SPIRITUAL ROCK-
https://youtu.be/M-6KFNhkhWk Spiritual rock
I mention these on video
The Syllabus
of Errors (Latin: Syllabus Errorum) was a document issued by Holy
See under Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1864, Feast of the Immaculate Conception,
on the same day as the Pope's encyclical Quanta cura.
Humanae vitae (Latin Of Human Life) is an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI and issued on 25 July 1968. Subtitled On the Regulation of Birth, it
re-affirms the orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church regarding married love, responsible parenthood,
and the continued rejection of most forms of birth control. In formulating his
teaching he did not accept (for reasons he gave in the encyclical) the
conclusions arrived at by the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control established by his predecessor, Pope John XXIII, and which he himself had expanded.[1]
ON VIDEO-
.Vatican 2
.Humanae Vitae
.Syllabus of errors
.Socrates
.Freud
.Sage
.Let them go
.Give me birth control pills- NOW!
PAST POSTS-(966)1ST
CORINTHIANS 9:1-14 Paul defends his apostleship and gives a strong defense for
the New Testament doctrine of financially supporting Christian leaders. Now, I
never want to be one of those types of teachers who skews or bypasses
scriptures that seem to contradict previous teachings. It’s common for good men
to do this, all leaders need to avoid doing it. Recently I added my comments to
a debate that raged in the blogasphere. You had Frank Viola put out the book
‘Pagan Christianity’ [good book, I read and do recommend it] and another good
theologian, Ben Witherington, gave a good critique [I also recommend Bens site,
you can find both Frank and Ben’s sites on my blog roll]. Part of the debate
hinged on the financial support of elders/ministers. I must admit I fell on Ben’s
side in this argument, though I probably would agree with Frank around 90 % of
the time on all the other stuff. Ben argued for the biblical mandate to support
elders, frank seems to teach the support of apostles [itinerant workers] is
okay, but does not leave room for the support of elders who live in the
community. Now, you really need to read all I have written under the ‘what in
the world is the church’ section of this blog to get my full view on all of
this stuff, but this section of Corinthians makes this stuff pretty clear. Paul
says ‘I have the right not to work and only live off of the offerings of the
people’. So Paul defends this practice, but he also says ‘I choose not to use
it’. He also uses two interesting examples from ‘the law’ [Old Testament] to
defend the financial support of leaders. ‘The Ox who is treading out the corn
shouldn’t be muzzled’ and ‘the priests who serve at the altar get to eat the
meat from the sacrifices’. What is the most obvious example that he does not
use? The tithe! I would say this is one of the best proofs for the tithe not
being a normative practice of the early church. But Paul does use the other
examples to say its right to financially support those who labor among you. But
Paul has also given examples to elders [read my Acts 20 commentary] to show
them that they are not in this for the money! Paul will actually defend the
practice of working and not taking money from the believers. So we see a wide
range of freedom in this area. I feel the biblical example is it is fine to
financially support Christian leadership who are dedicating their lives to
teaching and ministering the word. It is also fine to not use these ‘rights’ as
a Christian leader. But nowhere are we taught a type of Levitical tithe system
for the support of Christian leaders. Why? Paul’s main message was one of grace
and coming out from the requirements of the law. To have used the tithe as an
example to give financially would have been counterproductive to his whole
message. Eventually believers would come to view ‘the church’ and ‘the
priest/pastor’ as the single head of ‘the church building’ who would be
supported like a Levite who served as a priest under the old covenant [bring
all the tithes into the storehouse type concept]. This legalistic view of ‘the
church’ is prevalent today in much of Christendom, both Catholics and
Protestants seem to cling to this limited view of the church. The modern house
church movement is giving the old view quite a run for its money! But let’s not
throw out the baby with the bath water. Paul said its okay to financially
support Christian leadership among you, just don't see it as a tithe that is
supporting some type of Christian New Testament Levitical priest!
(969)1ST
CORINTHIANS 9:15 -27 I have
a letter sitting here from some northern radio station. I guess these guys hear
us some how? It’s a great offer to be on 140 stations for next to nothing
[$140.00 a month]. I have had radio stations write us before. I choose to stay
small so I can be consistent in not taking offerings. I am sure if I took
offerings I could easily expand like this, but I think I need to set the
example for others. This fits in with the following.
Now Paul will
say ‘I would rather die than take money from you’ [and you guys think I’m an over reactor!] and also ‘I don’t take
money from you because I want to make the gospel free of charge’. Remember,
this is in the same chapter where he says it’s okay to support leaders
financially. But yet he also makes these strong statements. Does Paul contradict
himself? Some have tried to harmonize these statements by either saying Paul
wasn’t really teaching the financial support of elders, or by saying Paul only
restricted taking money from the Corinthians. Both of these are not true [Read
my Acts 20 study]. Paul was hard on whatever group he was addressing. If he is
speaking directly to the local saints, he says ‘you should make sacrifice and
support those who labor among you’ but to the elders/leaders he says ‘I worked
with my own hands while among you [elders!] to give you an example not to
expect the people to support you’ [Acts 20]. He appeals to both sides to lay
down their rights and give themselves away freely! He also says he adapts to
every type of situation, he ‘becomes all things to all men, that he might save
them’. He also brings his body under discipline so that after preaching to
others, he himself will not be ‘cast away’. In my Proverbs reading I just came
across ‘he that has no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken
down and without walls’. God wants you to succeed and accomplish things, the
enemy wants to sidetrack you. Allow God to have the upper hand, let the fruit
of ‘self control’ [one of the fruits of the Spirit] abide in you. Now remember,
Paul says ‘they do it to obtain a corruptible crown’ [material, temporary
stuff. Money included] but we do it [discipline ourselves] for an
‘incorruptible crown’. The scripture is filled with examples that contrast
money [material rewards] with true spiritual riches. In these examples the
scripture teaches us to expend our time and efforts in building a spiritual
heritage as opposed to a financial one. Yet some will even use this scripture
‘running the race’ and apply it to stuff! Ahh, when we do stuff like this we
are ‘reading/quoting scripture’ without truly knowing it. Jesus told the
religious leaders ‘you search the scriptures because by doing this you think
you have eternal life, but you will not come to me that you might have life’.
