Saturday, January 30, 2016


Note- I’ve commented on the Hayden case the last few weeks. At the end of this post I pasted some of the articles that were published in our local media.
The many videos on this post deal with the ongoing- open- crimes that the authorities in Corpus Christi commit.
Crimes- that in other cities- the cops/prosecutors would go to prison for [false testimony- pressuring medical experts to change their opinion. Withholding evidence from the defense- on and on].
This week- our local D.A. and others [Jenny Dorsey] admitted to actual crimes they committed- in court.
This has been going on for years in this city- hopefully they will finally deal with it.
.Thomas Jefferson
.Continental congress
.Lexington- Concord
.Stamp act
.Our rights?
.D.A.- admits- in court- to crimes!
.Caller times telling the truth.
.KRIS 6 is lying to you

NEW STUFF [past posts- verses below]
I have taught in the past how some of our Founding Fathers were influenced- heavily- by Enlightenment thinking.
Thomas Jefferson is the best example.
Why is this important?
On my previous post [Plymouth Rock] I tried to show the role that religion played in the founding of our country.
Yet- at the time of the Continental congress [The first meeting was in 1774- the 2nd was in 75. The Declaration was approved in 1776] some of our founding fathers were leaning towards Deism [Ben Franklin- etc.] and the wording of the Declaration of Independence [below] was written more along the lines of Enlightenment thinking [also strong influence from the writing of John Locke].
The phrase ‘we hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT’ was indeed a contrast from the traditional view of the church.
Believers do indeed believe in ‘self-evident’ truths [Romans1-2] but in context- this term challenged the historic thinkers of the church.
I add this to simply show that Thomas Jefferson [who wrote the Declaration- at the young age of 33] added language that was in a sense- a ‘compromise’.
John Adams- Jefferson’s colleague in the congress- would later be challenged in a presidential run by Jefferson.
The accusations flew- and Adams supporters said the beliefs of Jefferson would be the downfall of Christianity in America!
Why did they make this accusation?
Because the Enlightenment thinkers were indeed challenging some of the core beliefs of Christianity in the 18th century.
Jefferson spent 5 years in France- right at the time of the French Revolution [remember the post I did recently on it?].
The French Revolution was indeed a ‘revolution’ against the church in a way.
Many Americans in the colonies were shocked by the bloodshed of the French Revolution.
Yet Jefferson sided with it- and even wrote in support of some American merchants who were rebelling against paying their debts here in America.
This outraged John Adams.
Eventually Jefferson would serve on the cabinet under President Washington- and he would conflict with Alexander Hamilton over the direction of our New Republic.
Jefferson felt that Hamilton wanted to give too much power to the Federal govt. [Federalism]
Eventually Adams and Jefferson would be on opposing sides- of just about everything!
Adams was a good friend of Jefferson during the continental congress in Philadelphia.
Jefferson was the representative from Virginia- he was not an eloquent speaker- but he gained the respect of the other representatives.
He was seen to be a hard worker-
When the drafting of the Declaration came up- Benjamin Franklin turned down the job- and it was given to Adams and Jefferson.
Jefferson wanted Adams to do it- yet Adams [Jefferson’s senior] recognized the great skills of his younger colleague-
And Jefferson went to work.
Yet their friendship was strained over the years- and at the end of their lives they became friends again.
Jefferson would become the 3rd president of the U.S.
And his legacy remains with us today.
It has been said that our country is founded upon a Creed-
We- as Americans- give our assent to a creed.
And that creed- was penned By Thomas Jefferson.
A preacher stopped at a tavern [Inn] In Virginia for the night.
The story goes that he spoke with a stranger while there- they talked about mechanics- and the minister thought the man was an engineer.
They then spoke on various subjects- and the preacher saw the stranger was knowledgeable in many fields.
They finally spoke about religion- and the minister thought ‘he must be a preacher too’.
The next day he asked who the man was- it was Thomas Jefferson.
How did Jefferson gain all this knowledge?
At the age of 6- he was reading the books from his father’s library.
He learned Latin and Greek- on his own.
His dad died when Jefferson was 14.
He eventually went to the college of William and Mary- and became a dedicated student.
It was said that 15 hours out of every 24- he was reading/studying.
Jefferson kept this up throughout his life.
He had a large library at Monticello- his home on a mountain in Virginia.
One of his slaves [yes- slaves] said whenever someone had some question- Jefferson was well able to answer the question- and refer to one of his many books.
Jefferson was the 2nd largest slave holder in his county- owning more than 200 hundred slaves at one time.
Yet- he tried to enact legislation to outlaw slavery.
He even added some language at the continental congress about it.
The other representatives from the 13 colonies rejected it.
He also tried to pass laws in Virginia against slavery.
Yet he himself had them- how could this be?
It even violated his own words in the Declaration ‘All men are created equal’.
Many historians differ on why/how this could be.
In the end- Jefferson was like all of us- he was able to articulate noble ideas- yet he himself struggled to fully live up to them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson- Declaration of Independence.
PAST POSTS [verses below]-
. 1st, 2nd CORINTHIANS

(942)1st CORINTHIANS INTRODUCTION- Out of all of Paul’s letters, this one is ‘the most verified’ as being his. Of course we know this because Paul says so in the letter! But for all those intellectual higher critics, this helps. Corinth was a city of great influence and trade, many land and sea routes converged at Corinth and her port. The city was also known for her philosophers and ‘preachers of wisdom’ [Rhetoric]. They actually had a custom at Corinth in which you could ‘hire’ your own ‘preacher of wisdom’. These were the traveling teachers who made a living at speaking. This also might be why Paul specifically said ‘when I was with you I did not take money from you’. The custom of the traveling preachers was you could pay a one time honorarium for a single speech, or you could actually hire a regular speaker and have him ‘on salary’. Paul did not want the Corinthians to think that he was their hired preacher! How much influence this type of trade would have on the later development of the ‘hired clergy’ is unknown, but the similarities are striking. The famous 5th century bishop of Hippo, North Africa, Saint Augustine, made his living as one of these traveling teachers of philosophy before becoming a Christian. It’s believed that Paul wrote a 3rd letter to the church at Corinth, so what we know as 1st, 2nd Corinthians might actually be letters 2 and 3. I personally think Corinthians holds special value for the church today. The 21st century believer is being challenged on her Ecclesiology, the whole idea of what the church is. In Corinthians we see a specific picture of what the church is and on how she should meet. Paul will not address ‘the Pastor’ [there was none in the modern sense of the office] but he will speak directly to the brothers at Corinth and give them some heavy responsibilities to carry out [like committing a brother to satan for the destruction of his flesh! Ouch]. Paul went to Corinth on his 2nd missionary journey and spent 18 months with them [Acts 18] one of the longest stays at any church. Because of the pagan background of the city Paul will address specific issues related to believers and certain practices of idol worship. Eating meat offered to idols and stuff like that. Corinth also practiced a form of idolatry that included prostitution, so he will deal severely with the loose sexual morals of the people at Corinth. Well we have a lot to cover in the next few weeks, try and read Corinthians on your own as we plunge into this study, it will help a lot.

