And, more to the point, understanding salvation through this sports analogy that I will explain here. The scriptural basis for the analogy are the writings of Paul, and the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse).
Entire churches of faithful, believing and presumably, but not assured, "saved," are chastised as a whole by Paul, with loving charity and concern, but very strong language. Likewise in the Apocalypse John hears the chastisement of entire faithful, believing and presumably, but not assured, churches, "saved bodies of the faithful," before the revelation of the final days commences.
Notice that in no place is a single Christian isolated for correction within an otherwise correct church. Paul criticizes the entire church when SOME of them receive the sacrament of the bread with unworthiness, or worthily but with lack of respect.
If people are "saved," as some Evangelical Protestants attest, while being surrounded by those who commit wrong (yet consider themselves saved too), then Paul, in the abundance of his guidance, would have included at least one example of chastising a hypocrite or one in error within an otherwise worthy church body.
The same is of course true when the Angel of God, through Christ, evaluates and chastises entire faithful churches, at the end.
This is why you must understand salvation as it actually is, as the Bible states in Truth, not in your "auditing," "good deed" and "fire insurance" mindset. The sports analogy will demonstrate this for you.
American baseball is characterized by a dual purpose. It is of course a team sport with the objective of winning. But it is also equally an individual sport where each player accrues statistics of his performance (each and every game) that are his lasting legacy and that travel with him from team to team.
Thus you can have a great player with a great heritage of statistics and honor, even if he never played on a winning team. You can also have winning teams without great individual players. Most avid baseball fans follow individuals and their statistics, often separate from a local team that they actually support.
Salvation is like that, but here we need to fulfill the analogy by describing the disastrous effect that use of steroid and other performance or other addictive drugs have had on the entire sport.
We can and do have an entire era of "high performing individuals" who received their statistics while using immoral and illegal drugs. We also have teams that have won games due to these unethically enhanced individual players.
Suppose you are a great player, but you are on a team that is winning (and thus adds to your statistics) because other people, your team mates, are using performance enhancing drugs. You accumulate valid statistics and play straight (since you do not "use") but you know your team mates "use" and in return your statistics are enhanced because the "users" pull in more win and run and other opportunities for you with their presumably enhanced performance aids.
Salvation, and the possibility of losing your salvation, is exactly like that. If you are a "saved" person among other "saved" persons, but you deviate in any way from the ethics of God, no matter what the reason, the entire body of the "saved," including your own "salvation," is in question.
Don't ask me: read the Bible.
The entire Old Testament demonstrates God addressing and rewarding/punishing the hoard of Israelites as a whole. Presumably not every single person, man woman and child, danced in front of the gold calf while Moses was with God. Yet all are chastised. God does not document in the Bible "except for Moishe, Sarah and Fred, who sat the profane dance out and just watched on the sidelines while silently disapproving." The entire Old Testament validates what I am explaining to you, which is that God does not single out people among the wicked, (or those who are "good" but in error) and give them a salvation "pass" card, even as they eat, live, love and worship with the body that is IN ERROR.
Likewise the Gospel and the other New Testament books demonstrate that even with loving concern, Jesus, Paul, and the other Apostles, chastise entire towns, entire church bodies, entire groups of the "faithful," without once singling out the "good guy" whose rear end is just warming the pews but "is not going along with the error of the rest."
The Bible demonstrates over and over that it is God's will that people are saved, or not, as a GROUP in addition to individually. You all have taken that truth and turned it into the error of competing denominations (destroying Jesus' instructions on unity) rather than understanding that the saved individual must not only strive for continual obedience and purity but also, like a plant, survive or fall with the purity of the presumably "saved" fellow members and community. You can deny it all you want but the Bible is the Bible and God's word is final. You cannot say that God's word is perfect, but then make up scenarios that God did not choose to endorse in the Bible, and instead, God condemns.
Showing posts with label Book of Revelation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book of Revelation. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Understanding the Bible: definition of "judge"
A quick point, related to what I've been blogging about (understanding context of the times).
Whenever you read the word "judge" in the Bible, remember there are two totally different meanings, do not assume the first meaning, while is a legal judging, such as a magistrate might do. Yes, it is sometimes used in that context, but just as often it is used to mean:
a hero or military leader who is called by God.
That is why the Book of Judges is called, um, the Book of Judges, as it's about military leaders and heroes who led Israel when Israel did not yet have kings. These were not legal folks who rendered magistrate justice.
So while St Paul is indeed writing about legal matters and the need for justice and righteousness in 1 Cor 6, you have to remember that he, a zealous Jew (so zealous he turned Christians over for death before his conversion) would always have the two definitions of "judge" in this mind, somewhat intertwined. When he mentions "judging angels" he is speaking of the other definition, embedded within his discussion of more legal matters and definition.
He's not wrong to do this, but it is, as all epistles are, a bit of unsupported statement since producing long written documents was tough enough and Paul like others assumed the recipient of their letters understood many of the extenuating meanings and nuances that others would not outside of a previously Jewish context. In other words he was not writing in a way to explain to people who would later (like moderns) think "judge" always and only means magisterial.
Remember that Israel was an entity completely under and of God, not an organized government nor a kingship in its early days. Instead God chose people to lead, starting with Moses. When Josue (Joshua) died the people asked God who they should select as their next military leader. This is because the Israelites were still, through military force, claiming their promised land, so their leader's first and foremost job was to be a military leader, one that God approved and supported. It had nothing to do with being a judge of legal matters, so there were twelve, for lack of a better word, heroes of Israel whose job was to lead the Israelites in times of danger and/or in military matters. They were given the title of "judges," using, obviously, the second definition.
Thus it is very easy for Paul in both his thinking and his writing to slip from one definition of judge into the other. He is building an argument, in 1 Cor 6, that people need to be just in all matters and not be hypocrites, and he uses public litigation as the example that he gives, where he questions and chastises how people can be just if they are so unjust and be litigation crazy (yes they were already suing each other right and left to get money and settle scores in those times). In 1 Cor 6:7 he implies that people should not sue each other and just suffer even obvious wrongs in silence and without counter suit and legal remedies (turn the other cheek, as Jesus taught). He then, having raised the problem of legal fights and injustice, and the related problem of being unworthy to judge even small matters of life, say nothing of the large ones, in 1 Cor 6:1-8 onward, then shifts in 1 Cor 6:9 onward to discussing the unjust, unsanctified and unjustified sinners and their impending judgment from God in general.
So you see what I mean? He is writing about a problem he sees 1) being too litigious and also being unforgiving and unjust, 2) points out the flaws in that mindset, 3) introduces a higher more Christian mindset and 4) concludes with warnings what to avoid and 5) the sacredness of the body in service to Christ. Paul is starting with a specific problem in order to raise the level of thinking, action and sanctity of those he is writing to and 1 Cor 6 progresses accordingly.
So, how to understand 1 Cor 6:3 "Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" Even though that is smack dab in the middle of him speaking of earthly legal matters, he does not mean that humans will judge (as in adjudicate or assess) the actions of angels or the angels themselves. He is hearkening back to the second definition of judges, the heroism and God given leadership, that humans who are truly within Jesus Christ will receive from God. In an effort to get people's heads out of the petty earthly legalities Paul drags angels into his writing in order to uplift people to their correct perspective which is to be genuine leaders authorized by God through Christ, and it is then that yes, people have the right to "judge" as in to "lead into spiritual battle" angels.
That is not so far fetched. Do you not all each have a guardian angel that God gave you to accompany you always while you live? Most times do you even remember that your guardian angels exists? Do you lead your guardian angel in times of danger such as witnessing for Christ? Or do you forget you have a guardian angel?
Your actions on earth in your individual sanctified service to Christ is your training wheels, your practice, in leading ("judging") an angel.
When you are a saint (as in dead and gone to heaven), then you will, God willing, have a role in leading (as in "judging") angels on their home turf, heaven, regarding earthly matters.
It's not too tough to understand that those who did not partner with their guardian angel, with humility, while alive on earth aren't exactly leading the charge of the angel brigade in heaven when it is that time.
1 Cor 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
So you see, Paul is basically scolding most severely the people who look forward to being saints and angel partners as being incapable of even keeping themselves out of greedy and vengeful legal lawsuits, and he is warning that they are not even on the first rung of "judging angels."
o Current situation, constant litigation about earthly matters such as money, power and revenge.
o The current situation must be improved by bringing the matters before the saints, which means in other words having a Christian response (such as turning the other cheek). Paul means the saints are (second definition) providing the example, the leadership of behavior. He means that just as the saints did not seek money, power and revenge through the courts, likewise people must turn to the saints for their example to shun that response likewise.
o In the future the saints (most of whom were martyrs) will judge the world because they, in heaven, will bring their petitions of injustice received before God.
Revelation 8:4-5
And with the prayers of the saints there went up before God from the angel's hand the smoke of the incense. And the angel took the censer and filled it with the fire of the altar and threw it down upon the earth, and there were peals of thunder, rumblings, and flashes of lightning and an earthquake.
See, Paul wrote Corinthians well before John saw the revelation of the Apocalypse and in fact Paul was martyred decades before John died a natural death (the only one of the Apostles not to be martyred). Paul was dead for decades before John witnessed to Revelation, to the Apocalypse. Yet Paul correctly understood within the spirit of Jesus Christ that the sufferings of the martyrs and saints will accumulate before God's throne, and will in turn be justification for the End of Times. This is why the angel throws the censer with fire from the altar and the prayers of the saints onto earth to smite it.
And so now you can see that through the Holy Spirit the genuine Apostles and disciples of Christ are all reading from the same page, to use an old saying. Paul knew in his heart what John would later see in person, which is the role of the saints in judging (both meanings) the people of the earth. All who learned first hand from Christ understand the inevitability if not the timing of God's judgment of those alive on earth with the saints as witness and examples.
Now, the angels have never been and never will be part of earthly life, since angels abide within God in heaven and are not of time, matter or energy. Thus they of course are not "judged" by humans in a legal or a behavior sense. They are, however, available to be led by genuinely God appointed humans, but only after death. How do we know this? Because Jesus Christ himself never called upon an angel (though one was sent to him in the Garden of Gethsemane and others after the temptation). Jesus pointed out he could have called angels to protect him and destroy the city at any time, but he did not because that was not his purpose. Likewise the Apostles understood that the only angels on earth are the guardian angels, and that the combat will occur only at the End of Times.
So in a few sentences Paul is cramming together the mundane but very dire state of the litigious supposed Christians who are suing each other and pagans for money, power and revenge, the need for a higher thinking, and then, of course, the highest calling which will mostly occur in heaven, when the righteous and justified people are indeed among the angels.
This is a complicated but essential part of my point that one cannot understand the Bible if one does not understand the mental, spiritual and linguistic context of the various authors, all of whom write under the guidance of the Holy Spirit but in the language and meaning of that contemporary time.
I hope that this was helpful!
Whenever you read the word "judge" in the Bible, remember there are two totally different meanings, do not assume the first meaning, while is a legal judging, such as a magistrate might do. Yes, it is sometimes used in that context, but just as often it is used to mean:
a hero or military leader who is called by God.
That is why the Book of Judges is called, um, the Book of Judges, as it's about military leaders and heroes who led Israel when Israel did not yet have kings. These were not legal folks who rendered magistrate justice.
So while St Paul is indeed writing about legal matters and the need for justice and righteousness in 1 Cor 6, you have to remember that he, a zealous Jew (so zealous he turned Christians over for death before his conversion) would always have the two definitions of "judge" in this mind, somewhat intertwined. When he mentions "judging angels" he is speaking of the other definition, embedded within his discussion of more legal matters and definition.
He's not wrong to do this, but it is, as all epistles are, a bit of unsupported statement since producing long written documents was tough enough and Paul like others assumed the recipient of their letters understood many of the extenuating meanings and nuances that others would not outside of a previously Jewish context. In other words he was not writing in a way to explain to people who would later (like moderns) think "judge" always and only means magisterial.
Remember that Israel was an entity completely under and of God, not an organized government nor a kingship in its early days. Instead God chose people to lead, starting with Moses. When Josue (Joshua) died the people asked God who they should select as their next military leader. This is because the Israelites were still, through military force, claiming their promised land, so their leader's first and foremost job was to be a military leader, one that God approved and supported. It had nothing to do with being a judge of legal matters, so there were twelve, for lack of a better word, heroes of Israel whose job was to lead the Israelites in times of danger and/or in military matters. They were given the title of "judges," using, obviously, the second definition.
Thus it is very easy for Paul in both his thinking and his writing to slip from one definition of judge into the other. He is building an argument, in 1 Cor 6, that people need to be just in all matters and not be hypocrites, and he uses public litigation as the example that he gives, where he questions and chastises how people can be just if they are so unjust and be litigation crazy (yes they were already suing each other right and left to get money and settle scores in those times). In 1 Cor 6:7 he implies that people should not sue each other and just suffer even obvious wrongs in silence and without counter suit and legal remedies (turn the other cheek, as Jesus taught). He then, having raised the problem of legal fights and injustice, and the related problem of being unworthy to judge even small matters of life, say nothing of the large ones, in 1 Cor 6:1-8 onward, then shifts in 1 Cor 6:9 onward to discussing the unjust, unsanctified and unjustified sinners and their impending judgment from God in general.
So you see what I mean? He is writing about a problem he sees 1) being too litigious and also being unforgiving and unjust, 2) points out the flaws in that mindset, 3) introduces a higher more Christian mindset and 4) concludes with warnings what to avoid and 5) the sacredness of the body in service to Christ. Paul is starting with a specific problem in order to raise the level of thinking, action and sanctity of those he is writing to and 1 Cor 6 progresses accordingly.
So, how to understand 1 Cor 6:3 "Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" Even though that is smack dab in the middle of him speaking of earthly legal matters, he does not mean that humans will judge (as in adjudicate or assess) the actions of angels or the angels themselves. He is hearkening back to the second definition of judges, the heroism and God given leadership, that humans who are truly within Jesus Christ will receive from God. In an effort to get people's heads out of the petty earthly legalities Paul drags angels into his writing in order to uplift people to their correct perspective which is to be genuine leaders authorized by God through Christ, and it is then that yes, people have the right to "judge" as in to "lead into spiritual battle" angels.
That is not so far fetched. Do you not all each have a guardian angel that God gave you to accompany you always while you live? Most times do you even remember that your guardian angels exists? Do you lead your guardian angel in times of danger such as witnessing for Christ? Or do you forget you have a guardian angel?
Your actions on earth in your individual sanctified service to Christ is your training wheels, your practice, in leading ("judging") an angel.