It’s possible to spend your whole life searching scripture [for what you want]
and still miss the chief cornerstone! [the main point]
(970)
CORINTHIANS ‘woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel’ ‘they which preach the
gospel should live by the gospel’. Let me do a quick review before we jump into
chapter 10. Over the years of re-learning the style and function of the New
Testament church, it took time to read these scriptures without superimposing
my preconceived ideas upon the text. For instance, you could easily read these
verses and simply fit them into the ‘church building’ [as the church!] mindset.
I know of, and have partaken of, the excitement that preachers experience when
they ‘preach the gospel’. It’s a fulfilling thing. But the problem is much of
the present day church follows a program where one main person becomes the
attraction of the community. We live and hear and vicariously learn thru the
growth experiences of a single individual. Now, we don’t realize that this is
not the main intent of meeting together as a community. God originally intended
for his people to share as a community of grace. There are specific warnings in
the New Testament to avoid the Christian community’s penchant to identify
around an individuals giftings [we actually just covered some of these in this
study]. But when we simply read ‘they which preach the gospel should live of
it’ we think this is justifying the present day context. It really simply meant
that those in the community with the ability to read and teach should be taken
care of while they are giving themselves for the benefit of others. The first
century believer’s could not all read, the majority probably were illiterate.
This created a need for those who were literate to actually read Paul's letters
out loud in the assembly. These sincere men were not modern day full time
Pastors! This is why it’s important to read the scripture with historical
context in mind. When I meet with the brothers, or travel to another town. I
usually simply ask the guys ‘what’s the Lord been saying, do you have a word to
share’? And sure enough, by the time our fellowship is over most everyone feels
edified because they gave of themselves for others. One of my homeless friends
is an excellent teacher. Believe me, he knows more scripture than many Pastors.
He excels in this environment. There is really no need for one person [like
myself!] to dominate the conversation, or to think that my calling entails me
being the primary voice of the community. Sometimes when I find myself at some
Christian function, I can tell that when people find out that you speak on the
radio, that they kinda want you to preach. I always [yes always!] avoid it. Not
because it would be wrong to teach, but the modern church has made such a
profession out of it, that the average saint never really expresses himself on
a regular basis. God never intended the church to be a place where people learn
and grow and experience most of their Christian lives thru the experiences and
gifts of one person. I just wanted to challenge you today with these few
verses. When you just read them did you see them thru the old mindset? Don’t
feel bad about it, just allow the Lord to ‘re-wire’ your brain as we continue
to teach thru the New Testament. We find stuff like this all the way thru.
(971) THE
PLAYPIPE AND THE ‘RED LINE’- Well it’s been a while since I gave an example
from the fire Dept. I was thinking of this the other day and still get a laugh
out of them. On our rookie tests at the fire dept. the captains and chief would
make up questions to test the guys. One question would ask ‘how many parts are
there to a playpipe’ [a type of nozzle for the fire hose]. The answer would say
something like ‘5’. One of the expected ‘parts’ was ‘the playpipe itself’. Well
that’s like asking ‘how many parts to a car’ and the answer being ‘the wheels,
motor, windshield, and the car itself’. The ‘car itself’ cant be a part of ‘the
car’. What you could say is ‘the body/chassis’. So the poor rookies who would
get the question wrong were actually right. The funny part was trying to
explain this to the captain. In his mind he couldn’t see what he was trying to
say was ‘the shaft’ [the actual pipe part of the nozzle]. The other funny thing
was on one of the fire trucks we had what was called a ‘booster line’ [or red
line]. Most of the modern trucks had red hose for this line. So it was common
to call it ‘the red line’. The problem was one of the old trucks had a black
hose for the ‘booster line’. So the question would ask ‘what color is the red
line on unit 104’. So the poor rookie, who wasn’t really around long enough to
memorize all the hose colors, what put ‘red’. You simply would think this was a
gimme question, a trick question. It would be like asking ‘what color is the
red truck’. The problem was the poor rookies would answer ‘red’ and to their
dismay they would get it wrong. The ‘red line is black’! Once again, trying to
explain this to the test makers was like trying to convert the Pope to
Protestantism! The captain would insist ‘the red line is black’! Not realizing
what they should have said was ‘what color is the booster line’.
(972)1ST
CORINTHIANS 10:1-4 it’s actually Christmas morning, 2008, as I write. Paul says
‘all of our forefathers were under the cloud, they were all baptized unto Moses
in the cloud and sea’. Note- 2 baptisms ‘Cloud’ [Spirit] ‘Sea’ [water]. Let’s
do a little thinking here. How can Paul refer to the Jewish fathers as the
Corinthians forefathers? Is he expecting a large Jewish group to read this
letter? [Like Romans- both Jews and Gentiles were in mind]. Is he addressing
them like the author of Hebrews, who is speaking directly to a nation in
transition? While it’s possible for a few Jewish believers to have read/heard
the reading of this letter. Yet I think Paul is simply being consistent with
his letters to the Galatians and Romans, where he taught that all who would
believe were the ‘children of Abraham by faith’ Abraham is ‘the father of many
nations’. Now, I like the way Paul ‘spiritualizes’ here. Moses was the prophet
who typified Jesus. The people were baptized [joined] to him both thru the good
times and the bad. There was quite a rough history between Moses and the
rebels! Times where they wanted to change leadership. Times where God even said
‘I have had it with this bunch, let’s just wipe them out and start over’. They
had history. Also Paul says ‘they all ate of the same spiritual meat and drank
from the same spiritual rock. Christ’. Again, Paul seems to teach the symbolic,
as opposed to literal, view of ‘eating/drinking Christ’. Israel did have some physical ordinances
in the wilderness. The Passover and the bread from heaven [Manna] already
happened. But Jesus himself [John 6] would say ‘Moses didn’t give you the real
bread, I am the real bread!’. So Paul’s use of the ‘Rock’ is purely symbolic.
The story relates to the time where God gave the children of Israel water from an actual rock in
the wilderness. Moses spoke to/struck the rock and water came out. Paul sees
this as a symbolic picture. He is saying ‘this foreshadowed Christ, the true
rock who would be the ‘Rock of ages’ who would be struck on the Cross and water
would flow from his side’. Once again, this leaves us some context to interpret
the Lords supper in a symbolic way. Was Paul teaching the Corinthians to go out
in the fields and actually drink real water from a rock? No. He was simply
saying these physical symbols would be fulfilled at a future time, and that
time was now! All who believe in Christ are partaking [spiritually] of the
water of life, the Holy Spirit. Tomorrow we will get into the examples that
were left to us from these stories. I just want to mention that the Apostle
Paul freely uses the Old Testament [his only bible at the time!] and applies
these stories to both Gentile believers and 1st century Israel .