(943)1ST CORINTHIANS 1:1-17 Paul greets them as an apostle called by God, he affirms his authority and ‘fathering ability’ as coming from God. He tells them he thanks God all the time for the fruit that he sees in their lives, the thing that made Paul rejoice was the work God was doing in the communities he was establishing as an apostle. Today ministers have a tendency to ‘rejoice’ over the Christian enterprise that we oversee. Whether its’ how well the budget went this year and stuff like that. Paul’s joy wasn’t in the fact that God called him to some great personal ministry where he would find self fulfillment. His joy was in the actual growth and freedom that ‘his churches’ [communities of people] were experiencing. He also defines them as ‘those that call upon the name of the Lord like all the others’. Remember what we said when studying Romans chapter 10? One of the signs of the believer is ‘they call upon Jesus name’. They are believing communities of ‘Christ callers’. Not so much a one time evangelical altar call, but a lifestyle. Jesus said we are ‘a house of prayer’. A spiritual community/house who intercedes for all nations. It’s in our very DNA! Paul also commends them as being enriched by God in all ‘knowledge and utterance’ [speech]. It seems funny that he would say they were blessed and enriched in speech. Paul will give some of his strongest rebukes over speaking gifts [tongues, prophesy] to this community. Yet he does not approach it from the strong anti charismatic view. He doesn’t say ‘your speech is demonic’ he says it is enriched by God! We will deal with the gifts later on. Now for the first real rebuke. Paul says he has heard reports that there are divisions and strivings among them. They are already dividing up into various sects. Some follow Paul, others follow Cephas, some say ‘we are the true Christ followers’. Paul rebukes them sharply over these divisions, he does not want the early church to identify with individual personalities and gifts at the expense of true unity. Was this the early development of denominationalism? To a degree yes. But I also don’t think we should view the various Christian denominations as deceived or ‘lost’. The modern church has become what we are thru many struggles and difficulties over a 2 thousand year history. My personal view is we should strive for unity, not by trying to dissolve all the various ‘tribes’ that exist in Christ’s church, but by growing into a more mature view of all who name the name of Christ as being fellow believers who partake of a common grace. I applaud all the efforts being made by various Christian churches today to come to a greater outward unity [for example the Catholic and Orthodox dialogue] but I also believe as we see each other as fellow believers and learn to appreciate our different emphasis, that this approach can also lead to greater unity among believers today. Paul saw the beginnings of division in the early Corinthian community, he did his best to quell the coming storm.

(944)1ST CORINTHIANS 1:18-31 Paul declares the actual preaching of the Cross to be the power of God. The Jews sought for a sign [remember the sign of Jonas?] and the Greeks prided themselves in wisdom. Paul declares that Jesus IS the wisdom and power of God. In Christ is contained all the wisdom and power [signs] in the universe! Paul says God destroyed the wisdom of unregenerate man and that Gods foolishness is wiser than men’s greatest achievements apart from God. Wow, what an indictment on enlightenment philosophy. Man goes thru stages of learning and knowledge [renaissance, enlightenment. Industrial, scientific revolution] these are not bad achievements in and of themselves. Many of the greatest scientists and scientific discoveries were made by men of faith [Newton, Pascal, Faraday, etc] the problem arises when men think that sheer humanistic reasoning, apart from God, is the answer. Right now there is a movement [11-08] going on where some atheists bought ad space on the sides of buses that say ‘why believe in a god? Do good for goodness sake’. So they had both sides [Christian /Atheist] debate it. The simple fact is, sheer humanism cannot even define ‘what good is’. ‘Good’ becomes a matter of what serves me best at the time of my decision. Without God and special revelation [scripture-10 commandments] good can be defined by Hitler’s regime as exterminating one class of society for the benefit of the whole. Only Christian [or Deist, Jewish, Muslim] beliefs place special value and dignity on human life. It is a common misconception to think that all the enlightenment philosophers were atheists; this was not the case at all. Locke, Hume and others simply believed that thru human logic and reason people could arrive at a sort of naturalistic belief in God. This would form the basis of Deism, the system of belief in God but a rejection of classic Christian theology. Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers of our country were influenced by this style of belief. Now, getting back to the Greeks. Paul says ‘God destroyed the wisdom of this world’. What wisdom is Paul talking about? The enlightenment  philosophers of the 18th century had nothing on the Greek philosophers going all the way back to a few centuries B.C. Plato, the Greek wrestler turned philosopher, had one of the most famous schools of Greek philosophy. At the entrance of the school the words were written ‘let none but geometers enter here’. Kind of strange. Geometry simply meant ‘form’ in this use. Most of the great theoretical physicists were also great mathematicians [Einstein]. The Greek philosophers were seeking a sort of ‘unified theory’ that would explain all other theories and bring all learning together under one intellectual ‘roof’. Sort of like Einstein's last great obsession. The Greeks actually referred to this great unknown future ‘unifier’ as ‘the Logos’. Now, some atheists will use this truth to undercut the New Testament. They will take the common use of these words ‘The Logos’ and say that Johns writings [Gospel, letters] were simply stolen ideas from Greek philosophy. This is why believers need to have a better understanding of the inspiration of scripture. John’s writings were no doubt inspired, he of course calls Jesus the ‘Logos’ [word] of God. But he was simply saying to the Greek/Gnostic mind ‘look, you guys have been waiting for centuries for the one special ‘Word/Logos’ that would be the answer to all learning, I declare unto you that Jesus is this Logos’! So eventually you would have ‘the wisdom of the world’ [both Greek and enlightenment and all other types] falling short of the ultimate answer. They could only go so far in their journey for truth, and ultimately they either wind up at the foot of the Cross [the wisdom of God] or the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’. God said this ‘tree’ [sources of wisdom and knowledge apart from God] would ultimately lead to death if not submitted to ‘the tree of life’ [the Cross]. You would have some of the enlightenment philosophers eat from this tree all the way to the ‘death of God’ movement. Man in his wisdom would come to the conclusion that ‘God is dead’. If this is true, then the slaughter of millions of Jews is no moral dilemma. If God is dead then man is not created in his image, he is just this piece of flesh that you can dispose of at will. To all you intellectual types, it’s Okay to have a mind, but you must love God with it. If all your doing is feeding from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die.
ROMANS 11-13
[note- there’s much more on the video than the post]

