on... a ship of Alexandria.
For review, Saul of Tarsus persecuted 'The Way,' but had a change of heart and capitalized on an arranged introduction. He ran afoul of the Jews, who gave him a choice of crucifixions, which he avoided by invoking Roman Citizenship, and appealed to Caesar. I note that Churches back then had cityname characteristic. Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, etc. I'll posit that the first move away from this was at Antioch. Acts 11;26. Of further interest is the (possibly shocking,) observation; on the way to his appearance for trial in Rome (before Caesar,) Paul stopped at Ephesus, and took a minute to write ahead, by Chariot Express, to Rome. His BTW point; 'The Churches of Christ salute you.' Ro 16;16. He had already noted that Rome was not universally imbued with the Spirit of the Lord. Slavery was also a possible point up for discussion.
Concluding then, Paul learned about 'The Way,' they came to be called 'Christians,' and in groups they referred to themselves as 'The Churches of Christ.' His initial experience to certify his intentions was baptism (Ac 22:16.)
End Precis.
I have had others tell me that most Churches will not baptize by immersion. Catholics will sprinkle given a choice; Of the Churches that practice immersion, I can name Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ and Christian Church. Although Jesus' witness that he was from God, his cousin John, is their preferred source by choice of name, they appear to practice immersion baptism for local membership. Of the other three, the Churches of Christ was most of interest, and they will honor a precipitous decision to be baptized at 'all hours,' as the saying goes. They will question fairly closely with regard to counting the cost, but will accommodate you in most cases. Other groups will actually talk you out of immersion, or turn you away. I have not attended many Christian Church groups, but Churches of Christ make it a tradition to offer access to salvation at the end of every service.
These last notes are for those who have a particular interest in Churches of Christ:
1. Bible used cityname convention before Antioch. What the Catholics might call 5th John (Revelation,) cites 'the church of the Laodiceans.' In other places, it shows that Laodecia Church of Christ met at a home, and did not affiliate cityname. I am unable to find the name of the street for precedent. My previous notes about Saul Of Tarsus might be useful for contrast.
2. Boston Church of Christ (it's local satellites and national affiliates,) will show differences by having a leadership Chain of Command. This is established in context of confessional, just like Roman Catholic, and does not prove them a cult by itself.
3. Streetname Church of Christ have standing offers of debate with atheists at Educational institutions. I know of AUM and UTD. For comparison, an investigator might check if LA C of C (cityname affiliate,) has bothered challenging UCLA. If the cityname people are using the streetname people to fight their battles FOR them, offering 'Campus Crusades,' in compensation, you have to wonder what exactly these college students are being led to believe.
Just as changing Bible versions is a big deal (you can't find the passages if you become confused about the wording,) I recommend careful consideration if changing affiliations. Please make your course for Heaven accordingly - no area of spiritual investigation is more fruitful territory for the devil.
I wrote precis of Acts 19-23, with a view to understanding the group that Saul of Tarsus identified.
Background on this Saul/Paul character. From his speeches (and his itinerary is also extensively noted,) he claimed that although he was a Jew of the Pharisee persuasion, he claimed Roman citizenship. A major turning point in his life came when he was in Caesarea, Israel. As a product of a disagreement with the ranking Roman Captain (Claudius Lysias) over why the province Philippi was _called_ "Philippi" (he apparently was supposed to have argued that it was named after his buddy Philip who lived there, but the province was obviously older than the man,) the Roman Captain nearly had his local Centurion (roman rank over 100 men,) submit Paul to corporal punishment. On a technicality this would have been a crime (presumably with consequences,) and Paul had to make the point that in spite of the fact the he was from Cilicia (known Jewish territory,) he legitimately held Roman Citizenship (Tarsus was his home town in the province of Cilicia.) Things were apparently pretty confused, because the Captain started out under the impression that Paul was Egyptian (of all things.) In trying to straighten things out, Mr. Lysias spared little effort, and had Paul remanded to the local Jail, with the contemporary equivalent of armored transport to the Religious Court in town (the Jews were self governing by arrangement with Italy.) In a tip of the hat to conspiracy, Paul's nephew sussed out a plot to have him put out of the way, and clued the Captain in, with good results. Mr. Lysias wrote the Governor (Felix) and made the point that Jews were trying to do away with a Roman citizen (big news in the provinces.) He (Lysias) kept Paul on ice in Antipatris while the situation developed. It's worth noting at this point that back then they went by elevation, not by North, South, East, West, so when they said 'up to Jerusalem,' it was pretty much true, no matter where you were coming from - it was not the Capital in absence of military thinking. Pretty quick (administratively speaking,) the Jewish Leader Ananias came down from Jerusalem, bringing with him one of Paul's old competitors from Gamaliel.edu days - Tertullus. Despite the historical significance of Jerusalem, the Romans appeared to have used Caesarea as their governmental hub, and Felix was already there, Lysias just hadn't bothered him before (he was no less than Governor.) I'm not