When you are a saint (as in dead and gone to heaven), then you will, God willing, have a role in leading (as in "judging") angels on their home turf, heaven, regarding earthly matters.
It's not too tough to understand that those who did not partner with their guardian angel, with humility, while alive on earth aren't exactly leading the charge of the angel brigade in heaven when it is that time.
1 Cor 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
So you see, Paul is basically scolding most severely the people who look forward to being saints and angel partners as being incapable of even keeping themselves out of greedy and vengeful legal lawsuits, and he is warning that they are not even on the first rung of "judging angels."
o Current situation, constant litigation about earthly matters such as money, power and revenge.
o The current situation must be improved by bringing the matters before the saints, which means in other words having a Christian response (such as turning the other cheek). Paul means the saints are (second definition) providing the example, the leadership of behavior. He means that just as the saints did not seek money, power and revenge through the courts, likewise people must turn to the saints for their example to shun that response likewise.
o In the future the saints (most of whom were martyrs) will judge the world because they, in heaven, will bring their petitions of injustice received before God.
Revelation 8:4-5
And with the prayers of the saints there went up before God from the angel's hand the smoke of the incense. And the angel took the censer and filled it with the fire of the altar and threw it down upon the earth, and there were peals of thunder, rumblings, and flashes of lightning and an earthquake.
See, Paul wrote Corinthians well before John saw the revelation of the Apocalypse and in fact Paul was martyred decades before John died a natural death (the only one of the Apostles not to be martyred). Paul was dead for decades before John witnessed to Revelation, to the Apocalypse. Yet Paul correctly understood within the spirit of Jesus Christ that the sufferings of the martyrs and saints will accumulate before God's throne, and will in turn be justification for the End of Times. This is why the angel throws the censer with fire from the altar and the prayers of the saints onto earth to smite it.
And so now you can see that through the Holy Spirit the genuine Apostles and disciples of Christ are all reading from the same page, to use an old saying. Paul knew in his heart what John would later see in person, which is the role of the saints in judging (both meanings) the people of the earth. All who learned first hand from Christ understand the inevitability if not the timing of God's judgment of those alive on earth with the saints as witness and examples.
Now, the angels have never been and never will be part of earthly life, since angels abide within God in heaven and are not of time, matter or energy. Thus they of course are not "judged" by humans in a legal or a behavior sense. They are, however, available to be led by genuinely God appointed humans, but only after death. How do we know this? Because Jesus Christ himself never called upon an angel (though one was sent to him in the Garden of Gethsemane and others after the temptation). Jesus pointed out he could have called angels to protect him and destroy the city at any time, but he did not because that was not his purpose. Likewise the Apostles understood that the only angels on earth are the guardian angels, and that the combat will occur only at the End of Times.
So in a few sentences Paul is cramming together the mundane but very dire state of the litigious supposed Christians who are suing each other and pagans for money, power and revenge, the need for a higher thinking, and then, of course, the highest calling which will mostly occur in heaven, when the righteous and justified people are indeed among the angels.
This is a complicated but essential part of my point that one cannot understand the Bible if one does not understand the mental, spiritual and linguistic context of the various authors, all of whom write under the guidance of the Holy Spirit but in the language and meaning of that contemporary time.
I hope that this was helpful!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Understanding Revelation/Apocalypse
I really want to blog about Christmas, when I get back into the swing of things, as I've not blogged much, but before I do, here is a quick point. I'm raising this uncheerful topic again because people insist on bringing it up over and over again, yet with less rather than more understanding. I thought of a pithy way to put it in perspective for you, and hope that you will do so and then move on into living good, genuine, faithful and most of all believing in God mindset from here on out.
People have lost touch with something I've discussed before, so I will repeat it. We are far from seeing the Antichrist. We are, however, in the time of false prophets that Jesus spoke of, yet that does not at all mean that the Antichrist is imminent, as he is not. How do we know that? Because the Antichrist will be so terrible that he will make all of the evil humans that lived previously, such as Hitler, Pol Pot, etc look like teddy bears in comparison. His evil will be monstrous beyond current imagination. So do not waste your time further "wondering" if the Antichrist will be soon among you because he is not, nor will he be. With what people know today, no matter how depraved, brain damaged and morally challenged you have become, none of you would fail to recognize the Antichrist within one minute of viewing him.
So why did Jesus say that it will be like "a thief in the night," coming suddenly? The answer is simple. It will be sudden for the people who live during the time of the Antichrist because so many of them will be so depraved themselves that they will not recognize him as being evil. You see, at some point humans will degrade incredibly (even as their technology may continue to increase) as they increasingly surrender their own humanity. Then when he springs up he will seem like a great leader because compared to the filth of most of humanity, he will seem "effective," and "inspiring." That is because he will organize the surrendering of humanity based on the groundwork already laid in day to day degeneration.
Here are two analogies to help you understand what I am explaining. Suppose that a person today, even one of the lowest moral character, total disbelief in God, and lack of interest in charity was time traveled forward to the time of the Antichrist. That person would faint in horror at what the average person would be like and would spot the Antichrist, fear and loathe him in a New York minute. (That's just an expression, not linking NY to the Antichrist). The biggest thug of modern times if moved forward to the future would faint in horror at the sight of average people, and would of course spot the Antichrist immediately, even though few others of that time will do so.
How do I know this? That's kind of a "duh" question by now, is it not, but I want you to learn on your own how to understand the scriptures. The reason I know this and you should be able to deduce that too is that the Antichrist will have what no other human ever had, which is an indwelling of Satan. An indwelling of Satan will take the Antichrist, a human, to a point far, far FAR beyond what any evil madman of a human can or will ever achieve on his own.
But people will not recognize that of the time, and that is why the End of Days (the Apocalypse) will be a "surprise" to them. The people will have already laid the groundwork, unwittingly, for the Antichrist by accepting and adopting horrific life views and practices, ones that are being only sampled today. For example, the creation of false life by combining living humans and animals will be common and even thought to be "progressive." The road to hell is "paved with good intentions" as the saying goes, and the small steps people are taking today, if not stopped immediately, will be pathways from the laboratories into Frankenstein reality, and the Antichrist will take it to its ultimate, which will then trigger the Apocalypse.
My point is not to give you the scripture, which I of course can, to back up all I've written since I'd like to actually think about Christmas right now, thank you very much. But it's hard for me to avoid as even in Sunday school people who ought to know better are still glomming onto the Book of Revelation as if it is "about" to take place, and the news and pulpits are of course filled with it too, most inappropriately. All of that is an excuse to 1) avoid fixing the problems of today as the Bible (and the Qur'an) command otherwise and 2) total lack of understanding that while God and only God determines the Apocalypse he does so in response to the ultimate sinning and falling away of humankind in general. Only a total defeatist would think that humanity is at that point, as much as so much is horrible crap and neglect of human well being now. God triggers the Apocalypse when humans have gone way, way WAY too far, and as rotten and sinful as they are now, it's still a drop in the bucket of what the world will be like when the Antichrist arises from the corrupt soil that human nature will have made for itself.
So stop the crap and false propheting (and false profiting) and get on with the great Commission and spread the word of God, and of the Savior Jesus Christ, with genuine doctrine and understanding, and regain genuine understanding of charity.
The second analogy I want to give to you is the lobster in the slowly warming pot analogy. People who cook the shellfish called lobster know that the theory is that if you put the lobster in a lukewarm pot of water and slowly heat it, the lobster will go numb, fall asleep, become unconscious and then die. This is how disbelief will grow among humans, and how their total decay will take place. They will start out with the familiar and then gradually introduce more and more depravity and disbelief until each addition is not noticed. Each dose of depravity and disbelief will even seem comfortable and "logical." For example, more and more heinous medical "advances" will be made to "cure diseases," until people don't realize that they are creating interspecies humanity busting Frankensteins. Like the lobster they won't know that their humanity is warped, depraved and then dead and dying because each new dose will seem "compassionate," "fair," "logical" and "medical progress." That is just one example and you do not need to look far in the news to see humanity has put itself in the pot and the heat has just turned up a notch of their own doing.
The Antichrist will appear when people are at the second to last stage of this dying depravity, even though they themselves might think they are splendid, wonderful and thriving, since they've become used to the boiling water. That's why the worst thug alive today if forwarded through time to see anyone, even an average person, in that time would be horrified probably totally out of his mind. The people alive at that time won't have a clue what our theoretical thug will be so shocked, disgusted and horrified by, and they will wonder why he would in particular scream and go nuts at the sight of their superb leader, the Antichrist. Even the worst dirtbag lowlife of today who puts porn on the Internet of his or her own son or daughter would be horrified beyond his or her own capacity to endure it by what will be routinely going on the pre-End of Times "society." It is against THAT kind of backdrop that the two witnesses and others will speak up since of course not all will be deluded. There is no comparison at all between then and now except for one thing: humans refuse to understand they have put themselves into that pot and started to warm the water toward their own demise in preparation for the Antichrist in the far future.
When Jesus said to be watchful he did not mean to sit around like dumb stone heads and figure that "it's going to happen anyway." Yes, it is going to happen at some point that only God knows, but how can you ignore the mundane everyday evil, neglect and disbelief that is humanity's own created "plagues" now? You are supposed to care about how many souls of each generation hear the good news, believe and obey God, become saved and join God in eternal life, and not sit around thinking "Oh well, and I'm alright anyway." If you think that then you are NOT "alright."
Here is how to explain it. Remember how Jesus used the parable of the bride's attendants who are supposed to be ready before the wedding when the groom arrives? He points out that some are ready, but others let their wicks extinguish and are not ready. But here's the point: there IS a wedding, there IS joy and a real life. I think that some people today totally miss that Jesus is saying to be ready for collective and real life joy, in addition to the joy of his return. Otherwise the parable would be "And then they canceled the wedding because hey, after all, it was the End of Time and who cared anyway, except for their own assumed salvation?"
Are you the person who has extra oil, but figures not to share it with those who do not have it, simply because "Hey, the world's going to end anyway and 'I'm saved?'" Well, think again because with that attitude you are ignoring not only the great Commission but the example that Jesus Christ gave in the reality of good day to day life with preparedness, yes, but not "checking out" and neglecting life that is far from being ready to be extinguished.
Sheesh, I really wonder sometimes, what are people thinking. Well, unfortunately I know what they are thinking, but I find it hard to relate as to why they think that way and find it desirable to do so. A lot of it is pride and that ever craving for "specialness," where people think they "know" what is "going to happen" and that they are "OK with God," yet all they do is "phone in" their supposed faith instead of living it in a full and real life, one that is not going to be truncated by the Antichrist and his milieu to come.
If you really want to win souls for Christ then you don't want to hasten the depravity and hasten the neglect because that only increases day to day suffering of the innocent, but also loses souls rather than gains them for Christ as people lose hope in daily life as well as eternal life to come. Further, if you are not concerned with winning souls for Christ then you have to be a bit concerned if you really are supposedly "OK with God" after all.
When you die and are given individual judgment in front of God (and Satan will be the accuser, as he will know all the failings) do you think you can say "Well, I didn't care if others were comfortable and cared for in real life, nor did I care if they were saved, because I *knew* that I'd be *raptured* and that the Apocalypse is coming *soon...*" and then you look around and your mental voice trails off because after all, duh, you are there in front of God and obviously you weren't so called raptured and the Apocalypse did not happen, but you died of cancer, a heart attack, drunk driving, or whatever instead. Ooops.
For the love of Pete will you all get a grip and use this blessed Christmas season to think once again about how Jesus showed humanity how to know God, how to love and serve God, how to respectfully fear God, and how to do his will throughout one's ordinary life and in charity to others, and not how to fly in a holding pattern thinking you are "OK" and everyone's "on their own" because "the end is coming anyway?"
Whenever you think about the Antichrist remember that he will have an indwelling of Satan and that can only take place against a normalizing of the most horrific daily life attitudes and "advances" and that even the dimmest thug dim bulb alive today would be faint with horror at the sight of the real Antichrist and/or his cohort humans if he were put forward in time to see them. Like I said, even Hitler would look like a teddy bear compared to the Antichrist, but like the lobster in the pot, not because the Antichrist will outdo Hitler at being Hitler, but because he will have an indwelling of Satan within the context of a totally, totally, TOTALLY fallen humanity who think that is normal life and even admirable. We are only having bitter foretastes of that path today and that is entirely by human choices alone.
I hope this helps, especially you young people (hi my friends) who were raised with much of this error by those who should have known both their faith and their logic/common sense better than what you were given by them.
May I please get on with "Merry Christmas" now? Thank you.
People have lost touch with something I've discussed before, so I will repeat it. We are far from seeing the Antichrist. We are, however, in the time of false prophets that Jesus spoke of, yet that does not at all mean that the Antichrist is imminent, as he is not. How do we know that? Because the Antichrist will be so terrible that he will make all of the evil humans that lived previously, such as Hitler, Pol Pot, etc look like teddy bears in comparison. His evil will be monstrous beyond current imagination. So do not waste your time further "wondering" if the Antichrist will be soon among you because he is not, nor will he be. With what people know today, no matter how depraved, brain damaged and morally challenged you have become, none of you would fail to recognize the Antichrist within one minute of viewing him.
So why did Jesus say that it will be like "a thief in the night," coming suddenly? The answer is simple. It will be sudden for the people who live during the time of the Antichrist because so many of them will be so depraved themselves that they will not recognize him as being evil. You see, at some point humans will degrade incredibly (even as their technology may continue to increase) as they increasingly surrender their own humanity. Then when he springs up he will seem like a great leader because compared to the filth of most of humanity, he will seem "effective," and "inspiring." That is because he will organize the surrendering of humanity based on the groundwork already laid in day to day degeneration.
Here are two analogies to help you understand what I am explaining. Suppose that a person today, even one of the lowest moral character, total disbelief in God, and lack of interest in charity was time traveled forward to the time of the Antichrist. That person would faint in horror at what the average person would be like and would spot the Antichrist, fear and loathe him in a New York minute. (That's just an expression, not linking NY to the Antichrist). The biggest thug of modern times if moved forward to the future would faint in horror at the sight of average people, and would of course spot the Antichrist immediately, even though few others of that time will do so.
How do I know this? That's kind of a "duh" question by now, is it not, but I want you to learn on your own how to understand the scriptures. The reason I know this and you should be able to deduce that too is that the Antichrist will have what no other human ever had, which is an indwelling of Satan. An indwelling of Satan will take the Antichrist, a human, to a point far, far FAR beyond what any evil madman of a human can or will ever achieve on his own.