.What effect did the Renaissance have on the Reformation?
.How did Erasmus differ from Luther?
.Do Catholics exalt Tradition over Scripture?
.Renaissance artists.
.Do Catholics believe in Justification by Faith?
.Catholic teaching on Civil Authorities [Romans 13].
.What does ‘AdFontes’ mean- and how does it relate to the Renaissance/Reformation?

Romans 11
.Was Paul a full time preacher- paid?
.Is he teaching universalism here?
.Elijah was not alone.
(861)Romans 11:13- ‘For I speak to you Gentiles, in as much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office’. Let me just make a few comments today. How is Paul 'exercising’ his apostolic authority over the Gentiles in Rome? We know he hasn’t been there yet [since becoming a follower of Jesus]. He did not have some type of relationship with them where they contributed to him. He was holding no ‘church services’. He exercised it by speaking into their lives and caring for their welfare. He did this by WRITING THIS LETTER! Recently there has been some discussion on ‘Gods government’ and the apostles ‘bringing things into alignment’ [dealing with the mistakes at Lakeland]. Lots of talk that I am familiar with. What is Gods government? In the world we have 2 competing ‘world views’- systems or modes of operation. You have God’s kingdom, and then the worlds system. When the apostle John said ‘love not the world, neither the things that are in the world’ he was referring to this system of lies and pride and sin. In Gods kingdom you operate under his laws ‘love the Lord thy God with all thy heart… and your neighbor as yourself’. In this family [children of God] you have different types of ‘gifts’. Some are apostles, others prophets, etc. All these gifted ones are given for the singular purpose of building you up so you can have a mature faith grounded in Christ and be the ‘glorious temple’ of God in the earth. Paul was playing his part by communicating Jesus to these Roman Gentiles. He did not have some type of a corporate relationship with them where he said ‘commit to my authority over you. Either I will be your ‘covering’ or someone else!’ These are mans ideas. Now, we often say ‘Paul didn’t receive money from the Corinthians, but he did from the other churches’. I have said this myself. Paul did receive support from the Philippians, but that was support for his traveling ministry. To get him to the next place. If you read carefully you will see Paul telling the Thessalonians ‘when I was with you I did not eat, or take stuff for free. My hands ministered to both me and those that were with me’ I think he even said he worked night and day. When he spoke to the Ephesians elders in the book of Acts, he also said ‘I labored when I was with you, I did not take support from you when I was there. I did this to leave you ELDERS an example’. Now, the point I want to make is it seems as if Paul did not take money when he was actually living among the saints. It seems he took it only for traveling expenses [and of course for his ministry to the poor saints at Jerusalem]. Now, I believe and teach that it is scriptural to meet the needs, financially, of laboring elders. The reason I mention this is to show you that being an ‘apostle’ or any other gifted minister in the church simply means you bear extra responsibility to bring Gods people to maturity. It was not some type of office where you were a ‘professional minister’. When I hear all the talk of ‘Gods apostles are bringing Gods government back into alignment’ for the most part these are men’s ideas being applied to an American corporate 501c3 ministry. Gods ‘government’ operates along different lines. So in this example Paul said ‘I magnify my office’ he was simply imparting some truth to them for the purpose of their own edification. Paul did not see them coming under ‘his covering’.