The writer of Hebrews [who I think was Paul] says ‘just like the forefathers
missed out on the promise by unbelief- entering the promised land- so too there
is a danger that you, 1st century Israel, might miss out on eternal
life by not receiving the Messiah by faith’. In this context, Israel of the Old Testament represents Israel
in the first century. But when addressing a gentile church [Corinth ]
it is also okay for Paul to say ‘just like Israel faced physical death by
being disobedient, so you too have had premature physical deaths in your
community by rebelling against God’. In this comparison Israel [Old
Testament] is simply being used as an example of God judging his covenant
people for their disobedience. I feel these distinctions are important, they
help us to keep the New Testament in context.
(973)1ST
CORINTHIANS 10:5-13 Paul warns the Corinthians not to fall for the same
temptations that Israel
committed in the wilderness. ‘Don't sin sexually, don’t complain about stuff
[ouch!] don’t be idolaters [lovers of your cash flow!]’ basic sins that effect
us all. He also says something interesting ‘you are now those upon whom the end
of the world [age] has come’. Not the ‘end of existence’ but the time period
where Gods fullness has come [Galatians 4]. I find this interesting. The first
century Apostles saw the breaking in of the Kingdom of God ,
thru Christ, as the event and ‘moment’ that all human history hinged upon.
There was a real sense of ‘this is the special kairos season that all men have
been waiting for’. The New Testament teaches that even the angels were waiting
to see this day. One of the errors of dispensationalism was the idea that the
important, main event was still some future happening [the second coming].
While it is true that this event will happen, and it will be glorious. Yet
there was a sense in scripture that said the time of Christ’s death, burial and
resurrection was the act of reconciliation that turned the destiny of man. Paul
in essence was saying to the Corinthians ‘you don’t understand the full import
of all that the Father has called you to. You are part of the most important
movement in human history, all humanity has been waiting for this season, the
‘ends of the ages’ have come to this point. Don’t blow it for heavens sake’!
Got it? Let’s grasp the fact that we too are part of this ‘time period’ [the
new covenant kingdom age] and realize that our forefathers are watching from
the stands [Hebrews]. Let’s not blow it [I was going to say ‘like the Cowboys’
but this gets too many locals mad].
(974)1ST
CORINTHIANS 10: 5 ‘But with many of them God was not well pleased, for their
bodies were scattered in the wilderness’. As I just sat down and was debating
on how much to cover, I felt the Lord wanted me to stop with this one verse.
Let’s review a little. Does this experience of being ‘scattered in the
wilderness’ define past experiences for you? [Or present!] Historically the church
has always had to deal with wilderness times. St. John of the Cross called this ‘the dark
night of the soul’. After Mother Theresa’s death we found out that she
struggled with doubt many times thru out her life. The historic church has been
‘scattered in the wilderness’ over truly insignificant stuff. I find it
ridiculous that one of the main reasons the western [Catholic] and eastern
[Orthodox] churches split in 1054 a.d. was over the silly distinction of
whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father [the historic creed] or the
‘father and the Son’. This is considered the official cause of the split,
though there were many other factors as well. In a day or so we will cover a
verse that says ‘God is the head of Christ’. I had a friend that used to point
out the fact that many Baptists would refer to ‘God and Jesus and the Spirit’
he would think this was in error because they would leave out ‘the Father’. To
be honest he was consistent with Trinitarian thinking [I am one by the way!] If
the ‘sole’ definition of God in the New testament were ‘3 separate persons who
equally posses the Divine attributes’. Then the phrase ‘God is the head of
Jesus’ would not make sense. It would be like saying ‘God [Father, Jesus and
Holy spirit] are all the head of Jesus’. What am I saying here? Basically the
historic church came to certain ways of framing the argument that were limited
in their application. Does the New testament teach the Trinity? Yes. Does the
word ‘God’ primarily refer to ‘the father’ in its language? To be honest, it
does. Though the reality of the Trinity is there, yet the normative language of
‘God’ is referring to ‘the Father’. So my Baptist buddy was right in seeing a
contradiction when Baptists said ‘God, Jesus and the Spirit’. If they were true
to all the historic language, then they should have said ‘the father’ not
‘God’. Because ‘God’ would be the all encompassing language of ‘3 distinct
persons who all posses the divine attributes’. But in fact, my friend was
wrong. Why? Because the language of scripture mostly means ‘God the Father’
when simply saying ‘God’. Now why go into all this? Because the historic church
has been divided over the language used. Arian, the Catholic Bishop/Priest,
said that Jesus is ‘not God’. That ‘God the Father is God’. He was rightfully
condemned, and the Trinitarian language would prevail. The problem is some of
the language of the creeds and councils that would follow were not totally
accurate. Some of the Creeds would say ‘Jesus was eternally begotten [always
begotten]’ this statement was for the purpose of refuting those who said ‘Jesus
had a beginning’ [Arianism]. Now, did Jesus ‘have a beginning’? John’s gospel
says Jesus was with the father from the beginning, and that ‘the Word was with
God, and was God’. Jesus had no beginning! But, does this mean he was
‘eternally begotten’? No. He was begotten by Mary 2 thousand years ago.
Begotten refers to the incarnation, not the preexisting Son who was with the
father from all eternity. So the well intended phrase ‘eternally begotten’ was
wrong. Why even discuss this? Because most of Christian Orthodoxy would still
condemn certain aspects of the Syrian and Ethiopian churches over this. We at
times are ‘scattered in the wilderness’ and our ‘bodies’ [denominations,
divisions in Christendom] are a sad representation to the world. [NOTE- I want
to restate what I have said in the past. I believe in the Trinity. But I also
want you to see how other Christian perspectives have viewed these things in
the past. There are large groups of ‘historic churches’ [not Gnostics and stuff
like that, the so called ‘lost Christianities’] who lean towards Arianism. Most
of the invading barbarians who sacked the Western Roman empire were converted
to this ‘brand’ of Christianity. So while I hold to the historic orthodox view,
I wanted you to see that we too have been inconsistent at times].
