ELI’S BOOK
ON VIDEO-
.Why did Paul work to support himself and others?
.Did I relapse?
.Will you pray for me?
.Baptist- Catholic- Orthodox
.House church?
.Should we tithe?
.Law or Christ?
.Bishops
.Church history
.Russia goes Orthodox
.Moscow the new Rome?
.The Papacy
.John of Damascus
.Icons
NOTE- It just so happened that I mentioned Istanbul Turkey-
and Moscow on this teaching- a day or 2 before the recent events. I posted a
short video yesterday about the downing of the Russian plane by Turkey. https://youtu.be/LLmMWnq8uQY
Brief overview- we [U.S.] are ‘in’ Syria because we are
supposed to be fighting terrorists- and nations that support them. Russia is
also in Syria to fight terrorists.
Russia is fighting all of them [including the ones that
Turkey supports- and backs- also called ‘rebels’- some of these groups we too
support- because even though they are similar to ISIS- yet we overlook it-
because they are fighting Assad [strange- I know].
Now- Turkey is also a member of NATO- meaning we will ‘back
them up- like one of our own’.
So- in our war against terror- we will also theoretically ‘go
to war’ against any nation that threatens nations in the NATO alliance [meaning
we will defend nations that support terrorism].
Ok- Turkey shoots down a Russian plane [in Syrian airspace-
an act of war- which president Obama defended] because the Russians are also
bombing the terrorists that Turkey supports.
They shot down a Russian plane because the Russians are killing
terrorists [though the ones Turkey backs don’t have the title of ISIS].
Now- after the plane was shot down- the Russians sent in a
rescue helicopter- which too was shot at- by ‘rebels’ on the ground [who were
the terrorists Russia was bombing].
These so called rebels- shot at the helicopter- using U.S.
weapons- provided to them- wit U.S. backing [in theory- we supplied the
terrorists that killed the Russian rescue team].
Now- Russia is mad- and we are supposed to support Turkey-
even if it means war- because Turkey shot down a Russian plane- who were
targeting terrorists.
Utterly amazing to me.
PAST POSTS [verses below]
I told him ‘did you know that
Muhammad- the founder of Islam in the 7th century- had many of the
same protests that other Christian groups would later voice too’.
I explained that Muhammad’s rise
in defense of the poor and down cast [by the way- that’s actually a biblical
characteristic of prophets- in the bible] were similar to Christian movements
that would rise later on- like the Salvation Army.
I went on to show that he also
felt like the growing use of statues in Christian worship was a violation of
the commandment that says you should not make images/idols.
Now- to my Catholic friends- I
have taught the entire history of the use of art- and yes- statues- in
Christian worship.
I have also taught against the
Iconoclasts- those Protestants who destroyed the statues in the Catholic
churches- during the times of the Reformation [16th century].
So- I’m not ‘Catholic bashing’ at
all.
The point is- Muhammad had some
of the same objections- based on the bible- that later Protestants would have.
Gee John- I never knew this? That’s why I teach it- it helps to have less of
a negative view of Muslims as a whole.
So- after I try to look at some
of the good things that Islam has done [Hamas- in the Palestinian area. Why do
they garnish so much support among the populace? Because they start hospitals-
they feed the poor- they start welfare programs for the kids. Do they do this
as some sort of trick- a way to gain the hearts and minds of people? No- they
do this because it’s a basic tenet of their faith].
Okay- then what do I say to any
Al-Qaida on the site?
I say that the historic
divisions- the things that divide the East from the West- many of them are
actual misunderstandings.
Yes- some of the religious
objections were misunderstandings.
The classic one.
Muhammad believed that the
Christians worshipped 3 Gods- what we call the Trinity.
But he thought the believers
worshipped God- Jesus- and Mary-the mother of Jesus.
That’s of course not the trinity-
this is simply a misunderstanding.
Christians believe that there is
one God- in 3 persons.
Those persons being the Father-
Son and Holy Spirit.
But the biggest thing I like to
show my Muslim friends- my friends form other faiths- is that the message of
the Cross- it’s one of grace.
Christians believe that Jesus
kept all the commandments of God- then he died to pay the price for our sins.
As Christians- we don’t teach
against the 10 commandants- but we don’t use them to gain acceptance with God-
the acceptance we have with God comes because of the death of his Son on our
behalf.
In actuality- this message is a
great relief for all people who live ‘under the law’.
That is- if your Muslim- if your
Al-Qaida- you too can take this.