(862)ROMANS 11- let me make a note on the previous entry. Over the last few years, as well as many years of experience with ‘ministry/church’, I have seen how easy it is to fall into the well meaning mindset of ‘I am going into the ministry, this is my career choice. My responsibility is to do ‘Christian stuff’ and the people’s role is to support me’[ I am not taking a shot at well meaning Pastors, I am basically speaking of the many friends I have met over the years who seemed to think ministry was a way to get financial support]. In the previous entry I mentioned how Paul seemed to have a mode of operation that said ‘when I am residing with a community of believers, I refuse to allow them to support me. I will work with my own hands to give them an example, not only to the general saints, but also to the elders. I am showing you that leadership is not a means to get gain’. It does seem ‘strange’ for us to see this. Of course we know Paul also taught the churches that it was proper and right to support those who ‘labor among you’. I have taught all this in the past and I don’t want to ‘re-teach’ it all again. The point I want to make is we ‘in ministry’ really need to rethink what we do. How many web-sites have I gone to that actually have icons that say ‘pay me here’. The average person going to these sites must think ‘pay you for what’? Paul did not teach the mindset of ‘pay me here, now’. Also in this letter to the Romans we are reading Paul’s correspondence to the believers at Rome. He often used this mode of ‘authority’ [writing letters] to exercise his apostolic office. Of course he also traveled to these areas [Acts] and spent time with them. And as I just showed you he supported himself on purpose when he was with the saints. Basically Paul is carrying out the single most effective apostolic ministry of all time [except for Jesus] and he is doing it without all the modern techniques of getting paid. He actually is doing all this writing and laboring at his own expense. He told the Corinthians ‘the fathers [apostles] spend for the children, not the children for the fathers’. So in todays talk on ‘apostles’ being restored. God ‘bringing back into alignment apostolic government’ we need to tone down all the quoting of verses [even the things Paul said!] that seem to say to the average saint ‘how do you expect us to reach the world if you do not ‘bring all the tithes into the storehouse’! When we put this guilt trip on the people of God we are violating very fundamental principles of scripture. Now, let’s try and finish up chapter 11. Paul is basically telling Israel and the Gentiles that God’s dealings are beyond our understanding [last few verses]. God is using the ‘unbelief’ of Israel as an open door to the Gentiles. He is also using the mercy that he is showing to the Gentiles as an ‘open door’ to Israel! He will ‘provoke them to jealousy’. There are a few difficult verses that would be unfair for me to skip over. ‘All Israel shall be saved’. Paul uses this to show that God’s dealings with natural Israel as a nation are not finished. Who are ‘all Israel’? Some say ‘the Israel of God’ [the church]. I don’t think this fits the text. Some say ‘all Israel that will be alive at the second coming’ I think this is closer. To be honest I think this can simply mean ‘all Israel’ all those who are alive and also raised at the return of the Lord. Now, this would be a form of universalism [all people eventually being saved]. I am not a Universalist, but I don’t want any ‘preconceived’ mindset [even my own!] to taint the text. I think God has the ability to reveal himself to the whole nation of Israel in such a way that ‘they all will be saved’. If I were a Jewish person I wouldn’t wait for this to happen! Just like the Calvinists argument of ‘why witness’? Because God commands it. So even though you can make an argument here for a type of universal redemption at Christ’s revealing of himself to Israel at the second coming [which is in keeping with this chapter, as well as other areas in scripture; ‘they will look upon him whom they have pierced’ ‘God will pour out the spirit of mourning and supplication on Israel at his appearing’. Which by the way would fit in with ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved’ which I taught in chapter 10. This is a futurist text implying a time of future judgment and wrath’]. So God’s dealings with Israel are not finished. Paul also warns the Gentiles ‘don’t boast, if God cut out the true branches [Israel] to graft you in. He can just as quickly cut you out too’! It would be dishonest for me [a Calvinist] to simply not comment on this. You certainly can take this verse in an Arminian way. Or you can see Paul speaking in a ‘nationalistic sense’. Sort of like saying ‘if Germany walks away from the faith, they will be ‘cut out’. [France would have been a better example! Speaking of the so called ‘enlightenment’ and the French Revolution]. In essence ‘you Gentiles, don’t think “wow, look at us. God left Israel and we are now special!”’ Paul is saying ‘you Gentiles [as a whole group] stand by faith. God could just as quickly ‘cut you out’ and replace you with another group’. I also think the Arminians could use this type of argument for the previous predestination chapter [9]. But to be honest I needed to give you my view. One more thing, Paul quotes Elijah ‘lord, I am the only one left’. He uses this in context of God having a remnant from Israel who remained faithful to the true God. God told Elijah ‘there are 7 thousand that have not bowed the knee to baal’. Paul uses this to show that even in his day there were a remnant Of Jews [himself included] who received the Messiah. An interesting side note. The prophetic ministry [Elijah] seems to function at a ‘popular level’. Now, I don’t mean ‘fame’, but Elijah was giving voice to a large undercurrent that was running thru the nation. If you read the story of Elijah you would have never known that there were ‘7 thousand’ who never bowed the knee! Often times God will use prophetic people to ‘give voice’ or popularize a general truth that is presently existing in the ‘underground church’ at large. Sort of like if Elijah had a web site, the 7 thousand would have been secretly reading it and saying ‘right on brother, that’s exactly what we believe too’!


(864)ROMANS 12:1-8    ‘I beseech you by the mercies of God to present your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service [spiritual worship]’. Most times we see ‘by the mercies of God’ as a recap of all that Paul has taught from chapters 1 thru 12. This is true to a degree. I think Paul is honing in on the previous chapters that dealt with the purpose of God specifically seen in the resurrection of the body. As we read earlier ‘for we are saved by hope’ [the hope of the resurrection]. Basically I see Paul saying ‘because of what I showed you concerning Gods redemptive purpose for your body, therefore present your body now, in anticipation of it’s future glorious purpose, as a living sacrifice ‘holy and acceptable unto God’. Why? Because you are going to have that thing [body] forever! [in a new glorified state]  Paul exhorts us to be changed by the renewing of our mind, the way we think. I have mentioned in the past that this renewing is not some type of legalistic function of ‘memorizing, muttering the do’s and don’ts all day long’. But a reorganizing of our thoughts according to this new covenant of grace. Seeing things thru this ‘new world’ perspective. A kingdom view based upon grace and the

Ezekiel 36:1 Also, thou son of man, prophesy unto the mountains of Israel, and say, Ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD:
Ezekiel 36:2 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because the enemy hath said against you, Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession:
Ezekiel 36:3 Therefore prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because they have made you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that ye might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen, and ye are taken up in the lips of talkers, and are an infamy of the people:
Ezekiel 36:4 Therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord GOD; Thus saith the Lord GOD to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about;
Ezekiel 36:5 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart, with despiteful minds, to cast it out for a prey.
Ezekiel 36:6 Prophesy therefore concerning the land of Israel, and say unto the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I have spoken in my jealousy and in my fury, because ye have borne the shame of the heathen:
Ezekiel 36:7 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I have lifted up mine hand, Surely the heathen that are about you, they shall bear their shame.
Ezekiel 36:8 But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come.
Ezekiel 36:9 For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown:
Ezekiel 36:10 And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: an of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded:
Ezekiel 36:11 And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
Ezekiel 36:12 Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men.
Ezekiel 36:13 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because they say unto you, Thou land devourest up men, and hast bereaved thy nations:
Ezekiel 36:14 Therefore thou shalt devour men no more, neither bereave thy nations any more, saith the Lord GOD.
Ezekiel 36:15 Neither will I cause men to hear in thee the shame of the heathen any more, neither shalt thou bear the reproach of the people any more, neither shalt thou cause thy nations to fall any more, saith the Lord GOD.
Ezekiel 36:16 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Ezekiel 36:17 Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own way and by their doings: their way was before me as the uncleanness of a removed woman.
Ezekiel 36:18 Wherefore I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it:
Ezekiel 36:19 And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them.
Ezekiel 36:20 And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These are the people of the LORD, and are gone forth out of his land.
Ezekiel 36:21 But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.
Ezekiel 36:22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
Ezekiel 36:23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
Ezekiel 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Ezekiel 36:28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
Ezekiel 36:29 I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
Ezekiel 36:30 And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen.
Ezekiel 36:31 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.
Ezekiel 36:32 Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.
Ezekiel 36:33 Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded.
Ezekiel 36:34 And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by.
Ezekiel 36:35 And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.
Ezekiel 36:36 Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it.
Ezekiel 36:37 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will yet for this be enquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them; I will increase them with men like a flock.
Ezekiel 36:38 As the holy flock, as the flock of Jerusalem in her solemn feasts; so shall the waste cities be filled with flocks of men: and they shall know that I am the LORD.
14 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.
But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.
And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.

. Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Romans 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
Romans 5:4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. Matt.
21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
Declare ye in Egypt, and publish in Migdol, and publish in Noph and in Tahpanhes: say ye, Stand fast, andprepare thee; for the sword shall devour round aboutthee.
Jer. 46:14
Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit allnations. Pslams 82:8

[ Just a few articles from our local media on some of the stuff I’ve talked about on video]

In a case of either murder or self-defense, District Attorney Mark Skurka said the medical examiner's wavering opinion did not meet the criteria for information legally required to be turned over to defense lawyers.
In a hearing to request a new trial, defense lawyers Monday honed in on a conversation between Skurka and prosecutor Jenny Dorsey about whether to alert Courtney Hayden's lawyers of a deputy medical examiner's opinion about the distance from which Anthony Macias, 33, was shot.
Dr. Adel Shaker's initial opinion that it was a contact wound would have proved Hayden's account that she shot in self-defense when Macias attacked her, defense lawyers said.
A jury in November convicted Hayden, 25, of murder in the April 30, 2014, shooting and sentenced her to 40 years in prison.
"In our office, sometimes we use each other as sounding boards and we kind of talked it out, but I never tried to convince (Dorsey) one way or the other or ordered her not to reveal it. I just said 'this doesn't sound like it reaches that level that it needed to be revealed,'" Skurka said on the stand.
In retrospect, Skurka said he didn't have all the information and relied on what Dorsey told him.
About two weeks after the trial, Dorsey met with her direct supervisor, First Assistant Retha Cable, and they determined the information should have been relayed to the defense team before trial. Dorsey penned a letter to the defense about the doctor's initial opinion being the gun's muzzle was against Macias' body when he was shot.
Dorsey said in the letter that three days before the trial started she and second chair prosecutor Richard Mackay met with Shaker and pointed out his opinion differed from that of the firearms examiner. She said she asked Shaker to reconsider his opinion and he later said in a text he could "live with three feet," Dorsey said.
She testified Friday that she was concerned about the doctor's opinion, but Skurka gave her examples that led her to believe Shaker's changing opinion was a "normal evolution."
Shaker did not testify in the hearing because he's recovering from back surgery, prosecutors said.
Defense attorney John Gilmore suggested Skurka did not want Dorsey to inform defense lawyers about the doctor's initial opinion because it didn't jibe with the state's theory of the case.
Prosecutors agreed to another trial for Hayden in a joint order Jan. 15 that stated the judge should grant the new trial "in the interest of justice" without a hearing or ruling on whether allegations about withheld evidence are true. But 28th District Judge Nanette Hasette did not sign the agreement and instead continued with the hearing.
Defense lawyers argued prosecutors agreed to a new trial to cover their tracks and then pinned all the blame on Dorsey.
"We have a cover-up your honor and what the state is trying to do with agreeing to a motion for a new trial is not have to tell you why," Greenberg said. "The funny thing to me is they say they'll give us a new trial in the interest of justice but they wont tell you what was so unjust about this case."
On Jan. 5, the Caller-Times requested all complaints and disciplinary action involving Dorsey. Skurka responded the same day saying there were none. When reached late Monday, Skurka declined comment.
"Before we started this hearing, your honor, I said that we stipulate that evidence that Mrs. Dorsey knew before trial wasn't turned over until after trial. While I don't necessarily agree that it was material ... the defense asserts (with the information) they would have done things differently ... For that reason Ms. Hayden should get a new trial," said prosecutor Mike McCaig, who represented the state in the hearing.
The judge said she would consider the testimony and give a ruling at a later date. She did not set a deadline for a final decision.
Twitter: @CallerKMT
Testimony is expected to continue Wednesday in the case of Courtney Hayden. 
Hayden is claiming self-defense in the fatal shooting of Anthony Macias back in April 2014. She was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison last year.
Her attorneys, however didn't learn until after the trial that the District Attorney had evidence from the medical examiner to support a self-defense claim.
The lead prosecutor in the case says her boss, District Attorney Mark Skurka told her not to worry about disclosing the information.
Earlier this week, Skurka testified that he thought the information from the medical examiner was not his final conclusion. 
[my comment]
NOTE- It’s good for you to see the progression here. Notice that initially the D.A. agreed with the defense for a new trial. But after they testified under oath that they felt they did not need to disclose the wavering opinion of the medical examiner- they then reversed themselves and are now opposing a new trial.
Because the prosecutors might face criminal charges for withholding evidence.
So- to defend themselves- they would prefer for Hayden to do 40 years in prison.
Why the sudden change of opinion?
If they stuck with their initial belief- that withholding the evidence was wrong- then they implicate themselves.
So- to now say ‘no- we don’t want a new trial’- has nothing to do with the fact that they withheld the evidence. They are now opposing it to defend themselves.
Is this just?
UPDATE- They flip flopped- again. Now the D.A is saying ‘ok- we want a new trial again [For Hayden] but- we do not think we did anything wrong’ [by withholding key evidence].
Why did they flip flop?
It’s obvious they initially agreed to a new trial- quickly- because they did not want the word to get out that they pressured the medical examiner to change his opinion- and hid the fact that they did.
But- after it was revealed in court- they figured they would fight against a new trial- why the change?
Because the fact that they admitted they were wrong- showed they committed a crime by withholding evidence.
Then- it was obvious they would prefer to deny justice to Hayden- and let her do the 40 years in prison- by fighting against a new trial- to defend themselves.
But- it looked bad- so they then said ‘ok- we want a new trial- but there really are no grounds for one’.
CORPUS CHRISTI – [news article below]
Courtney Hayden's legal fight to get a new trial has taken a strange turn.
She was sentenced to 40 years in prison last month for the fatal shooting of Anthony Macias.
After the trial the District Attorney's office admitted it withheld evidence from the Medical Examiner that would have helped her case. 
During a hearing earlier this week, prosecutors indicated they were okay with granting Hayden a new trial.
But in their final written arguments to the judge, they're now saying Hayden should not get a new trial, claiming the withheld evidence would not have helped her case.
A judge will decide if Hayden will get a new trial.
Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John.#