(977)1ST
CORINTHIANS 10:15 -17 ‘The
cup that we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? The bread
which we break, is it not the communion of Christ's Body? We are all one bread,
we all partake equally of Christ’s Body and Blood. We exist as a community
because of him’ [my paraphrase]. Here in my study I have various volumes on
church history. I own catholic volumes, protestant ones, and even some from
‘the out of the institutional church’
perspective. Over the years I have learned that most believers tell their story
from their perspective. This is not a wrong thing, nor is it a purposeful act
to distort history. It’s just natural to see ‘your world’ thru your lens of
past experiences. Around the 17th century the Jesuit priests were
some of the first Christians to write systematic church histories. Though you
had many scholars who were informed on the subject, the Jesuits were the first
to try and bring all the previous centuries together and present them in an
orderly way that could be understood and read by the average student. There is
some debate on how accurate some of these first ‘tellings’ of history were. For
instance, some classic church histories [both catholic and protestant] show an
early 2nd century development of belief in the Eucharist as being
the literal Body and Blood of Jesus. Also most volumes focus on church figures
such as Iraneus , Tertullian, Augustine [4th- 5th centuries] and many other good men [I know I
spelled these names wrong!]. There seems to have been a basic belief that this
history is the only ‘history’ of the first few centuries. The problem with this
approach is we now have archealogical evidence from the first few centuries
that would support the idea that the early church might not have been as
‘institutional’ as previously thought. For instance, most histories say the
development of the monarchial episcopacy [single bishop over ‘a church/region’]
was early. But the evidence discovered shows that as late as the 2nd,
possibly early 3rd centuries you had bishops who were simply
elders/overseers in the early church. Burial places were uncovered that showed
multiple ‘bishops’ all buried in one spot. The evidence seems to indicate that
these were all men who served at the same time. Not one bishop dieing off while
others took his place. This would mean that some practicing Christians never
fully accepted the institutional idea of the single bishop. But you really
couldn’t find this out from a wide reading of all the different church
histories. Why? Were the Jesuits who put together the first cohesive history
trying to deceive people? Of course not! They were seeing church history thru
‘their lens’. Now, what in the world does this have to do with the verse on
communion? The word for communion here is a translation from the Greek word
‘koinonia’, which simply means ‘fellowship’. The church at Corinth practiced ‘communion’ as a love
feast. The early believers had their ‘communion service’ as a type of buffet
type fellowship where they all shared and came together in real friendship. Now
in the next chapter we will deal with some of the problems that arose out of
this practice, but the point today is I want you to see that when Paul says ‘we
are all one bread who are partaking from one loaf’ he is simply saying ‘just
like when we all get together and share in the communal meal, this is the same
way we all spiritually live off of the Body and Blood of Christ. We are ‘one
bread’ [people/communion] because we all derive our life from Jesus, the true
bread that came down from heaven’ [John 6]. I simply want to give you the
flavor of what Paul is saying. It’s easy to read these verse’s from the
sacramental perspective. To see the focus being on the actual bread and wine of
the meal. I think it’s better understood from the broader communal idea that I
just espoused. Our entire New Testament is the most verifiable collection of
first century documents ever to be found. Though we as believers take them as
Gods word, they also show us the most accurate historical picture of what the
early church believed and practiced. I think the reformers of the 16th
century were right in stating that the final authority should be the word of
God. They did not reject church tradition, but they said the final arbiter in
controversial issues was Gods word. Even the great Catholic humanist, Erasmus,
was known for his desire to ‘get back to the original sources’. He was helpful
in urging the Catholic Church towards reform by going back to the Greek New
Testament [most scholars were using the vulgate version, which was the Latin
translation. The Latin did not do justice to the Greek!] Well today’s point is
our New Testaments are accurate first century documents on early church belief
and practice. I think Erasmus cry to ‘get back to the sources’ would do us all
some good.
(978)1ST
CORINTHIANS 10: 18 -33 Paul
‘re-uses’ a previous analogy of the priests partaking of the meat from the
altar. Here he uses it to describe the reality of fellowship and being joined
to that which you worship. Now he deals with the idea of the meat from the idol
worship that was sold ‘in the shambles’ [market
place]. He already said this meat was fine. But here he says ‘the things
the gentiles offer are being offered to demons, so I don’t want you joining in
with this type of demonic worship’. It’s not a matter of the meat, or the idol!
It’s a matter of being unequally ‘yoked together with unbelievers’. This is a
theme that Paul discusses in this letter. It not only applies to marriage, but
also to any type of intimate fellowship with an unbeliever. Here's where a
distinction should be made. Yesterday one of my homeless buddies stopped by.
His name is Tim [carpenter Tim]. I mentioned him before. Tim’s a great friend
who I have known for many years. He just stopped by to say hi, he told me he
caught my radio show on Sunday and really enjoyed it. They get a kick out of
being real friends with some so called ‘radio preacher’. I think it’s hard at
times to connect the ‘radio guy’ with the simple brother who takes them out to
eat and stuff. Tim is a believer who works regularly [thus the name carpenter
Tim!] He does not take the free handouts and stuff that are offered to the
local homeless population. But I have helped Tim as a friend and brother in the
Lord for many years. I asked if he has heard anything about Bill ‘painter
Bill’. I have known Bill just as long as Tim. These are the original homeless
guys I met in the early 1990’s. Bill is in his 70’s, Tim is around my age [I am
46 years old as I write]. Bill was a bitter homeless person. Just too many
years of going thru stuff. Over the years we had become real good friends. I
think he sees me as one of his best friends. A few weeks back I heard he was on
a respirator and they though he wasn’t going to make it. It sounded pretty bad.
As of right now I don’t know if he’s alive or not. A few months back I was
giving Bill a ride home. He had a temporary place to live at the time. He did
ask if I had a few dollars to spare. I don’t remember if I did or not to be
honest. But I told Bill I don’t make the same amount of money since I retired.