But people will not recognize that of the time, and that is why the End of Days (the Apocalypse) will be a "surprise" to them. The people will have already laid the groundwork, unwittingly, for the Antichrist by accepting and adopting horrific life views and practices, ones that are being only sampled today. For example, the creation of false life by combining living humans and animals will be common and even thought to be "progressive." The road to hell is "paved with good intentions" as the saying goes, and the small steps people are taking today, if not stopped immediately, will be pathways from the laboratories into Frankenstein reality, and the Antichrist will take it to its ultimate, which will then trigger the Apocalypse.
My point is not to give you the scripture, which I of course can, to back up all I've written since I'd like to actually think about Christmas right now, thank you very much. But it's hard for me to avoid as even in Sunday school people who ought to know better are still glomming onto the Book of Revelation as if it is "about" to take place, and the news and pulpits are of course filled with it too, most inappropriately. All of that is an excuse to 1) avoid fixing the problems of today as the Bible (and the Qur'an) command otherwise and 2) total lack of understanding that while God and only God determines the Apocalypse he does so in response to the ultimate sinning and falling away of humankind in general. Only a total defeatist would think that humanity is at that point, as much as so much is horrible crap and neglect of human well being now. God triggers the Apocalypse when humans have gone way, way WAY too far, and as rotten and sinful as they are now, it's still a drop in the bucket of what the world will be like when the Antichrist arises from the corrupt soil that human nature will have made for itself.
So stop the crap and false propheting (and false profiting) and get on with the great Commission and spread the word of God, and of the Savior Jesus Christ, with genuine doctrine and understanding, and regain genuine understanding of charity.
The second analogy I want to give to you is the lobster in the slowly warming pot analogy. People who cook the shellfish called lobster know that the theory is that if you put the lobster in a lukewarm pot of water and slowly heat it, the lobster will go numb, fall asleep, become unconscious and then die. This is how disbelief will grow among humans, and how their total decay will take place. They will start out with the familiar and then gradually introduce more and more depravity and disbelief until each addition is not noticed. Each dose of depravity and disbelief will even seem comfortable and "logical." For example, more and more heinous medical "advances" will be made to "cure diseases," until people don't realize that they are creating interspecies humanity busting Frankensteins. Like the lobster they won't know that their humanity is warped, depraved and then dead and dying because each new dose will seem "compassionate," "fair," "logical" and "medical progress." That is just one example and you do not need to look far in the news to see humanity has put itself in the pot and the heat has just turned up a notch of their own doing.
The Antichrist will appear when people are at the second to last stage of this dying depravity, even though they themselves might think they are splendid, wonderful and thriving, since they've become used to the boiling water. That's why the worst thug alive today if forwarded through time to see anyone, even an average person, in that time would be horrified probably totally out of his mind. The people alive at that time won't have a clue what our theoretical thug will be so shocked, disgusted and horrified by, and they will wonder why he would in particular scream and go nuts at the sight of their superb leader, the Antichrist. Even the worst dirtbag lowlife of today who puts porn on the Internet of his or her own son or daughter would be horrified beyond his or her own capacity to endure it by what will be routinely going on the pre-End of Times "society." It is against THAT kind of backdrop that the two witnesses and others will speak up since of course not all will be deluded. There is no comparison at all between then and now except for one thing: humans refuse to understand they have put themselves into that pot and started to warm the water toward their own demise in preparation for the Antichrist in the far future.
When Jesus said to be watchful he did not mean to sit around like dumb stone heads and figure that "it's going to happen anyway." Yes, it is going to happen at some point that only God knows, but how can you ignore the mundane everyday evil, neglect and disbelief that is humanity's own created "plagues" now? You are supposed to care about how many souls of each generation hear the good news, believe and obey God, become saved and join God in eternal life, and not sit around thinking "Oh well, and I'm alright anyway." If you think that then you are NOT "alright."
Here is how to explain it. Remember how Jesus used the parable of the bride's attendants who are supposed to be ready before the wedding when the groom arrives? He points out that some are ready, but others let their wicks extinguish and are not ready. But here's the point: there IS a wedding, there IS joy and a real life. I think that some people today totally miss that Jesus is saying to be ready for collective and real life joy, in addition to the joy of his return. Otherwise the parable would be "And then they canceled the wedding because hey, after all, it was the End of Time and who cared anyway, except for their own assumed salvation?"
Are you the person who has extra oil, but figures not to share it with those who do not have it, simply because "Hey, the world's going to end anyway and 'I'm saved?'" Well, think again because with that attitude you are ignoring not only the great Commission but the example that Jesus Christ gave in the reality of good day to day life with preparedness, yes, but not "checking out" and neglecting life that is far from being ready to be extinguished.
Sheesh, I really wonder sometimes, what are people thinking. Well, unfortunately I know what they are thinking, but I find it hard to relate as to why they think that way and find it desirable to do so. A lot of it is pride and that ever craving for "specialness," where people think they "know" what is "going to happen" and that they are "OK with God," yet all they do is "phone in" their supposed faith instead of living it in a full and real life, one that is not going to be truncated by the Antichrist and his milieu to come.
If you really want to win souls for Christ then you don't want to hasten the depravity and hasten the neglect because that only increases day to day suffering of the innocent, but also loses souls rather than gains them for Christ as people lose hope in daily life as well as eternal life to come. Further, if you are not concerned with winning souls for Christ then you have to be a bit concerned if you really are supposedly "OK with God" after all.
When you die and are given individual judgment in front of God (and Satan will be the accuser, as he will know all the failings) do you think you can say "Well, I didn't care if others were comfortable and cared for in real life, nor did I care if they were saved, because I *knew* that I'd be *raptured* and that the Apocalypse is coming *soon...*" and then you look around and your mental voice trails off because after all, duh, you are there in front of God and obviously you weren't so called raptured and the Apocalypse did not happen, but you died of cancer, a heart attack, drunk driving, or whatever instead. Ooops.
For the love of Pete will you all get a grip and use this blessed Christmas season to think once again about how Jesus showed humanity how to know God, how to love and serve God, how to respectfully fear God, and how to do his will throughout one's ordinary life and in charity to others, and not how to fly in a holding pattern thinking you are "OK" and everyone's "on their own" because "the end is coming anyway?"
Whenever you think about the Antichrist remember that he will have an indwelling of Satan and that can only take place against a normalizing of the most horrific daily life attitudes and "advances" and that even the dimmest thug dim bulb alive today would be faint with horror at the sight of the real Antichrist and/or his cohort humans if he were put forward in time to see them. Like I said, even Hitler would look like a teddy bear compared to the Antichrist, but like the lobster in the pot, not because the Antichrist will outdo Hitler at being Hitler, but because he will have an indwelling of Satan within the context of a totally, totally, TOTALLY fallen humanity who think that is normal life and even admirable. We are only having bitter foretastes of that path today and that is entirely by human choices alone.
I hope this helps, especially you young people (hi my friends) who were raised with much of this error by those who should have known both their faith and their logic/common sense better than what you were given by them.
May I please get on with "Merry Christmas" now? Thank you.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Both God and Jesus have roles in judgement
I've noticed there is some confusion among some people based on the completeness of the authority given to Jesus by God to judge all of humankind. Here is a quick way to help you to understand precisely what God does and intends.
Yes, Jesus has complete authority to judge, which he will do at the Second Coming. The Book of Revelation explains that through the eyes of the Apostle John, who is taken to heaven in vision to see some of what will happen in the final days leading up to the Apocalypse and Christ's Return. God remains on his heavenly throne while the world passes away and Jesus judges all, the living and the dead.
However, until that time comes, people have individual lives and they live and they die. Each person is judged on their death by God himself. How do we know this? Again, turn to what seems to be my most cited scripture, Luke 16, where Jesus describes what happens to a rich man who goes to hell.
"There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores...When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames" (Luke 16:19-20, 22-24).
Now, remember that Jesus has a greater point to make in telling this story, this actual event that has happened, so you must read it for both 1) the main point and 2) any other insight one can glean since everything that Jesus said is saying it "as it really is."
Notice that the rich man does not say, "Abraham! HEY! What in the world am I doing in hell? I was a great guy!" The rich man knows exactly why he is there so he does not bother to ask for an explanation, which he already knows (and in fact is gazing on the very reason, his neglect of the poor, suffering and dying Lazarus). This is because God judged that man as he woke up in hell. It's not like there's a kind of courtroom or waiting room where God calls people in and judges each one in a neutral spot in turn. One wakes up from death in the place where one is sent, with the knowledge of God's judgement. Period. The angels escorted the poor man Lazarus, carrying him to heaven. God's judgment was apparent by the fact the angels were taking him to heaven. Likewise God's judgement was apparent and the facts about "why" given into the spiritual heart and mind of the person who ends up in hell. So the first thing that careful reading and trusting that Jesus is precise and truthful and complete in all things reveals is that people die and wake up in either heaven or hell, knowing exactly why they are there, which only God can provide.
The second thing you notice is that Jesus did not say at any point that he, Jesus, was the one who judged Lazarus or the rich man. If that were the case he would have said so, since Jesus' complete ministry is to be open, freely sharing the facts of the Kingdom of God, and he would have told the disciples if he, Jesus, were the one who was already judging each person who died, even before he was alive as Son of Man on earth and before his crucifixion and resurrection. That would have been an extremely important fact to share in the Gospel and Jesus would have done so if that were the case. Indeed, it would have been mind boggling for the disciples to hear that even before Jesus was born to Mary on earth that he was in heaven judging each person who died! So even though Jesus is of course of God and thus eternal, when he speaks of his role of judge and authority to judge whether one goes to heaven or hell he means at the Second Coming.
So when Abraham explains why the rich man cannot have a drop of water, Abraham is not breaking the news to him about why he is in hell, Abraham is explaining the unchangeable rules and conditions, that no aid or comfort will be given to those in hell.
"Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours" (Luke 16:25-6).
Do you see? If Jesus had judged the rich man, Jesus would have told the disciples that "And I told him during judgement exactly how many times he had ridden past the poor bleeding hungry and dying Lazarus while riding on his horse and then I had told him each and every one of his sins and that's why he's in hell." But Jesus did not do that....God himself did that. Another way that you can understand that it was God and not pre-born Jesus doing the judging is that Jesus mentions that angels carried the poor man Lazarus to heaven, and everyone realizes that God sends angels to do his bidding. For example, when Jesus is praying before the betrayal in Gethsemane, God sends an angel to comfort him; Jesus does not summon angels. He could do so but he never did so, as Jesus and God work in harmony in all things. It is in the Second Coming where Jesus sends angels and judges. Until then it is exactly as it has always been, which is that God himself renders personal individual judgment and the sending of a soul to heaven or hell upon that person's death.
So to continue the reading, the rich man now asks for permission to send Lazarus (and can you see that he still does not "get it," I mean, he's in hell for how he neglected Lazarus in the first place and he's still trying to order Lazarus to go on his errands... the road to hell is pride, pride, pride...) to warn his brothers. Again, if you carefully read this you can glean an important insight. The rich man is not so much wanting to share the sins that got him into hell, but, and this is important, he wants to tell his brothers how bad and final the suffering of hell is!
"He said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him [Lazarus] to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment'" (Luke 16:27).
See? It is the horror of hell in its actuality that spurs the rich man to want to warn his brothers. It's not a genuine repentance since he is still trying to get the very poor miserable "beneath his notice" Lazarus, even as he's glorified to heaven, to go back to earth and do his bidding! So it's not like the rich man didn't "realize" "why" he was in hell since he wasn't judged until Abraham "explained" it to him: he knew full well all along since the story does not start out with "Hey! What's that poor bum Lazarus doing in heaven while I've found myself in hell? What gives?" He immediately hits up Lazarus, through Abraham, for a drop of water. This is how you can infer from what Jesus relates are the facts that people are transported, waking up to find themselves in either heaven or hell with full understanding of how and why they were judged to go there by God. Jesus tells the disciples this actual portrayal of heaven and hell and two people who go to their judgement respectively to make the broader point about what God expects regarding charity, but also to explain how the reality of heaven and hell "works." This is why Abraham explained not only the "why" of why he would not given the rich man even a drop of water or send warning to living five brothers, but also the mechanism, the physics, of heaven and hell, where the great chasm prevents any crossing in either direction. So Jesus was providing a moral and lesson in the telling of what actually happened in this case of the judgment of two men, but also describing for the disciples, who of course needed to know, how the reality of hell and the divide between heaven and hell "works."
Since that is Jesus' intention, if Jesus were "already" judging individual human beings upon their death, he would have said so. To use the expression "it goes without saying" that the disciples understood that God had simultaneously rendered/conveyed judgment to each person and had them conveyed to their place of eternity, either heaven or, of course, hell.
So yes, Jesus has all authority and he will Judge. But do not fall into the trap of thinking that upon personal death (not the End of Days when all will die and rise again for judgement) that when one dies one goes into kind of a waiting room area where one can argue one's case in front of stereotype "forgiving and easy going" Jesus. One is BANG! in heaven or hell, receiving simultaneously judgement and full knowledge of the why's from God himself. Simultaneous with being conveyed by the angels to heaven Lazarus would have received the light of God praising him for his belief and comforting him for his suffering with reward in heaven. Simultaneous with waking up in hell, the rich man would have received full knowledge of the why's of his condemnation and judging by God, which we know because as Jesus relates, it's not like the rich man was puzzled at seeing that "loser" Lazarus in heaven with Abraham. No dialogue is wasted in him asking why that is, because he wakes in hell fully knowing how and why God judged him. No, he's just shocked at how truly unbearable, unrelievable and eternal that hell actually is. It is that shock of suffering that makes him want to warn his brothers that ignoring that dirtbag Lazarus and other poor losers like him is a bad idea. In other words, by how the dialogue progresses you can see that if hell were in theory not such a bad place, but not heaven, this guy would never have bothered trying to warn his brothers, since he still doesn't "get" how unrighteous and unjust he was to Lazarus through his neglect. He's solely motivated by how dreadful that hell is and how he truly can't order the peasant around to do his bidding like he did on earth.
That's why, to remind you of a few postings ago, pride is the downfall of MANY who go to hell. Pridefulness, especially putting one's self before God's priorities, IS a grievous sin and merits hell, regardless of the other "good deeds" or whatever.
When one decides that Jesus is one's Lord and Savior, it is not so you can show a membership card to Jesus, because he's not the one checking at the door upon death: it's God. This is why Jesus repeatedly explains he is the "way." Jesus is not saying that he is judging people's entry into heaven. Remember when James and John's mother asked Jesus if he would have them sit at his right and left hand in his kingdom? What did Jesus say? He said that was up to God. Jesus promised them to go prepare the places for them in heaven. Jesus did not say that he would be the judge when they die. Jesus is the way in the sense that if one trusts him to not only save but to be LORD over one's life, then one will pass judgement from God. It is at the End of all Days, at the Apocalypse, at the Second Coming, that all who lived and died in all humanity will resurrect and be judged by Jesus. Until that time each individual person's death and rendering of judgement to heaven or hell is in God the Father's hands.
