#(and this work's theme that there's a false Christian Heaven and a True Heaven founded on everyone's happiness? THESIS level relevant) | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

philosopherking1887 · 5 years ago

Text

Kol Nidrei (a Good Omens fic)

I’m back on my bullshit. @iscariotsss knows what I mean.

Word count: 2130 (including “footnotes”)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Aziraphale liked going to houses of worship because it made him feel closer to God. He realized that this must seem foolish or paradoxical: he was, after all, a being suffused with God’s love and grace; and if he went through the right procedures, he could even (in theory) make direct contact with the Almighty. But calls to the Court of God’s Power through such channels—it had recently been made brutally, devastatingly clear to him—in fact went through a spokes-angel (no, not the wheeled kind), a mere mouthpiece who claimed to listen and speak on behalf of God. Speaking to God as an angel, using the capabilities and privileges his angelic nature afforded him, he had only ever reached a Glorified secretary.

Humans, though, when they prayed—it was possible that God truly listened. Angels listened, too, and sometimes took it upon themselves to answer; God was not in principle opposed to delegating, and angels were permitted a certain amount of latitude in how they executed the Divine Will, broadly understood. But sometimes miracles occurred, or moments of mystical inspiration, or improbable causal nudges, that could not be accounted for, even with all the Heavenly Bureaucracy’s scrupulous record-keeping. Then the angels had to wonder whether God Herself had heard and answered a prayer that Her agents had passed over. One of the Archangels would make a note by the observation of the anomalous event: “Divine intervention?” Always with a question mark, for God’s ways were known to none but God.

Aziraphale felt closer to God among humans praying than in the blessed Light of Heaven, or in his own grace-filled solitude, because he knew that their voices actually had a chance of being heard. Especially when they prayed in community, because although God did sometimes attend to solitary prayers (which might pierce through the noise because of the devoutness or holiness or strong personality of the pray-er), a group of people all speaking or meditating on the same message reinforce each other in a way that is not simply a matter of additive volume, but of resonance.

Because Aziraphale was at heart (and in body) an aesthete, he preferred places and modes of worship with a certain amount of pomp and ceremony. He could not abide the slick commercial atmosphere of ‘evangelical’ megachurches or the adaptation of modern popular musical styles to the purpose of worship; the mere presence of a guitar would send him out the door as quickly as consecrated ground did most demons. Nor was he much attracted to the simplest of gatherings, the mostly silent Quaker Circles, the unadorned meeting-houses that remained true to the Calvinist tradition (and, arguably, the original tradition of Christ and the first Apostles). No, he preferred the lushness of Catholic and Orthodox churches, their sparkling mosaics and glowing stained-glass masterpieces, the Masses and Liturgies composed by Europe’s greatest creative geniuses for sumptuous choirs and virtuosos playing thundering organs (Aziraphale found that of all artists, he had an especial rapport with organists). And if sometimes such fare was too rich even for him, he felt comfortably at home in the stolid, dignified (or as Crowley would say, stuffy and pompous) tradition of the Church of England. The Elgar and Britten anthems were not quite your Bach Mass or Verdi Requiem; but not even Aziraphale could eat lobster and venison every day.

So when the Jewish High Holidays came round and one felt compelled to put in an appearance (‘one’ referring not only to Heaven’s representatives on Earth, but to the Jewish worshipers as well), Aziraphale tended toward a certain style of Reform-to-Conservative congregation that favoured tastefully ornate architecture and a choir, accompanied by a piano or (in rare cases) an organ, singing nineteenth-century settings of the prayers and psalms much in the style of Mendelssohn,* or perhaps mid-twentieth-century arrangements taking inspiration from some combination of Rachmaninoff, Vaughan Williams, and dramatic film scores. Aziraphale was especially attached to the melancholy cello solo playing Bruch’s setting of the Kol Nidrei melody with which such congregations habitually began the Yom Kippur evening service.

On a mild, damp early autumn evening forty days after the world failed to end, Aziraphale went alone to the synagogue whose Kol Nidrei services he had been attending for the past twenty years or so (he was a creature of habit as much as, if not more than, a creature of love). He closed his eyes and let the cello’s plaintive voice set his chest to sweetly aching and was desperately grateful that he still had this—this salmon and crème fraîche omelette instead of the ‘eggs without salt’ of eternal celestial harmonies (stop thinking in food metaphors on a fast day!, he scolded himself, hurriedly directing his thoughts away from his stomach).

The cello’s final tremulous notes faded away and the cantor (who had classical operatic training; there was a reason Aziraphale preferred the services here) began singing the words of the Kol Nidrei. Aziraphale’s French or his Tibetan might sometimes grow rusty, but Hebrew and Aramaic always came back to him like riding a velocipede (or so they said; not that he would know).

“All vows,” the cantor sang (joined at musically appropriate points by the choir), “self-prohibitions, consecrations, bonds, promises, obligations, and oaths that we have vowed, sworn, consecrated, and taken as prohibitions upon ourselves from this Yom Kippur until the next—may it come to us for good—we regret and renounce them all; may they all be absolved, forgiven, cancelled, and rendered null and void; they shall have no force, and shall not endure. Let our vows not be vows, our prohibitions not be prohibitions, our oaths not be oaths.”

There was a widespread belief that the custom of making this declaration originated among the Iberian Jews who were forced to publicly convert to Christianity but who continued to practice their Judaism in secret—who insincerely forswore their faith in the sight of God and men, but wished to retract these false oaths in God’s sight alone. Among those who knew the text was older, the story was that it came out of an earlier time of persecution and conversions on pain of death. Aziraphale (who had witnessed the whole painful, arduous, improbable history of this people) knew that it came out of nothing of the sort: it was just that the Jews had an unfortunate habit, which caused their priests and rabbis no end of intestinal distress, of making solemn vows at the drop of a hat. There was even a significant commandment not to make vain oaths in the name of the Lord, but the habit persisted. So a formal ritual of renunciation was introduced in the hope that God could be persuaded not to take such utterances so terribly seriously. But it took on a darker, weightier significance in the face of the forced conversions that became a recurring theme in the history of the Jews. God’s Providence works in unexpected ways: a tradition that arose for one purpose might later prove even more essential for another.

When Aziraphale recited the formula with this congregation, it was always for the original reason for which it had been instituted. He, like the early Hebrews, had a shameful habit of making promises to God that he should have known he wouldn’t be able to keep. He promised he wouldn’t use frivolous miracles; he promised he wouldn’t eat and drink so lavishly; he promised he would be paying more attention next time, so that maybe he could stop or at least mitigate the next horror that the humans visited upon themselves—unless, of course, Michael or Gabriel told him it was part of the Divine Plan, in which case he would smile uncomfortably and wonder whether he should be praying that they were right or that they were wrong.

Above all, he promised to set aside his feelings for Crowley. He didn’t promise not to see him anymore—he had to keep an eye on Hell’s agent in his sector of the Earth, didn’t he?—but after every time they met, when he departed with a hollowness in his stomach that could not be filled by any amount of oysters or brioche, he promised that he would give no thought to the demon except in regard to thwarting him. He promised he would tell Crowley the Arrangement was over (of course, he never did… not until the second-to-last day of the world, when Crowley threatened to make him face up to what Heaven really was, and what they really were). He promised he would stay away, except to watch his counterpart’s movements, and perhaps to confront him directly if there was no other way of stopping his machinations. And he kept that promise for a whole century between 1862 and 1967—their encounter in 1941 had been entirely on Crowley’s initiative!—but during that century of separation, and especially after its unplanned interruption, he had been even more abysmal at keeping his promise not to think of Crowley in anything but his professional capacity.

Now Aziraphale was facing the first full year since the world had not been made anew, but somehow his world had; and he realized that he no longer needed to ask preemptive absolution for his usual vain promises to God. No one would be keeping track of Aziraphale’s “frivolous miracles,” much less sending him nasty letters about them. And though Aziraphale himself would never say it, he quite agreed with Crowley that Gabriel could shove his self-righteous comments about Aziraphale’s “gut” right up his tightly-clenched arse, along with that appalling tracksuit (he wasn’t entirely sure what Crowley had meant by calling him “basic,” but he gathered that it wasn’t good). Crowley liked him soft (he made a very good body-pillow, he was told), so Aziraphale liked himself that way, too.

As to preventing the horrors of human history… he wasn’t sure that he had any right to interfere, except by showing and encouraging kindness, where he could. As a Heavenly agent on Earth, he was retired, but he would remain a being of love until… well, until Heaven succeeded in destroying him, or God decided he deserved to Fall. But even then, he wasn’t sure: Crowley had Fallen (or “sauntered vaguely downwards,” as he liked to insist), but Aziraphale suspected that he was still a being of love, in spite of everything.

Most importantly, the primary impetus for Aziraphale’s empty vows, self-prohibitions, promises, and oaths no longer obtained. From this year on, there would be no vows not to think of Crowley, work with him, seek out his company. “For centuries I regretted and renounced those vows because I feared I couldn’t keep them,” Aziraphale said silently to God; he wasn’t sure whether or not he hoped She was actually listening. “Now I regret and renounce them because I should never have made them in the first place. I should never have wanted to be able to keep them.”

“Let our oaths not be oaths,” the choir was singing as the elaborate Romantic-style arrangement drew toward its dramatic close, the cantor’s voice rising in an impressive final cadenza. “Let our oaths not be oaths.”

“Ush’vuatana la sh’vuot,” Aziraphale whispered in time with the singers. All his foolish oaths had already been annulled,** most of them before he even made them; he could not now go back and retract them for the right reason. Well, he would probably come up with some new vain oaths, maybe about being less of a bastard to unwitting would-be customers in his bookshop.

There were some other vows he had it in mind to make where Crowley was concerned, but those would not be made only to God, and he had every intention of keeping them.

* “It sounds like bloody Gilbert and Sullivan,” Crowley had muttered to Aziraphale once when he had been invited to accompany him for a lark (the ground of synagogues did not burn his feet), and Aziraphale had had to bite the inside of his cheek to maintain his disapproving expression and stifle a laugh. “Listen, it’s the chorus of sisters, cousins, and aunts.”