Yes- Jesus died for you too.
That’s the appeal I make- I’m not
asking my friends from other faiths to convert- if they want to- fine.
But that’s not my appeal.
I’m saying to all my friends-
this message of the Cross- this is for all people.
Heck- if you want to stay Muslim-
stay- but just accept the reality of this post.
Yes- Jesus is spoken about much
in the Quran.
The prophet Muhammad respected
Jesus.
[parts]
(635) Yesterday
morning I got up early and prayed a weekly prayer that includes the nations.
Part of this time goes like this ‘Lord I pray for all religions outside of the
covenant of your Son. All Jewish people, that they would see Jesus their
messiah. All Muslim people, that you would give them signs and prophetic
visions and dreams to show them Jesus is the way’. Then this morning I had a
dream that family members were converting to Islam. That they were being
‘attacked’ or influenced by the ‘spirit of Islam’. In the dream I felt helpless
against this force. We went to sleep [in the dream!] and I awoke [still
dreaming this] with a radical spirit of intercession. I began praying and
breaking the power of Islam off of the family members that just a few hours
earlier seemed to be fully lost to Islam. I felt this dream spoke to the
effectiveness we have been having recently with Muslims. These last few weeks
have given opportunity to share with a homeless Muslim Iraq war veteran. Good
friend. Then a Muslim friend from England started conversing with me
and asking how to become Christian. He is reading this site! It never dawned on
me that these were fruits from the prayer time! Like I said before, I can be
dense at times. Let me cover some church history. I have had someone argue with
me about the history of Islam. Not a Muslim, but a Christian who was saying
‘why do you say Islam started in the 7th century, it started around
the 11th’. My answer was ‘Muhammad lived in the 7th century’.
Not to hard to see this. So I thought I should cover some history. During the
time of the rise of Islam, the Christian church was already dividing from east
and west. After Constantine [4th century Roman emperor] consolidated
the Roman Empire in the 4th century he set up the capital city of
the eastern empire, Constantinople [named
after him]. As time progressed the western church would take on the form of
Roman Catholicism, the eastern [Constantinople
area. Modern day Turkey-Istanbul] would be known as ‘Orthodox’. Though the
official split of eastern and western [Catholic-Rome!] churches occurred in
1054 AD, yet the division started years before. The official split is called
‘the great schism’ of the 11th century; it would not be until 500
years later that the church would have her ‘reformation’. The official reason
for this split was over a rather silly thing. For centuries the Catholic church
had an expression that said ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father’ than
they included ‘he proceeds from the father and the Son’. Well the eastern
brothers didn’t like Rome
telling them what to believe and used this as the official reason to ‘have the
schism’. To be honest the divisions were coming for years. After the Roman
Empire consolidated under Constantine ,
he tried to strengthen the eastern territories of his empire and for centuries
you had the struggle for which region would be the most influential. At first
you had 5 major areas that were divided under 5 main Bishops. As time went on
the argument would be ‘which bishop has the most say so’ and it was really a
power struggle. Finally Rome said ‘the bishop of
Rome is the
FIRST AMONG EQUALS [a term that many in the Protestant strain of the discipling
movement would later embrace] he holds Peters seat’ and this is really where
the divisions started. Eventually Muhammad would rise and Islam would take
control of the eastern capital. This later became the reason for the crusades.
The Catholic church wanted to regain the territories that she lost in the east.
The eastern churches are very much Catholic in many ways. They also hold to a
view of Christianity that sees man being ‘joined’ with God and becoming
pleasing to God thru Christ’s grace uniting with us and making us like him. A
perfectly scriptural view, but a different emphasis from the strong
intellectual power that you read about from the western fathers of the church.
The Catholic church is noted for her social action in ways that the eastern
church is not. So both of these communions have good things to bring to the
table. The Orthodox [eastern] churches would not be affected by the major
social and political upheavals that took place in the west. The Renaissance,
the Reformation and the Enlightenment had major impacts on western
Christianity, while not affecting the eastern church in the same way. During
the 13th century you would have ‘pre reformers’ rise up in the
western church. John Wycliffe, the great Catholic Priest who was at the center
of learning in France
would become known for his translating the scriptures into the common language.
Then you have John Huss and John Knox [3 Johns, scripture says 3 fold cords are
not easily broken!] who would have their own influence in western Christianity.