Just to let him know that’s why we haven’t gone to eat recently. He also asked
me if I wanted to get the free eye checkup from the mission. They had some
locals donate their time and they would get the guys free glasses. I told him
that's all right, I don’t want to take stuff that’s meant for the homeless [I
also don’t eat the free meals]. They get upset that I don't use the system. So
as we arrive at Bills trailer he asks if I could come in for a minute. I told
him sure. He handed me the free glasses he recently got, he asks me to try them
on. I did. He then offers them to me. I told him no thanks, though I appreciated
the offer. Bill was willing to give me his glasses. When Paul the apostle deals
with having fellowship with unbelievers, he is not telling us to have no
contact with the lost world. He is showing the Corinthians that they were not
to be partakers of evil things along with the world. We are here to reach out
to the world, not to have fellowship with evil things, but to be like Jesus. He
was accused of being ‘a friend of sinners’. Do you have any ‘sinner friends’?
(980)1ST CORINTHIANS 11: 1-16 at first I was just
going to skip this section and say ‘I know you didn’t get your moneys worth,
but wait, you guys didn’t give me any money!’ But this would be a cheap shot.
So what do we do with portions of scripture that are difficult? I have heard
this taught in a way that says ‘Christ is
[parts]
HERACLITUS- Ok- lets pick up on my philosophy stuff.
Heraclitus lived in the 6th/5th century BC.
- He was from Ephesus and his key thought was Ever Present Change.
That is he saw everything as being in a state of continual flux-
one of his famous sayings was ‘No man ever steps into the same river twice’.
He is called the Weeping Philosopher- sort of like the prophet
Jeremiah in the bible- also called the Weeping Prophet.
Heraclitus is known for his concept of the Logos- the Word- or
thought/reason.
Now- this aspect of his thought plays a role in the development of
the Christian understanding of Christ himself- in our New Testaments [written
in Greek] Jesus is indeed referred to as the Logos- or Word of God.
The Greek philosophers understanding of the Logos was not the same
as the Christian view- mainly expressed thru the writings of John [The gospel-
the 3 epistles- and Revelation].
But- some see the Greek view as a precursor to Christ.
In the work of one of the early church fathers- Hippolytus ‘The
Refutation of all Heresies’ he attacks Heraclitus view of the Logos as an early
form of heresy.
The apologist Justin Martyr is more gracious- he [Like Ulrich
Zwingli- the great Swiss reformer of the 16th century] viewed the
early Geek thinkers as ‘pre- Christian’ or ‘Christians before Christ’.
Though many reject this view- yet there is some scripture to back
it up.
The apostle Paul said in his letter to the Romans that if the
Gentiles [non-Jews] do by nature the things contained in the law- then they are
justified in God’s sight.
Of course these things are debatable- but I add this to show you
that some great Christian thinkers did indeed view the early Greek thinkers-
who did live by a moral code- as being right in God’s eyes.
And the bible does teach a theme that we will be judged according
to the amount of light [understanding] that we had at the time.
I should note that Plato [one of the 3 titans that arose after
Heraclitus- from the city/state of Athens] disagreed with Heraclitus on all
things being in a state of constant change.
When [if?] we get to Socrates- Plato and Aristotle- I’ll try and
cover the ways they advanced- built upon- the thought of the pre Socratic
thinkers.
As a side note- the most famous student of Aristotle- who was the
most famous student of Plato- who was the most famous student of Socrates- was
Alexander the Great.
This goes to show you how great an influence Greek philosophy had
on the ancient world.
A few nuggets from Heraclitus- ‘all things come to pass in
accordance with this Logos’ ‘follow the common’ ‘not having their own
judgment’.
Recently I covered Acts chapter 2- and we see some of these ideas
in the early Christian movement.
The first Christians did ‘follow the common’ they sold their
goods- and had ‘all things common’ [communal lifestyle].
The apostle Paul teaches the early church to all ‘speak the same
thing- that there be no divisions among you’.
And the New Testament also says the scripture should not be given
to Private Interpretation- meaning- ‘not having your own personal judgment’.
All in all- we do indeed see a sort of pre Christian thought in
the pre Socratic thinkers- they did indeed speak of the Divine- God- though
there understanding of him was not the same as the Christian church.
In a sense- Heraclitus idea that in life- the only ‘constant’ is
the fact that there is no constant- that life itself is made up of an ongoing
journey- we live day by day- not ever knowing what ‘the next day will bring forth’-
Jesus.
Yeah- the man had some good points- the later Stoics would
consider Heraclitus as the father of their movement.
And in the study of Philosophy- the Stoics- who had a good run
from a few years before the Common Era- were overtaken in the 4th
century [as the main influential philosophy of the time] by some new and
lasting philosophy- started by a man named Jesus Christ- who his followers
claimed rose from the dead.
Yeah- this New Way was called Christianity- and this philosophy
has endured now for over 2 thousand years.
SOCRATES
Socrates was born around
469-470 BCE.
He is famous for
introducing a way of learning that engaged the students in a dialogue- the
question would be put on the table- and thru rigorous debate- you would come to
an understanding thru the process of questioning.
[parts]
His most famous student-
Plato- spoke with him before his death.
Many were surprised at how
willingly Socrates faced his demise- and this willingness had a great impact on
those who witnessed it.
Socrates never wrote
anything- but most of what we do know about him comes from the writing of
others- most notably from Plato’s Dialogues.
Plato wrote down what
Socrates taught- In his writings we see Socrates engaging in this method with
various people- thus the name of Plato’s works- Dialogues.
There is a debate about
how much of what was written about him was actually true- Plato did add his own
ideas into these debates- and the controversy about this is so strong that we
actually have a name for it- the ‘Socratic Problem’.
During the time of the
disillusionment of the Athenians- there were a group of philosophers known as
the Sophists.
The word comes from
Sophia- meaning wisdom.
Philosophy itself means
The Love of Wisdom.
In our day the words Sophomore-
Sophistry and Sophisticated are derived from this root word.
The Sophists were the
original Pragmatists.
Pragmatism is a form of
belief that says ‘do what works- regardless of the ethical implications’.
We will get to Pragmatism
at the end of this whole series on Philosophy.
But for now- we see the
division between what Socrates taught- and the Sophists.
Socrates did indeed teach
a form of Ethics- which contrasted with the Sophists.
He said that the pursuit
of virtue was better than the pursuit of wealth- much like the words of Jesus
‘what does it profit a man if he gain the world- and lose his soul’.
His most famous saying is
‘The unexamined life is not worth living’.
He emphasized the
importance of mind over body- which inspired Plato’s philosophy of dividing
reality into 2 separate realms- the world of senses and the world of ideas.