** With the exception of those made during a year late in the eleventh century just before the change of tense instituted by Rabbi Meïr ben Shmuel, applying the renunciation to the year ahead rather than the year just past, had reached the synagogue in Paris where Aziraphale had been spending the Days of Awe for several years. Aziraphale panicked about it for a good six months, and indeed whenever he thought about it (with diminishing frequency) thereafter, not least because he and Crowley had first embarked on the Arrangement earlier that century and Aziraphale had spent decades regularly resolving to back out and never following through.

#i know yom kippur was 2 weeks ago #i've had stuff going on #it took me a while to finish this #my fanfiction #good omens fic #good omens fanfic #good omens fanfiction #ineffable husbands fanfiction #ineffable husbands fanfic #ineffable husbands fic #aziraphale pov #aziraphale and crowley #aziraphale x crowley

23 notes · View notes

preserving-ferretbrain · 6 years ago

Text

Harry Potter and the Doctrine of the Calvinists

by Dan H

Friday, 17 August 2007

Dan refuses to just give up on the Potter articles already.~

A lot of people are mortally offended by the ending of the Narnia series, because it seems to suggest that Susan's absolute rejection of all the teachings of Christ prevents her from getting into heaven. I actually like it for exactly that reason: it's got a firm grounding in a genuine religious philosophy which I find significantly more interesting than the usual messages one gets from children's literature, or popular fiction in general.

This, of course, is why it seems so crazy to the secular reader. It's based on some profound assumptions about the metaphysical reality of the world, and if you don't believe the world works like that it doesn't make any sense. Many atheists (and a fair number of Christians, for that matter) have a hard time getting their heads around the idea that you can be a perfectly decent person, but still not go to heaven.

Even more difficult for atheists like me to get our heads around are the doctrines of the Calvinists. Very roughly (from my limited understanding) the Calvinists embrace fully the idea that it is impossible for any human being to be truly worthy of God's love. God is just that great and we are just that flawed. This is actually comparatively uncontroversial - it's just a firm statement of the idea that salvation comes wholly from the Grace of God, and not from your individual virtue. The Calvinists take this idea to its logical conclusion: that since obviously not everybody can be saved, God's grace will only fall on a small proportion of the population - the Elect. Since nobody can be worthy of God, whether one is or is not part of the Elect is entirely outside of one's own control. There are just some people who are predestined towards salvation, and some who aren't.

Now it would be easy here to score cheap points and say that this is just somebody using religion as a control mechanism, pretending that the reason he's so much better off than everybody else is because God likes him better. But that's actually not massively plausible. After all, when Calivinist doctrine was first developed, the Calvinists weren't exactly ruling the roost.

Calvinism is actually a fairly logical extension of one of the more difficult points of protestant doctrine: the idea of salvation by grace. People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that drawing closer to a supernatural being who transcends all of the concerns of physical reality might actually not be the same thing as being nice to people. Perhaps it's just overexposure to classical mythology at an impressionable age, but I don't find it that hard to understand. I somehow can't imagine a classical theologian saying "but why would the Gods be so angry about Prometheus stealing fire? Why do we worship them if they're so mean?" or a Viking saying "I'm sure that Odin will understand that you wanted to die valiantly in battle."

I think that perhaps the reason people find the ideas expressed in - say - Calvinist theology, or The Last Battle is that, since we live in a secular society, we naturally divorce these kinds of ideas from their supernatural context. For example: burning at the stake was actually supposed to be a merciful form of execution, because it allowed the accused the maximum possible amount of time to repent. If you genuinely believe in an immortal soul, this is actually very sensible. Far better to burn somebody to death slowly, giving them a chance to go to heaven, than to cut their head off and condemn them to hell. To somebody who doesn't believe in an afterlife, though, it's needless cruelty.

When you decontextualise the doctrines or practices of a religion, you invariably make them into something extremely sinister and disturbing.

Which is why Harry Potter freaks me out so much.

JK Rowling self-defines as a Christian. More specifically, she was apparently raised Church of Scotland which, the internet reliably informs me, has strong Calvinist influences. If this is true, then it seems that Rowling has allowed her faith to strongly influence her work. Unfortunately she has also allowed it to become so decontextualised as to be unrecognisable.

Let us take the principle of Election, the notion that there are a fortunate few who, by grace of God, shall be called to salvation. In the Potterverse "Election" is called "Sorting" and instead of being controlled by Almighty God it is controlled by a hat.

Now I know Rowling pays lip service to the houses all being equal, but it's nonsense. Gryffindor is the superior house, all the way. Rowling herself declares not only that she would want to be in Gryffindor if she attended Hogwarts but also that she "hopes she would be found worthy."

So basically at the age of eleven, your fate is already sealed. Either you're Gryffindor, or you're evil, or you're chattel. You can't change, you can't be redeemed (unless you've already had the good fortune to fall in love with a Gryffindor) you are either Good or you are Evil or you Just Don't Matter and none of your decisions, none of your actions, mean a damned thing. No matter how much of a bullying little shit James Potter was, we are never really asked to see him as anything but a hero. Lily treats Snape like dirt, but is still the byword for selfless love in the series. And of course Dumbledore, our epitome of goodness, is a manipulative self-serving bastard who plots world domination and raises Harry to be a sacrificial lamb. But in the end we are expected to view all of these people as heroes because they were Gryffindors and therefore virtuous by definition.

Then of course there is Snape. After nearly twenty years of loyal service to Dumbledore, risking death or worse to spy on the Dark Lord, and incidentally building up a loyal fanbase who for some reason think that being smart is cooler than owning a flying motorcycle, JK Rowling eventually grants him the ultimate accolade. "Sometimes, we sort too soon." If a member of a different house displays courage, it shows that they must really be a Gryffindor deep down.

Rowling clearly subscribes to the philosophy that a person has a fundamental nature. That deep down a person cannot change. Deep down Harry is a hero, Percy is officious, Voldemort is Evil, Snape is a bully, Dumbledore is good but tempted by power. None of these traits will change, none of them can change. Rowling seems to believe it impossible.

This is most apparent, I think, in how she writes about Harry. It is never his actions. which win him praise, but rather the spirit in which he acts. This is perhaps most apparent in the seventh book, when Harry uses the Cruciatus curse on Amycus Carrow and McGonagall responds with the statement that it is "very gallant" of him.

Now I admit I might be a little bit behind the times here, but how is torturing your enemies "gallant"? Presumably in the same way that a single minded obsession with the personal destruction of your enemies has something to do with "love".

But my objections here are based on a false assumption: on the assumption that a person's moral character (their salvation, their redemption) is in any way affected by their actions. In Rowling's world it is not, and this is a deliberate and conscious theme throughout the books. Harry performs the same actions as other characters, but because he is by nature pure, his actions are actions of goodness, not of evil.

Even further proof that Harry's goodness is nothing to do with his actions - or indeed even his personality - but is instead some kind of elemental property comes from this rather interesting quote, regarding the fact that Voldemort had hope of salvation:

"Because he had taken into his body this-- this drop of hope or love (Harry's blood). So that meant that if he could have mustered the courage to repent, he would have been okay. But, of course, he wouldn't. And that's his choice."

Now there's two interesting things here. The first is that Voldemort's hope came literally from Harry's blood. Voldemort is not a person, Harry is not a person. Harry is a vessel full of Hope and Love in distilled form. No matter how many people he tortures or brutalises, he will always have Hope and Love in his very blood. It is physical contact with Harry's blood that gave Voldemort his one chance of redemption.

The second, subtler point is this one:

"But, of course, he wouldn't. And that's his choice."

Notice that she uses the words "of course" and "his choice" in the same sentence. And this is the point I find most interesting.

If you ever try to argue that JK Rowling is a slavering determinist, people always pull out two facts. Firstly, there's the fact that Harry "chose" not to be placed in Slytherin. Secondly, there's this extremely interesting line by Dumbledore.

"It is our choices Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

Now I hope it doesn't look like I'm being obsessive here, but I think it's extremely telling that Dumbledore uses the phrase "show what we truly are" and not " say "decide what we become." Dumbledore is telling us, quite clearly, that who we are never changes, that the decisions we make in our lives serve only to illuminate our natures, which are otherwise immutable.

So Voldemort could never have been redeemed. He was given the chance to "try for some remorse" but there was never any realistic expectation that he would be able to. Indeed we are told repeatedly throughout the series that Voldemort is not capable of love. Not that he hasn't known love, that he has never experienced love, that he is literally incapable of it.

A choice, to Rowling, is not a chance to control one's own destiny, but a chance to show your quality. The outcome of a choice is predetermined. Voldemort would never have chosen redemption, so he had no chance of redemption, no matter how much of Harry's Magic Blood he had pumping through him.

I started this article talking about Calvinist Election, and by mentioning that "atheists like me" find it a rather disturbing concept. I think a big thing that people find uncomfortable is the idea that "the Elect" get to strut around being all superior, just because some random fluke made them God's Chosen. This is of course not how it works. The whole point of Election is that no one man is more worthy of salvation than any other, that any who are saved, are saved by the grace of God, not by their own merits. Within Calvinist philosophy being "chosen" doesn't make you better than anybody else, it just gives you one extra reason to thank God.

Rowling's world, however, really does work the way atheists perceive Calvinist Election as working. Harry is arbitrarily singled out as being "special" or "chosen" and this literally does make him better than other people. Harry is as incorruptible as Voldemort is irredeemable. Harry's choices will always be the right ones, not because of his moral character but because the world itself will change to accommodate him. He can withstand the Imperius Curse, he can see into the mind of the Dark Lord, yet remain uncorrupted by it, he can unite the Deathly Hallows. Even when he actively seeks to bring pain and death to his enemies, it is somehow virtuous. Because Harry is Just That Awesome.

JK Rowling has said, in interview:

"My beliefs and my struggling with religious belief and so on I think is quite apparent in this book."

