Category: Ministry

Liberty of Grace

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 

I'd {} recommend [one] follow the true doctrines of Paul, that give us liberty in Christ to eat freely what we want. As trying to follow the Old Testament puts you under the Law, and when you observe dead rites and rituals, and works of the Dead law you do not accord to righteousness, and that's the entirety of the Pauline Epistles, is teaching us that works of the law and flesh cannot save us, or dead rites and rituals that have no effect of righteousness whatsoever.

A question, why would God want you to worship through observance of dead rituals like diet and not working a specific day? That doesn't do anything for anyone but yourself, and actually makes you violate God's commandment, as by trying to observe those rituals, you dishonor the greater commands.

As it is Jesus' teachings of the Wine Skins has meaning, and that's what it means. The old Wine Skin is the Law of Moses, and the New Wine is grace. Don't burst your skin, but come back to Christ and the liberty by which you were bought, and not into bondage to the Law of dead ritual and selfish oblation to naught.

The Old and New Testament

The Old Testament was broken by the Jews—it was an Old Covenant given to them, to establish an Earthly realm where God’s people could live and be at peace—but since they broke it, God gave us a New Covenant, in Abraham’s Seed, Who is Christ, and that we find in the New Testament. It’s a completely different priesthood, and the Old Priesthood is abolished, and actually trying to follow it damns you. As, that Old Testament is the law that’s going to be used to convict you, and send you to hell.

The truth is, the Old Testament is punishment for sin, and the Curse of the Law. That’s the Prophets, and Christ is their fulfillment, so the Old Testament prophesied Christ, and is evidence of His salvation.

The Authorship of the Gospels

So, the best evidence for the Book of John being written are about 50AD, we have quotations from it, in reconstructed codexes (The Signs Gospel it’s called, which is constructed by scholars, shows even they believe it has early authorship). Which dates to about 50AD.

So… when you read the Book of John, you really see Christ from the perspective of the people of that day. Making it kind of obvious that it’s a witness account. As it sort of remains skeptical of Jesus at first, and you start to wonder if Jesus is a lunatic—but given the miracles, you can’t say that He is.

And then at the end, you see Christ for Who He is, fully aware, fully salient, fully realized in His ministry, and you can only come away from that thinking that the Book of John is really dealing with a man’s faith. Particularly the Writer John.

So… it also could be that Papias dictated the book of John from John, as some fragments of Papias suggest this happened. Which pushes the date of the Book of John to about 90AD. But, the fact remains that it’s a witness account, as it doesn’t elevate Jesus, but rather gives you the notions of the time period, as a man come from Galilee, and possibly a Samaritan, it doesn’t mask Jesus. It gives us the outsider’s perspective very well, and then we come to see that Jesus is the Christ. When Jesus is sitting and teaching His disciples in 14–17, we see a salient teacher, and in the Synoptic Gospels we see a very salient teacher. Which, Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote those, as we have in fragments of Papias and also the book of Acts reason to believe that those were written through eyewitnesses too, and those could be written as early as 35AD, as we have quotations from the book of Mark from that time period. Which means, that the Gospels could be written within a decade of Christ’s resurrection.

So, there’s very good reason to trust all four gospels, as it’s closer in time, being written, than even Plutarch or Herodotus are to their subjects. The Gospels are more reliable than any historical text we have in print, being that it’s all from first-hand sources, and witnesses, and not people removed a generation or two later. And we know this, because again Papias tells us that Mark heard his Gospel from Peter while he was in prison, Matthew wrote his in Hebrew (Aramaic) and certain puns show up in the text showing this is likely. And then Luke travelled with Paul, who’d have met James, Mary, Joseph, Peter, and Jude and other apostles and witnesses.

So, the gospels are handed down to us through eyewitnesses, as it says in Luke.

The Mark of the Beast

The Name of the Beast is Sin. The mark is the spirit removed from the soul and body. Adonikim means "The Lord has raised." And Solomon's gold means he's rich. So, obviously, the Beast will be healed of a mortal wound, and 666 talents is equal to $1,370,461,500. But a rich man who's probably worth a trillion dollars, who dies and gets brought back from the dead. He probably uses a technology to come back to life. The beast will kill himself and implant his consciousness into a robotic vessel. And that will encourage people to get the mark, which will kill their spirit immediately.

Quirinius

{}Quirinius was governor twice. Even during the last years of Herod. So, Augustus probably issued the census then. Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem because they were both of royal lineage, not to take the Census. Mary may not have known exactly what was happening, as she was a woman, and recounted the story to Luke. But the fact is both those events happened near one another, and Mary and Joseph accounted their Census, and registered that they were from Nazareth.

{}The census was in 5BC. Not 6AD. When Quirinius was Governor. I was just reading an article on that, actually. Not the census, but that Quirinius was governor. There’s a lot of gaps in history, but he was governor in 5BC, when Herod the Great would still be alive.