video 1 30 16 Devil went in

video 1 29 16 Simple man

1 29 16 Hayden case

1 29 16 Fix it

1 28 16 The Cross

Thursday, January 28, 2016

1 24 16 Your wrong

 YOUR WRONG [note- title applies to end of video- not beginning- see if you figure it out]
Special request- Please pray for my friend Don, he’s been sick for a while and they just found a large growth by his abdomen- they will check if it’s cancer. Update- They think it is cancer and spreading rapidly- I will try and comment on this on the next video. Don has been complaining of severe pain for months on end- he noticed a growth- time and again he tried to access the health care system [he’s on Medicaid]. They kept putting him off- the agency that accepts Medicaid- that he has been using- did not want to have to treat/pay if it was cancer. That’s what Don believed. They delayed for months- refused to do x-ray/cat scan- said he had an infection. Don was right- as soon as they gave him the cat scan- the tumor was so huge- it’s probably too late.
.D.A. testifies- under oath
.Hayden trial
.Industrial Revolution
.Salvation army
.Adam Smith- Wealth of nations
.Homicides solved?
.Knives- that shoot!
.Veteran killed
.Laissez Faire
.Das Capital
.Communist Manifesto

 [Past posts- verses below]
 In the 19th century we had the Industrial revolution.
With the invention of the steam engine and the development of factories- this created poor living conditions in the cities of Europe [and later the U.S.]
Many workers were no longer living and working the land- an agrarian society-
But were now ‘products’ of the industrial city.
Working long hours in smoke filled buildings- with very poor working conditions.
Children being used as ‘slave labor’ for poor wages.
And the working poor had no real voice in society.
You also had the development of the Bourgeoisie- those who had opportunity to own the factories- and make it rich.
Observers realized that the good benefits from the Industrial Revolution- also had bad ‘side effects’.
Some asked ‘what can we do’?
The response – nothing.
We call this the Laissez-faire mindset-
Meaning the natural capitalist system- those who strive in a free market system- will benefit at the end.
But what about those who were raised in ‘the system’- their families owned no property [thus they had not voting rights at the time].
They followed their fathers into the same working class conditions- never realizing the dream of one day being in the ‘ownership class’.
The struggle for a more just system came both from within and outside the church.
Christians like William Booth would reach out to the poor and drunkards on the streets of London- and eventually would launch a Christian ministry aimed at alleviating the plight of the poor.
He is the founder of the Salvation Army.
Men like Karl Marx took a more radical approach- he published his Communist Manifesto in 1848 and later das Kapital.
He challenged the system of capitalism itself- and called for a radical revolution of the working class.
His intentions were good- but over time his system too has failed.

He believed the power of the rich factory owners- and those who actually owned the tools themselves- needed to be taken from them.
And the state itself should own the equipment- the ‘engine’ that ran the Industrial revolution.
Marx was raised by Jewish/German parents- and his father accepted Christianity only as a means to an end.
His father could not succeed in business unless he wore the label ‘Christian’.
As a young boy Marx saw the hypocrisy of it- and eventually saw Christianity itself as a tool to manipulate the working class and keep them under the ruling class.
Socialism/Communism sought to empower the people- but in effect it empowered the state.
In Adam Smiths ‘Wealth of Nations’ he taught the classic capitalist argument- the laissez faire’ mindset- that in a free society- where all men have the opportunity to advance-
In the end- some will attain wealth and success- and others will not.
But Smith believed this to be the best system.
The Socialist rejects this idea- and believes in the common sharing of goods- the natural resources of the land should not belong to the few who had the wealth passed down to them by former generations.
Today the debate applies to corporations- should private corporations own vast resources [some have even patented actual seeds- yes-the seeds that people plant in the ground for food!]
There are American Indian tribes who had actual treaties with the U.S. govt. - and the govt. has claimed their land- began charging them for the grazing of their animals- on their own land.
And eventually brought federal charges against the Indian family-in a case I just watched- a Grandmother!
Because the Federal govt.  would no longer recognize the ownership rights of the Indian family [ Shoshone tribe].
So we see the danger on both sides-
The state itself can become an enemy of the rights of the people it is supposed to serve.
And a free market system can develop to the point where following generations of families born into poverty find themselves with little hope- or a way out.
The opportunities have passed many of them up- some do indeed make it out- but others feel stuck.
Was the teaching that matter was good- that God created the material realm- so it is not  inherently evil.

But- after the fall of man [Genesis 1-3] a curse did indeed come upon the earth [some times when the bible says ‘the world’ it is speaking of the earth- but other times it is speaking of the fallen order- the sinful realm of man. That’s why there is some confusion- till this day- among Christians. They might read verses like this- and think the bible is saying the earth itself- the planet- is wicked. Actually in those verses it is speaking about the fallen order of sinful men. See? ‘For all that is in THE WORLD- the lust of the flesh- the lust of the eyes and the pride of life- is not of the father- but is of the WORLD- and the WORLD is passing away’- this is one example from the epistle of John- here the World is not saying the planet- but the world of sinful man- a fallen ‘world’ order.]

So- in conclusion [if I ever get there!] we- as believers- reject the belief that all matter is evil.

No- man was created in the image of God- and God is the creator of all things- both visible [earth- man- etc] and invisible [mentioned in the above chapter].

The evil we see in the ‘world’ today is simply a result of mans sin- mans choice to live in rebellion against God.

Renaissance means ‘re-birth’. It was a rebirth of the ancient Poets and philosophers of days gone by. Men like Cicero and Aristotle were once again brought to the fore front of many thinkers and lovers of culture.

The catch phrase for the Renaissance was Ad Fontes- which meant ‘back to the sources’ [source- Fountain- Fontes]. In the 14th century a famous and influential Catholic family- the Medici’s- were a catalyst for mixing this cultural movement in with the church.

The Renaissance sort of challenged the historic view of education- up until this time most learning was done thru the prism of the church. In the universities of the day Theology [study of God] was called the Queen of the sciences- and philosophy was referred to as her Handmaiden.