sure how long the trial went on, but it appears to have been short and sweet. The Jews had their say, and Paul had his, but he was moved from remand to house arrest while Felix waited around TWO YEARS for a bribe. They didn't have gubernatorial races back then, but the next Governor was Festus. Well Festus wasn't one to let justice be denied, and he hadn't been in office three days, before he was going up to Jerusalem to get the lowdown on why exactly the Jews were all so hot. When he got back, he called Paul into his court/office, and asked him if he was willing to stand trial in Jerusalem proper (in a reverse application of a Change of Judicial Venue for a fair trial.) I'm pretty sure Paul expected the same sort of treatment that Jesus got, before he joined 'The Way,' (as Saul he had been right there with the 'in crowd,' of the Pharisees,) and deemed it prudent and necessary to invoke the Roman right to appeal to Caesar. Now if you thought the Philip/Philippi discussion was a problem, wait till you get the point of the Caesarea/Caesar discussion, bearing in mind that Caesar was in no way older than Caesarea. Now things did not really move along too quickly, because Paul was still not at liberty when Festus had to take time off to entertain some foreign dignitaries. Not only so, but these dignitaries hung around and didn't leave very quick until Festus told them about Paul out of pure boredom. Well then it turns out that this visiting King had administrative jurisdiction in Caesarea by the Jewish system, and wanted to hear the case. So Paul gave him his whole long spiel about how Jesus was not dead, but not still alive because he had been killed and resurrected, and so on and so forth. Festus got really nervous and started politically distancing himself from Paul, even going so far as to call him a mad scientist. Well, for whatever reason Agrippa didn't take the Jews' side (without being truly convinced of Paul's side either,) but wanted to let him go; but when they looked it up in a book, Paul wasn't free to go; on a technicality he still had to go before Caesar. The rest of the 'story' appears to be a retelling of all the drama involved in the trip to Rome for the trial. Augustus Caesar delegated one of his own Centurions (Julius - go figure,) to the job. They traveled to the city of Myra by way of Sidon and Cyprus, and Julius bought commercial tickets to Italy from Myra on... a ship of Alexandria.
For review, Saul of Tarsus persecuted 'The Way,' but had a change of heart and capitalized on an arranged introduction. He ran afoul of the Jews, who gave him a choice of crucifixions, which he avoided by invoking Roman Citizenship, and appealed to Caesar. I note that Churches back then had cityname characteristic. Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, etc. I'll posit that the first move away from this was at Antioch. Acts 11;26. Of further interest is the (possibly shocking,) observation; on the way to his appearance for trial in Rome (before Caesar,) Paul stopped at Ephesus, and took a minute to write ahead, by Chariot Express, to Rome. His BTW point; 'The Churches of Christ salute you.' Ro 16;16. He had already noted that Rome was not universally imbued with the Spirit of the Lord. Slavery was also a possible point up for discussion.
Concluding then, Paul learned about 'The Way,' they came to be called 'Christians,' and in groups they referred to themselves as 'The Churches of Christ.' His initial experience to certify his intentions was baptism (Ac 22:16.)
End Precis.
I have had others tell me that most Churches will not baptize by immersion. Catholics will sprinkle given a choice; Of the Churches that practice immersion, I can name Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ and Christian Church. Although Jesus' witness that he was from God, his cousin John, is their preferred source by choice of name, they appear to practice immersion baptism for local membership. Of the other three, the Churches of Christ was most of interest, and they will honor a precipitous decision to be baptized at 'all hours,' as the saying goes. They will question fairly closely with regard to counting the cost, but will accommodate you in most cases. Other groups will actually talk you out of immersion, or turn you away. I have not attended many Christian Church groups, but Churches of Christ make it a tradition to offer access to salvation at the end of every service.
These last notes are for those who have a particular interest in Churches of Christ:
1. Bible used cityname convention before Antioch. What the Catholics might call 5th John (Revelation,) cites 'the church of the Laodiceans.' In other places, it shows that Laodecia Church of Christ met at a home, and did not affiliate cityname. I am unable to find the name of the street for precedent. My previous notes about Saul Of Tarsus might be useful for contrast.
2. Boston Church of Christ (it's local satellites and national affiliates,) will show differences by having a leadership Chain of Command. This is established in context of confessional, just like Roman Catholic, and does not prove them a cult by itself.
3. Streetname Church of Christ have standing offers of debate with atheists at Educational institutions. I know of AUM and UTD. For comparison, an investigator might check if LA C of C (cityname affiliate,) has bothered challenging UCLA. If the cityname people are using the streetname people to fight their battles FOR them, offering 'Campus Crusades,' in compensation, you have to wonder what exactly these college students are being led to believe.
Just as changing Bible versions is a big deal (you can't find the passages if you become confused about the wording,) I recommend careful consideration if changing affiliations. Please make your course for Heaven accordingly - no area of spiritual investigation is more fruitful territory for the devil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)