Finally, another way you can understand this is to recall one of the most insightful, but most subtle and unnoticed, of all the writings of St. Paul.
And do not grieve the holy Spirit of God, with which you were sealed for the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30).
You see? Here Paul is reminding the readers that the Holy Spirit also partakes in the final judgement! What he is basically saying that if Christians are "All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling...along with all malice" (Ephesians 4:30-31) then these Christians risk losing, by giving sadness and grief to the Holy Spirit, the seal which will get them redeemed. This is powerful and serious stuff, people. Again, this is why I must caution you not to allow a kind of video image of Jesus in the waiting room giving easy judgement upon a person's death to delude you that it's not something that can't be lost. One can accept Jesus as one's Savior but if one does not also follow completely his "way" and indeed, going further, grieves the Holy Spirit, if Jesus is not truly Lord, then one is not prepared to be judged favorably by God, who does the judging based on 1) one's belief and 2) one's righteousness, through the guidance and filter of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Paul is warning good believers of the early Christian community that they can lose the seal of redemption if they grieve the Holy Spirit through the actions as listed above.
Yes, Jesus has complete authority to judge, which he will do at the Second Coming. The Book of Revelation explains that through the eyes of the Apostle John, who is taken to heaven in vision to see some of what will happen in the final days leading up to the Apocalypse and Christ's Return. God remains on his heavenly throne while the world passes away and Jesus judges all, the living and the dead.
However, until that time comes, people have individual lives and they live and they die. Each person is judged on their death by God himself. How do we know this? Again, turn to what seems to be my most cited scripture, Luke 16, where Jesus describes what happens to a rich man who goes to hell.
"There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores...When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames" (Luke 16:19-20, 22-24).
Now, remember that Jesus has a greater point to make in telling this story, this actual event that has happened, so you must read it for both 1) the main point and 2) any other insight one can glean since everything that Jesus said is saying it "as it really is."
Notice that the rich man does not say, "Abraham! HEY! What in the world am I doing in hell? I was a great guy!" The rich man knows exactly why he is there so he does not bother to ask for an explanation, which he already knows (and in fact is gazing on the very reason, his neglect of the poor, suffering and dying Lazarus). This is because God judged that man as he woke up in hell. It's not like there's a kind of courtroom or waiting room where God calls people in and judges each one in a neutral spot in turn. One wakes up from death in the place where one is sent, with the knowledge of God's judgement. Period. The angels escorted the poor man Lazarus, carrying him to heaven. God's judgment was apparent by the fact the angels were taking him to heaven. Likewise God's judgement was apparent and the facts about "why" given into the spiritual heart and mind of the person who ends up in hell. So the first thing that careful reading and trusting that Jesus is precise and truthful and complete in all things reveals is that people die and wake up in either heaven or hell, knowing exactly why they are there, which only God can provide.
The second thing you notice is that Jesus did not say at any point that he, Jesus, was the one who judged Lazarus or the rich man. If that were the case he would have said so, since Jesus' complete ministry is to be open, freely sharing the facts of the Kingdom of God, and he would have told the disciples if he, Jesus, were the one who was already judging each person who died, even before he was alive as Son of Man on earth and before his crucifixion and resurrection. That would have been an extremely important fact to share in the Gospel and Jesus would have done so if that were the case. Indeed, it would have been mind boggling for the disciples to hear that even before Jesus was born to Mary on earth that he was in heaven judging each person who died! So even though Jesus is of course of God and thus eternal, when he speaks of his role of judge and authority to judge whether one goes to heaven or hell he means at the Second Coming.
So when Abraham explains why the rich man cannot have a drop of water, Abraham is not breaking the news to him about why he is in hell, Abraham is explaining the unchangeable rules and conditions, that no aid or comfort will be given to those in hell.
"Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours" (Luke 16:25-6).
Do you see? If Jesus had judged the rich man, Jesus would have told the disciples that "And I told him during judgement exactly how many times he had ridden past the poor bleeding hungry and dying Lazarus while riding on his horse and then I had told him each and every one of his sins and that's why he's in hell." But Jesus did not do that....God himself did that. Another way that you can understand that it was God and not pre-born Jesus doing the judging is that Jesus mentions that angels carried the poor man Lazarus to heaven, and everyone realizes that God sends angels to do his bidding. For example, when Jesus is praying before the betrayal in Gethsemane, God sends an angel to comfort him; Jesus does not summon angels. He could do so but he never did so, as Jesus and God work in harmony in all things. It is in the Second Coming where Jesus sends angels and judges. Until then it is exactly as it has always been, which is that God himself renders personal individual judgment and the sending of a soul to heaven or hell upon that person's death.
So to continue the reading, the rich man now asks for permission to send Lazarus (and can you see that he still does not "get it," I mean, he's in hell for how he neglected Lazarus in the first place and he's still trying to order Lazarus to go on his errands... the road to hell is pride, pride, pride...) to warn his brothers. Again, if you carefully read this you can glean an important insight. The rich man is not so much wanting to share the sins that got him into hell, but, and this is important, he wants to tell his brothers how bad and final the suffering of hell is!
"He said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him [Lazarus] to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment'" (Luke 16:27).
See? It is the horror of hell in its actuality that spurs the rich man to want to warn his brothers. It's not a genuine repentance since he is still trying to get the very poor miserable "beneath his notice" Lazarus, even as he's glorified to heaven, to go back to earth and do his bidding! So it's not like the rich man didn't "realize" "why" he was in hell since he wasn't judged until Abraham "explained" it to him: he knew full well all along since the story does not start out with "Hey! What's that poor bum Lazarus doing in heaven while I've found myself in hell? What gives?" He immediately hits up Lazarus, through Abraham, for a drop of water. This is how you can infer from what Jesus relates are the facts that people are transported, waking up to find themselves in either heaven or hell with full understanding of how and why they were judged to go there by God. Jesus tells the disciples this actual portrayal of heaven and hell and two people who go to their judgement respectively to make the broader point about what God expects regarding charity, but also to explain how the reality of heaven and hell "works." This is why Abraham explained not only the "why" of why he would not given the rich man even a drop of water or send warning to living five brothers, but also the mechanism, the physics, of heaven and hell, where the great chasm prevents any crossing in either direction. So Jesus was providing a moral and lesson in the telling of what actually happened in this case of the judgment of two men, but also describing for the disciples, who of course needed to know, how the reality of hell and the divide between heaven and hell "works."
Since that is Jesus' intention, if Jesus were "already" judging individual human beings upon their death, he would have said so. To use the expression "it goes without saying" that the disciples understood that God had simultaneously rendered/conveyed judgment to each person and had them conveyed to their place of eternity, either heaven or, of course, hell.
So yes, Jesus has all authority and he will Judge. But do not fall into the trap of thinking that upon personal death (not the End of Days when all will die and rise again for judgement) that when one dies one goes into kind of a waiting room area where one can argue one's case in front of stereotype "forgiving and easy going" Jesus. One is BANG! in heaven or hell, receiving simultaneously judgement and full knowledge of the why's from God himself. Simultaneous with being conveyed by the angels to heaven Lazarus would have received the light of God praising him for his belief and comforting him for his suffering with reward in heaven. Simultaneous with waking up in hell, the rich man would have received full knowledge of the why's of his condemnation and judging by God, which we know because as Jesus relates, it's not like the rich man was puzzled at seeing that "loser" Lazarus in heaven with Abraham. No dialogue is wasted in him asking why that is, because he wakes in hell fully knowing how and why God judged him. No, he's just shocked at how truly unbearable, unrelievable and eternal that hell actually is. It is that shock of suffering that makes him want to warn his brothers that ignoring that dirtbag Lazarus and other poor losers like him is a bad idea. In other words, by how the dialogue progresses you can see that if hell were in theory not such a bad place, but not heaven, this guy would never have bothered trying to warn his brothers, since he still doesn't "get" how unrighteous and unjust he was to Lazarus through his neglect. He's solely motivated by how dreadful that hell is and how he truly can't order the peasant around to do his bidding like he did on earth.
That's why, to remind you of a few postings ago, pride is the downfall of MANY who go to hell. Pridefulness, especially putting one's self before God's priorities, IS a grievous sin and merits hell, regardless of the other "good deeds" or whatever.
When one decides that Jesus is one's Lord and Savior, it is not so you can show a membership card to Jesus, because he's not the one checking at the door upon death: it's God. This is why Jesus repeatedly explains he is the "way." Jesus is not saying that he is judging people's entry into heaven. Remember when James and John's mother asked Jesus if he would have them sit at his right and left hand in his kingdom? What did Jesus say? He said that was up to God. Jesus promised them to go prepare the places for them in heaven. Jesus did not say that he would be the judge when they die. Jesus is the way in the sense that if one trusts him to not only save but to be LORD over one's life, then one will pass judgement from God. It is at the End of all Days, at the Apocalypse, at the Second Coming, that all who lived and died in all humanity will resurrect and be judged by Jesus. Until that time each individual person's death and rendering of judgement to heaven or hell is in God the Father's hands.
Finally, another way you can understand this is to recall one of the most insightful, but most subtle and unnoticed, of all the writings of St. Paul.
And do not grieve the holy Spirit of God, with which you were sealed for the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30).
You see? Here Paul is reminding the readers that the Holy Spirit also partakes in the final judgement! What he is basically saying that if Christians are "All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling...along with all malice" (Ephesians 4:30-31) then these Christians risk losing, by giving sadness and grief to the Holy Spirit, the seal which will get them redeemed. This is powerful and serious stuff, people. Again, this is why I must caution you not to allow a kind of video image of Jesus in the waiting room giving easy judgement upon a person's death to delude you that it's not something that can't be lost. One can accept Jesus as one's Savior but if one does not also follow completely his "way" and indeed, going further, grieves the Holy Spirit, if Jesus is not truly Lord, then one is not prepared to be judged favorably by God, who does the judging based on 1) one's belief and 2) one's righteousness, through the guidance and filter of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Paul is warning good believers of the early Christian community that they can lose the seal of redemption if they grieve the Holy Spirit through the actions as listed above.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Understanding sin or "doing something bad"
Hi young people especially. It has been a while... I've not been blogging much (and not much that is cheerful) because I've been sad and upset about a friend of a friend's unnecessary death... and also some continuing really bad behavior I've been seeing and experiencing. So I've thought of a kind of spiritual lesson to think about today that is rooted in these past few days, and also one that I think young people need to better understand (since they've not gotten good data on this in the past!)
Bad behavior is sin; they are not two separate matters. This is a confusion that has crept into the modern mind and you young people get the brunt of the confusion regarding understanding God, and avoiding sin, as a result.
Let's look at an obvious easily agreed upon example and analogy. Suppose that someone murders someone else. That can be easily categorized as: bad behavior, a crime, and a sin. So everyone can easily understand that a murder is both doing something really bad to a person, but also a sin against God.
See, many people think that a "sin" is defined as breaking a list of laws or instructions that God has given you. If the thing is "not on the list" then people think it might be bad behavior, or uncouth, but not a sin. That's wrong and not Biblically accurate. No where does the Bible say that sin is the breaking of a list of specific laws given by God, and the rest falls into kind of optional "good" or "bad" behavior that does not "involve God" since it is person-to-person behavior. In fact, the opposite is true that all bad behavior including even thoughts but not follow up deeds ARE sins against God.
If you missed it, you can go back in my haphazardly organized blog ;-) and read my long commentary that cites scripture indicating that Jews and Christians have well understood from the very beginning that even having a mean thought about another person is a sin against God, not just a mean spirited thing against a fellow human being. I probably labeled that under "sins" so you might find it easily that way. So I won't repeat all that, but I cited much scripture regarding the explicit statement that even having a mean thought about another human, even if you don't actually follow up on it, is not only a mean spirited and unrighteous feeling to have, but also an actual sin and offense against God himself. So yes, every mean thought, say nothing of actual follow up bad behavior, is a sin against God, even though common modern thought assumes that it is "just" poor behavior and lack of self control or "spirituality."
So here is where you get into very tricky territory indeed. If you pick on someone, or scorn them, or otherwise torment them, such as stalking and bullying, even if you are not breaking a "Biblical law" or Commandment or committing a human "crime," you are committing a sin directly against God. There are two Biblically cited ways that one can understand why that is.
The first reason is that avoiding sin is not a matter of do's and don'ts, but the maintenance at all time of a righteous mind. Throughout the Bible there are numerous explanations that all humans are sinners, but it is the righteous who are saved. Righteous is not defined as someone who dodges a list of sins. A righteous person is one who strives ALWAYS to do and to think/feel only what is Godly, pure and correct. When one walks in righteousness one does not "do good deeds" but have a mind and a heart like a sewer. Righteousness is a lot like the old fashioned concept of being "honorable." This is why in Revelation 21 you see, depending on the translation, that God through Jesus Christ at the End of Times states that "dogs" or "the fearful" or other translations of kind of craven sorts will not be in heaven. I blogged about that too, recently, that God does not mean that four footed canines are denied heaven but that "dog" is a widespread ancient cultural concept for humans who act dishonorably or who are dishonorable. Someone who thinks something dirty in their mind about a child he or she sees, for example, is a
"dog" and craven, and even if the person does not follow up that thought with actual molestation, they are guilty of that sin.
So to summarize the first way to understand the enormity of the problem to maintain a state of not sinning against God, remember that sin is not simply refusing to heed a stated prohibition in the Bible but is being un-righteous in any way at all, both in the commission of un-righteousness, but also in the thoughts or feelings of it AND, further, deliberately avoiding chances to be righteous. That is why some translations of Revelation 21 include the word "fearful." Those who are fearful to be righteous will not inherit their place in heaven and will, instead, go to the lake of eternal fire.
The second Biblical way to understand how crucial it is to not sin against God by behaving badly toward other human beings is to understand that God stated that he created men and women "in his image." When one torments another human being through bullying, for example, one is mocking and degrading a person who is created, like everyone else, in God's image, just one step below angels. No matter how ugly or unpleasant that you think the person might be, having that thought falls in the category of un-righteousness, and hence a sin, because you are being 1) uncharitable, which Jesus repeatedly said is a requirement of his saving grace and 2) you are mocking something that God has created. A human being may have a bad hair style, but that human being's body and dignity is created by God. There is a huge difference (and that is called "sin") between thinking that a person has a bad haircut that does not suit them, and is even a bit funny (but humorous through kindness) and having degrading thoughts about that person, which is mocking God's creation and a sin. Skin color, as in racism, ought to be another obvious example, one much more serious than the haircut example (though the cruelty of these times regarding a person's appearance is astonishingly destructive and thus serious). Blacks who hate whites and whites who hate blacks are committing individual sins with each and every thought and deed generated by that un-righteousness, since God is neither black nor white, but all are created in his image.