Well the Renaissance thinkers said they wanted to study things for what they are- they did not want to see everything thru the lens of the church.

Eventually the theme of the movement [back to the original sources] would play a major role in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Men like Erasmus [the famous 16th century Catholic Humanist] would re discover the original Greek New testament- and it was thru the study of the Greek text that many of the Reformers made their case to get ‘back to the bible’ and eventually break from Rome.

This was also the beginning period of modern capitalism. Recently when Libya had her ‘civil war’ and the new leaders started talking about a new constitution- one of the interesting things that came up was they wanted to do away with interest on loans.

Why? Well Muslims teach that interest itself is a bad thing. ‘Gee- wonder where they get that idea from John’ Oh- from a little book- called the bible.

Yes- to the surprise of some- this is very much taught in the Old Testament. Now- it was God’s law governing the nation of Israel- but they were forbidden to charge interest.

‘So John- is it wrong for us today to make interest’? Not really- Jesus used interest [usury] as an example in some of his parables- and overall- we as believers are not under the Old Testament laws that govern natural Israel.

But- for many centuries- the world did not see interest on money as a legitimate way to earn a living. So during the Renaissance you also had the rise of exploration- and explorers like Columbus would go on their voyages with the financial backing of investors.

The normal rate for these voyages was a 75/25% cut. When the explorer returned- the investor [Spain- or whoever] got 75% of the goods- and the explorer kept 25.

So there were a lot of changes taking place in the world at the time- and the rise of modern capitalism was one of them- money of course existed way before this time- but as a commodity- this was a new way of viewing the world.

Okay- just thought I would throw in a little history along with the current events of the day. As we see the current turmoil in the Italian markets [the original renaissance started in Florence- Italy] maybe seeing money/interest as a commodity- and ‘usury’ as a major way to increase ones wealth- well  maybe that’s not such a smart way to do things after all.

When Jon Corzine's global investment firm went bust the other day- it was a direct result of taking a gamble on the ‘gullibility’ of the common man.

What his firm did was they took a huge risk by investing in European bonds- bonds from Greece that everyone knew was a terrible 'bet’. Then why did he do it?

 The renaissance was the 13-14th century revival of culture and learning that was lost for centuries- It began in Florence Italy.
The catch phrase for it was ‘Ad Fontes’  meaning ‘back to the sources’- both in philosophy- as well as in Christian learning.
This began a revival of studying the Greek New testament again from its original language.
The Catholic Humanist- Desiderius Erasmus [15-16th century] - re introduced the New Testament in the Greek version [He was referred to as a Dutch renaissance Humanist- as well as a Catholic Priest and scholar]
Now- Erasmus was a critic of the Church- like Luther- but chose a ‘middle road’- he did not join the breakaway Protestant Reformers- but chose to stay within the fold of Rome- while speaking out against the abuses he saw.
But his first Greek translation of the New Testament did indeed set a spark-
A couple of years ago when we did a short history of Philosophy- I never covered Rand.


She never came up in any of the stuff I was reading at the time.

Rand was a Russian American who came to the states in the early 20th century.

She saw the rise of Communism in her homeland- and she believed that the U.S. was in danger of going down the same road.

She lived to see the presidency of FDR- and his creating of what we call the Entitlement society.

But Rand- like other thinkers of her day- also rejected Faith and Religion [Marx].

She believed that Reason was enough to establish morality- and build an adequate Ethical society.

To be honest- Ayn was wrong about this.

But- because she angered the Left with her capitalist thought- and the Right with her anti God ideas- well she would alienate not just the 47% [Romney’s gaff] but both ‘47’s’.

Thus- Rand never came up on the radar when I was studying philosophy.

I have not read the book- but from what I picked up on line- I can see how Christians would indeed have a hard time with Objectivism.

In scripture- we don’t see ‘statism’ per se- but we do see a sort of collective ideal.

In the books of Acts we see the early believers selling their goods and giving to those in need.

We read many-many portions of the bible that speak about helping the less fortunate.

Yet- the argument is ‘should the state force man to do this’.

The state- govt. - according to scripture- has the right to tax.

Rand’s argument [and others] is ‘fine- but don’t demean me because I am one of the producers- don’t demonize those in society who are holding the system up’.

Rand did not teach that you should never help another- but she rejected the govt. forcing you to do it.

In Ayn’s Utopia- the John Galt’s of the world withdraw- they take their toys and go home.

From a biblical perspective- we are indeed our brother’s keeper.

That does not mean we encourage people to be non productive- to live off the wealth of others.

But we see the goal of our lives as more than seeking happiness- more than pursuing the Dream.

No- we often give things up- material things- in order to pursue a more just society.

In our World- Atlas doesn’t shrug.

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John. Don’t forget to scroll down on the timeline [Facebook] - I have posted lots.

. (1298) THEY ARE GREEDY DOGS WHICH CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH AND THEY ARE SHEPHERDS THAT CANNOT UNDERSTAND: THEY ALL LOOK TO THEIR OWN WAY, EVERY ONE FOR HIS GAIN… THEY SAY TOMORROW SHALL BE MUCH MORE ABUNDANT- Isaiah 56:11-12 In the mid 18th century we had what is commonly called ‘the industrial revolution’. In Europe there arose a new class of people that never existed before, these were the capitalists that were making lots of wealth and the laborer was drawn from an agrarian type lifestyle [country/hamlet living] into the strong industrial cities like London. These poor workers were thrust into a system of profit that consumed their days and surrounded them with a new atmosphere of industry/factory. The invention of the steam engine by James Watt was one of the catalysts of this new era. Men like William Booth [founder of the Salvation Army] would see the hopelessness of these Londoners and start a ministry to help them. Even in our day the effects of the industrial revolution still impact us, as a boy growing up I listened to Black Sabbath, Ozzy came from an area like this. Contrast his songs with Kiss and you can see the difference! There was an observer of this scene who would write a document and launch a revolution as a result of what he saw as the encroachment of capitalism on the common person- His name was Karl Marx, his document was called ‘the communist manifesto’. Many people resent the western mindset because of its seeming inability to never be satisfied with finally having enough, we are a consumerist nation. I caught a quick few minutes of religious channel surfing the other day and of course I heard the normal preaching on ‘this year is the year of more abundance than any other year’. Have we ever asked ourselves when we will have enough? Seriously Isaiah is pronouncing a judgment on ‘greedy dogs- those who are never satisfied’ one of the condemnations in Revelation is to believers who say ‘I am rich and increased with goods’ yet they were spiritually poor. Jesus challenged his followers on many occasions to forsake all to follow him. Now I am not advocating irresponsibility, but I am challenging our western mindset and our inability to say ‘that’s enough’. We preach a message that never seems to leave this option open; we create an insatiable desire within the church to live each day with an obsession to gain more. The bible condemns this attitude over and over again, yet we as westerners never seem to get it, if we ever want to truly have peaceful relationships with the rest of the world, then we will have to change our mindset in these areas. Many Muslim countries see our materialist arrogance and use this as an excuse to reject ‘the Jesus of the west’ [though he was technically from the east!] We as the people of God need to return to our own ‘manifesto’ [the gospels] and live them out in reality, if not there will always be a Marx waiting in the wings with his own.