And apparent it is. The culmination of the Harry Potter series reads like the scrabbling of a Cultural Christian, trying to construct a moral framework out of fragments of doctrine she does not entirely understand or believe. Half-formed ideas about faith and destiny and redemption and death collide producing a result that is mostly simplistic, and occasionally sacrilegious.

The quasi-Christian overtones make some parts of the book genuinely incoherent. At times Harry's faith in Dumbledore is presented as almost akin to faith in God. He sets forth on his great journey, after all, knowing virtually nothing and Trusting That Dumbledore Would Provide. Indeed the Dumbledore-as-Divinity concept is a strong theme from the very start. It is very frequently Harry's Faith in Dumbledore that truly saves the day (most explicitly in Chamber of Secrets). The entire subplot with Dumbeldore's backstory is presented almost as Harry's last test of Faith.

And of course if Dumbledore is God, then this naturally casts Harry in the role of Jesus: walking amongst the unbelievers, spreading His word, facing persecution and ultimately death. A sacrifice made in perfect Love to redeem the sins of the Wizarding World.

Except that Dumbledore isn't God, he's just a guy, so having unwavering faith in him isn't laudable, it's blind fanaticism. And Harry doesn't sacrifice himself to save Hogwarts, he sacrifices himself to kill Voldemort. Hell, Rowling even admits that after book 6, if Harry looked into the Mirror of Erised he would see "Voldemort finished, dead, gone". His deepest desire is not to protect his friends, or even to live a normal life, but to kill the guy who killed his parents.

It's a mess, and the fact that it's a mess is probably the saddest thing of all. Rowling so clearly wanted to say something big about faith, about love, and about death, but all she has managed to do is communicate her own confuson.Themes:

J.K. Rowling

Books

Young Adult / Children

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Wardog

at 09:34 on 2007-08-17And obviously you have the whole sacramental thing of Voldemort receiving Harry's blood, or rather refusing the salvation contained within it... euw.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 11:11 on 2007-08-17I think you can also see attitudes towards predestination in her view of herself and her work. I was watching her original publisher on TV the other day talking about how he advised her to get a day job, because very very few people can actually make a living on children's books, and how she simply said she was very confident that HP would be successful. Which turned out to be right, of course, but there's no way anyone could have predicted exactly how much the HP books took off (and arguably they didn't become

really

massive until

Prisoner of Azkaban

). I know, I know, most authors probably harbour hopes that they'll be able to live off their soon-to-be-published novel and ditch the day job, it's human nature to be optimistic - but it's also human nature to harbour a deep-seated worry that your book might just flop. Rowling has never shown any evidence of the latter.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 14:49 on 2007-08-17This is, I think, also evidence of Ms Rowling's deeply fucked up priorities. Having faith in yourself is one thing, but she had a fucking *kid* to support. You think she'd give some thought to how the poor bastard was going to eat.

Also: Fun exercise for your spare time. Re-read the chapter entitled "Horcruxes" in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. It's as fucked up as all hell. It's where Dumbledore explains that Harry Potter hating Voldemort and wanting to kill him is evidence of his deep capacity for love.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:08 on 2007-08-17Care to summarise? I don't have the Half-Blood Prince and don't intend to read it - as far as I can tell, it's the big waterslide that dumps the reader in the sewer of

Deathly Hallows

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 16:23 on 2007-08-17Lets see, choice quotes from that chapter include:

"If Voldemort had never murdered your father, would he have implanted in you a furious desire for revenge?"

And of course

"You have never been seduced by the Dark Arts, never, even for a second, shown the slightest desire to become one of Voldemort's followers!"

"Of course I haven't," said Harry indignantly. "He killed my mum and dad!"

"You are protected, in short, by your ability to love!" said Dumbledore loudly.

And

"Imagine, please just for a moment that you had never heard that prophecy! How would you feel about Voldemort now? Think!"

"I'd want him finished," said Harry quietly. "And I'd want to do it."

That's your shining beacon of love folks: an angry little man driven by pure hatred and the desire for personal vengeance.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:33 on 2007-08-17That's hilarious. It's like Dumbledore is dozing his way through a speech and isn't actually listening to what Harry is saying.

"So, Harry, what will you do if you defeat Voldemort?" asked Dumbledore.

"I will become an Auror and turn the Ministry of Magic into a terrifying machine devoted to exterminating House Slytherin. I will use Unforgivable Curses like they were party tricks. I will break every single rule regulating magical law enforcement in my pursuit of the Slytherin menace."

"Oh Harry, you truly are a fountain of love and forgiveness!"

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 16:38 on 2007-08-17It's even worse than that: he's paying absolute attention to what Harry's saying, but deep down he's thinking "bwahahaha, see how I have manipulated this boy into believing that his childish desire to lash out at Lord Voldemort is a noble and selfless act! Now he is certain to do exactly as I wish while I arrange his death!"

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:47 on 2007-08-17Yeah. You know how I said how Harry walking to his own death in order to be the messiah was the act of a paranoid schizophrenic? I take that back. Orchestrating your own death and the death of your protege because you firmly believe that a) this will let you defeat the greatest evil in the world and b) this is how you think the Truest Love works is the act of a paranoid schizophrenic megalomaniac.

permalink

go to top

lessofthat

at 01:04 on 2007-08-28If only it were. It sounds more to me like the act of a man with no discernible personality traits whatsoever. I wonder how the books would read if you quietly ctrl-H'ed every instance of the word 'destiny' with the word 'plot'.

Hemmens, you've skewered the woman precisely and with brio, and you deserve applause, but how in the name of fuck was all this - except the ugly suicide cult business you mention in the previous piece - not visible from the downslope of book 3?

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 09:26 on 2007-08-28I think people still had some faith that Rowling would pull off some brilliant plot twist and the series wouldn't go in the direction that it was obviously going, and in fact did. To be fair, for the first four books she was able to surprise me with the endings - I didn't expect Bloke With Turban to have Lord Voldemort pasted to the back of his head, I didn't expect that Tom Riddle was anything other than a horrible sneak called Tom Riddle, I hadn't guessed that the Goblet of Fire would be a teleportation trap. The third book is the best example of this, where the climactic encounter with Sirius Black you're expecting is still fifty-odd pages away happens early, before our heroes are even slightly ready.

Book 5, conversely, is pretty much devoid of surprises. In books 1-4 the titular thing - the Philosopher's Stone, the Chamber of Secrets, the Prisoner of Azkaban, the Goblet of Fire - is a mysterious object, place or person which is the key to the mystery the book covers. The Order of the Phoenix, conversely, is carefully explained early on in book 5 and isn't really especially relevant or important.

permalink

go to top

lessofthat

at 10:57 on 2007-08-28Even her critics admit that Rowling does a good plot, but her creepy ideology and incoherent philosophy - her apparent belief that moral goodness is something you're born to, like the aristocracy, or that happens to you, like celebrity - has been visible for years.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 11:41 on 2007-08-28True, but until now people could always console themselves with the possibility that the whole goodness-by-selection deal was meant to be a Big Lie which was going to be exposed in the last book. In fact, the bit in

Deathly Hallows

where Harry struggles with the new facts he knows about Dumbledore could have been an excellent opportunity for Harry's worldview to be seriously challenged, but Rowling squandered the opportunity by having Harry's worldview be the correct one all along.

There was plenty of reason for bile and invective to be thrown in Rowling's general direction after books 5 and 6, and several decent causes for complaint after 4. I think the reason the flood has happened now, as opposed to earlier, is that with the publication of book 7 there is now no opportunity for Rowling to redeem the series.

permalink

go to top

Wardog

at 15:00 on 2007-08-28I'm not actually sure all this stuff *has* been visible; it's been *there* but that's not quite the same thing. A lot of people (self included, at least until 6) assumed it was all building up into something quite dark and interesting. And don't we feel like idiots now.

permalink

go to top

lessofthat

at 16:05 on 2007-08-28The more interesting question then is "what rendered it invisible?"

What surprises me is that everyone here dissing Rowling seems to have reached the same conclusions as I did, and articulated them rather better than I ever managed to, but inexplicably read all the way to the end before doing so. What dazzled you in the meantime? Was it just the plot, or were there promises of complexity in Harry and his gang that I overlooked?

I'd particularly like to know because I might then be able to reverse-engineer some kind of cure and inject it into the friend who told me last week '[book 7] is a fucking triumph and we're lucky to have her'. Or at least understand what the hell's going on with that.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:24 on 2007-08-28For my part, I was assuming (until book 5) that Rowling was going to pull the same start with the overarching plot of the series that she did with books 1-4 - specifically, try her hardest to trick the reader into thinking that a particular thing was going to happen, and then pull the rug out from under them. Sure, it was pretty obvious that we were going to have a ludicrous final battle in Hogwarts between Harry and Voldemort, and that Harry would prove to be the Chosen One by virtue of his amazing feat of surviving to his first birthday, but in the early Potter books whenever something's

that

obvious it usually isn't true.

Rowling's a one-trick pony, but she's pretty good at the narrative misdirection trick. It's why you had fans suggesting with a straight face that Dumbledore was actually Ron from the future; people realise that Rowling often throws out sudden plot twists, especially when the plot seems to be fairly straightforward, and the fans had plenty of fun coming up with convoluted ideas of what would happen at the conclusion.

Rowling's biggest misdirection was tricking people into thinking that the things which were obviously going to transpire in the HP series would not, in fact, come to pass.

permalink

go to top

empink

at 03:32 on 2007-08-29@lessofthat

I think that sometimes, you just don't *see* the bad points of a book for whatever reason. Everyone I know can speak to hating or at least disliking a book that they loved a while ago- it's the same sort of thing at work, or at least the same set of forces. For some reason, you may just want to enjoy a book so badly that you ignore its rough corners. Or you aren't yet adept at recognising those rough corners yet, so they pass you by. Or you weren't really paying much attention, and everything seems all right to your friends, and everything seems all right in (faulty) hindsight, so you jump at the next chance to read more from the same author.