God will not be mocked, as St Paul warns in the scripture. One mocks God not only directly, by making fun of God or attempting to degrade Him, but one also mocks God by tormenting and mocking one of His creations: a fellow human being. Beware of this because hell is getting packed, yet there is always plenty of room.
Bad behavior is sin; they are not two separate matters. This is a confusion that has crept into the modern mind and you young people get the brunt of the confusion regarding understanding God, and avoiding sin, as a result.
Let's look at an obvious easily agreed upon example and analogy. Suppose that someone murders someone else. That can be easily categorized as: bad behavior, a crime, and a sin. So everyone can easily understand that a murder is both doing something really bad to a person, but also a sin against God.
See, many people think that a "sin" is defined as breaking a list of laws or instructions that God has given you. If the thing is "not on the list" then people think it might be bad behavior, or uncouth, but not a sin. That's wrong and not Biblically accurate. No where does the Bible say that sin is the breaking of a list of specific laws given by God, and the rest falls into kind of optional "good" or "bad" behavior that does not "involve God" since it is person-to-person behavior. In fact, the opposite is true that all bad behavior including even thoughts but not follow up deeds ARE sins against God.
If you missed it, you can go back in my haphazardly organized blog ;-) and read my long commentary that cites scripture indicating that Jews and Christians have well understood from the very beginning that even having a mean thought about another person is a sin against God, not just a mean spirited thing against a fellow human being. I probably labeled that under "sins" so you might find it easily that way. So I won't repeat all that, but I cited much scripture regarding the explicit statement that even having a mean thought about another human, even if you don't actually follow up on it, is not only a mean spirited and unrighteous feeling to have, but also an actual sin and offense against God himself. So yes, every mean thought, say nothing of actual follow up bad behavior, is a sin against God, even though common modern thought assumes that it is "just" poor behavior and lack of self control or "spirituality."
So here is where you get into very tricky territory indeed. If you pick on someone, or scorn them, or otherwise torment them, such as stalking and bullying, even if you are not breaking a "Biblical law" or Commandment or committing a human "crime," you are committing a sin directly against God. There are two Biblically cited ways that one can understand why that is.
The first reason is that avoiding sin is not a matter of do's and don'ts, but the maintenance at all time of a righteous mind. Throughout the Bible there are numerous explanations that all humans are sinners, but it is the righteous who are saved. Righteous is not defined as someone who dodges a list of sins. A righteous person is one who strives ALWAYS to do and to think/feel only what is Godly, pure and correct. When one walks in righteousness one does not "do good deeds" but have a mind and a heart like a sewer. Righteousness is a lot like the old fashioned concept of being "honorable." This is why in Revelation 21 you see, depending on the translation, that God through Jesus Christ at the End of Times states that "dogs" or "the fearful" or other translations of kind of craven sorts will not be in heaven. I blogged about that too, recently, that God does not mean that four footed canines are denied heaven but that "dog" is a widespread ancient cultural concept for humans who act dishonorably or who are dishonorable. Someone who thinks something dirty in their mind about a child he or she sees, for example, is a
"dog" and craven, and even if the person does not follow up that thought with actual molestation, they are guilty of that sin.
So to summarize the first way to understand the enormity of the problem to maintain a state of not sinning against God, remember that sin is not simply refusing to heed a stated prohibition in the Bible but is being un-righteous in any way at all, both in the commission of un-righteousness, but also in the thoughts or feelings of it AND, further, deliberately avoiding chances to be righteous. That is why some translations of Revelation 21 include the word "fearful." Those who are fearful to be righteous will not inherit their place in heaven and will, instead, go to the lake of eternal fire.
The second Biblical way to understand how crucial it is to not sin against God by behaving badly toward other human beings is to understand that God stated that he created men and women "in his image." When one torments another human being through bullying, for example, one is mocking and degrading a person who is created, like everyone else, in God's image, just one step below angels. No matter how ugly or unpleasant that you think the person might be, having that thought falls in the category of un-righteousness, and hence a sin, because you are being 1) uncharitable, which Jesus repeatedly said is a requirement of his saving grace and 2) you are mocking something that God has created. A human being may have a bad hair style, but that human being's body and dignity is created by God. There is a huge difference (and that is called "sin") between thinking that a person has a bad haircut that does not suit them, and is even a bit funny (but humorous through kindness) and having degrading thoughts about that person, which is mocking God's creation and a sin. Skin color, as in racism, ought to be another obvious example, one much more serious than the haircut example (though the cruelty of these times regarding a person's appearance is astonishingly destructive and thus serious). Blacks who hate whites and whites who hate blacks are committing individual sins with each and every thought and deed generated by that un-righteousness, since God is neither black nor white, but all are created in his image.
God will not be mocked, as St Paul warns in the scripture. One mocks God not only directly, by making fun of God or attempting to degrade Him, but one also mocks God by tormenting and mocking one of His creations: a fellow human being. Beware of this because hell is getting packed, yet there is always plenty of room.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Understanding God: speaks literally or symbolically
If one thinks about it, the heart of much of the confusion and divisiveness among many Christians, particularly along sect lines, involves confusion about when the Word of God in the Holy Bible is absolutely literal as stated, and when a certain about of symbolism is appropriate.
I was going to write a commentary about Revelation 22:15 for an entirely different blogging topic when I realized that this is a great passage to help people to understand how to correctly balance understanding of "literal" versus "symbolic." That, by the way, is an artificial debate, which results from trying to be lazy in one's discernment about the true meaning of anyone's spoken word, including God's. Excessive literalists are lazy in one direction (they don't want to think about it, just "tell me what to do" is their hope), while excessive symbolists are lazy in the other direction (they don't want to obey some of God's more difficult instructions and thus they hope to be wishy washy and say that it's not literal and thus need not be strictly followed). The truth is that the Word of God must of course be strictly followed, but God speaks in the lingua franca of the people (the common tongue of the time) and thus there will be moments of symbolic speech which takes nothing from the total truth and requirement of those meanings.
Revelation 22:15
Outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone who lives and practices falsehood.
In the Book of Revelation John the Apostle has been taken in vision to heaven where he sees all that will take place at the End of Time, the Second Coming of Christ, the Final Judgment. In conclusion of this vision Jesus Christ is speaking to John through Christ's angel. Jesus has given John instructions about revealing all that he has seen and heard, and is giving a summation, which are the final words by him in the Christian Bible. Jesus has just finished praising those who "have the right to the tree of life" (in heaven and in the New Jerusalem), and he now, in Revelation 22:15, lists those who will be excluded from heaven (those who are "outside.")
You can now see why I chose this excellently clear passage to help you to work on your literal/symbolic discernment. What is the first group that Jesus lists will be outside of heaven, excluded from the heavenly city to come? "Outside are the dogs."
I am only half joking when I say that Bible literacy and common sense historical and cultural knowledge have become so low that someday soon young readers of these modern generations will worry that members of the canine species are excluded from heaven. After all, Jesus said that "dogs" will be excluded. This is the perfect example to start a personal effort for you to discern that the Bible is both literal and truthful throughout in meaning, but that one has a responsibility for understanding the plain, historic and cultural context of the language that God uses throughout. Obviously God is not speaking of excluding beagles, mutts, spaniels, retrievers, Pomeranians, etc from heaven. God is using a derogatory term for certain human beings, one that has been used for many centuries in many languages and cultures: dog.
I want to keep this commentary short and sweet so I'm not going to itemize what type of human behavior is so sinful that it renders a person being called "a dog." It was not that long ago that Americans would call someone who was deceitful a "dirty dog." So the term "dog" has an enduring longevity over the centuries to denote certain types of unworthy persons and if one reads about the cultural meaning of being "a dog" from Biblical times, you will realize that it's easier to recognize than to itemize.
The heart of what I am trying to convey is that here is a very obvious example of where everyone can agree that God is being exact in his meaning but using a symbolic term for a quantity that is not so precise. Compare that to another type of person on the list, which are the "murderers." A "murderer" is a much more precise term than a person who is "a dog." In fact, you can see that those are probably the opposite ends of the spectrum of precision in language, where murderer is a very precise term while "dog" is less precise to modern ears. However, in Biblical times and indeed to the present time in many cultures the meaning of "dog" is very well understood. Someone being called a dog by someone else knows exactly the derogatory tone of the term. Thus it is the Bible reader's responsibility to not gloss over the term "dog," but to understand that one must embrace the symbolic meaning to obtain precision of understanding. Thus one must be somewhat well educated in the vernacular of Biblical times, and that is not so much school smarts as common sense. As a hint much of what is behind the accusation of being a "dog" is a lack of honor. As modern society has lost and continues to lose much of its sense and understanding of honor, likewise it is in danger of missing a very specific admonition given with great clarity by Jesus Christ.
Both the person who thinks that Jesus meant beagles (literal) AND the person who thinks it's just a general symbolic word that doesn't merit much thought (symbolic) are in error. The term dog DOES denote a specific category of sinful and unworthy behavior that is being warned about.
Another very specific term, like murderers, that is easy to understand is "everyone who loves and practices falsehood." That is a literal lover's delight. Jesus Christ is warning that those who lie AND those who love lies will be excluded from heaven. There is no symbolism to obscure the meaning there.
Idolaters is also a specific term, and reading the Bible indicates that anything that is fashioned by human hands and then loved and worshipped by those hands is idolatry. Again, one must understand that a literal term can have a broad list of qualifying behaviors. Everyone should realize that there are many modern idolaters today even if they are not worshipping Baal or another Biblically cited false god, since they worship modern creations of the hands. Likewise the group "sorcerers" have a very specific meaning, though some might try to argue regarding what is a sorcery out of the list of many activities that are forbidden, such as magic, divining and so forth. In other words, idolaters and sorcerers are easy to understand and precise terms, but there is a temptation by humans to quibble about whether specific activities are included in those terms.
There is the remaining group, fornicators, that exactly straddles the literal and symbolic. Again, this demonstrates one must read and study the entire Bible to have genuine understanding of any of the parts. If one reads the Bible thoroughly, one understands that sometimes God is referring to literal sins of fornication (sexual activities) while other times God is using the same term to refer to those who are unfaithful to him, to their faith. It is impossible to study the Bible and not notice that sometimes God uses the terms fornicator, harlot and whore to refer to those who engage in illicit sexual behavior while other times God uses those exact same terms to refer to those who have faith in him and who then fall away from faith, or those who spread false faiths and their followers, to those who perform works on behalf of Satan, and those who, to use a modern term, cheapen God and his people.
So we have seen that in this one sentence we see the range from most symbolic to most literal:
(Symbolic) Dogs...fornicators... idolaters...sorcerers....everyone who loves and practices falsehood...murderers (Literal).
Whether Jesus Christ uses a term that is easy to understand in its literalness or more difficult to understand in its symbolic verbiage of the vernacular language, it makes no difference about how crucial they are to understand and to obey God in these matters. One cannot stand in front of God in Judgment and whine, "Well, I didn't know what you meant by 'dogs.'"
I hope that this has been an easy to understand and helpful place to start in recognizing that there really is NO "literal" versus "symbolic" difficulty in the Bible. One must simply recognize that God means to be understood, and hence he used the speech of the day in very clear terms. Moderns must continue to respect and understand the speech of the day of the Bible in order to obtain full and completely correct personal understanding of what God is saying.
I was going to write a commentary about Revelation 22:15 for an entirely different blogging topic when I realized that this is a great passage to help people to understand how to correctly balance understanding of "literal" versus "symbolic." That, by the way, is an artificial debate, which results from trying to be lazy in one's discernment about the true meaning of anyone's spoken word, including God's. Excessive literalists are lazy in one direction (they don't want to think about it, just "tell me what to do" is their hope), while excessive symbolists are lazy in the other direction (they don't want to obey some of God's more difficult instructions and thus they hope to be wishy washy and say that it's not literal and thus need not be strictly followed). The truth is that the Word of God must of course be strictly followed, but God speaks in the lingua franca of the people (the common tongue of the time) and thus there will be moments of symbolic speech which takes nothing from the total truth and requirement of those meanings.
Revelation 22:15
Outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone who lives and practices falsehood.
In the Book of Revelation John the Apostle has been taken in vision to heaven where he sees all that will take place at the End of Time, the Second Coming of Christ, the Final Judgment. In conclusion of this vision Jesus Christ is speaking to John through Christ's angel. Jesus has given John instructions about revealing all that he has seen and heard, and is giving a summation, which are the final words by him in the Christian Bible. Jesus has just finished praising those who "have the right to the tree of life" (in heaven and in the New Jerusalem), and he now, in Revelation 22:15, lists those who will be excluded from heaven (those who are "outside.")
You can now see why I chose this excellently clear passage to help you to work on your literal/symbolic discernment. What is the first group that Jesus lists will be outside of heaven, excluded from the heavenly city to come? "Outside are the dogs."
I am only half joking when I say that Bible literacy and common sense historical and cultural knowledge have become so low that someday soon young readers of these modern generations will worry that members of the canine species are excluded from heaven. After all, Jesus said that "dogs" will be excluded. This is the perfect example to start a personal effort for you to discern that the Bible is both literal and truthful throughout in meaning, but that one has a responsibility for understanding the plain, historic and cultural context of the language that God uses throughout. Obviously God is not speaking of excluding beagles, mutts, spaniels, retrievers, Pomeranians, etc from heaven. God is using a derogatory term for certain human beings, one that has been used for many centuries in many languages and cultures: dog.
I want to keep this commentary short and sweet so I'm not going to itemize what type of human behavior is so sinful that it renders a person being called "a dog." It was not that long ago that Americans would call someone who was deceitful a "dirty dog." So the term "dog" has an enduring longevity over the centuries to denote certain types of unworthy persons and if one reads about the cultural meaning of being "a dog" from Biblical times, you will realize that it's easier to recognize than to itemize.