(1295) FOR AS THE HEAVENS ARE HIGHER THAN THE EARTH, SO ARE MY THOUGHTS HIGHER THAN YOUR THOUGHTS; AND MY WAYS HIGHER THAN YOURS Isaiah 55:9 the other night I caught an interview of Frances Schaffer on the Rachel Maddow show. Frances is the son of the famous Frances Schaffer senior, the prolific author/speaker of the 20th century who dealt with Christian worldviews. He wrote Christian Manifesto and How shall we then live, among other titles. Frankie and his dad were key leaders in the rise of the religious right and the moral agenda type groups. Frankie eventually converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and is now a vehement opponent of the religious right. First I want to commend him on his conviction of not being willing to abandon Christianity all together; some children of famous Christian leaders have taken that route, but Frankie [he calls himself Frances now, but for this entry I’m using the old title] has chosen a great Christian tradition to place himself in and for this he should be commended. But he is so vehement against the religious
(1082) ‘For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth. For they are the messengers of the Lord’ Malachi 2:7. I remember a few years back, I was listening to the various teachings that were on the radio station that I broadcast on. Some brother out of the Fort Worth area used to buy air time and all. One time the focus was ‘what is Gods essential character?’ if there were only one word to describe who god is, what his essential makeup was, what would that word be? And of course the answer was ‘abundance’ specifically ‘financial increase’. I know of know other way to describe stuff like this, it falls under the category of ministerial malpractice! God commands leaders/teachers to seek the truth coming from him, we are responsible to at least get the most basic things right! What would be the most obvious answer to the question of how to define God in a word? Surely every preacher should know the answer. It would be ‘God is love’. While there are many attributes of God [omnipotence, omniscience, etc.] yet the ‘one’ word definition, if you had to give one, would be love [yes, he is  Spirit too]. The last word you should use to describe God would be ‘much money’. Paul said the false teacher’s god is their belly; their appetites, they live to satisfy their desires. Jesus taught us one of the greatest desires of man is acquiring great wealth. He said you can’t serve God and money [mammon]. Why people still send their offerings to ministries like this is beyond me. The challenge to wealth and oppressive wealthy nations/peoples is sown all thru out human history; Homers Iliad revealed the monster 12 centuries before Christ in his writings on the Trojan War. Adam Smith penned his famous book ‘wealth of nations’ in 1776. Challenges to oppressive govt's. of men who use wealth and power to come against the poor in society are noble themes that all great prophetic voices have hit on [Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc.]. Who was thee singular greatest prophetic voice who engaged in this type of polemic? Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Most know him as the carpenter, but the actual word used to describe his trade in the Greek means ‘hand laborer’ [or day laborer] you know, those poor brothers we see waiting for a job on the corners of streets, going to ‘labor ready’ [a local place to find daily work]. It is quite possible that Jesus was ‘less’ than a carpenter/tradesmen, but more of an odd jobs worker. Willing to take any job he could get. Well, once he entered his teaching ministry, boy did he speak to power and wealth. If you read all the actual words of Jesus [yes, the red ones!] and try and come up with a singular theme thru out his writings, it could very well be his contrast of the rich and poor. The powerful oppression of wealth and unjust govt. against the poor and weak in society. His incessant condemnation of the wealthy and affluent, I mean you can’t possibly miss this! Unless you are not seeking the ‘law’ [words] that actually were coming from his MOUTH! Malachi rebuked the priests of his day, they were functioning and active and everyone knew they were priests, yet they were not really listening to the words of God himself, I think we need to all give heed to what the brother said.

(1080) In keeping with our recent train of thought, lets talk a little on who wrote the new testament, and when did they write. During the rise of higher criticism in the universities [a type of learning that cast serious doubt on many of the truths of scripture, though some of the elements of higher learning were helpful; like the historic method, learning to study scripture thru a contextual lens] you had some who dated the gospels as being written by the end of the first century, even into the second! Today, no serious scholar would put them anywhere near the second century. And like I said the other day, those who attribute Paul’s writings to various unknown sources, they also can stick the older label on Paul's stuff. Do the scriptures themselves give us any hint at when they were written? Sure. They don’t tell us exactly, but some good hints. The gospels contain lots of historical records in them, who was ruling at the time. Certain census that were being taken, things like that. Of course this doesn’t mean the writers were writing at the exact time of the events, but it shows you their familiarity with them. Or if a gospel writer [I think its Luke] says ‘just as others compiled stuff about Jesus and all that he did, so I thought it good that I should do the same’. This would show you that the writer was not as close to the actual events as others. Or when Luke writes the book of Acts, he states that he had already written his gospel. Luke is pretty meticulous about historic stuff in Acts; he records the believers who were killed for the faith [Stephen, James- the disciple, not the Lords brother who was one of the main leaders at Jerusalem, who is also believed to be the author of the epistle]. The point being, if Luke ends Acts with Paul living in a rented room in Rome; plus he never mentions the martyrdom of Paul or Peter, this would indicate that Acts was written before their deaths. Nero killed them both in the 60’s, Nero died a couple of years before A.D. 70. It would seem rather odd for Luke to have left their martyrdoms out of the book! Peter and Paul are the two main characters in the book. If Luke is recording the


Exodus 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Exodus 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
Exodus 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
Exodus 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
Exodus 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
2nd Cor. 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. Ja. 1:5
Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: Prvb.
Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John.#