Socrates actually
challenged the Democratic process- he believed it better for the wise men- the
Philosopher Kings- to run the show.
Athens did have a form of
Democracy at the time- and because of the rise of the Sophists- and the
itinerant teachers- you had sort of an election process- much like in our day-
where those who would attain office were those who spoke the best- and made the
best public argument.
We elect judges and stuff
in our day- and even presidents- not because they are the most capable- but
because they ran the best campaign.
So- in a way I agree with
Socrates- at times I think we need a better process of electing those to higher
office- then the one we have now.
It’s important to note
that even though we started this study with Thales- and in the study of Western
philosophy it’s commonly understood to have started with Thales.
Yet- Socrates seems to be
the Father of philosophy in many ways.
He probably has had the
most influence in the field philosophy- and the 2 great philosophers that we’ll
get to next come right out from the heels of Socrates [Plato and Aristotle].
Why is this important to
note?
As we progress in this
study- and get closer to the 19th/20th century
philosophers- we will see a trend- away from the idea that there are actually
any ethical values- moral virtues- or ‘right or wrong’.
These philosophers dabbled
with the idea that values themselves are the cause of man’s problems [Freud].
So- keep in mind- one of
the main streams of thought in the early stages of philosophy was that values
were indeed the main thing- Socrates challenged the Sophists of his day- he
said that moral virtue was very important- that to live life with the values of
courage- honesty- self-denial- these were the things that made men good- noble.
The bible says ‘the fear
of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ ‘those that seek the Lord understand
all things’.
Christian tradition would
agree with Socrates in many ways- Jesus showed us that the virtue of service to
others- to love your fellow man- to honor God- that these were indeed the heart
of the matter.
Socrates feared the loss
of virtue in society- that if we simply lived for the present time- with no
higher values [a form of hedonism] then the foundations of society will erode.
He also believed that it
was good to question things- not to simply believe a thing for the sake of
believing.
Over time- thru debate and
the discourse of other people- he believed you would get to the truth.
The bible says ‘in the
multitude of counselors there is safety’.
Yeah- as people have a
conversation- as they dialogue- often times they themselves come up with the
answer to the question.
The apostle Paul penned
the letter to young Timothy- he said ‘preach the word- in doing this you will
save yourself- and those that hear you’.
Yeah- when you engage- and
even try and teach others- this will have an effect on you too- the actual act
of engaging- of teaching- often brings more insight to the one doing the
communicating- then the ones who hear.
Yeah- I like Socrates- he
believed in what he taught- he drank the Hemlock- knowing full well that his
life would pass- but he had belief- faith- that after death man would pass over
into another realm- a much better one.
No- he was not ‘Christian’
in the traditional sense of the word- but he was about as close as you could
get- for his time.
PLATO
Plato was born in 427 BC- he was the most famous student of
Socrates.
[parts]
(837)ROMANS 7:14-25 Paul now
shows us the reality of Gods law and its effect on man. ‘When I do something
that I DON’T WANT TO DO, then I consent unto the law that it is good’. Did you
ever think of this? The fact that you [or even the atheist!] have done things
that ‘you don’t want to do’ proves the existence of God and natural law [which
the 10 commandments were only a glimpse, they reveal a small part of Gods
character and nature]. So if you, or anybody else, have ever struggled with ‘I
am doing something that I hate’. Then why do it? Or better, why hate it? You
yourself are an actual living testimony of ‘the law of God’. Your own
conscience testifies that there are
‘good things’ and ‘bad things’. You also testify of the fact of sin ‘why
do you keep doing the bad things’? Alas, that thing called ‘sin’ does exist!
Paul shows us that the experience of every human member on the planet testifies
to both the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man. Freud [the father
of modern Psychology] saw this war rage in the psyche of man, he came up with
an idea that we need to ‘free man’ from this inner moral struggle. He espoused
the idea that in mans ‘head’ he has this preconceived image of ‘God’ and right
or wrong. Being Freud was a child of the Enlightenment, as well as a student of
Existentialism [though the Father of Existentialism was a Christian, the Danish
theologian/ philosopher Soren Kierkegaard] he taught that if we could just
eliminate this ‘God idea’ and ‘church moral code’ from mans mind, then all
would be well! Geez, I could hardly think of a more destructive thing than to
tell man ‘if it feels right, do it’! Paul taught ‘if you can’t stop doing
something that ‘feels right’ then you are sinning!’[if that which ‘feels right’
is making you miserable!] And the very fact that you can’t escape the guilt,
proves that God exists and that his law is this unstoppable force that invades
all human consciences. Paul knew the struggle, he testifies thru out scripture
that he tried to become right with God over and over again, but the ‘law of
sin’ [the sinful nature. Here ‘law’ is speaking of the ‘principle of sin’ and
the fleshly nature] prevented him from keeping the ‘law of God’ [doing what’s
right], he then found the ‘righteousness of God that comes thru faith in
Christ’. Paul ends the chapter ‘O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me
from the body of this death’? ‘I thank God thru Jesus Christ my Lord’. Paul
found the answer, his name was Jesus.
Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to
them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as
he liveth?
Romans
7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so
long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of
her husband.Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid.
Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the
law had said,
[parts]
(1223) INTRO,
CHAPTER 1- Out of all of Paul’s letters, this one is the most autobiographical.
This is Paul’s 3rd letter [some think 4th] to the Church
at Corinth .
There is a missing letter that we don’t have. Some scholars feel parts of the
missing letter are in this letter [chapters 6, 10-13] either way, we know the
letter is inspired and part of the canon of scripture. In chapter one Paul
recounts the difficulties he went thru [and continues to go thru] for the sake
of the gospel. Paul sees both his sufferings AND his deliverance as beneficial
for the communities [churches] he is relating to. He says ‘God
establishes/strengthens us and anoints us together with you’. Paul’s view of
the church [his ecclesiology] is that God works with corporate groups of
believers. His view on discipline is seen from this angle. In 1st
Corinthians he says because we do not live to ourselves, therefore if one is in
open, unrepentant sin, then commit him to judgment. Why? Because everything
that one member does affects the others. I would not go so far and say that
Paul taught ‘no salvation outside of the church’ but he sees salvation and Gods
working with humans as a corporate experience. The Catholic Church for the
first time in her history accepted other Protestant churches who confess Christ
and his deity as ‘separated brethren’. This happened at Vatican 2 [1962-65]. The council
explicitly taught the other churches were actually ‘churches’. They
specifically used the word ‘subsists’ when describing their view of the church.