I mean, from what I’m seeing, Quirinius was governor of Anatolia (Galatia and Cicilia), which isn’t that much different to the colloquial mind of even a doctor of that day with Syria. The language would be indistinguishable from Syrian, as that’s the language group being used there. They are so close together. I don’t think he’s talking about the census from 6AD but rather a census taken in 5BC, when Quirinius was governor of those regions, as Herod the Great has to be alive, too. In other words, I don’t think he’s using Josephus as his source, but rather Mary and Joseph.

It was the census in 2BC. Because Quirinius is governor of Cilicia and Galatia (Syria) and Augustus made a census at that time. Because Augustus asked the Census take place for the entire world. And in 8BC he issued that, and the province of Judea wouldn’t issue that decree until 2BC, when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Galatia and Cilicia).

[Augustus] made a census in 8BC that matriculated Judea in 2BC. The year Christ was born. Christ was 33 when He died, He died in 31AD according to Guang Wu and Phlegon of Trelles. Herod the Great we have a discrepancy of 2 years, that he died in 4BC. Some sources say 1BC. Which, Roman Dating isn’t exact. So the timeline is perfect, actually.

Protestant Martyrdom a Reaction to Council of Trent

I don't think it's a myth. If I had to choose a faith between the Inquisitors or those being Inquired, I'd choose the Anabaptists. Just like Sir Thomas Moore and Joan of Arc were true martyrs, so was John Bunyan and many of the Anabaptists put to death.

Reading it, you start to understand the faith a bit more. It's not Dogmas and Heresies that damn you, but rather your actions toward your fellow man. Many of the Inquisitors had perfect Theology, but they put men to death who were living the Gospel better than anyone had since the days of the Apostles.

Many were put to death too. It wasn't only the Government putting people to death. Catholics in Germany and Spain used to mob Protestants, and Catholics in England used to be put out onto the street, and killed and martyred. 

I stand on the side of the Christian who's on the receiving end of abuse. Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, what have you.

[T]hey did persecute people for making translations. Let's not throw away our history for politics. The exact quote was they didn't want Bibles translated into "Vulgar tongues."

“Christ gave His Gospel to the clergy and the learned doctors of the Church so that they might give it to the laity and to weaker persons, according to the message of the season and personal need. But this Master John Wyclif translated the Gospel from Latin into the English—the Angle not the angel language. And Wyclif, by thus translating the Bible, made it the property of the masses and common to all and more open to the laity, and even to women who were able to read … And so the pearl of the Gospel is thrown before swine and trodden underfoot and what is meant to be the treasure both of clergy and laity is now become a joke of both. The jewel of the clergy has been turned into the sport of the laity, so that what used to be the highest gift of the clergy and the learned members of the Church has become common to the laity.” -- Henry Knighton

“That pestilent and most wretched John Wycliffe, of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Antichrist, who, while he lived, walking in the vanity of his mind—with a few other adjectives, adverbs, and verbs, which I shall not give—crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue.” -- Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Arundel.

Fox's book of martyrs says that reading the Bible to the Papacists was akin to Witchcraft and Heresy.

"The principal accusation against those who are subject to this tribunal is heresy, which comprises all that is spoken, or written, against any of the articles of the creed, or the traditions of the Roman Church. The inquisition likewise takes cognizance of such as are accused of being magicians, and of such who read the Bible in the common language, the Talmud of the Jews, or the Alcoran of the Mahometans." - Fox's Book of Martyrs  Chapter 5 par. 8.

The Rule of Witness

I shall refute Buddhism, Cartesian Logic and Postmodernism.

A thing is only real, if two or more people perceive it.
A thing is not real, if only one person perceives it for themselves.
As a man with schizoaffective disorder--it cripples me--
It's insane to think that we have no ability to understand our outside world.

People confuse issues by making terms like "Gender" and saying people switch genders...
Simply put, Gender is Sex. And intersex people have one of two genders.
Why? For sociological reasons and to foster healthy reproduction and also happiness.
We witness through science the biology of the Intersex person, and give them a gender based
On science, and not Phenomenon. What we perceive and think is limited
And it is no wonder that people discover the same things over and over again
As if the thing is real, in either moral philosophy, science or religion,
It is discovered by multiple people, at multiple times throughout history.

Likewise, God deals with people three times we know if in history.
The first is the Flood, by which He destroyed the Earth.
The second is the Exodus, by which He freed the Jewish People.
The third is Christ's life, ministry and resurrection.
Through which, we have evidence still to this day these things happened.
The flood, there's an anomaly in the 24th century BC.
The Exodus, there is an entire army laid waste off the coast of Neiwebu Beach.
Christ's crucifixion, James His own Brother died believing He raised---through enthymeme we know this
As enthymeme, deriving true conclusions from missing premises, 
Is a higher form of logic by which Calculus works. 
And the Bible is written down by witnesses who saw these events,
And copied them down, and retranslated them into modern languages
But remnants of the original still exist in our Holy Book Today.

Therefore as the Law says, "Through two or three witnesses, my Law shall be Established."