I have a penchant for "big" words", i.e, words that may not always be used in usual conversation. While in the 7th grade, I was told to study vocabulary intensely, and I did, and became enamored with the English language: There are a great many unused words waiting to be dusted off that help us get a better tone, color, deeper meaning, when we attempt to communicate.
So, I really do not apologize. If you might have to peruse the dictionary once in a while, I apologize, I guess, but you might find it rewarding.
NUMBER ONE
JUNE 13, 2020
COMMUNION/EUCHARIST/MASS
I have long been puzzled by Protestant [Prot] interpretation of communion as merely "symbolic". But do we remember when Jesus intoned "Eat my body and drink my blood" ? Many of his followers ran away immediately. [John 53-66]
If Jesus meant this to be only "symbolic", why did He not make it clear to his followers? Why did He not say, at some point, "Hey, gang. I was only kidding? It's only 'symbolic'".
The more we know about physics, the deeper and deeper we see the "layers" of matter, the electrons, neutrons, all the new sub-particles, I believe that "spirit" is as real as "matter". This unbelief in the reality of the transformation in communion/mass is founded on a philosophy called dualism, which proposes that "matter" and "spirit" are radically and totally different, somehow opposed to one another. They are taught as one "higher" than another and somehow unalterably irreconcilable.
However, modern day physics and philosophy and church teachings known as mysticism affirm differently. This subject is worth investigating. Matter and spirit are, I believe, inextricably intertwined and part of God's creation,
I adduce the possibility that,at some level of reality, the "elements" of communion/mass/eucharist can be transformed from one form of matter to another form of matter, so to speak - that is to say, matter and spirit are a continuum we do not understand, yet.
Was the feeding of the crowd "symbolic"? Were the healings "symbolic"? If these two manifestations of Jesus" power are to be believed, were they not some form of the transformation of one form of matter into another? So, why should communion/mass be considered "symbolic"?
Maybe for the Prots, this might take further study and prayer. I have heard a few TV preachers teach communion primarily as a tool to get health and prosperity. I find this approach rather disturbing as so many of the "faith" preachers beat the drum of using God to demand their "right" to health and wealth, which they bleat they so richly deserve.
God may "want" you healthy, but does that mean communion is mostly a tool to extract health from God? I think not.
NUMBER TWO
JUNE 22, 2020
FAT FAKE FAITH
The general chant of the "faith" movement is that, by quoting certain simple verses, one can demand of God that He redeem his "promises", and, so, we can force God into raining down prosperity and material wealth down upon us. This is the practrice of magic. If you study a little bit about magic, you will see the truth of this.
The blasphemy is that "my will" trumps God's, and the lie is that God ALWAYS must give us wealth and health because He "promised" it. They twist what most would deem logic: Because God "wants" or "wills" for us to be always healthy and materially wealthy, he is under obligation to give that to us.
These charlatans who preach this doctrine conveniently forget the many IFs in God's wishes for us.
The remarkably ludicrous claims by the FAKE FAITH PREACHERS [i will call them FFPs] are highlighted by the bleating of verses that are simplistic but have unspoken, unwritten understood preconditions that the hearers of Jesus would immediately know.
Here is the worst: "Ask and ye shall receive". Jesus' hearers would have in their DNA the knowledge that this implies to ask RIGHTLY (not wrongly) which is actually spelled out by James:
New International Version James 4:3
When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
I enjoy replying to those who beat me on the head with the wrong-headed use of "Ask and ye shall receive": I delightedly remark, "I love that verse and am glad I can pray 'Dear God, I am asking that you make me the best mass murderer in history!'".
Another grotesque consequence of the misapplication of "ask and ye shall receive" is the prayer for one team or another to win a game: If each team prays to win, using their chant "ask and ye shall receive", how does poor God get out of this dilemma? I have actually had someone rebut my presentation of this problem with another mantra, "With God, all things are possible."