They said the church
of Christ subsists in the
Catholic Church in it’s fullness. They still believe that the fullest
expression of Christ’s church on earth is contained within her, but they
rejected the hard line doctrine that the church exclusively resides within her.
They realized that God was working with all Christian groups/churches, not just
one. I recently saw an ad in my local paper from one of the traditional Latin
churches, these are the old ‘tridentine’ churches who observe the mass in
Latin. The ad said that salvation is only in the Catholic expression of the
church. I hate to correct my Catholic brothers [being I am a Protestant] but
this language is not in keeping with the spirit of Vatican 2. Paul understood that God
was working with him along with the corporate groups of people that he was
relating to as an apostle. He will even teach that this dynamic can take place
when they are physically separated, i.e.; he did not have to be in the same
room/city for God to be working with them as a community. This is very
important to see, it comes against certain expressions of local church. It also
opens the door for other expressions of church, like ‘on-line’ communities.
There are passages of scripture where Paul does say that whether he is with
them in body or not, yet he is present in spirit joying and beholding their
growth in Christ. Or he says word got back to him about their growth and he
rejoiced in it. While believers should physically meet together as a testimony
of their faith, yet the fact that there are occasions where this might not be
possible does not mean that they can’t be joined together in spirit and truth.
Peter says ‘you who were not a people are now the people of God. You who did
not obtain mercy have now obtained it’. God ‘birthed’ churches [communities of
believers] thru the apostolic ministry of Paul, these groups were both birthed
and received mercy as a corporate event, they understood that they were
brothers and sisters in Christ.
(1221) Lets finish up some thoughts on the book ‘surprised
by hope’ [N.T. Wright] all in all I liked the book and brother Wright, but to
be honest I didn’t like it as much as I thought I would. Wright is the very
popular Bishop of Durham [Church of England]
[parts]
(740) the
prophets have spoken about! The church must not be ashamed of the gospel.
Recently the ‘church world’ was up in arms over the Popes recent reinstating of
the Tridentine Mass [the Latin Mass]. After Vatican 2 the Mass was done solely
in the language of the hearers. Many old time Catholics were wanting the Latin
too. So Pope Benedict said fine, you have the option to practice it either way.
Now, this ancient Mass had a prayer that simply prayed for the Jewish people to
come to know Jesus. Well, this upset the Jewish groups and they demanded a
change in the prayer. At first the Pope re wrote it but it still asked for
prayer for the Jews to come to Jesus. This still offended them. So finally the
church produced some prayer less offensive. We should not be ashamed of the
gospel of Christ and his resurrection! Peter was preaching the reality of the
resurrection and was in their face about it! Jesus has proven himself to be
alive, we are not just witnesses of the existence of God, we are witnesses that
Jesus is the way to him. The only way! Now Peter ends this chapter in a unique
way. He invokes the ‘blessing of Abraham’ and says it means ‘the blessing of
Jesus in turning you away from sin’. We just finished a study in Genesis. I
emphasized how the New testament apostles viewed the Abrahamic blessing thru
the lens of redemption. They did not teach it in a materialistic way. Peter
also quotes Moses [as well as David] and says ‘Moses said the Lord would raise
up a prophet like myself, whoever doesn’t hear him will be destroyed’. Peter
sees the fulfillment of ‘the Moses type prophet’ in Christ. Peter has a great
gift of taking the old testament prophets and proving Christ from them. There
is a young hearer in this early church. He will eventually become one of the
first Deacons. His name is Stephen, boy he must be drinking everything in. He
is seeing and hearing the testimony of Jesus straight from those who walked
with him. He hears Peter’s teachings on Christ. He becomes familiar with the
way Peter associates the ‘Moses prophet’ with Jesus. This young man will
testify in Acts 7 of the reality of Jesus being the fulfillment of the Moses
prophecy. He will give the longest recorded sermon in scripture. He will
brilliantly trace the roots of Israel
and show how Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophets. He will be accused of
going against the law and the temple. He has the first grasp of ‘Pauline
theology’ [actually Paul got it from him!] and does such a convincing job of
proving Jesus to be Messiah that they stone him to death. He becomes the first
martyr in the book of Acts. At his death he says ‘forgive them; don’t hold this
sin against them’. A witness named Saul is sitting by. God answers Stephens’s
prayer and Saul will become one of the greatest fire starters known to man.
ACTS 2- The Apostles are gathered together in the upper
room. As they continue in unity and prayer the Spirit of God comes upon them
like a rushing wind. There appear ‘cloven tongues’ like fire above each of
them. Why this image? Why not ‘ears’ or some other sanctified body part? God is
going to give supernatural power to the words that they will speak. In a few
chapters we will read how an angel will supernaturally deliver Peter from
prison and say ‘go, speak the words of this life’. These tongues are a precursor
to the tremendous fire that will be loosed from their lips. James says the
tongue is a little member but boasteth great things, it has the ability to
start fires. Jesus said he came to
[parts]
HEBREWS 10-13
END NOTES OF POST-
Masada.
Hadrian.
Judaism in transition.
Did they ‘move on’ ?
Who was Elazar ben Yair?
End notes of chapter-
IS THERE MEANING TO THE ACTUAL ORDER OF BIBLE VERSES?
HOW DID THE SPIRIT ‘TESTIFY’ TO THE FINAL SACRIFICE?
WHY DOES THE WRITER CONTINUE TO SAY THE NEW COVENANT IS HARSHER?
CHAPTER 10:
‘For the law having a SHADOW of good things to
come, AND NOT the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices
which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshipers
once purged should have no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices
there is a remembrance again made of sins every year’. Paul shows how the
simple fact of ongoing sacrifices in and of itself testifies of the
insufficiency of the law. The on going sacrifices were a reminder that the
peoples sins were still there. If the sacrifices really worked, then why do it
over and over again every year? He will contrast this with the singular
sacrifice of Christ. The fact that Jesus did it once shows the superiority of
his sacrifice over the law.