At this time you had whole movements of believers who would be seen as neither
‘western or eastern’ but restorationist [the restoring of the early practices
and beliefs of the church] Peter Waldo would be the Father of the Waldensians
and in the 12th century you would have the Albigenses in the south
of France .
These groups would be looked upon as ‘cults’ [though the term was not used yet]
by the traditional church. So you can see how the church has been growing and
reforming ever since the first century. Even though we see many divisions that
exist till this day, there are strides being made for unity. The eastern and
western church are very close to‘re uniting’ once again. While I do not
personally hold to the doctrine of the Pope being the occupier of Peter’s seat,
I also see him as a Christian man who is striving for unity in Christ’s church.
Some believe the whole attempt for outward unity is futile. The more ardent
Protestants see it as ‘the one world church of the anti christ’ I reject that
language out of hand. Well I hope you got something out of this short overview
of world history [real short!].
[parts]
(820) .
ROMANS 6- Lets talk about baptism. To start off I believe that the baptism
spoken about in this chapter is primarily referring to ‘the baptism of the
Spirit’, that is the work of the Holy Spirit placing a believer in the Body of
Christ. The Catholic and Orthodox [and Reformed!] brothers believe that Paul is
speaking about water baptism. The MAJORITY VIEW of Christians today believe
this chapter is referring to water baptism. Why? First, the text itself does
not indicate either way. You could take this baptism and see it either way! You
are not a heretic if you believe in it referring to Spirit or water. You are
not a heretic if you believe in Paedo baptism [infant baptism]. ‘What are you saying?
Now you lost me.’ Infant baptism developed as a Christian rite over the course
of church history. The church struggled with how to ‘dedicate’ new babies to
Christ. Though the scriptures give no examples of infant baptism, some felt
that the reason was because the scriptures primarily show us the conversion of
the first century believers. There really aren’t a whole lot of stories of
‘generations’ of believers passing on the faith to other generations. So some
felt that the idea of dedicating babies to the Lord through infant baptism was
all right. The examples they used were the circumcision of babies in the Old
Testament. Infants were circumcised [a rite that placed you under the terms of
the Old Covenant] though they weren’t old enough to really understand what they
were doing! This example was carried over into the Christian church and applied
to infant baptism. Now, I do not believe in infant baptism. But I can certainly
understand this line of reasoning. As Christian theology developed thru the early
centuries, particularly thru the patristic period, you had very intellectual
scholars grapple with many different themes and ideas. Some that we just
studied in chapter 5. Some theologians came to see infant baptism as dealing
with original sin. They applied the concept of infant baptism as a rite that
washes away original sin. The church did not teach that this meant you did not
have to later believe and follow Christ. They simply developed a way of seeing
baptism as ‘sanctifying’ the new members of Christian households. This basic
belief made it all the way to the Reformation. The Reformers themselves still
practiced infant baptism. It was the Anabaptists [re-baptizers] who saw the
truth of adult baptism and suffered for it, at the hands of the reformers!
Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, would have them drowned for their belief.
Some Protestants stuck with the infant rite, while others [the Restorationists]
would reject it. Today most Evangelicals do not practice infant baptism, the
majority of Christians world wide do. Now, the reason I did a little history is
because Evangelicals [of which I am one] have a tendency to simply look at
other believers who practice this rite as ‘deceived’. Many are unaware of the
history I just showed you. The reasons the historic church developed this
doctrine are not heretical! They used scripture and tradition to pass it down
to future generations. I do not believe or practice infant baptism, many good
believers do.
(821) ROMANS
6: 1-11 ‘shall we continue to sin, so grace may abound? God forbid! How shall
we, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein?’ Now begins the ‘actual part’
the result, if you will, of being ‘made righteous by faith’. One of the main
accusations against Paul, by the Jewish believers, was that he taught ‘sin a
lot, because you are no longer under the law’. Paul spends time defending
himself against this accusation thru out the New Testament. Here Paul teaches
that the believer has been joined unto Christ [baptized, immersed into him] and
this ‘joining’ identifies him with Christ’s death. So how can ‘we, who are dead
to sin, live any longer in sin’? Paul’s argument for righteous living comes
from the fact that we have died with Christ unto sin. ‘We have died with him,
and we have also been raised with him to new life’. In Ephesians chapter 2,
Paul says we who were dead in sins have been made alive in Christ. Now, we live
a new life, free from sin [practically speaking- not absolute sinless-ness!]
because we are identified with Jesus in his new life, we are ‘alive with and in
him’. ‘Since we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we
shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection’! Jesus died once, and now he
lives forever unto God ‘likewise count yourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive
unto God thru Jesus Christ our Lord’. Paul’s basis for the transformed life is
Grace and being ‘in him’. Paul does not appeal to the law to try and effect
holiness in the believer, he appeals to Christ ‘in him you have died to
legalistic practices, trying to earn salvation and acceptance; and now because
of this new position [placement] you too have died to the old man [lifestyle]
and are alive unto God’. Paul obviously did not teach ‘sin hardily’ to the
contrary he taught ‘live unto God’.