All of that is far, far more pronounced when there is a lot of strong emotion sloshing around about a book or story or creative endeavour. You're either caught up in the hype to some extent, invest in it and suddenly realise it matters to you because your investment in it feels a lot sillier if it doesn't matter to you, or you're not and you wonder why the hell everyone's losing their heads over the whole thing.

permalink

go to top

Wardog

at 21:17 on 2007-08-29Agreed, empink.

The first three books, at least, have advantages to balance their disadvantages. They're not great literature (but then, what is?) but they're reasonably well-written, tautly plotted, genuinely amusing and occasionally, as Arthur points out above, quite surprising. I remember being quite startled that Snape wasn't, in fact, the bad guy of book 1 and I was quite impressed at the rather morally complex position he occupied in what was obviously a children's a book: at that stage in the game, he's good but not nice which is interesting for a children's book.

Also, as empink observes, the problems aren't really pronounced enough to add up to anything coherently problematic. Dan could never have written this article based off the first few books. I remember Harry seemed rather bland but nobody cared - he was a hero and heroes are meant to Save The World not be interesting and they were plenty of nice secondary characters to shine well when set against Harry's lack of personality. And the fact that Snape *wasn't* the bad guy seemed to suggest that Slytherin - despite the bad press - weren't basically evil, again suggesting a potentially morally layered universe. As the books progresses the houses, for example, become more and more simplified. I always thought well of the potrayal of Cedric Diggory (from book VI). I mean, he's a Hufflepuff, but he's clever AND brave AND abmitious. I always thought that might be trying to say something worthwhile.

Of course it wasn't.

Also the later books are all about shutting down avenues of interpretation - the early books are a glorious free-for-all. Because they're not sprawling information dumps, the glimpses of the world they offer are subtle and intriguing - perhaps it's just evidence of how lame we are but we used to spend hours discussing Harry Potter in the pub, wondering what this and that meant, and what was going to happen, and who such and such a character was.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 22:11 on 2007-08-29Slytherin is a particularly good example, actually. From the very beginning, Rowling has been adamant that the Slytherins aren't all evil. The internal evidence of the books seems to correspond with that, right up until the end when whoosh! Basically every Slytherin student and teacher turns Quisling and helps the Death Eaters stomp all over Hogwarts. The one exception is Snape, and it's notable that at the very end Harry names his kid after Snape because of Snape's courage - the Griffindor virtue, not traditionally anything to do with Slytherin.

permalink

go to top

lessofthat

at 10:23 on 2007-08-30Fair enough. Looking back, I can remember that sense that though the first three were flawed, there was something a bit different about them; the Slytherins had that aristocracy-of-hell feel that old guard Tories like Heseltine do (they may be scum, but they're engaging scum and you know where you are with them); Snape was, as Kyra says, not bad but not nice. I remember even being faintly impressed that Rowling knew what colour a philosopher's stone would be, but that she didn't feel the need to regurgitate all the matching alchemical background. It suggested she'd bothered to do the research but wore it lightly.

I wasn't that impressed though. I also remember reading a quote by some publishing type on the back of the first book way back in like '98, to the effect that future generations of children will talk about Diagon Alley the way past ones talked about the Hundred Acre Wood or, I don't know, Byker Grove or something. I thought that was ridiculous hyperbole. I suppose that's why he's a publishing type and I'm not, because how wrong was I.

@empink. The hype and social enthusiasm bypassed me, largely for reasons of grumpiness I suppose. So that's a powerful inoculating factor too.

Again, I guess that Harry's abject blandness was less apparent in his pre-teenage years. I don't really understand children, so absence of personality in them is less troublesome. I imagine that's true of other people too.

"the problems aren't really pronounced enough to add up to anything coherently problematic." I still disagree - I think the Choosing Hat alone is a particularly repellent embodiment of the English class system - but I think I have a better idea of why bright, sane people were distracted enough not to be bothered.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:16 on 2007-08-30On Harry's personality: half the reason book 5 lost me was that Harry became a repugnant, grumpy teenager. He was a well-observed repugnant teen, and I can just about barely remember what it was like being one myself, but there's a reason most people don't want to hang out with such oiks once they get over puberty, and that's because they're completely awful to be around.

In the earlier books his main personality trait was utter confusion and occasional amazement and wonder when regarding the world he'd been thrust into, which worked nicely with his role as the character we see the world through. It's a good device for the first three-or-so books, but it couldn't have been maintained for the entire series - nobody would have bought it if Rowling had tried to have Harry still be completely bowled over by the awesomeness of the wizarding world when he's lived in it for over half a decade - but it's a crying shame she didn't have anything particularly good to replace it with.

Re: the Sorting Hat - in the early books, I could accept the Sorting Hat as being a nice pastiche of the apparently arbitrary nature kids get assigned to classes and houses in secondary school. I could convince myself that the Hat essentially took a quick look at the students' personalities and flung them into whichever House seemed to have the most suitable internal culture for them, and the different characters of the Houses were a result of a self-perpetuating internal culture that the Hat just reinforced. It eventually became brutally apparent that the Hat is essentially a living filter for the Elect, and that being chosen as Gryffindor by the Hat is essentially an absolute vote of confidence in your moral integrity, but it took a while; again, it wasn't until book 5 that I realised that we'd never seen

one

single person who didn't fit in perfectly in their House, and

come on

: just because you're hard-working or brave or ambitious at 11 doesn't mean that's still going to be the case when you're 15.

permalink

go to top

empink

at 13:19 on 2007-08-30@lessofthat I don't really understand children, so absence of personality in them is less troublesome. I imagine that's true of other people too.

SO TRUE.

I still disagree - I think the Choosing Hat alone is a particularly repellent embodiment of the English class system

That's what I would have said after reading it. I can't remember how many times I wanted to point at JKR's treatment of the women in her book (married, had babies, or wanted to, or died, or died regardless, or were ugly, unsexy and old) and ask people what they thought was up with THAT. Then again, I remember how much less that would have pinged me a year or two ago, when I was still supposedly not a feminist. Snape's "I see no difference" feels particularly apt in this case. Until you *do* see the difference, or have it pointed out to you in a way you can't bring yourself to ignore, you...don't. And to others who do, you either look like a huge, defensive jackass, or like Stupid of the century. And to others who don't, you are Sane McGrateful for the author's bounty. And even that's simplifying the whole thing, but really, that's how it seems to have worked in my corner so far.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 00:40 on 2007-09-07Sorry I haven't commented: No internet.

In short, the reason that it took me a while to realise that Rowling was espousing a repulsive moral philosophy is that the series went through a massive genre shift between (roughly) books four and five, and assumptions which are perfectly acceptable in a boarding school romp have no place in a serious story about love and death and choices.

I always saw the Sorting Hat as being a metaphor for the cliques you get at school. The Slytherins are the privileged popular kids, the Ravenclaw are the swots, Hufflepuff are everybody else. Gryffindor - in the early books - was essentially just "the hero and his mates". There's comparatively little evidence that Gryffindors are *objectively* superior in the early books - there's just Harry's natural tendency to side with his friends. Indeed in the early books there's a fair number of dodgy Gryffindors (like Peter Pettigrew) and admirable non-Gryffindors (like Cedric Diggory and, arguably, Snape). In book five we even discover that James Potter was a bullying little shit. By the start of book six, things actually looked reasonably complex, and rather grown up. The last two books, though, took all of that apart. The Slytherins all leave in the final battle, James Potter wasn't a bully at all, he was just mad at Snape because he called Lily Potter a bad name, and we are asked to take Harry's desire for vengeance as evidence of his moral superiority.

Essentially I didn't find the early books morally repulsive, because I didn't think they were trying to make any kind of moral statement beyond "it is good to stick by your friends" and possibly "believe in yourself". The whole business with Sorting and predestination was just a convenient plot device to give the hero a set of allies and enemies. Early Potter doesn't advocate predeterminism any more than the Lord of the Rings advocates genocide.

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/tjLTVHEducFb4rKDHU5DukBHtQcCbTVMEEq55v0CxV4-#5e156

at 11:32 on 2009-08-09Aw come on Hemmens, don't you think getting that level of publicity could have turned your head like it did JKR's? I don't blame her for over reaching herself and her abilities given the phenomenal publicity she received. I shudder to think what it would have done to my mind!

permalink

go to top

Robinson L

at 00:30 on 2009-08-11

I don't blame her for over reaching herself and her abilities given the phenomenal publicity she received. I shudder to think what it would have done to my mind!

Sure it's understandable for fame to go to her head. Doesn't make the results any less execrable.

permalink

go to top

http://lunabell14.myopenid.com/

at 22:42 on 2010-07-27Actually, in Order of the Phoenix, during the sorting hat song, it sings this line (credit from Mugglenet):

For instance, Slytherin Took only pure-blood wizards Of great cunning, just like him

So basically, Rowling admits even earlier that Slytherins are all racist, and therefore the bad guys. I remember this kind of bugged me when I read it, since there is definitely no relationship between being cunning and being pure-blood. And you would think since Voldemort and Snape could by-pass the pure-blood rule, they would get rid of that criteria.

But honestly, I don't see how she can get credit for complex characterization when there such sweeping generalizations about Gryffindors and Slyterins. Especially when some of the good guys show what I consider some very questionable morality (such as Harry crucio-ing the Death Eater over nothing, Dumbledore being a manipulative dick, etc.)

permalink

go to top

http://prue84.livejournal.com/

at 23:06 on 2011-02-20I've avidly read this articol and how hell, how you are right!

I admit I'm never been Harry fan (I'm a "Slytherin" person because I feel I fell in that house - not a fan because they're the evil!), but this articole make me even less fan of Harry.

I'd also like to point out what I feel about Draco/Malfoys and Ron/Weasleys: they are basically the same, as both the families are racist but, when Draco say something nasty about Ron (usually something about being poor), he is labelled as "evil" while when Ron says something nasty about Draco (and Slytherins in general), he is still the good guy (or the Chosen One's biggest friend). What always bugged me is that Slytherin's House has some qualities (if I remember right, the Sorting Hat explain them in the first book), and yet "all in Slytherin are bad". What, why? Why there can't be bad or asses in the other houses? Why there is no Death Eater's son in Rawenclaw? Why Slytherins' students are all "Death Eater's wannabes?": couldn't be that many of them have pressures? Couldn't be that many of these families are simply acting like nobles families had done during the centuries, acting in a way while they wanted nothing more than be free to hug, kiss and reward?