I am breathlessly awaiting to how God will deal with two political parties praying "ask and ye shall receive" regarding the capture of the Presidential office in the U.S. Will we be saddled with two Presidents?
One of the more odious consequences of the FFP's doctrine is the condemning of those who opt to choose God's will over their personal will. These unworthy individuals are blasted for being "double minded".
They are required to tow the party line: "God, I demand that you make me wealthy". If they pray "God, please make me wealthy", they are being "double-minded" and, I guess, unworthy Christians.
That God CAN make us wealthy or healthy cannot be denied but that He WILL when we snap our little fingers is not correct. Are the 3 men thrown in the fiery furnace in the Book of Daniel to be mocked as "double minded"? I think one who does this might have a second thuoght or really a first thought:
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION DANIEL 3: 17-18
If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty's hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."
Perhaps the Lord's Prayer might be thrown into the mix, which says "YOUR WILL BE DONE". That also is a simplistic statement but seems to be more weighty than the claimants of "faith" who substitute their will for God's.
Those who confuse what God is ABLE to do with what they WANT Him to do ought to read their Bible a little deeper, and those who adhere to their magical heresy ought also to crack the Bible a little more.
NUMBER THREE
JUNE 29 2020
GREATEST OR MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENT
Here is a little quiz that I have given hundreds of times - to clergy and non-clergy - and only two people got it correct. A surprising number of Christians downright flunked but at least a majority got it partially correct. When I got my own quiz right a few decades ago, I was totally amazed at how i had MISSED it for so many years.
The question is: How did Jesus ACTUALLY ANSWER the question posed to Him What is the greatest or most important commandment? I do not think we need to quibble regarding "difference" between greatest or most important, do we?
This question is posed in 2 gospels and SURPRISINGLY answered differently. Here is a hint: He DID NOT ANSWER IN BOTH GOSPELS simply Love God as One and love your neighbor.
In Matthew 22:35-40, He gave this "short answer".
But in Mark 12:29, He ACTUALLY SAID, "New International Version "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" and then went on to note to love your neighbor.
Thus, "Hear, O Israel" is part and parcel of loving God. This was a "BOMBSHELL" to me: It would, it seems to me, less instructive to merely give a commandment than to give explicit directions on HOW TO OBEY THE COMMANDMENT.
What I am trying to say is that, HOW are we to love God and our neighbor. Jesus answers up front: "HEAR O ISRAE": How do we do that: Pray, read our Bible, discuss with other Christians, listen to our guardian angels, even listen to little children (for after all, we must become as little children to entier into the kingdon of heaven, at least that is what Jesus taught).
So, hearing God is the key, not always the easiest, just the best.
NUMBER 4
JULY 4
CONVESSING SINS TO ONE ANOTHER
Protestants, especially "evangelicals", seem to abominate the verse in the Bible that instructs us to confess our sins to each other:
James 5:16
New International Version
Therefore confess your sins to each other
New King James Version
Confess your trespasses to one another,
King James Bible
Confess your faults one to another,
International Standard Version
Therefore, make it your habit to confess your sins to one another
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But be confessing your offenses one to another,
MATTHEW 3:6
Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
MARK 1:5
People went out to him from all of Jerusalem and the countryside of Judea. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
ACTS 19:18
Many who had believed now came forward, confessing and disclosing their deeds.
Did you notice, as I just did recently, that in the last three verses from Matthew, Mark, and Acts, the description of the confessing of sins does not specify whether the confession was to God or to a human? And, if to a human, to whom? Certainly, it would seem, that it does not exclusively and specifically state the confession was only to God. Something to chew upon, perhaps?
The attack by silence on confessing our sins to one another is often aided and abetted by the dismay some feel for the practice of Roman Catholics to confess to priests, who, are unashamed it seems, to call their priests "father". This calling of "father" is judged an abomination by many.
