Category: Ministry

On the Authorship of the Gospel and Aliens

Where witnesses agree, like the Gospels, that is the truth. Dozens of people helped compile the Gospels, and they all are consistent accounts. Aliens are just hallucinations. As the Gospels say, witnesses must agree for a thing to be the truth. Also the Old Testament. It's the crux of the Scientific Method, too. Aliens are just hallucinations people have, and that whole entire spiel drives a man mad if they really think it's true. Same thing with Time Travel, it destroys the mind because it's not true. Any lie destroys a person's mind. But the truth makes you healthy.

They were actually written at the time Jesus lived, and at most a decade later. Except John's. And they're extremely consistent. As is true for any eyewitness, their accounts differ ever so slightly, but that just proves they aren't all from one source. And they're perfectly historically accurate.

Well, I'd say that Luke did not Copy Mark--there's no word for word copying--but rather Jesus actually said those things, so it gets accounted for twice. Scholars lie. They've made a fat career off of telling people bold faced lies. So, why do I believe the Gospels are early? Because in 90AD, we have a fragment from one named Papias, who was the person whom St. John dictated his gospel to. And St. John told Papias, that Mark was written by Mark, and Matthew by Matthew. And Matthew's was in Aramaic. And that fits into the corroboration of the account, because Aramaic gospels were found in India in the second Century, brought there by St. Thomas, and were also found by the Portuguese in the 1600s. And Mark's Gospel gets corroborated, because it is written out of order--so to speak, it's done by memory and isn't as rigorously documented like Luke and Matthew. Luke, like you said, accompanied Paul, and Paul knew the Gospel already, but Luke accounted his through gathering information from Paul's associates, such as James, Peter, John, and Mary, and also went to the Tabularium and found documents there to account for Jesus' life and ministry.

Well, it's things He said and did.

Let me put it this way. I can tell you the story of Jack and the Bean Stalk still, or Goldilocks and the Three Bears. There's a certain cadence to it, that will be similar no matter how you tell it.

The fact is, people had good memories back then. And Jesus' sayings would be remembered. And what He did would be remembered, too.

I read Mark, I read Luke, I read Matthew... Nothing to me strikes it as verbatim similar. It seems more like it came from a witness--maybe Peter had something to do with both, as Paul knew Peter, and therefore so did Luke--but then it would be cross-referenced by James.

Actually, Paul did know the Gospels, and the Aramaic gospels in India prove an early date, and prove Papais' account. Linking Matthew's Authorship to the Gospel. Showing they are eyewitnesses. And showing that Jesus did fulfill messianic prophecies, which Scholars say, the Gospels were written to mold Jesus into those prophecies. But, if they're witness--which they are, and scholars lie about them not being witness, because they want to protect the world from having to account for the miraculous--then Jesus is the LORD.

Pauline Doctrine is Christ’s Doctrine

The Priesthood changed, so of necessity so must the Law. Every dispensation, there's New Laws. Like in the time period between the restoration of Babylon and Jesus' ministry, they were granted permission to eat the fat and drink the sweet. But the moral law remains consistent. Not just about Sex and Masterbation, but about all of it. [...] And Jesus did say, "Do not sew onto an Old Garment New Patches" and "Do not pour new wine into old bottles." He meant not to mix the testaments.

[The forsaking of the Ceremonial Law,] it's part of God's way. Every dispensation, there's a new religious economy. In that particular season of the Old Covenant, it was a different priesthood in Levi. We have a priesthood in Christ.

[The Religion...] would have spread just as easy, being like Judaism. Probably better, as Islam does the same thing, and spread hundreds of miles in two decades. In fact, I'd argue people like those kinds of rituals because it seems like you're making progress. What's harder is to just be a good person, because of conscience's sake. It's very easy to think because you don't eat Pork or Shellfish, you rest on Saturdays, and you get circumcised you're better off. That's more in line with human understanding.

Trust me, I was there when I was young. It's very easy to spread a religion like that. All the doctrine is for the body, and none of it for the Spirit. Christ is saying something specific. That we need Him to be righteous, and cannot be on our own. We need to be grafted into Him, as a vine, and we being branches, will produce fruit. Or we won't, and thus we'll be sheared off and thrown into the fire. That's all the religion says. Is by faith we're saved, and not of works.