I'm going totally off-topic here, but...

Thanxs for this articole! I have read the one regarding Abused Woman in the media and I'll slowly made my way in this site: too many interesting analysis. :)

permalink

go to top

http://shrek2be.livejournal.com/

at 14:05 on 2011-12-30I am not too intelligent to say that I understand what you have writtenabove in your post Daniel.I'll try to interpret DH and essentially HP in my own little simplistic way.

The problem for me is Rowling tries to keep Harry as Jesus and then convert him back to a human . Dumbledore ideally should be the Merlin/Gandalf figure (or like GOD with Harry being the son of GOD) but due to poor writing comes across as a bad human being. who shouldn't be preaching philosophy as he still believed in the greater good with the way he treated Harry.

I haven't read LOTR but have watched the movies and even Tolkien understands Frodo has changed irrevocably because he is no longer normal that he has to go to Valinor which I guess is the term for heaven. Rowling doesn't get this part at all. The epilogue validates how naive Rowling is terms of understanding religion. Harry's ideal character growth for me would be accepting that he has never been normal.

permalink

go to top

http://ladylazarus1027.livejournal.com/

at 00:38 on 2012-07-12

I'm fairly sure Rowling didn't start attending the Church of Scotland until she was in her late twenties* -- at the absolute earliest-- but I can see why you wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your rant.

* According to wikipedia, she was born and raised in Gloucestershire, quite far from Scotland.

permalink

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 17:27 on 2012-07-13Greetings, unnecessarily sarcastic commenter! I don't know when (or whether) Rowling joined the Church of Scotland, but it's possible for her to have done so without living in Scotland. There is, for example, a Church of Scotland church near where I work in central London.

permalink

go to top

Shim

at 20:39 on 2012-07-13A quick googling shows

this article from the Telegraph

which says she was raised as an Anglican. When she joined the Church of Scotland, I have no idea, and the Anglican church is very varied, so it's not that enlightening.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 21:09 on 2012-07-13

Thanks for the clarification. To be honest, though, I'm not convinced that there is much difference between "was raised" and "was influenced by in her twenties" and I'm not sure whether that particular detail actually has much to do with my central argument, which is that the Harry Potter books present a world in which some people are predestined towards salvation and others not.

What Rowling herself believes, or why she believes it, or when she started believing it is distinctly secondary.

permalink

go to top

http://fishinginthemud.livejournal.com/

at 02:54 on 2012-07-14I think people are tripping up on the idea that Rowling's terrible writing is due to her being a deranged Calvinist, rather than just a terrible writer. I don't think this article really pushes that connection very hard, but I can see why people who want to nitpick for the sake of nitpicking would jump on that.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 10:34 on 2012-07-14I think that's probably the case. Ironically I think the article actually argues fairly strongly that Rowling *isn't* a deranged Calvinist, and that if she was her writing would probably be somewhat improved.

The problem I have with the attitude to Salvation in the Potter books is that it superficially resembles Calvinist Election without any of the theological underpinnings.

permalink

go to top

Cammalot

at 11:38 on 2012-07-14

The problem I have with the attitude to Salvation in the Potter books is that it superficially resembles Calvinist Election without any of the theological underpinnings.

Yes, and I'd speculate that seems like that *would* be a product of a later-in-life association with the church, rather than early internalization of the doctrine.

permalink

go to top

Ibmiller

at 11:38 on 2012-07-14Rather hilariously, I love this article, and I am a Calvinist (who some call deranged...) Completely agree that Rowling's world would improve from theological underpinnings other than "some people who are pretty are nice and some people who don't have noses are racist."

Hmmm...the Harry Potter series rewritten by a deranged Calvinist...if I were any kind of writer, I might want to take that up as a challenge...

permalink

go to top

http://fishinginthemud.livejournal.com/

at 11:55 on 2012-07-14I think this specifically is what's getting people.

If [Rowling belongs to the Church of Scotland] is true, then it seems that Rowling has allowed her faith to strongly influence her work.

That implies a more direct connection than the one I got: that

Potter

and Calvinism both espouse a similar salvation-of-the-elect worldview, the difference being that Calvinists have put a bit more thought and indeed humanity and decency into their version. Their conclusions about how life works aren't the inadvertent result of an overlong fantasy series spinning out of an inexperienced writer's control.

Potter

would likely have ended up the same way if Rowling had never heard of Calvinism.

permalink

go to top

http://fishinginthemud.livejournal.com/

at 12:02 on 2012-07-14

I am a Calvinist (who some call deranged...)

I actually don't think Calvinists are any more deranged than any other religious group. What would make Rowling's worldview deranged would be a conscious attempt to decontextualize Calvinist or most other religious beliefs into something secular, which I think everyone agrees probably did not happen.

permalink

go to top

Ashimbabbar

at 14:27 on 2014-04-25• It's an extremely interesting and deep analysis ( not that everybody hadn't noticed, but now I have too )

• The "but of course Voldemort wouldn't repent" makes an interesting contrast with LOTR [ Tolkien being a Catholic ]. Here Saruman could really have repented ( after the Ents smashed Isengard ), it is not his 'nature' that prevents him too, only his choice ( I think LOTR would have been much better if he had but never mind that ). Gollum too could have if it hadn't been for Sam's hostility and his own reaction to it… they were really offered the choice.

• This "Rowlingian Calvinism", for want of a better term, sounds like a very good belief for the bad guys in a Fantasy novel…

permalink

go to top

Daniel F

at 15:46 on 2014-04-25

it is not his 'nature' that prevents him too, only his choice ( I think LOTR would have been much better if he had but never mind that ).

I'm morbidly curious now...

#Ferretbrain #Harry Potter #J.K. Rowling #Dan H #Religion

8 notes · View notes

worshipmoment · 7 years ago

Text

False Religion: Zoroastrianism

The false religion Zoroastrianism was founded by the man Zoroaster generally believed to be born around 6th-century BC in Persia. According to Zoroaster, there is one true deity to be worshipped, His name is Ahura-Mazda (wise lord). In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda has an adversary called Angra Mainyu. Angra Mainyu is the originator of death and all that is evil in the world. Ahura Mazda, who is perfect, abides in Heaven, whereas Angra Mainyu dwells in the depths of Hell. When a person dies they will go to Heaven or Hell depending on their deeds during their lifetime but Hell is a temporary place of suffering for sinners after death. When evil is finally defeated, the souls of sinners will be released from hell and will be purified by the ordeal of molten metal. They will then join the congregation of God and the saints.

History of Zoroastrianism:

Many Claim that Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion alive and that Christianity and Judaism came from Zoroastrianism, however, this is simply not true. While Zoroastrianism is said to have had its origins in the 6th century BC, it only enters recorded history in the 5th century BC. This is in contrast to the Bible, where most historians and scholars put the writing of the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy written by Moses) between 1446—1406 BC during Israel’s wanderings in the desert. This means the Old Testament pre-dates the Avesta by close to 900 years. It is clear that the concept of one God and the need for a Savior was established much earlier by the Hebrew people. Even the prophet Isaiah spoke of the virgin birth of Christ and recorded it around 701 BC, which still precedes Zoroastrianism by 100 years.

Avesta:

The Avesta is the primary collection of religious texts of Zoroastrianism and was written by the prophet Zoroaster. The Avesta contains hymns, rituals, and spells against demons. The prophet Zoroaster supposedly received what he recorded in the Avesta from Ahura Mazda, and from his Archangels (Amesha Spentas) while at the Daiti River. Zoroaster is the sole author. This method of “enlightenment” is similar to that claimed by the prophet Mohammed of Islam, who received a vision from the angel Gabriel. His message was passed down for about three centuries by word of mouth before being recorded by scribes in the Qu'ran. Still, the source is only one man, and a person should question the accuracy of one's memory over a long period such as that. Compare these “revelations” with The Bible: 40 authors of 66 books over a span of 1,600 years (55 generations), and most of the authors were not acquainted with one another. They came from different backgrounds (judge, prophet, king, priest, shepherd, scribe, soldier, fisherman, physician) and different locations (tents, palaces, dungeons, cities, deserts), and they wrote under different circumstances in three different languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic). Yet they ALL convey the same common theme about God. Their writings are accepted as the inerrant, true, and inspired Word of God recorded through men (2 Timothy 3:16). The accuracy of the original texts has been verified over and over each time an ancient biblical manuscript has been discovered.

Works Salvation:

Zoroastrianism states that active participation in life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. There are various religious rituals that must be observed and a variety of deeds to be performed to ensure salvation. This is in stark contrast to Christianity, which teaches that Christ is the only way to salvation (John 14:6) and that our salvation cannot be earned (Ephesians 2:8–9). This is the difference between Christianity and all false religions. In Christ, salvation is a free gift from God apart from works, which save no one (Romans 3:20, 28). All other religions require works of some kind to appease God. Thankfully, our Bible is crystal clear on salvation, how to receive it, what is true, and what is not.

Conclusion:

It is abundantly clear that Zoroastrianism is yet another religion where salvation is works-based. There is no evidence of any divine influence in their religious writings, and it is clearly not impacting the world and changing lives today the way our relevant, living, all-powerful God is doing. The Bible, which could not possibly exist and claim the things it does unless it truly IS the inspired Word of God, has the power to change lives on a massive scale. Zoroastrianism like all other false religion is based on works of salvation. Zoroastrianism is wrong and if you want to be truly saved then all you have to do is to put your faith in Jesus Christ there are no works involved.

#Zoroastrianism #false religion #Religion #christian #Bible #Jesus #God #gospel #faith #False teachers #FTOTW #calling out #warning

43 notes · View notes

godly-habits011497 · 3 years ago

Text

What Does The Bible Say About Money?