‘Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he
saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared
me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. THEN
SAID HE, lo, I come to do thy will O God. ABOVE WHEN HE SAID sacrifice and
offering…THEN HE SAID, lo, I come to do thy will O God. He taketh away the
first that he may establish the second’ Here Paul uses the actual order of the
verses in Psalms to prove that the Old law will pass away and a New covenant
will replace it. The fact that David [Psalms] says ‘sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me’ in this order shows that
God always planned on taking away the sacrificial system and replacing it with
Christ [or fulfilling it!] So even in the simple prophetic order of these
statements Paul sees the Old law passing away and a new one being instituted.
Wow again!
‘By the which will we are sanctified thru the
offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every high priest
STANDETH daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which
can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for
sins forever, SAT DOWN on the right hand of God’ The comparison here is that
the priests under the law stood, showing their sacrifices were never
sufficient, they could never say ‘it is finished’. The fact that they stood
while offering sacrifices showed the incompleteness of the system. Jesus sat
down. This showed that his sacrifice was once and for all. Now, no where does
scripture teach this concept between ‘sitting and standing’. Where does Paul
get this stuff from? From ‘revelation’, that is God is supernaturally showing
this stuff to Paul as he writes. This is the prophetic element of scripture.
While we don’t ‘write scripture’ any more today, there are still lots of hidden
meanings that we don’t fully see yet. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to
‘bring to our remembrance all the things that Jesus taught us’ [also all the
things about Jesus!] So when you read the Old Testament, look for Jesus! He is
there in more ways than you realize.
‘For by ONE offering he hath perfected for
ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us
[of what? Of the singularity of Christ’s offering. The fact that the Holy
Spirit thru Jeremiah prophesied that God would never remember our sins any more
speaks to the truth of the one offering of Christ, we will read ‘if there is no
more remembrance, then there is no more sacrifice’] this is the covenant that I
will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into
their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and
iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is
no more offering for sin’. Do you see the point Paul is making? It is common
for preachers and Christians to read these letters and to simply glean
practical truths from them. That’s OK. But like I said in the introduction,
when you see these things in context, then you can still make practical
application, plus you are seeing the relevance behind the teaching. The
practical part of this is ‘wow, God will not bring my sins back up into
remembrance before his face!’ Now that’s practical!
‘Having therefore,
brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest [true holy place, that is Gods
presence in the throne room] by the BLOOD OF JESUS, by a new and living way[
the early Christians were at times called ‘the way’] which he hath consecrated
for us, thru the veil, that is to say his flesh’ We now have total access to
the Father thru the Son. This is the ONLY WAY man can have this access! It is
common today to teach a type of pluralism that says ‘all religions will
eventually lead us to God’ some will lead straight to hell! Sorry. The only way
to the Father is thru the Son. God ordained it to be so. Don’t fight over it,
God says ‘come freely’ those who don’t come, they will never GET THERE! Jesus
flesh is called the ‘veil’. During the crucifixion the veil of the temple was
rent in two from the top to the
[parts]
(837)ROMANS 7:14-25 Paul now
shows us the reality of Gods law and its effect on man. ‘When I do something
that I DON’T WANT TO DO, then I consent unto the law that it is good’. Did you
ever think of this? The fact that you [or even the atheist!] have done things
that ‘you don’t want to do’ proves the existence of God and natural law [which
the 10 commandments were only a glimpse, they reveal a small part of Gods
character and nature]. So if you, or anybody else, have ever struggled with ‘I
am doing something that I hate’. Then why do it? Or better, why hate it? You
yourself are an actual living testimony of ‘the law of God’. Your own
conscience testifies that there are
‘good things’ and ‘bad things’. You also testify of the fact of sin ‘why
do you keep doing the bad things’? Alas, that thing called ‘sin’ does exist!
Paul shows us that the experience of every human member on the planet testifies
to both the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man. Freud [the father
of modern Psychology] saw this war rage in the psyche of man, he came up with
an idea that we need to ‘free man’ from this inner moral struggle. He espoused
the idea that in mans ‘head’ he has this preconceived image of ‘God’ and right
or wrong. Being Freud was a child of the Enlightenment, as well as a student of
Existentialism [though the Father of Existentialism was a Christian, the Danish
theologian/ philosopher Soren Kierkegaard] he taught that if we could just
eliminate this ‘God idea’ and ‘church moral code’ from mans mind, then all
would be well! Geez, I could hardly think of a more destructive thing than to
tell man ‘if it feels right, do it’! Paul taught ‘if you can’t stop doing
something that ‘feels right’ then you are sinning!’[if that which ‘feels right’
is making you miserable!] And the very fact that you can’t escape the guilt, proves
that God exists and that his law is this unstoppable force that invades all
human consciences. Paul knew the struggle, he testifies thru out scripture that
he tried to become right with God over and over again, but the ‘law of sin’
[the sinful nature. Here ‘law’ is speaking of the ‘principle of sin’ and the
fleshly nature] prevented him from keeping the ‘law of God’ [doing what’s
right], he then found the ‘righteousness of God that comes thru faith in
Christ’. Paul ends the chapter ‘O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me
from the body of this death’? ‘I thank God thru Jesus Christ my Lord’. Paul
found the answer, his name was Jesus.
Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to
them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as
he liveth?
Romans
7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so
long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of
her husband.
Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to
another man,
[parts]
Zechariah 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling
unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against
Judah and against Jerusalem.
Zechariah 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome
stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in
pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
Zechariah 12:4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every
horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes
upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with
blindness.
Zechariah 12:5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their
heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts
their God.
Zechariah 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like
an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they
shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and
Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave
the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the
iniquity of that land in one day. Zech. 3:9
Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly
purgehis floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will
burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Matt. 3:12
Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in
the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in
the seat of the scornful.
Psalm
1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate
day and night.Psalm 1:3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
Psalm 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
Psalm 1:5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
Psalm 1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he
judgeth among the gods.
Psalm 82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons
of the wicked? Selah.
Psalm 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the
afflicted and needy.
Psalm 82:4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of
the wicked.
Psalm 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk
on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children
of the most High.
Psalm 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the
princes.
Psalm 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit
all nations.
Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto
the Lord, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for
he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. Ex. 15:1
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the
foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he
buildeth thereupon. 1st Cor. 3:10
And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but
on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. Matt.
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye
able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
Note- Please 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.#
No comments:
Post a Comment