[But to contend with a mocker,] Islam reached Spain and Portugal, [therefore it would have still converted Europeans if Christianity retained the Dietary and Sabbath Laws]. It wasn't just for advertising. It was just a new priesthood, so they received a new law. Even Jesus said it. "Do not sew new patches onto old garments." and "Do not pour new wine into old bottles." The Law hadn't passed away, the new Priesthood was in Melchizedek, another priesthood beside Levi. This was before the Law was given, during the time of Abraham, when Abraham was still an Amorite. As the Law said, "Through Abraham's seed, all the nations will be blessed." So the Law was not annulled. It was fulfilled in Christ.

Prisca Theologica

This may be true [that there is an ancient theology], but we don't know it without a teacher. And that's why Christ is Rabbi. Christ leads you to that universal theology, and then gives the solution to it. Which is His bodily death and resurrection. As, you see with Natural Religion, moral truths are objective, and since they're objective, they require divine punishment and reward. And since no man is righteous enough for a reward, and all must be punished, God came down to Earth as a Man, and lived a perfect life with no Sin. And then He demonstrated to us through His life and teachings, the way we ought to follow, showing us how far we lack, but also giving us the final proof of that objective moral standard. So, that's why Christ is Rabbi. And He died, and substituted our sin with His righteousness, and gave us His righteousness, and died and was buried with our sin. And then He raised, which cleansed us, as our sin was dead with Him.

Also, Moses was revealed this Prisca Theologica in the Exodus of divine punishment and reward, while Christ satisfied it in His life and ministry. Showing, that God must reveal Himself if He is truly God. And He did three times, with the Deluge, the Exodus and His Life and Teachings, and Bodily resurrection.

God’s Economy

So... the best way to explain God's economy, is looking at a balance. You pay the right amount for a thing as it balances on the scale, and no more or less; and you pay for work the right amount, no more or less. And you forgive debts after 7 years, and you rest your land every 7 years to help the soil stop eroding; you give everyone the proper amount of vacation, one day a week and also mandatory holidays, and you give 10% of your money to the Church or the Poor. And the poor are rehabilitated and cared for by the King. Also, people are allowed to own private property, and what is yours cannot belong to someone else.

Why Do I Believe?

That’s actually a very good question. And I’ll tell you exactly why.

So, let’s just take it back to “I think therefore I am.” Like Descartes. And what I think, can be either true or false. I can look at a fact on the internet or in a book… what establishes said thing as a fact? Could be the book or internet are lying to me. You know? I can also be wrong about what’s on page 7, or even that the book has a page 77. So, my mind is not capable of holding together reality. And whose is? A cadre of really smart people, or extra terrestrials? They just establish the laws? Well, what if I don’t trust them to establish the laws? What if science is wrong? Or what if everything we know now is wrong, but 20 years ago it was all correct? So that’s the first reason, is to have a bedrock of reality, independent of some being that isn’t entirely good. God is Light, and God is Good and God is Love. I’d rather have Him hold together my reality, than a couple of random scientific studies or peer reviewed papers.

Another thing, the moral law that God proscribed is better than anyone else’s. What I read in Jesus, is better than ten sages, and what I read in the Old Testament, seems to be solid, and built our very first civilizations. The fact that it kills everyone is good, as God’s Ark kills by the touch. Even touching perfection, kills us. So, you have two testaments, of the Conqueror and Sentence in the old, and the Rescuer and Defender in the new. And that balance in life, of having breath, so always being enabled to cross the threshold into a righteous person, or making the decision to be bad. It makes sense. Either trusting God for our righteousness, or trusting in ourselves. Either agreeing with the Moral Law that is higher than us, or creating our own moral law, which is insufficient.

Then, I’ve seen the religion as it is authentically expressed. I’ve felt the Holy Spirit in me, and move me. I’ve known myself with the religion, and without it. And I got to say, knowing God is good, and has dominion over all things, including the evil… that nothing evil happens without God’s word, it is a comfort to me. Because it gives sense to the world, and it doesn’t just throw it all into the blender of human judgment. It doesn’t leave things under the power or jurisdiction of people who are fallible. It doesn’t leave right and wrong up to a bunch of men to create or decide upon. It’s built in nature, and designed by God, and Evil is what destroys the things that cause man to suffer, and Good is what helps those who abide in God’s authority, and choose to accept grace.