The Bible says a LOT about money. Why? Wealth is necessary for survival. In order to eat, comfortably sleep, and stay healthy, you’ll need some form of currency. Wanting money is not wrong. But humans are certainly bad at desiring modest amounts, especially when it comes to money. God is not surprised by this, and so he’s given us ample direction on how to navigate the topic.

Today, we’ll dig into 1 Timothy 6:17-19 with the Understanding the Bible Commentary. It gives a great, detailed explanation of the passage. You’ll learn Paul’s thoughts on becoming rich, or what he suggests for those who already have great wealth.

1 Timothy 6:17-19

“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.” (NIV)

The following content is from the Understanding the Bible Commentary.

Already Rich With Money

After the exalted language of the preceding doxology (vv. 15–16), these words come as such a surprise that some scholars doubt whether they really belong here and suggest they are an interpolation. But if the “logic” of all this is not perfect, there is no difficulty in seeing what has happened.

Paul’s Warning to Those Who Want to Be Rich with Money

Paul was bringing the letter to its close with a final word against the false teachers, a word that turned out to be such a strong judgment against their greed that it included a warning to “all those who want to get rich” (v. 9). But there would have been some in the church who were already rich in this present world (v. 17), especially those in whose homes the church met (cf. also 5:16).

However, since Paul’s first concern was with the false teachers and Timothy’s own role in combating them, he followed his words about them with an immediate final exhortation to Timothy—to keep contending in the noble contest until the End. Now, having given that noble charge to Timothy, he returns to say a few words for the already rich, lest they feel condemned by verses 6–10.

What Paul Says About Money in the Bible

What he says to them is again predicated on his thoroughly eschatological view of Christian existence, but without the asceticism of the false teachers. Such people may be rich in the things that pertain to the present life; but these things, even though they may be for our enjoyment, belong only to this present age and are therefore uncertain. The rich should therefore hold their possessions loosely, not placing their hope in them but being generous with them, using them for good works. Their hope must be placed in God and their riches used to store up treasures for the future, for the life which is true life. One might note that there are some close affinities in this passage (including 6:7) with Ecclesiastes 5:8–20.

What Does Bible Verse 1 Timothy 6:17 Specifically Say About Money?

Timothy is called upon to give one more command (the same word as in 1:3, 5; 4:11; 5:7), this time to those who are rich in this present world. Paul nowhere else speaks to the wealthy as a class, but that merely indicates the ad hoc nature of his letters. His theology of the cross clearly recognizes the Old Testament stance that God champions the cause of “the poor” (1 Cor 1:26–31). And in Corinth, where the majority are in this class, he gives the wealthy a considerable dressing down for their treatment of the “have-nots” (11:20–22). But he must often have been the beneficiary of the well-to-do (cf. Philem. 1–2, 5–7, 22), so he is hardly against the wealthy as such. He simply expects those who “have” to be generous to those who “have not” (Rom 12:8, 13; 2 Cor 9:6–15).

Paul’s command strikes at the twin perils of the wealthy: not to be arrogant or to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain.

The word for arrogant is a compound of two words that mean “to think, or cherish, exalted thoughts” (KJV, “high-minded”; cf. Rom 11:20; 12:16). Arrogance, or pride, is the deadly sin of all people, but it seems to be the special curse of the rich. Not only that, but they tend to put altogether too much confidence in what is so uncertain.

The uncertainty of wealth is underscored in the Proverbs (23:4–5); here this theme is tied to its being only for this present world (in contrast to “the coming one,” v. 19). Putting hope in wealth was denounced by the prophets (e.g., Jer. 9:23) and seems to be the one thing above others that closed the door of the Kingdom to some in the ministry of Jesus (cf. Mark 10:17–27; Luke 12:15, 16–21).

As with all others (4:10), especially the poor widows (5:5), the wealthy are to put their hope in God. As in the two earlier texts, salvation expressed as hope in God carries a decidedly eschatological connotation, as well as that of trust and endurance.

The Bible Does Not Say You Must Completely Reject Money

But Paul is no ascetic. That the wealthy should not place confidence in their wealth does not carry with it an attitude of total rejection. Thus, even here he takes a swipe at the false teachers (see disc. on 4:1–5 and 5:23). God, he says, richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment (cf. 4:3–4; see also Eccles. 5:19–20). Enjoyment, however, does not mean self-indulgent living (5:6). The reason everything may be enjoyed lies in the recognition that everything, including one’s wealth, is a gift, the expression of God’s gracious generosity.

What Does Bible Verse 1 Timothy 6:18 Specifically Say About Money?

The “enjoyment” of “everything” as God’s generous gift leads away from “high-mindedness” and false security to the freedom of giving generously. Indeed, the whole of this verse repeats in four ways that the wealthy are to use their wealth for the benefit of others.

It begins, command them (repeated from v. 17 for clarity) to do good, which is then repeated with a play on “riches” (cf. 2 Cor 8:9): to be rich in good deeds. And in case that is not clear, good deeds is further defined as being generous and willing to share.

Hence true “riches” is found in the giving, not in the having.

What Does Bible 1 Timothy 6:19 Specifically Say About Money?

Having used “riches” metaphorically in verse 18, Paul now extends the metaphor eschatologically. In so doing, he makes what appear to be some very un-Pauline comments (as in 2:15). But the awkwardness is the result of the metaphor(s), not of a theological shift. Salvation is to put one’s hope in God; it is not achieved by “buying shares in heaven!"

The Bible Says to Store Up Your Treasure in Heaven, Not Earth

Nonetheless, very much as Jesus said (Luke 12:33; 18:22; cf. Matt. 6:19–21), Paul reminds them that in this way (by generous giving to the needy) they will lay up treasure for themselves…for the coming age.

This is not to “buy off” God or to earn salvation. It is simply to emphasize again what was begun in verse 17. True “riches” have not to do with earthly possessions, which are uncertain and belong to this age only. True “riches” are obtained by the generous and liberal sharing of the “riches of this life.” Thus for the rich to give riches away is not to suffer loss but rather to lay up treasure for themselves of a different kind. It is, in a typically Pauline shift of metaphors, “to lay up” a firm foundation for the coming age. In this regard one should note the sayings of Jesus that Luke has placed together in 12:32–33. The Kingdom as gift leads to selling possessions and giving to the needy and thereby providing for oneself “a treasure in heaven.”

Take Hold of the Life That is Truly Life

Finally, lest any of this be misunderstood, Paul sets forth the nature of the treasure, the same eschatological goal that all believers share (cf. 1:16; 4:8, 10; 6:12): So that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. This clause is very similar to what was said to Timothy in 6:12, except that what was an imperative there is here a purpose clause, expressing the final goal of their hope in God and their resultant good works. By so doing they take hold of (or “secure for themselves��) the life that is truly life, meaning, of course, eternal life, eschatologically understood.

Additional Note from Understanding the Bible Commentary on The Bible and Money

This paragraph is actually a single sentence in Greek that makes a considerable play on the word “riches” and related ideas. The word itself occurs four times in four different forms (a substantival adjective, “the rich”; an abstract noun, “riches”; an adverb, richly; and a verb, to be rich). Thus “the rich” are not to trust in “riches,” but in God who richly gives all things, and therefore are to be rich in good deeds, which then, to extend the metaphor, is their way to lay up…treasure for the future.

0 notes

johnhardinsawyer · 4 years ago

Text

If. . . Then

John Sawyer

Bedford Presbyterian Church

5 / 2 / 21 – Fifth Sunday of Easter

1 John 4:7-21

“If. . . Then”

(We Love, Therefore God Is. . .)

About a month ago, I was driving home on a Monday afternoon and I saw a strange and wonderful sight: a young couple was walking down the street, hand-in-hand, smiling from ear to ear, wearing matching blue sweatshirts. . . well, almostmatching blue sweatshirts. You see, the young man was wearing a blue sweatshirt that said, “If lost, return to Babe.” And the young woman’s blue sweatshirt said, “I’m Babe.”

There was no mistaking, by this public display of affection, that these two lovebirds were an item. . . together. Based on the way they were smiling and holding hands in their almost-matching blue sweatshirts, I can only imagine how joyful their reunion would be if they were ever parted from one another and Babe’s babe was returned to Babe. This is the kind of thing that happens when you’re in love.

Have you ever wondered where love comes from? I must admit that I had never thought about this big question until I came across today’s scripture reading, years ago.

When I began to try to read the Bible for myself, it took me a while to start piecing things together – all of the common threads and themes – in a way that made sense to me. The Bible can be rather complicated, to say the least. But I am so glad that somewhere, in my early reading of the Bible – sometime in middle or high school – I was introduced to today’s passage from First John. Now, I know that my name happens to be John, and, in the New Testament, there was a guy named John the Baptist, as well as a disciple of Jesus named John, as well as John of Patmos who wrote the Book of Revelation.[1] There is a Gospel of John and there are three short letters – First John, Second John, and Third John. With all of these “Johns,” it can be rather confusing, because they are not all the same person. It is thought by many scholars, though, that the Gospel of John and the letters of John were written by either the same person or members of the same early Christian community.[2] Careful readers of John’s Gospel and John’s Letters can see that they are, at the very least, coming from a very similar point of view.

One of the common threads that we find woven throughout the Bible is one that we see in today’s reading from the First Letter of John – the thread or theme of God’s love for us and the imperative of loving one another.

“Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God,” (1 John 4:7) we read in today’s passage. As I mentioned a few moments ago, I’m not sure if you’ve ever wondered where love comes from, but I remember reading this verse, years ago, about how love comes from God, and having an epiphany of sorts: “Oh, that makes sense,” I thought. “We are taught that ‘God is love’ – heck, you can even read that ‘God is love’ (4:8) right here in today’s reading. So, of course love comes from God! I mean, who knows better what love is and how to love than God?”