The heart of what I am trying to convey is that here is a very obvious example of where everyone can agree that God is being exact in his meaning but using a symbolic term for a quantity that is not so precise. Compare that to another type of person on the list, which are the "murderers." A "murderer" is a much more precise term than a person who is "a dog." In fact, you can see that those are probably the opposite ends of the spectrum of precision in language, where murderer is a very precise term while "dog" is less precise to modern ears. However, in Biblical times and indeed to the present time in many cultures the meaning of "dog" is very well understood. Someone being called a dog by someone else knows exactly the derogatory tone of the term. Thus it is the Bible reader's responsibility to not gloss over the term "dog," but to understand that one must embrace the symbolic meaning to obtain precision of understanding. Thus one must be somewhat well educated in the vernacular of Biblical times, and that is not so much school smarts as common sense. As a hint much of what is behind the accusation of being a "dog" is a lack of honor. As modern society has lost and continues to lose much of its sense and understanding of honor, likewise it is in danger of missing a very specific admonition given with great clarity by Jesus Christ.
Both the person who thinks that Jesus meant beagles (literal) AND the person who thinks it's just a general symbolic word that doesn't merit much thought (symbolic) are in error. The term dog DOES denote a specific category of sinful and unworthy behavior that is being warned about.
Another very specific term, like murderers, that is easy to understand is "everyone who loves and practices falsehood." That is a literal lover's delight. Jesus Christ is warning that those who lie AND those who love lies will be excluded from heaven. There is no symbolism to obscure the meaning there.
Idolaters is also a specific term, and reading the Bible indicates that anything that is fashioned by human hands and then loved and worshipped by those hands is idolatry. Again, one must understand that a literal term can have a broad list of qualifying behaviors. Everyone should realize that there are many modern idolaters today even if they are not worshipping Baal or another Biblically cited false god, since they worship modern creations of the hands. Likewise the group "sorcerers" have a very specific meaning, though some might try to argue regarding what is a sorcery out of the list of many activities that are forbidden, such as magic, divining and so forth. In other words, idolaters and sorcerers are easy to understand and precise terms, but there is a temptation by humans to quibble about whether specific activities are included in those terms.
There is the remaining group, fornicators, that exactly straddles the literal and symbolic. Again, this demonstrates one must read and study the entire Bible to have genuine understanding of any of the parts. If one reads the Bible thoroughly, one understands that sometimes God is referring to literal sins of fornication (sexual activities) while other times God is using the same term to refer to those who are unfaithful to him, to their faith. It is impossible to study the Bible and not notice that sometimes God uses the terms fornicator, harlot and whore to refer to those who engage in illicit sexual behavior while other times God uses those exact same terms to refer to those who have faith in him and who then fall away from faith, or those who spread false faiths and their followers, to those who perform works on behalf of Satan, and those who, to use a modern term, cheapen God and his people.
So we have seen that in this one sentence we see the range from most symbolic to most literal:
(Symbolic) Dogs...fornicators... idolaters...sorcerers....everyone who loves and practices falsehood...murderers (Literal).
Whether Jesus Christ uses a term that is easy to understand in its literalness or more difficult to understand in its symbolic verbiage of the vernacular language, it makes no difference about how crucial they are to understand and to obey God in these matters. One cannot stand in front of God in Judgment and whine, "Well, I didn't know what you meant by 'dogs.'"
I hope that this has been an easy to understand and helpful place to start in recognizing that there really is NO "literal" versus "symbolic" difficulty in the Bible. One must simply recognize that God means to be understood, and hence he used the speech of the day in very clear terms. Moderns must continue to respect and understand the speech of the day of the Bible in order to obtain full and completely correct personal understanding of what God is saying.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Bible reading: Revelation
And I saw that the Lamb had opened the first of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying, as with a voice of thunder, "Come!" And I saw, and behold, a white horse, and he who was sitting on it had a bow, and there was given him a crown, and he went forth as a conquerer to conquer (Apocalypse 6:1-2).
Um, by the way, that is a bow, as in bow and arrows, and not "take a bow" as in that dreadful "Madonna's" song LOL. As the Lamb (Jesus Christ) is sending the first horseman with a bow from heaven, that is a spiritual bow of conquest. It remains to be seen how that is achieved in reality, not in people's cult sociopathic imaginings.
Um, by the way, that is a bow, as in bow and arrows, and not "take a bow" as in that dreadful "Madonna's" song LOL. As the Lamb (Jesus Christ) is sending the first horseman with a bow from heaven, that is a spiritual bow of conquest. It remains to be seen how that is achieved in reality, not in people's cult sociopathic imaginings.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Previous Bible reading illuminates Revelations reading
When you read the previous reading from Ezekiel and my commentary, you better understand how Jesus Christ appears in judgment, as seen by John in the vision of the Book of Revelation.
Revelation 1:16
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
God, throughout scriptures, prepares the way for greater and greater understanding of his will, which culminated, of course, in the bodily presence of Jesus Christ, and the giving of the Holy Spirit to the disciples at Pentecost.
So here is a perfect example where you can see how God explains the analogy of his judgment being like a sword to Ezekiel, and then John witnessing the glorified judging Jesus Christ in heaven, in preparation for the end of time, with a sharp sword in his mouth.
An explanation of the specification that Jesus has a "two-edged sword" is needed because again moderns do not understand what was well understood in Biblical times.
A two-edged sword is a sword that can cut on both sides. Many swords have only one cutting edge, and so if one is in a fight, one must always turn that side toward the opponent in order to cut them.
A two-edged sword implies swiftness of striking the opponent, because when both sides are sharp, one does not need to turn the sword or return to position to strike the opponent again. With a two-edged sword one can stroke, for example from left to right across an opponent's body cutting with the "right" edge of the sword, and then in the same motion draw back across the opponent's body from right to left, cutting with the left edge, which is the leading edge. In other words, a two-edged sword means you can lead and inflict the strike with either edge.
Thus John is noticing that Jesus Christ has out of his mouth a two-edged sword, which means great swiftness and totality of judgment.
Revelation 1:16
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
God, throughout scriptures, prepares the way for greater and greater understanding of his will, which culminated, of course, in the bodily presence of Jesus Christ, and the giving of the Holy Spirit to the disciples at Pentecost.
So here is a perfect example where you can see how God explains the analogy of his judgment being like a sword to Ezekiel, and then John witnessing the glorified judging Jesus Christ in heaven, in preparation for the end of time, with a sharp sword in his mouth.
An explanation of the specification that Jesus has a "two-edged sword" is needed because again moderns do not understand what was well understood in Biblical times.
A two-edged sword is a sword that can cut on both sides. Many swords have only one cutting edge, and so if one is in a fight, one must always turn that side toward the opponent in order to cut them.
A two-edged sword implies swiftness of striking the opponent, because when both sides are sharp, one does not need to turn the sword or return to position to strike the opponent again. With a two-edged sword one can stroke, for example from left to right across an opponent's body cutting with the "right" edge of the sword, and then in the same motion draw back across the opponent's body from right to left, cutting with the left edge, which is the leading edge. In other words, a two-edged sword means you can lead and inflict the strike with either edge.
Thus John is noticing that Jesus Christ has out of his mouth a two-edged sword, which means great swiftness and totality of judgment.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Bible Reading: Revelation 11:19
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.
Bible Reading: 1 Peter 4:7-11, Revelation 22:18-9
But the end of all things is at hand. Be prudent therefore and watchful in prayers. But above all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves; for charity covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without murmuring. According to the gift that each has received, administer it to one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If anyone speaks, let it be with words of God. If anyone ministers, let it be as from the strength that God furnishes; that in all things God may be honored through Jesus Christ, to whom are the glory and the dominion forever. Amen.
[Commentary: Notice that St. Peter, the first Pope, advises how to be prepared for the "end of all things..." not by panicking or by living any differently than in normal times that seem to last forever but to be "prudent" and "watchful" IN PRAYERS. St. Peter would say the same thing today. He would not say to stockpile AK-47's so that you can "defend your family's" "hoarded food" when "there are food riots during the 'tribulation.'" He in fact says the opposite. He says to anticipate the end of times WITHIN ONE'S OWN PRAYER LIFE. It is in prayer to God that one 'prepares' for the 'end of all things,' not in a single earthly deed.
In fact, St. Peter admonishes people to continue to "above all" have constant and mutual charity. The Greek translation uses the word "earnest" instead of "mutual." St. Peter admonishes people to anticipate the end of times only in their prayer life but to continue and even accelerate the graciousness and decency of genuine (earnest and mutual) charity. St. Peter doesn't waste time explaining why charity is the right thing to do; he cuts to the chase by saying that GENUINE MUTUAL charity "covers a multitude of sins." St. Peter is thus pointing out that people will sin just as they always have right until the end of times and that they better continue to live good Christian lives right up to and through the end, with more effort, not less, as the end may or may not be nigh.
St. Peter then says that if anyone speaks at all it better be "with words of God." St. Peter certainly did not mean to make up entire conversations "with God" and sell them in book deals to mislead the faithful even more. St. Peter is, through use of the word "if" is praising prudent silence. Thus he says that "if" "anyone speaks," it better be "with" as in speaking the actual words of God. The actual words of God can only be found in the scripture.
Further, if one goes farther than speaking, but "if" "anyone ministers," St. Peter explains that the ministry should come from the strength of God. What does he mean? Not to "be strong" as in the modern idea that one has to withhold against persecution. St. Peter means with certainty, as in being strong in one's proclamation of God. God provides strength to his ministers by providing the truth to them through the scriptures.
So St. Peter summarizes that "if" one speaks and "if" one ministers, "in all things" one is to honor God. The point of speaking or ministering is to honor God and nothing else. Further, as Christians, St. Peter reminds all that the way that God is honored is through Jesus Christ, who is God's ultimate gift to humanity. One honors God by honoring and praising the gift that he has given. Thus all praise and dominion are of God's, given through Jesus Christ.
St. Peter wrote this letter while in Rome near the end of his life, a few years before his martyrdom. Thus he was writing over thirty years since the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. He's had all of this time to be the "bridge," in partnership with St. Paul, between Jesus Christ as he lived and walked, and how people are expected to develop the faith and comport themselves until the end of all things. St. Peter had no way of knowing that he and St. Paul would not be the final speakers, the final witnesses, of this bridge from the Apostles to the birthed and living, growing Church, the body of the faithful for there would be one more book several decades later: St. John's Book of Revelation (Apocalypse).
Yet St. John's book, the last of the set that comprise the Christian bible, reinforces all that St. Peter taught, summarized in one very blunt line:
Revelation 22:18
I [Jesus] testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone shall add to them, God will add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
The Apostles were fully aware that one of the greatest temptations that humans will succumb to will be to write themselves into the scripture as false prophets. Even they, however, could not have imagined that in the future people will dare to write that God and angels are chatting with them, saying non-scriptural things and weakening people's faith. However, it is because that the Apostles could never have imagined the extent that the false prophet syndrome (for money and prideful glory and celebrity, no less) Jesus certainly knows all, sees all, and this is why he dictated to St. John such a dire warning a few sentences from the end of what will be the last page of the Bible, the holy scripture. Jesus is not simply referring to "this book" as in the chapter that is Revelation. Jesus means the holy scriptures: ALL of it. No one is to add to the words of prophecy (the word of God) of THE book.
Jesus in the very next line also anticipates the power of "omission" that humans utilize, which is to skip over the parts of the Bible and the word of God that they just don't want to obey.
Revelation 22:19
If anyone shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.
Friends, if I take great care to only explain and never add or omit from the Bible, I don't know how many of you in your turn dare to just pull whatever out of whatever part of your bodies and call that "messages" that you have "received" "from God" or from "angels," and then sell that in book format. I shudder, absolutely shudder at how each of you will have to answer for that.
I strongly suggest that you all go back to reading the Bible and especially following the very strong advice of the Apostles.
Worried about the 'end of all things?' Well, shut up, pray, and continue to do more and more of the day to day charity and other genuine good that you have been exhorted to do.]
Monday, January 5, 2009
Book of Revelation: 5:9-14, 6:1-2
And they sing a new canticle, saying, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us for God with thy blood, out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them for our God a kingdom and priests, and they shall reign over the earth."
And I beheld, and I heard a voice of many angels round about the throne, and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and divinity and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing."
And every creature that is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and such as are on the sea, and all that are in them, I heard them all saying, "To him who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb, blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."
And the four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshipped him who lives forever and ever.
[The above are known as the three songs of praise, for they are songs that St. John the Apostle saw and heard being sung by all in heaven to Jesus Christ, the Lamb. Jesus then prepares to go forth in the Second Coming:]
And I saw that the Lamb had opened the first of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying, as with a voice of thunder, "Come!"
And I saw, and behold, a white horse, and he who was sitting on it had a bow, and there was given him a crown, and he went forth as a conqueror to conquer.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A phrase that REALLY annoys me
"Most modern scholars believe..."
That phrase is usually the first part of some a*** compulsive "analysis" of Biblical texts to discern who the "real" authors are, and the one that infuriates me the most is the theory that the works of John the Apostle are by three different Johns, due to differences in "writing style" etc. That is so sophomoric an analysis that it really beggars even a reply.
All of the Biblical works attributed to John were written by the one and only John the Apostle, who did indeed live to a very long age, just as Jesus prophesied. Thus anyone with any knowledge of people realizes that one's style and word usage varies over the decades, according to the purpose of the document, and also to the degree that the author is actively inspired by the Holy Spirit while in the writing. Also, successors will often edit sections to make them more readable.
Revelation reads so differently than the Gospel and the Letters of John because obviously it is the result of complete guidance by the Holy Spirit. I've mentioned this before but will repeat that the scroll that St. John swallowed is the "means" by which he then recalled and wrote the complete telling of the Book of Revelation. That is obviously a different set of circumstances than when he wrote the Gospel of St. John, which serves a separate purpose, and the Letters of St. John, again, different purposes. You cannot mistake, however, the style in all of them, not the "grammar" but the level of spirituality. The Gospel of St. John has the same tone as the Book of Revelation. There are no mysterious "other" "Johns."
*special place in hell for certain 'modern scholars'*
No one should claim to be a Biblical scholar if they are approaching the material with a stance of "agnostic faith," as in, "prove it to me using modern criteria." That is so annoying and is just another attempt to erode the faith.
*rant over (for now!)*
That phrase is usually the first part of some a*** compulsive "analysis" of Biblical texts to discern who the "real" authors are, and the one that infuriates me the most is the theory that the works of John the Apostle are by three different Johns, due to differences in "writing style" etc. That is so sophomoric an analysis that it really beggars even a reply.
All of the Biblical works attributed to John were written by the one and only John the Apostle, who did indeed live to a very long age, just as Jesus prophesied. Thus anyone with any knowledge of people realizes that one's style and word usage varies over the decades, according to the purpose of the document, and also to the degree that the author is actively inspired by the Holy Spirit while in the writing. Also, successors will often edit sections to make them more readable.