This has actually no bearing on whether Christians should confess sins to one another. And whether priests have the "power" to absolve their confessees of their sins is also not relevant to the question of whether we Christians should confess our sins to one another.
The admonition to confess to one another does NOT categorically state that this type of confession gets us forgiveness from God. But the Lord's Prayer does state that we desire God to forgive us as we forgive others, meaning that it is paramount to give forgiveness to others, and the best way to do that, we assume, is to confess our sins to one another.
Those who oppose the Bible by condemning this practice use an unbiblical approach. They shout, "Only Jesus can forgive sins" and then, by their silence on confessing sins to one another, pervert the deep teachings on this topic.
Actually, if I sin against you, would I not want forgiveness from you? Is it not BALDLY STATED in the Lord's prayer that we ask God to forgive us our sins as we forgive sins others commit against us? So, obviously, there are sins we commit against God and sins we commit against one another, and are absolved by confessing to God and ALSO confessing to one another.
The naysayers of confessing our sins to one another are on shaky, if not heretical, ground and should be combatted vigorously. Yet what we constantly and mainly hear from many preachers has to do with nations, Christians as a group, so we can escape the perhaps well deserved wrath of God. This verse is often dormant until a "BIG CRISIS" [defined by the secular media mostly] is pronounced:
2 Chronicles 7:14
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Interestingly enough, the "therefore" of James 5:16 is tied to James 4:15, which is tied to healing (as in cornovirus?)
The Chronicles verse sounds like a confession of our sins to God, not necessarily to one another and, therefore, its overuse and silence by preachers on confessing our sins to one another, further cloaks even deeper the NECESSITY of confessing our sins one to another.
But, perhaps more importantly, in Chronicles this is not a simplified recipe of mere confession, a muttering of not totally heartfelt words, but a strict, if not harsh, instruction to do more than babble:
We are instructed to HUMBLE ourselves, SEEK God, and TURN from our wicked ways. Is that not a clearcut expression of what true confession of sins is? Does this powerful verse admonish us to only confess our sins to God and excuse our shameful neglect of confessing our sins to one another. OF COURSE NOT.
Maybe confessing our sins to one another might be an appetizer to humbling our selves, seeking God's face and turning from our wicked ways. Can any sincere Christian or Jewish person deny this with a straight face and conscience?
NUMBER 5
AUGUST 27, 2020
SIMPLE BUT/AND PROFOUND
There are Bible verses that are very simple (at least to a simpleton as myself) but also/yet profound (at least to a shallow simpleton as myself). Sometimes, I will read a verse for the 555th time (certainly not the 666th time), and a clearer understanding will hit me like a hammer. So here are a few you might enjoy:
FEED MY SHEEP
New King James Version JOHN 21:15-17
So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”
He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My sheep.”
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.
NEW KING JAMES
First time: Feed my lambs Second time: Tend my sheep Third time: Feed my sheep.
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION: First time: Feed my lambs. Second time: Take care of my sheep. Third time: Feed my sheep.
Can you see how deep this is? Here is a sharp contrast between human love and divine love: Human love would respond, instead of "feed my sheep", "Feed me, love me by doing something for me".
But Jesus said, in essence, if you love me, show your love by taking care of my sheep (your brothers and sisters).
How different from human love based more on what you can do for me and I for you. These verses are in stark contrast to the perverted "Christian" teaching of today that God owes ME this and that just because He promised and we need only show our "love" for Him by demanding OUR Rights and our effortless hallelujahs and easy words of thanks, instead of actually feeding His sheep and our brothers and sisters.
This has not been the way Christ's message was taught for most of Christian history.
Interestingly enough, to go even further: Here Jesus refers to "lambs" and "sheep", the first providing a picture of fuzzy, helpless little creatures and the latter looked upon as dumb animals who cannot find their way without the guidance of their shepherd (often with a stick).
Here is a link to a further explanation of the difference between lambs and sheep in the Bible:
FEED MY SHEEP
There are, of course, many other articles that could be read. To further explore this, you could use this search: lambs versus sheep in the Bible.