Some of you are probably aware that in Greek, there are four different words for love – romantic love (eros), brotherly love (philia), the love that parents have for their children (storge), and God’s love (agape).[3] The love that is made known to us in Jesus Christ is agape love – the kind of love that gives without wanting, or expecting a return.[4]

Agape love is different from normal, human, love because we human beings are always wanting or expecting some kind of return. God’s agape love does not work in this way, though. God’s love for us is so great that God loves us even when we fall short, or fall flat on our faces, or lose our way. It’s kind of like we’re all walking around with sweatshirts that say, “I’m lost, please return to God if God will have me.” And God is walking around with a sweatshirt that says, “I am God. I knit you together in your mother’s womb. I have named you and claimed you in the waters of baptism, and I’ve already found you and forgiven you. You’re not lost anymore.” Yes, God wears a big sweatshirt. You can fit a lot on that thing. Anyway, the word that we use in the church to describe this phenomenon of God’s unmerited love and favor for us – even when we fall short – is “grace.”

All of us have experienced grace, in one way or another, whether we have called it that or not. If you’ve ever had a friend or a spouse forgive you when you messed up – like when you planned a work event on the day your child’s birthday party was supposed to be. . . or if you’ve ever had a child who messed up but you loved them anyway (maybe loved them more). . . or if you’ve ever been on the receiving or giving end of a truly generous act that could never be repaid, then you’ve probably caught a glimpse of grace. That’s right, God may be the source of all grace – the “fountain of love”[5] – but the way that most of us experience grace is through our interactions with other people. This is why we are reminded at the start of today’s passage to “love one another” (4:7). As the author of First John writes, “No one has ever seen God [in all of God’s power and might]; [but] if we love one another [then] God lives in us and God’s love is perfected in us.” (4:12) Because, if we love one another – with the kind of love that God has and is and loves – then there is something Holy that takes place. If we love one another, then we are participating in the abundant and eternal life of God.

This is what I found to be so revolutionary so long ago: the idea that anytime we seek to do the loving thing – seeking to love as God loves – God is not just part of it all, but the very source of it all. God is active and alive and at work through you and me. “. . . [E]veryone who loves is born of God and knows God.” (1 John 4:7) In other words, when you love – with the kind of agape grace that God loves – then you know God. . . or, at the very least, you get a sense of what God is like in God’s heart of hearts. And, if God is actively loving the world through our heart of hearts, then we do not need to be afraid to share this love with all in what we do and say. . . in how we live and love.

Unfortunately, you and I are just as – if not more – likely to encounter (or to offer) no love than we are to encounter or offer God’s grace. The world can be so hard and so unloving, and so can we. Today’s passage does not come without a whole set of warnings: If we do not love, then we do not know God. (4:8) Or, as John Calvin puts it, “there is no knowledge of God where there is no love.”[6] And, if we say we love God but hate our fellow human beings, then we are liars, because those who do not love someone that they have seen cannot love God, whom they have not seen. (4:20) This does beg the question: when we love our neighbors, who are we truly loving and who are we leaving out? If there is no love for one’s neighbors – for all of them – then there is no true knowledge of God.

The hard, yet wonderful, thing about God’s grace, though, is that it is offered, even to the most unloving among us. And God calls us to share it, even with the most unloving and unlovable people we know, while acknowledging and confessing our most unloving and unlovable tendencies. I mean, there might come a day when the young man with the blue “If lost, return to Babe” sweatshirt is angry with Babe, or vice versa. Maybe Babe is being selfish or maybe Babe’s babe is upset about something else and lashing out at anyone – even the one he says he loves the most – and it is hard for Babe to understand. We have all been in situations like this with those we love as well as those we do not love. This is where grace enters the picture, though. Without grace, human relationships are bound to fail.

Thanks be to God, that even when our grace for one another runs out, God’s grace never runs out. This is a love so deep, so broad, and so high, that it cannot be measured in the flowers and chocolate and blue sweatshirts of romance, or the physical desires of erotic love, or even the comradery that a team displays when they work together and support one another. No, the love of Jesus is made of stronger stuff – a love that says, “I love you even when you are angry with me.” “I love you even when you don’t want anything to do with me.” “I love you even when you don’t love me back.” “I love you even when you betray me, and arrest me, and put me to death.”

The love that we see at work in Jesus Christ is the love to which he calls us in each and every moment. “Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another,” Jesus says. (John 13:34b) This is the love of humble service and hospitality – washing feet and feeding people. This is the love that has the courage to say “No” to that which is unloving in our world and to work until the most unloving ideas and actions are torn down like the false idols they usually are. This is the love that does not hurt, but only heals, the love that does not seek to break the world, but only seeks the wholeness of the world. This is the love of sacrifice – of giving ourselves away for the sake of those we love, even those we might never meet, even those who say they are our enemies. This is the love that Jesus shows us, time and time again, in a constant and gracious public display of affection. This is the love to which Jesus calls us, the love that is so hard for most of us.[7]

If we love one another, though, then God is revealed. If we love one another, though, then God can be seen and known. If we love one another, then God’s kingdom comes. If we love one another, then God makes it on earth as it is in heaven. If we love one another, then God abides in us and we abide in God. If we love one another, then we are part of – vessels of – something Holy.

If we love. . . then there is God.

Hmmm. . . ��Someone should put that on a sweatshirt.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

-------------

[1] And I don’t want to forget “Jonathan,” who was best friends with David in the Old Testament.

[2] Watson E. Mills, ed. The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990) 461-462. “John, Gospel and Letters,” R. Alan Culpepper.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love.

[4] David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor, Feasting on the Word – Year B, Volume 2 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008) 469 – Homiletical Perspective, William L. Self.

[5] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries – Vol. XXII (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009) 238.

[6] John Calvin, 238.

[7] This section is from my sermon from Maundy Thursday (4/1/21) on the Great Commandment to love in John 13.

0 notes

eternalloveheart · 6 years ago

Text

Jesus vs Zoroaster.

I don’t want you to be afraid so this might not be for the faint of faith. I have argued with skeptics and some of them love to claim some nonsensical theories such as Christianity is based on different religions.

Do not be deceived there is a lot of twisting of words when they mention names like Zoroaster. I am serious people have tried to use this on me claiming Jesus is based on paganism. Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

Background information.

I may reiterate information that is already well known for those who are unaware. I just want to make sure I disclose all the pertinent information. In the belief of Zoroastrianism is where it is said to originate the belief of “good” vs “evil”. In the records of their belief it is shown they believe in two gods fighting one for good and one for evil in dualism. It has one god that should be worshiped being monotheistic in a sense. It is the idea known as the “combat myth” by scholars. In their beliefs there was already the idea of heaven, hell, angels and demons set for mankind. Zoroastrianism was most well known to have been common among the Persian empire.

I thought a lot about this one in religion course I took in university. I wondered if perhaps in every advancement of the time period there is another manifestation of God. I got to thinking that it might all be the same divinity showing themselves throughout time in ways that can be understood by the culture. In human advancement this deity could go more and more in depths step by step. I just knew that Jesus Christ said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me”. In other words any idea of combining this savior with another view means outright denying Jesus Christ.

Jewish History vs Zoroastrianism History.

In this case Zoroastrianism must be compared Judaism by revisiting history. It is a well known historic fact that the Jews and the Persians came in contact with each other at an early period. It has been thought that the belief influenced the Jewish. Inversely there has been scholars that argue the opposite that rather early Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism. He studied the customs, ideas and cultures of the areas to try to pinpoint which one influenced the other religion.

Darmesteter’s findings.

“He returned to Paris, in February 1887, with a mass of new information concerning the Avesta itself, the solemnization of Zoroastrian rituals, and the nature of living Zoroastrian beliefs and practices. Darmesteter was one of the distinguished Iranists who gave credence to the spurious date for Zoroaster, “258 years before Alexander”; and he was perhaps the only one to make a serious attempt to understand the evolution of the Avesta in the light of this false chronology. The parallels that exist between Neoplatonism and Judaism on one hand and Zoroastrianism on the other are striking, and in the 19th century it was natural to suppose that influence had gone from west to east, rather than the other way about. Darmesteter accordingly thought that these similar elements were alien to primitive Zoroastrianism and had been absorbed by the Iranian religion after the time of its prophet”

A summary of his research.

Evaluating the real timeline.

The false religion Zoroastrianism was founded by the man Zoroaster generally believed to be born around 6th-century BC in Persia. According to Zoroaster, there is one true deity to be worshiped, His name is Ahura-Mazda (wise lord). Many Claim that Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion alive and that Christianity and Judaism came from Zoroastrianism, however, this is simply not true. While Zoroastrianism is said to have had its origins in the 6th century BC, it only enters recorded history in the 5th century BC. This is in contrast to the Bible, where most historians and scholars put the writing of the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy written by Moses) between 1446—1406 BC during Israel’s wanderings in the desert. This means the Old Testament pre-dates the Avesta by close to 900 years. It is clear that the concept of one God and the need for a Savior was established much earlier by the Hebrew people. Even the prophet Isaiah spoke of the virgin birth of Christ and recorded it around 701 BC, which still precedes Zoroastrianism by 100 years.

Compare these “revelations” with The Bible: 40 authors of 66 books over a span of 1,600 years (55 generations), and most of the authors were not acquainted with one another. They came from different backgrounds (judge, prophet, king, priest, shepherd, scribe, soldier, fisherman, physician) and different locations (tents, palaces, dungeons, cities, deserts), and they wrote under different circumstances in three different languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic). Yet they ALL convey the same common theme about God. Their writings are accepted as the inerrant, true, and inspired Word of God recorded through men (2 Timothy 3:16). The accuracy of the original texts has been verified over and over each time an ancient biblical manuscript has been discovered.

Still confusingly uncertain?

I can understand confusion in which came first or influenced the other since the development of preserved writing came after the foundation of the beliefs by the controversy. It difficult to compare because the development of writing came so much later than the foundation of both beliefs. It is even assuming there could be earlier copies of any written evidence that does exist.

What does this all mean? Which one came first? Why did God choose Israel to be the final ultimate bearer of his word in the first place according to their beliefs?

Deuteronomy 7:6-8

“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt”.