Revelation reads so differently than the Gospel and the Letters of John because obviously it is the result of complete guidance by the Holy Spirit. I've mentioned this before but will repeat that the scroll that St. John swallowed is the "means" by which he then recalled and wrote the complete telling of the Book of Revelation. That is obviously a different set of circumstances than when he wrote the Gospel of St. John, which serves a separate purpose, and the Letters of St. John, again, different purposes. You cannot mistake, however, the style in all of them, not the "grammar" but the level of spirituality. The Gospel of St. John has the same tone as the Book of Revelation. There are no mysterious "other" "Johns."
*special place in hell for certain 'modern scholars'*
No one should claim to be a Biblical scholar if they are approaching the material with a stance of "agnostic faith," as in, "prove it to me using modern criteria." That is so annoying and is just another attempt to erode the faith.
*rant over (for now!)*
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Tired accusations churches pagan/bureaucratic
I have to write a quick posting, one that’s going to use just some fast examples rather than either a scholarly or a contemporary language discussion with analogies. I’m spending some time reading a blog where a Christian scholar is picking apart another in the series of “anti-institutional church” books that pop up in order to confuse and divide the body faithful even more (if that’s possible, and obviously I guess that it is). The authors of the book claim to have done all sorts of church history, but apparently all that they cite is either misinterpretation or cherry picked to attack churches for being bureaucracies and institutions as being “un Biblical.” It’s like the needle stuck in the record groove how many times we have to listen to that over and over and over again. The blog I was reading was doing a great job of analyzing and refuting (while exposing the bias) points taken directly from the book. You can see the agenda supporters kick in, however, in some of the comments. All I can say is that people who continue to take on those who try to pick apart the “institutional church” are doing God’s work.
Apparently the authors rarely reference the Catholic liturgy or institution except to make the usual swipes about innocent folks being persecuted by the Church. They actually seem to be mostly “against” non-Catholic institutional churches as being un-Biblical and the usual “not what Jesus said or would have wanted.” But rather than that meaning that the Catholic Church is getting a pass on this, apparently the Church is not even mentioned because it is supposedly so totally indefensible that it is off the wall “un Biblical” and “not what Jesus said or would have wanted.” Sigh. So rather than dive into this whole mess again, which I tire of the game, but because I am fuming, I want to get three points out for my readers to use to keep their bearings when they are exposed to back and forth such as these.
1. Music and singing is attacked as being “un Biblical” and “not what Jesus would have wanted.” Here is my answer from the Catholic point of view, from which the music tradition of the post reformation Christian churches spring.
The Catholic Mass should be viewed as imitating what Jesus taught and what is in the Bible, and grew in complexity for this reason over the years, not because of a desire to become more “bureaucratic” and being “more pagan.” Church founding fathers and their descendants added Biblical elements to the liturgy to make it more Biblical, not less. One of the main hymns of the Catholic Mass, the Sanctus, is not only taken directly from the Bible, but it is in the Mass in order to actually imitate the very angels in heaven word for word in their singing of God’s praises. Early Catholic liturgists examined the Old Testament text and rather than be “pagan” or “bureaucratic,” they eagerly took the very words of the angels from their lips in praise of God and made it one of the essential segments of the liturgy. St. John the Apostle, the Apostle loved by Jesus and the longest living Apostle (100 years old) wrote the Apocalypse, otherwise known as the Book of Revelation and this is what he observed.
Revelation 4:1, 6 After this I had a vision of an open door to heaven...
The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming:
"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty,
who was, and who is, and who is to come."
Catholic Mass: At the end of the preface he joins his hands and together with the people, concludes it by singing or saying aloud:
Holy, holy, holy, Lord, God of power and might,
heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.
What could be more reverential and Biblical than that? And if you are worried about all those "new songs" that are in the liturgy besides this one that has "the Biblical stamp of approval" read this:
Revelation 14:1-3
Then I looked and there was the Lamb standing on Mount Zion... The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. They were singing what seemed to be a new hymn before the throne...no one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth...
Clearly even at the End of Days when Christ returns, there is a "new hymn" that is a sign of the redeemed faithful. So we are supposed to think that if a new hymn demarks the end of times and is thus obviously pleasing to God, that songs of worship while the earth still exists are "pagan" or "bureaucratic?"
2. Use of incense is not bureaucratic or pagan leavings, but as with the music example, a desire to make the Mass as biblical as possible. This cannot be dismissed as saying, "Oh, well the Jews used incense but the Temple was destroyed and there is nothing in the New Testament that says incense is 'what Jesus would have wanted' or Biblical." Oh yeah?
Revelation 4:1 After this I had a vision of an open door to heaven...
Revelation 8:3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne.
Catholic Mass: After the people have assembled, the priest and the ministers go to the altar while the entrance song is being sung.
When the priest comes to the altar, he makes the customary reverence with the ministers, kisses the altar and incenses it.
Apparently St. John observed first hand that God likes "a great quantity of incense" and it is placed in a "gold" censer no less. So much for those who say that Jesus would prefer that God be worshipped with a rattan place mat bought at a dollar store.
3. The accusation that the Church hierarchy is "un Biblical" because Jesus said all of the Apostles were equal is incorrect and totally ignores St. Peter and what Jesus said to them as if that part of the New Testament is written in invisible ink. Oops, I guess it's invisible ink that the Catholics seem to have been able to read, but not anti institutional church critics.
John 21: 15-18
Read that verse carefully. The RESURRECTED Jesus Christ singles out Peter to be questioned three times as to his love of Jesus, and therefore his exhortation to be the earthly shepherd of the flock of Jesus. Jesus didn't hold a hippie vote or ask that they manage by committee. He selected Peter. A few verses later Jesus makes a further distinguishing among the Apostles. He indicated that all would be martyred except John. Peter questioned why this was and Jesus said to him "What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me." Jesus is explicitly indicating a sequential order among his "rock" Peter, who must follow him, and John, who will follow Jesus only when Jesus "comes for him" (a natural death).
So it is false to portray the Apostles as all "equal." All men and women are equal, but Jesus clearly assigned roles and sequences of events through both statement and prophecy. And indeed Jesus sent an angel to take John to heaven and witness what he writes in the Book of Revelation. John "got the job" of living a very long natural life, training many Christian followers, and "writing the last chapter" in what would be, through the Holy Spirit's guidance, the Bible. Peter "got the job" of being the martyred rock, the Bishop of Rome and therefore the first Pope, upon whom Jesus built his Church. How can anyone say that a hierarchy of different roles and sequences of events is un-Biblical or done for "pomp and bureaucracy?" It's really outrageous.
Anyway, keep these three examples in mind whenever you feel attacked or uncertain about the solid Biblical foundation for an institutional Christian church structure and formal sacred required liturgy. One blindness and stumbling block that those type of people have is that they confuse Jesus being definitive regarding not being personally worshipped and pointing all worship back to God with Jesus now saying it's "what the heck" regarding sacred worship. That is incredibly far from the truth.
Apparently the authors rarely reference the Catholic liturgy or institution except to make the usual swipes about innocent folks being persecuted by the Church. They actually seem to be mostly “against” non-Catholic institutional churches as being un-Biblical and the usual “not what Jesus said or would have wanted.” But rather than that meaning that the Catholic Church is getting a pass on this, apparently the Church is not even mentioned because it is supposedly so totally indefensible that it is off the wall “un Biblical” and “not what Jesus said or would have wanted.” Sigh. So rather than dive into this whole mess again, which I tire of the game, but because I am fuming, I want to get three points out for my readers to use to keep their bearings when they are exposed to back and forth such as these.
1. Music and singing is attacked as being “un Biblical” and “not what Jesus would have wanted.” Here is my answer from the Catholic point of view, from which the music tradition of the post reformation Christian churches spring.
The Catholic Mass should be viewed as imitating what Jesus taught and what is in the Bible, and grew in complexity for this reason over the years, not because of a desire to become more “bureaucratic” and being “more pagan.” Church founding fathers and their descendants added Biblical elements to the liturgy to make it more Biblical, not less. One of the main hymns of the Catholic Mass, the Sanctus, is not only taken directly from the Bible, but it is in the Mass in order to actually imitate the very angels in heaven word for word in their singing of God’s praises. Early Catholic liturgists examined the Old Testament text and rather than be “pagan” or “bureaucratic,” they eagerly took the very words of the angels from their lips in praise of God and made it one of the essential segments of the liturgy. St. John the Apostle, the Apostle loved by Jesus and the longest living Apostle (100 years old) wrote the Apocalypse, otherwise known as the Book of Revelation and this is what he observed.
Revelation 4:1, 6 After this I had a vision of an open door to heaven...
The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming:
"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty,
who was, and who is, and who is to come."
Catholic Mass: At the end of the preface he joins his hands and together with the people, concludes it by singing or saying aloud:
Holy, holy, holy, Lord, God of power and might,
heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.
What could be more reverential and Biblical than that? And if you are worried about all those "new songs" that are in the liturgy besides this one that has "the Biblical stamp of approval" read this:
Revelation 14:1-3
Then I looked and there was the Lamb standing on Mount Zion... The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. They were singing what seemed to be a new hymn before the throne...no one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth...
Clearly even at the End of Days when Christ returns, there is a "new hymn" that is a sign of the redeemed faithful. So we are supposed to think that if a new hymn demarks the end of times and is thus obviously pleasing to God, that songs of worship while the earth still exists are "pagan" or "bureaucratic?"
2. Use of incense is not bureaucratic or pagan leavings, but as with the music example, a desire to make the Mass as biblical as possible. This cannot be dismissed as saying, "Oh, well the Jews used incense but the Temple was destroyed and there is nothing in the New Testament that says incense is 'what Jesus would have wanted' or Biblical." Oh yeah?
Revelation 4:1 After this I had a vision of an open door to heaven...
Revelation 8:3 Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne.
Catholic Mass: After the people have assembled, the priest and the ministers go to the altar while the entrance song is being sung.
When the priest comes to the altar, he makes the customary reverence with the ministers, kisses the altar and incenses it.
Apparently St. John observed first hand that God likes "a great quantity of incense" and it is placed in a "gold" censer no less. So much for those who say that Jesus would prefer that God be worshipped with a rattan place mat bought at a dollar store.
3. The accusation that the Church hierarchy is "un Biblical" because Jesus said all of the Apostles were equal is incorrect and totally ignores St. Peter and what Jesus said to them as if that part of the New Testament is written in invisible ink. Oops, I guess it's invisible ink that the Catholics seem to have been able to read, but not anti institutional church critics.
John 21: 15-18
Read that verse carefully. The RESURRECTED Jesus Christ singles out Peter to be questioned three times as to his love of Jesus, and therefore his exhortation to be the earthly shepherd of the flock of Jesus. Jesus didn't hold a hippie vote or ask that they manage by committee. He selected Peter. A few verses later Jesus makes a further distinguishing among the Apostles. He indicated that all would be martyred except John. Peter questioned why this was and Jesus said to him "What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me." Jesus is explicitly indicating a sequential order among his "rock" Peter, who must follow him, and John, who will follow Jesus only when Jesus "comes for him" (a natural death).
So it is false to portray the Apostles as all "equal." All men and women are equal, but Jesus clearly assigned roles and sequences of events through both statement and prophecy. And indeed Jesus sent an angel to take John to heaven and witness what he writes in the Book of Revelation. John "got the job" of living a very long natural life, training many Christian followers, and "writing the last chapter" in what would be, through the Holy Spirit's guidance, the Bible. Peter "got the job" of being the martyred rock, the Bishop of Rome and therefore the first Pope, upon whom Jesus built his Church. How can anyone say that a hierarchy of different roles and sequences of events is un-Biblical or done for "pomp and bureaucracy?" It's really outrageous.
Anyway, keep these three examples in mind whenever you feel attacked or uncertain about the solid Biblical foundation for an institutional Christian church structure and formal sacred required liturgy. One blindness and stumbling block that those type of people have is that they confuse Jesus being definitive regarding not being personally worshipped and pointing all worship back to God with Jesus now saying it's "what the heck" regarding sacred worship. That is incredibly far from the truth.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Apocalypse Chat Corner
Revelation 14:1
And I looked, and lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him a hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
***
Here's an explanation of this passage from the Apocalypse. (And it's going to be a sad one for haters who think that the mark represents only their religious or national group.) The number 144 is 12 squared. The reason that St. John saw 144 thousand people is that it's a geometric progression to symbolize equal numbers of opportunity for salvation for all the nations of the world. Just as 12 represented the original twelve tribes of Israel, and then the 12 Apostles of Jesus, in the final judgment all "12" of peoples will be represented fairly... in other words, all tribes and all apostles of the Father will be equally in access of salvation. This is also made clear earlier when the heavenly Jerusalem is revealed to have 12 gates. Salvation depends on the name of the Father of the Lamb on the forehead, and the Father is God. As Jesus tirelessly pointed out, all grace and salvation comes from God the Father. Those who believe, obey, and live in honor of God the Father will come from all nations, peoples, and faiths who are true to the God of Abraham, the One God. The Lamb, the sacrifice of Jesus, provides the access, for he is the Way. But there is no sect, cult, independent church, or faith who can claim that their "one" is the Twelve of salvation. And there is no one who can claim that the mark is of Jesus himself, because here it is quite clear that the Lamb stands on Sion, but the people have the "Father's name" written on their foreheads. Jesus will return in the Second Coming, with a sword of discernment extending from his mouth. However, there is dire peril in misreading what St. John wrote as salvation being exclusive to one self congratulatory group. I'm beginning to believe that many people, despite what Jesus repeatedly taught, are forgetting that it is God the Father who is in control, and is the source of all help, salvation and judgment, just as Jesus as the Lamb opened the gate and the way.
And I looked, and lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him a hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
***
Here's an explanation of this passage from the Apocalypse. (And it's going to be a sad one for haters who think that the mark represents only their religious or national group.) The number 144 is 12 squared. The reason that St. John saw 144 thousand people is that it's a geometric progression to symbolize equal numbers of opportunity for salvation for all the nations of the world. Just as 12 represented the original twelve tribes of Israel, and then the 12 Apostles of Jesus, in the final judgment all "12" of peoples will be represented fairly... in other words, all tribes and all apostles of the Father will be equally in access of salvation. This is also made clear earlier when the heavenly Jerusalem is revealed to have 12 gates. Salvation depends on the name of the Father of the Lamb on the forehead, and the Father is God. As Jesus tirelessly pointed out, all grace and salvation comes from God the Father. Those who believe, obey, and live in honor of God the Father will come from all nations, peoples, and faiths who are true to the God of Abraham, the One God. The Lamb, the sacrifice of Jesus, provides the access, for he is the Way. But there is no sect, cult, independent church, or faith who can claim that their "one" is the Twelve of salvation. And there is no one who can claim that the mark is of Jesus himself, because here it is quite clear that the Lamb stands on Sion, but the people have the "Father's name" written on their foreheads. Jesus will return in the Second Coming, with a sword of discernment extending from his mouth. However, there is dire peril in misreading what St. John wrote as salvation being exclusive to one self congratulatory group. I'm beginning to believe that many people, despite what Jesus repeatedly taught, are forgetting that it is God the Father who is in control, and is the source of all help, salvation and judgment, just as Jesus as the Lamb opened the gate and the way.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Bible Reading: Habakkuk
In the Book of Revelation (Book of Apocalypse) St. John describes how there were twenty four elders sitting around God's throne:
Immediately I was in the spirit; and behold, there was a throne set in heaven, and upon the throne One was sitting (Apocalypse 4:2).