(834)Romans 6:12-23
‘Let not sin therefore rule in your mortal body’ if we have died with
Jesus, we are ‘dead with him to sin’. If we are risen with Jesus ‘we are alive
unto God thru him’ for this reason don’t sin! Paul makes sure his readers
understand him, he in no way was teaching a sinful gospel. He encourages the
believers to renew their minds to this truth. ‘For sin shall not have dominion
over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace’ Paul clearly saw the
dangers of
[parts]
I mentioned above that Caesar
Augustus did indeed take the title of ‘son of God’.
And some critics of the Church
say ‘see- there were all types of religions that had Sons of God’.
I watched one show a few years
back- and it stated that these religions had ’12 disciples- a leader named Lord
and Savior- and he healed and claimed to be God’s Son- and rose from the dead’.
Ok- that show was ‘fibbing’ to
put it lightly- they went too far [historically speaking] in trying to diminish
the Christians claim of Christ by doing this.
Now- is there some truth to this
at all?
Yes- like I just mentioned above-
Octavian did indeed claim deity- a ‘son of god’.
So- how do we explain this?
In the book of Galatians the
bible says ‘in the FULLNESS of times God sent forth his Son’.
Jesus came at a set time in
history- in fulfilment of the Jewish Prophets- to be who he was- and to do what
he did.
Now- this is not special pleading
here- but I find it a masterpiece that God’s Son came at a time when the Roman
Empire had one sitting on the throne- who too claimed deity.
Yet Jesus was in a region of the
lower class- his men were not highly educated- and his followers were people
under oppression.
Augustus lived in the wealthy and
influential capital of ‘the world’- he had all you could ever ask for- he was
worshiped as a god.
Yet in 3 short centuries- one of
the heirs of the empire- Constantine- would have an experience – not with a
former Caesar- but with a vison of a Cross-
He would convert to Christianity-
and declare Christianity to be the religion of the realm.
He would then ‘convert’ the pagan
temples- into churches for these followers of Christ.
So I don’t see the fact that
Augustus claimed to be a son of god right before Christ- as some type of
discredit to the claims of Christ.
No- I see it as God’s way of
pulling the rug out from the oppressor- see? [Oh- by the way- only one of them
rose from the dead- can you guess?]
[parts]
(594)
Yesterday morning I got up early and prayed a
weekly prayer that includes the nations. Part of this time goes like this ‘Lord
I pray for all religions outside of the covenant of your Son. All Jewish
people, that they would see Jesus their messiah. All Muslim people, that you
would give them signs and prophetic visions and dreams to show them Jesus is
the way’. Then this morning I had a dream that family members were converting
to Islam. That they were being ‘attacked’ or influenced by the ‘spirit of Islam’.
In the dream I felt helpless against this force. We went to sleep [in the
dream!] and I awoke [still dreaming this] with a radical spirit of
intercession. I began praying and breaking the power of Islam off of the family
members that just a few hours earlier seemed to be fully lost to Islam. I felt
this dream spoke to the effectiveness we have been having recently with
Muslims. These last few weeks have given opportunity to share with a homeless
Muslim Iraq war veteran. Good friend. Then a Muslim friend from England started
conversing with me and asking how to become Christian. He is reading this site!
It never dawned on me that these were fruits from the prayer time! Like I said
before, I can be dense at times. Let me cover some church history. I have had someone
argue with me about the history of Islam. Not a Muslim, but a Christian who was
saying ‘why do you say Islam started in the 7th century, it started
around the 11th’. My answer was ‘Muhammad lived in the 7th
century’. Not to hard to see this. So I thought I should cover some history.