As, without Grace or Mercy, we starve. And we lose what is good in us. Like a Vine or Rootstock, it gives sap to the Scions. We need that sap, or we grow weak in doing what’s good, and we die. And that’s what happened to you. You grew weak in righteousness, because you rejected God’s law. So, it will sap you, and soon God’s divine order will be stripped from you. As for me, I hold onto that order, so I can be taken to a better world, where suffering and sin make an end. As without that new world, life is utterly pointless, and dejected, and feral. And there is no true justice because there is no truly good power to uphold it. Only man and his callous judgment.

We need a teacher. Otherwise we're lost in the weeds of our own thoughts. And my teacher is Jesus. I am also no one's teacher. Just trying to interpret what my Rabbi said.

I always say, I would be agnostic if not for Jesus. I would never be an Atheist, because I don't find their arguments satisfactory. Just everything is so contrary to good reason, that you'd have to annihilate every shred of wisdom, and never build up to a single principle again. It'd be pimps getting run over in the street, and their carcas decaying into a mass of flesh if Atheism were true. Which, it's not for that reason. I would be Agnostic, but would be a lot like my character Marc in The Fifth Angel's Trumpet.

But, it's Jesus and Jesus alone, gives me satisfactory answers to life's biggest questions. Not even Buddha, he's a little spooky and self centered and denies reality a bit. And Muhammad isn't very good. And Moses would have every man, woman and child killed down to the letter.

On Goodness and God

I believe in goodness without God. Although, it's impossible to prove good without Him. It's kind of a conundrum Nietzsche trapped the whole atheist community in, and also Hume. But, generally, they force the argument, that if you prove there's good, there ha to be a God. Because if there's good without God, then it remains subjective, and determined by human opinion, which then it can't be called good, can it? But, I think good is so self evident, that we can move up to God's existence.

But, generally, I think atheists can indeed understand it. I would be doubtful to say that they can't. We all do, that's written in the Bible. And Christ aligns with that natural conscience better than anyone else. But the danger here... and here is the true danger... is saying good is not self evident. And that's a trap both Atheists and Christians fall into. When, I'm aware that both good and evil are self evident, and necessarily proves God exists. Because it relies on superior judgment, existing outside of human consciousness. It's a Law of Nature, not a Law of Human Choice. And since nature proves what's ethical and moral, based on what will create the most beneficial society for all, and naturally create patterns of healthy attachments and material prosperity,  which God's grace will achieve, and has achieved, we move to Christ Jesus.

Censorship and The Plight of True Christians

It's both sides. Both sides do it [censor], otherwise I'd be making a living as an author.

Again, the Left uplifts Charity and Licentiousness and the Right uplifts Chastity and Greed. You can't pick a side in this. As Jesus also says, "Lean not either to the left or right, but stay on the narrow way."

Greed is opposed to Charity, and Licentiousness is opposed to Chastity. So, this is the whole issue, a true Christian holds onto Chastity and Charity and also forsakes Licentiousness and Greed. So, we're not liked by either side.

Christianity and Paul

{}"Do not sew onto an old garment a new cloth" and "Do not put new wine into old bottles," Lest "They tear and burst." I think Paul is right on track for what Christ was getting at.

Peter lived as a Gentile, that's why Paul reprimanded him for not eating with them when the judaizers tempted him. As Hebrews says, "With a change of priesthood comes a change of law."

No, because Romans is saying how yoking yourself to the Law, cannot save you. In fact, it causes you to act on the flesh, instead of the Spirit. We're to have no Judaism yoked to us, as is said by Ignatius. But, it's what Paul's epistles really mean, that covenant is over. We're not to follow it anymore, as it can't save us, and rather leads to us committing sin, because of its reliance on the flesh.

Ignatius Letter to the Magnesians Chapter 8. "Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace."

The entire message of the Gospel, is you need to be grafted into the vine to be saved. If you're not, you'll be sheered off, and wither. You can't be righteous apart from Christ. He's the rootstock; we're the branches. By living by the letter, we'll be condemned, but by living by the Spirit we'll be free to do good, because the Spirit will cause us to do it. It will be like rest. Christ is the Sabbath, and we're to rest on Him for our righteousness, not our own works.