_________________________________________ _________________________________________
SUP WITH ME AND I WILL SUP WITH YOU
REVELATIONS 3:20
New King James Version
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.
New International Version
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
This verse puts in a nutshell the kind of relationship Jesus wants to have with us: Not just us slurping the goodies he provides for us but we also providing what Jesus wants of us. He provides the dinner and we are His guests but also we are to provide the dinner and He is to be our guest.
Just to be a little sly here, how do we "feed" Him? We should be feeding His sheep, at least as one method of Him supping with us. _____________________________________ ______________________________________
HEAR O ISRAEL
MARK 12:28-30
Here is a "test" I have given to several hundred Bible-reading and otherwise Christians: What did Jesus ACTUALLY SAY when asked the greatest or most important commandment? This incident is recorded in 2 separate gospels with two slightly different answers.
Before you blurt out, "Love God and love your neighbor", you might want to read the actual verses. Just to be pretty much transparent (good buzzword?), I did not see this distinction for many years, and it was probably after a few decades of perusing, if not actually studying the Bible, that I actually "divided the Word" properly in this particular instance.
So, unfortunately, I got it wrong for many years, as did the vast majority of Christians to whom I posed this test. So here is the crux and hints:
Mark 12: 28-30
New International Version
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: _________ The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
MATTHEW 22: 36-40.
New International Version
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
There seems to be "discrepancy" in these 2 accounts. In Mark, Jesus seems to say that there are 2 parts to the greatest or important commandment; that loving God and your neighbor are part and parcel the same.
This is an amazing powerful statement when we consider its implications. All our religious talk and ritual showing our "love" for God are naught when we do not properly love our fellow man.
In Matthew, Jesus is saying that there are 2 "greatest" commandments. This seem to defy logic: How can the (singular) greatest commandment be 2 commandments? With divine logic, it makes perfectly good sense.
And now, to finally end the mystery, well almost: Jesus instructs us to love God and our neighbor. Well, when you give someone a command or directive, the immediate response of most (and even me) would be, "Well, thanks for telling me what to do, but could you kindly explain HOW I am to do it?"
Here is the answer: The blank lines in Mark as above are "HEAR O ISRAEL". Sure, that is the Shema from the Old Testament but that is not an incidental aside: That is the core of the teaching: HOW do we love God and our neighbor?
BY HEARING GOD, LISTENING TO GOD.
And how do we do that? There are multiple ways: Read the Bible, pray without ceasing, obey the sacraments Jesus gave for us, forsake not the assembling of ourselves so we can learn from one another, and a multitude more.
How about nature itself, as Paul states: Romans 1:20, NIV: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature --have been clearly seen".
"The heavens declare the glory of God", says Psalm 19.
The awe and wonder of creation are not well explained by the bland, dry non-explanation of "chance".
So let us HEAR GOD AND LISTEN TO GOD.
NUMBER 6
AUGUST 29, 2020
PROMISES BUT/IF
PROMISES BUT/AND IF
There are many “promises” of God in the Old and New Testament but also quite a few “If’s”. Much of what passes as “theology” and “teaching” and especially in the so-called Faith preaching movement seems to blissfully ignore much, if not too many, “Ifs”.
God promises, yes, but He quite often asks us to promise back. In other words, the buzzword of “covenant” is not always a promise that God is forced to fulfill when we call Him down and “claim” our “rights”, especially to prosperity and health.
This overblown approach to God is not a universal belief in modern day Christianity, but it is large enough, and loud enough, that it should be addressed.
To get an introduction to this vitally important topic, you can use this search term: promises vs ifs in bible.
You might be overwhelmed by the wealth and relevance of the articles you will encounter. However, just to peruse the "ifs" is not all that is needed. We need deeper explanation of the ifs and their profound implications in our daily lives.
>