Some people like to speculate who the twenty four elders might be. I'll tell you who one of them is; don't ask how I know because I'll just reply that I'm connected ha ha.
One of the twenty four is the prophet Habakkuk (also spelled Habacuc.) His name means "the embraced one" in Hebrew. He has a short book in the Old Testament that is wondrous and amazing beyond its three page length. There are few books so pertinent to modern times as this one.
He lived as the Assyrians were falling and Babylon was rising, and was in the process of conquering Israel. There was a lot of terror associated with the rise of Babylon and horrible attacks upon Israel, and instead of holding faster to their faith, Israel had fallen back into idol worship and petty political intrigues. In the first chapter Habakkur calls upon the Lord to question him why this is going on. Think about it; this is the first occurrence in Biblical literature that a prophet basically "places a call to God" rather than waiting to receive information, to question God about what is happening to Israel, and even to challenge him a bit. The first chapter consists of his call to God and his telling God what is happening and question him as to why.
The second chapter opens with one of the most moving images in the Bible. After posing his questions to God this grand older man climbs to a tower on the ramparts of his city and waits for a reply from God:
I will stand at my guard post, and station myself upon the rampart, and keep watch to see what he will say to me, and what answer he will give to my complaint (Habacuc 2:1).
To really get the flavor of the original Hebrew, read the Amplified Bible's expansion of this passage, to provide the nuance of feeling and attitude implicit in the original phraseology:
[Oh I know, I have been rash to talk out plainly this way to God!] I will [in my thinking] stand upon my post of observation and station myself on the tower or fortress, and will watch to see what He will say within me and what answer I will make [as His mouthpiece] to the perplexities of my complaint against Him (Habakkuk 2:1).
By these words he wrote, those who read Habakkuk can share in the experience of him. He was a man who actually called himself to prophecy when the people were in need. He did not wait around to see if he'd be chosen; he actually was driven through desperation and his enormous faith to approach God and volunteer, even demand, to be God's prophet, as hard as that lot can be. His opening words underscore this, especially in the Amplified Bible nuancing:
The oracle which Habacuc the prophet received in vision (Habacuc 1:1).
The burden or oracle (the thing to be lifted up) which Habakkuk the prophet saw (Habakkuk 1:1).
Unlike what modern new age fortune tellers think, true prophecy is the carrying of the burden of God's word and will, which consists much more of the answer to "Why?" than the question "What will happen in the future?" and even less so "What is in the future for me and my gain?" Habakkuk was watching the desperation of Juda as it was being terrorized under Nabuchodonosor's invasion, and it only fell more and more into it's own political intrigue and idolatry. It sounds very, very much like the world today as it ponders terrorism, yet becomes even more faithless, rather than strengthening the dialogue with God.
Chapters 2 is God's reply to Habakkuk. This great man's faith is answered directly by God (as God does speak directly and not through cryptograms and gamester word smithing):
The the Lord answered me and said: Write down the vision clearly upon the tablets, so that one can read it readily. For the vision still has its time, presses on to fulfillment, and will not disappoint; if it delays, wait for it, it will surely come, it will not be late (Habacuc 2:2).
God addresses the problem of idolatry very directly:
Woe to him who says to wood, "Awake!" to dumb stone, "Arise!" Can such a thing give oracles? See, it is overlaid with gold and silver, but there is no life breath in it. Of what avail is the carved image, that its maker should carve it? Or the molten image and lying oracle, that its very maker should trust in it, and make dumb idols? But the Lord is in his holy temple; silence before him, all the earth! (Habacuc 2:19-20).
I like also the Amplified Bible nuance, which makes some of the imagery that God uses even clearer:
Woe to him who says to the wooden image, Awake! and to the dumb stone, Arise, teach! [Yet it cannot, for] behold, it is laid over with gold and silver and there is no breath at all inside it! But the Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth hush and keep silence before Him (Habakkuk 2: 19-20).
LL Cool J was not the first to sing about someone talking too much in his song "Hush." God points out in slow careful speech for dummies why worshiping idols and expecting them to teach is pointless, and that all the jabbering simply prevents people from listening to God in silence, open to the Holy Spirit's teaching. Idolatry and jabbering also does not solve the problem of the ravening army of Babylon.
Chapter 3 is a canticle written by Habakkuk (a canticle being a prayer set to music.) In it Habakkuk recognizes the terrible power of God's allowing Babylon to ravage and chastise Israel, for God has made it clear that he will not divinely intervene, especially as Israel had turned to politics and idolatry. (During this time Israel sought pagan political alliances, shedding much of their faith, which is their primary gift from God.) The final line of this chapter summarizes Habakkuk's understanding of where he and others must draw their strength and understanding from:
I hear, and my body trembles; at the sound, my lips quiver. Decay invades my bones, my legs tremble beneath me. I await the day of distress that will come upon the people who attack us. For though the fig tree blossom not nor fruit be on the vines, though the yield of the olive fail, and the terraces produce no nourishment, though the flocks disappear from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet will I rejoice in the Lord and exult in my saving God. God, my Lord, is my strength; he makes my feet swift as those of hinds and enables me to go upon the heights (Habacuc 3:16-18).
That last phrase is nicely expanded in the AB as follows:
The Lord God is my Strength, my personal bravery, and my invincible army; He makes my feet like hinds' feet and will make me to walk [not to stand in terror, but to walk] and make [spiritual] progress upon my high places [of trouble, suffering, or responsibility]! (Habakkuk 3:18).
By the way for those of you who immaturely giggle whenever you see words like "hind," "rear," "throne," "ass," or "but," the word "hind" refers to a female deer, a doe, and is not Jewish Old Testament slang for butt.
Habakkuk called upon God to be his prophet, received a most direct reply, and explains that with God, and not idols or politics, as his strength, he can not only spiritually rise above the hardship of war, but also take up his practical responsibility for dealing with conflict generated by humankind in their sinfulness.
Immediately I was in the spirit; and behold, there was a throne set in heaven, and upon the throne One was sitting (Apocalypse 4:2).
Some people like to speculate who the twenty four elders might be. I'll tell you who one of them is; don't ask how I know because I'll just reply that I'm connected ha ha.
One of the twenty four is the prophet Habakkuk (also spelled Habacuc.) His name means "the embraced one" in Hebrew. He has a short book in the Old Testament that is wondrous and amazing beyond its three page length. There are few books so pertinent to modern times as this one.
He lived as the Assyrians were falling and Babylon was rising, and was in the process of conquering Israel. There was a lot of terror associated with the rise of Babylon and horrible attacks upon Israel, and instead of holding faster to their faith, Israel had fallen back into idol worship and petty political intrigues. In the first chapter Habakkur calls upon the Lord to question him why this is going on. Think about it; this is the first occurrence in Biblical literature that a prophet basically "places a call to God" rather than waiting to receive information, to question God about what is happening to Israel, and even to challenge him a bit. The first chapter consists of his call to God and his telling God what is happening and question him as to why.
The second chapter opens with one of the most moving images in the Bible. After posing his questions to God this grand older man climbs to a tower on the ramparts of his city and waits for a reply from God:
I will stand at my guard post, and station myself upon the rampart, and keep watch to see what he will say to me, and what answer he will give to my complaint (Habacuc 2:1).
To really get the flavor of the original Hebrew, read the Amplified Bible's expansion of this passage, to provide the nuance of feeling and attitude implicit in the original phraseology:
[Oh I know, I have been rash to talk out plainly this way to God!] I will [in my thinking] stand upon my post of observation and station myself on the tower or fortress, and will watch to see what He will say within me and what answer I will make [as His mouthpiece] to the perplexities of my complaint against Him (Habakkuk 2:1).
By these words he wrote, those who read Habakkuk can share in the experience of him. He was a man who actually called himself to prophecy when the people were in need. He did not wait around to see if he'd be chosen; he actually was driven through desperation and his enormous faith to approach God and volunteer, even demand, to be God's prophet, as hard as that lot can be. His opening words underscore this, especially in the Amplified Bible nuancing:
The oracle which Habacuc the prophet received in vision (Habacuc 1:1).
The burden or oracle (the thing to be lifted up) which Habakkuk the prophet saw (Habakkuk 1:1).
Unlike what modern new age fortune tellers think, true prophecy is the carrying of the burden of God's word and will, which consists much more of the answer to "Why?" than the question "What will happen in the future?" and even less so "What is in the future for me and my gain?" Habakkuk was watching the desperation of Juda as it was being terrorized under Nabuchodonosor's invasion, and it only fell more and more into it's own political intrigue and idolatry. It sounds very, very much like the world today as it ponders terrorism, yet becomes even more faithless, rather than strengthening the dialogue with God.
Chapters 2 is God's reply to Habakkuk. This great man's faith is answered directly by God (as God does speak directly and not through cryptograms and gamester word smithing):
The the Lord answered me and said: Write down the vision clearly upon the tablets, so that one can read it readily. For the vision still has its time, presses on to fulfillment, and will not disappoint; if it delays, wait for it, it will surely come, it will not be late (Habacuc 2:2).
God addresses the problem of idolatry very directly:
Woe to him who says to wood, "Awake!" to dumb stone, "Arise!" Can such a thing give oracles? See, it is overlaid with gold and silver, but there is no life breath in it. Of what avail is the carved image, that its maker should carve it? Or the molten image and lying oracle, that its very maker should trust in it, and make dumb idols? But the Lord is in his holy temple; silence before him, all the earth! (Habacuc 2:19-20).
I like also the Amplified Bible nuance, which makes some of the imagery that God uses even clearer:
Woe to him who says to the wooden image, Awake! and to the dumb stone, Arise, teach! [Yet it cannot, for] behold, it is laid over with gold and silver and there is no breath at all inside it! But the Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth hush and keep silence before Him (Habakkuk 2: 19-20).
LL Cool J was not the first to sing about someone talking too much in his song "Hush." God points out in slow careful speech for dummies why worshiping idols and expecting them to teach is pointless, and that all the jabbering simply prevents people from listening to God in silence, open to the Holy Spirit's teaching. Idolatry and jabbering also does not solve the problem of the ravening army of Babylon.
Chapter 3 is a canticle written by Habakkuk (a canticle being a prayer set to music.) In it Habakkuk recognizes the terrible power of God's allowing Babylon to ravage and chastise Israel, for God has made it clear that he will not divinely intervene, especially as Israel had turned to politics and idolatry. (During this time Israel sought pagan political alliances, shedding much of their faith, which is their primary gift from God.) The final line of this chapter summarizes Habakkuk's understanding of where he and others must draw their strength and understanding from:
I hear, and my body trembles; at the sound, my lips quiver. Decay invades my bones, my legs tremble beneath me. I await the day of distress that will come upon the people who attack us. For though the fig tree blossom not nor fruit be on the vines, though the yield of the olive fail, and the terraces produce no nourishment, though the flocks disappear from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet will I rejoice in the Lord and exult in my saving God. God, my Lord, is my strength; he makes my feet swift as those of hinds and enables me to go upon the heights (Habacuc 3:16-18).
That last phrase is nicely expanded in the AB as follows:
The Lord God is my Strength, my personal bravery, and my invincible army; He makes my feet like hinds' feet and will make me to walk [not to stand in terror, but to walk] and make [spiritual] progress upon my high places [of trouble, suffering, or responsibility]! (Habakkuk 3:18).
By the way for those of you who immaturely giggle whenever you see words like "hind," "rear," "throne," "ass," or "but," the word "hind" refers to a female deer, a doe, and is not Jewish Old Testament slang for butt.
Habakkuk called upon God to be his prophet, received a most direct reply, and explains that with God, and not idols or politics, as his strength, he can not only spiritually rise above the hardship of war, but also take up his practical responsibility for dealing with conflict generated by humankind in their sinfulness.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Book of Revelation Reading
Revelation 10: 4, 8-11
And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.
And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again and said, Go, and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it my belly was bitter.
And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
***
Many have wondered what the book that St. John swallowed is. He is told not to write down what the seven thunders said, and then he is told to swallow the little book. The little book is the entire content of the book that St. John was about to write, after the vision, the Book of Revelation (also known as the Book of Apocalypse.) Remember, St. John was in this vision, he was not taking actual notes. He had a vision of himself about to take notes when he is told not to. What he is given instead is the entire memory of what would be permitted for him to write. In other words he ate the advance copy of the book he was about to write based on the vision that he was in the middle of.
This is one reason why it is a “little” book, for it would be just one book, albeit the last one, of the Bible. Second, that is why it is sweet like honey, as it is the true revelation of God, but bitter in the stomach, because there is also a hard message in it for the world of the impending judgment. Third that is why after swallowing he is told that he must prophesy again before many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings, even though he was already an old man when this occurred. The angel was telling him that this book that he would write would be published and translated into many languages to many peoples all around the world.
And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.
And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again and said, Go, and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.
And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it my belly was bitter.
And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
***
Many have wondered what the book that St. John swallowed is. He is told not to write down what the seven thunders said, and then he is told to swallow the little book. The little book is the entire content of the book that St. John was about to write, after the vision, the Book of Revelation (also known as the Book of Apocalypse.) Remember, St. John was in this vision, he was not taking actual notes. He had a vision of himself about to take notes when he is told not to. What he is given instead is the entire memory of what would be permitted for him to write. In other words he ate the advance copy of the book he was about to write based on the vision that he was in the middle of.
This is one reason why it is a “little” book, for it would be just one book, albeit the last one, of the Bible. Second, that is why it is sweet like honey, as it is the true revelation of God, but bitter in the stomach, because there is also a hard message in it for the world of the impending judgment. Third that is why after swallowing he is told that he must prophesy again before many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings, even though he was already an old man when this occurred. The angel was telling him that this book that he would write would be published and translated into many languages to many peoples all around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