During the time of the rise of Islam, the Christian church was already dividing
from east and west. After Constantine [4th century Roman emperor]
consolidated the Roman Empire in the 4th century he set up the
capital city of the eastern empire, Constantinople [named after him]. As time
progressed the western church would take on the form of Roman Catholicism, the
eastern [Constantinople area. Modern day Turkey-Istanbul] would be known as
‘Orthodox’. Though the official split of eastern and western [Catholic-Rome!]
churches occurred in 1054 AD, yet the division started years before. The
official split is called ‘the great schism’ of the 11th century; it
would not be until 500 years later that the church would have her ‘reformation’.
The official reason for this split was over a rather silly thing. For centuries
the Catholic church had an expression that said ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the Father’ than they included ‘he proceeds from the father and the Son’. Well
the eastern brothers didn’t like Rome telling them what to believe and used
this as the official reason to ‘have the schism’. To be honest the divisions
were coming for years. After the Roman Empire consolidated under Constantine,
he tried to strengthen the eastern territories of his empire and for centuries
you had the struggle for which region would be the most influential. At first
you had 5 major areas that were divided under 5 main Bishops. As time went on
the argument would be ‘which bishop has the most say so’ and it was really a
power struggle. Finally Rome said ‘the bishop of Rome is the FIRST AMONG EQUALS
[a term that many in the Protestant strain of the discipling movement would
later embrace] he holds Peters seat’ and this is really where the divisions started.
Eventually Muhammad would rise and Islam would take control of the eastern
capital. This later became the reason for the crusades. The Catholic church
wanted to regain the territories that she lost in the east. The eastern
churches are very much Catholic in many ways. They also hold to a view of
Christianity that sees man being ‘joined’ with God and becoming pleasing to God
thru Christ’s grace uniting with us and making us like him. A perfectly
scriptural view, but a different emphasis from the strong intellectual power
that you read about from the western fathers of the church. The Catholic church
is noted for her social action in ways that the eastern church is not. So both
of these communions have good things to bring to the table. The Orthodox [eastern]
churches would not be affected by the major social and political upheavals that
took place in the west. The Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment
had major impacts on western Christianity, while not affecting the eastern
church in the same way. During the 13th- 15th centuries you would
have ‘pre reformers’ rise up in the western church. John Wycliffe, the great
Catholic Priest who was at the center of learning in France would become known
for his translating the scriptures into the common language. Then you have John
Huss and John Knox [3 Johns, scripture says 3 fold cords are not easily
broken!] who would have their own influence in western Christianity. At this
time you had whole movements of believers who would be seen as neither ‘western
or eastern’ but restorationist [the restoring of the early practices and
beliefs of the church] Peter Waldo would be the Father of the Waldensians and
in the 12th century you would have the Albigenses in the south of
France. These groups would be looked upon as ‘cults’ [though the term was not
used yet] by the traditional church. So you can see how the church has been
growing and reforming ever since the first century. Even though we see many
divisions that exist till this day, there are strides being made for unity. The
eastern and western church are very close to‘re uniting’ once again. While I do
not personally hold to the doctrine of the Pope being the occupier of Peter’s
seat, I also see him as a Christian man who is striving for unity in Christ’s church.
Some believe the whole attempt for outward unity is futile. The more ardent
Protestants see it as ‘the one world church of the anti christ’ I reject that
language out of hand. Well I hope you got something out of this short overview
of world history [real short!].
Recently saw an appeal to give. The teaching [TV] was well
meaning. They were showing how the scripture is loaded with the doctrine of
‘first fruits’. All good stuff on the ‘secret’ of first fruits. The teacher was
being hailed as an authority on Jewish history and why ‘first fruits’ is so
important. The main problem with this whole mindset is they ALWAYS seem to see
giving in the context of sending money to ministries. Jesus taught THEE NUMBER
ONE priority of GIVING TO GOD was to be expressed by meeting the real needs of
people. Now, you do find the woman
[parts]
VERSES-
. Acts 20:16 For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he
would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him,
to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Acts 20:18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,
Acts 20:19 Serving the LORD with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:
Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
Acts 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Acts 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 20:33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
Acts 20:34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.
Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Acts 20:36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all.
Acts 20:37 And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,
Acts 20:38 Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship.
Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all
the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Matthew 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he
shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the
goats:
Matthew 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but
the goats on the left.
Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand,
Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world:
Matthew 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was
thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Matthew 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited
me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Matthew 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord,
when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
Matthew 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or
naked, and clothed thee?
Matthew 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came
unto thee?
Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily
I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and
his angels:
Matthew 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was
thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Matthew 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and
ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when
saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in
prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Matthew 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto
you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to
me.
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:
but the righteous into life eternal.
No comments:
Post a Comment