So turns out God chose them because of a promise he made to Abraham. Abraham had faith when told to kill his own beloved son for God. This is the reason Israel was the chosen people to even bear the line of the messiah Jesus Christ. It is because this one man actually sacrificed his only beloved son (which most actually loving parents would not do). It does not say he sacrificed his son because he hated his son, was sadistic or was trying to be ritualistic. It says he did it because he trusted the one who was in control that he knew what was best. He had faith that there must be a good reason for him and his son were both loved by God. He was planning to do the same for all of mankind with his only begotten son. He wanted his son to be born from the line of the man who was willing to do the same for him.

Jesus Christ vs Zoroaster.

Zoroaster was the prophet who went around spreading the ideas of the religion. He was opposed to religious ceremonies such as animal sacrifices. He believed one could go to heaven by simple good works (as many religions teach).

Zoroastrianism states that active participation in life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. There are various religious rituals that must be observed and a variety of deeds to be performed to ensure salvation. This is in stark contrast to Christianity, which teaches that Christ is the only way to salvation John 14:6) and that our salvation cannot be earned (Ephesians 2:8–9). This is the difference between Christianity and all false religions. In Christ, salvation is a free gift from God apart from works, which save no one (Romans 3:20, 28). All other religions require works of some kind to appease God. The bible is crystal clear on salvation how to receive it what is true and what is not.

As for good works salvation I never wanted to follow such a belief (never knowing if you’ve been ‘”good enough”). I mean ask a religious man, Jewish, Catholic, or Muslim they will say “I am going to heaven because I am righteous deserving to go to heaven. I put God in my debt for doing these good deeds which must cancel my bad deeds”. It be like a serial killer donating money to charity hoping it compensates. It is different from asking a Christian who would say “I am a sinner deserving of hell having hurt so many people in my life. I deserve hell all my works could never make up for the pain I brought into the world. I am so loved that even at my darkest moment I was told I was worth dying for. God in the flesh came down to pay for all my debt standing in my judgment seat taking my curses. I am saved because God loves enough to pay my debt for me. I don’t have to wonder if I have been good enough now because I know his righteousness is now associated to me”. So which one seems to glorify God the most? Why does Christianity seem different?

This was a collaboration with @worshipmoment. I consulted him for information though should warn that not everything here may necessarily reflect his views. His work comes into “Evaluating the real timeline” and some of “Jesus Christ vs Zoroaster”.

#apologetics #zoroaster #zoroastrianism #Jewish #Jesus Christ #Christian #False religion #works salvation is false #sola scriptura #saved by grace #gracias #mercy #apologetic #bible #god is real #religion

2 notes · View notes

johnchiarello · 7 years ago

Text

My 1st book

'HOUSE OF PRAYER, OR DEN OF THIEVES'

a critical look at the modern prosperity gospel.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 ‘YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON’

CHAPTER 2 ‘TWISTING THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER’

CHAPTER 3 ‘WHAT IS THE ABRAHAMIC BLESSING ?’

CHAPTER 4 ‘WHAT DID JAMES SAY ?’

CHAPTER 5 ‘WHOSE MINISTRY, JESUS OR OURS ?’

CHAPTER 6 ‘1 TIMOTHY 6’

CHAPTER 7 ‘WERE JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES RICH ?’

CHAPTER 8 ‘COVENANT THEOLOGY’

CHAPTER 9 ‘SOWING INTO GOOD SOIL’

CHAPTER 10 ‘IS THERE HOPE FOR FALSE PROPHETS ?’

INTRODUCTION

It all started a few years back when I was regularly listening to certain ministries who taught the prosperity gospel. Over the years I subscribed to a few of these ministry magazines and truly enjoyed their teaching, but every now and then while reading through the bible I would come across certain passages of scripture that seemed to contradict the themes of the prosperity movement. I also found it strange the way they interpreted certain passages of scripture, it was almost as if when they were done explaining them, that these passages meant the exact opposite of what they were plainly teaching.

During this season of learning, while the Lord was dealing with me about these various doctrines, I would find myself at times saying 'something needs to be done about the extreme teaching coming from this camp'. I would also deal with some of the unbalanced teaching through the small avenues of influence I had through a local radio program and various speaking opportunities. I would even go through stages where I was so upset over some of the more extreme elements of this teaching, that I would avoid dealing with it at all because of the emotional baggage that comes with having to disagree with a brother in Christ.

Then why write this book? Each time I would determine to drop the whole matter and never deal with this issue again, something would happen, or be said on Christian television or radio, or be written in a new book, that was so off base that I would ask the Lord again if He wanted me to do more in bringing about a more balanced view of biblical prosperity. The most recent incident was while watching Christian TV one night, the preacher who was speaking is a well-known prosperity preacher. Before he preached he invited another prosperity preacher to share a 'special' revelatory word the Lord had given him, as the preacher came to the pulpit he began to lead the people in a series of confessions/actions that he told the audience to imitate in order for them to experience breakthrough in their finances. As he stood on the stage he then went through the motions of pulling down an imaginary lever on a slot machine while confessing in a very loud voice the words 'MONEY COMING'. He did this three times while the audience followed. When they got to the last shout, the preacher emphasized the importance of this last shout, and as he led them in the pulling down of the lever they all shouted at the top of their lungs 'MONEY COMING TO ME'

Well to say the least this was another one of those 'incidents' that caused me to ask the Lord if I should do more about such obvious abuse in the church. A few days later, while driving to work one morning, I remembered this incident and asked the Lord if he wanted me to write a book on this subject. Later on in the day during a lunch break, while reading through the bible during a regular devotional time, I just happened to be reading through the book of revelation, and when I came to revelation 1:19 where Jesus tells John to 'write the things which thou hast seen', it hit me like a ton of bricks. So here I am today, believing that this book will serve a definite purpose in the Body of Christ and cause us to return to a more balanced view of the 'things of this world'.

CHAPTER 1 'YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON'

It has been said that the best way to spot a counterfeit is to know the real. So let’s begin with a biblical look at true prosperity. In the past, while trying to deal with this subject, I would often find people responding in defense of the prosperity gospel by saying things like 'oh, but you don't know how good the Lord is' or 'you don't know how much God wants to meet our needs' or, 'the bible doesn’t say money is evil, but the love of money'. To which I would reply 'AMEN', I agree with you. But the bible also gives us many warnings against materialism, seeking to be rich, and living for material things.

So while trying to deal with the false prosperity gospel, I would like first of all to establish the truth that God is good, he does want to meet our needs and give us the desires of our heart, and yes, he even wants to bless us financially and materially. God promises not only 'heavenly' or 'spiritual' blessings, but also earthly or material blessings as well. If you go through the bible from Genesis to Revelation you will find instances of Gods people being rich, prosperous and blessed in every way. You will find many promises of Gods provisions for us, not only spiritual but also financial and material. There is no doubt that God can, and does bless His children in all areas of life if they are obedient to Him.

We also know that there are many warnings in the N.T. against seeking to be rich, living for material wealth, and the like. So how do we harmonize these two truths?

Let’s look at the overall purpose of God for his church. We are commissioned by Jesus to tell the whole world about His love for us, so we can make disciples of all nations. The message from our lips, [and hearts] is to overflow with who Jesus is and what He’s done for us. As a matter of fact, Jesus tells us that as we proclaim and talk about Him, and seek first His kingdom, that He will take care of all the other less important things. MATHEW 6:19-24 ' LAY NOT UP FOR YOURSELVES TREASURES UPON EARTH, WHERE MOTH AND RUST DOTH CORRUPT, AND WHERE THIEVES BREAK THROUGH AND STEAL: BUT LAY UP FOR YOURSELVES TREASURES IN HEAVEN, WHERE NIETHER MOTH NOR RUST DOTH CORRUPT, AND WHERE THIEVES DO NOT BREAK THROUGH AND STEAL: FOR WHERE YOUR TREASURE IS THERE WILL YOUR HEART BE ALSO........ NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS: FOR EITHER HE WILL HATE THE ONE, AND LOVE THE OTHER; OR ELSE HE WILL HOLD TO THE ONE AND DESPISE THE OTHER. YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON. THEREFORE I SAY UNTO YOU, TAKE NO THOUGHT FOR YOUR LIFE, WHAT YE SHALL EAT, OR WHAT YE SHALL DRINK; NOR YET FOR YOUR BODY, WHAT YE SHALL PUT ON. IS NOT THE LIFE MORE THAN MEAT, AND THE BODY MORE THAN RAIMENT? BEHOLD THE FOWLS OF THE AIR: FOR THEY SOW NOT, NIETHER DO THEY REAP, NOR GATHER INTO BARNS; YET YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER FEEDETH THEM. ARE YE NOT MUCH BETTER THAN THEY? ...... THEREFORE TAKE NO THOUGHT, SAYING WHAT SHALL WE EAT? OR, WHAT SHALL WE DRINK? OR, WHEREWITHALL SHALL WE BE CLOTHED? [FOR AFTER ALL THESE THINGS DO THE GENTILES SEEK;] FOR YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER KHNOWETH THAT YE HAVE NEED OF ALL THESE THINGS. BUT SEEK YE FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS; AND ALL THES THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU. TAKE THEREFORE NO THOUGHT FOR THE MORROW: FOR THE MORROW SHALL TAKE THOUGHT FOR THE THINGS OF ITSELF. SUFFICIENT UNTO THE DAY IS THE EVIL THEREOF' Jesus is making a distinction between material things and the kingdom of God. He is saying if we seek first His kingdom, then all these material needs will be met. If the kingdom is about material things, then Jesus contradicted himself. The plain meaning and thought of this passage is that if we put God first, He will take care of us. Now say if the disciples took this to mean that the primary message of the gospel was 'God will add all these things unto you'. And say if they went around teaching all nations to quote 'all these things shall be added unto you'. And then all over Jerusalem and Judaea and unto the uttermost parts of the earth they had people quoting 'all these things shall be added unto you'. And after a lifetime of ministry they taught the people how God would give them things if they kept quoting and meditating on the passages of scripture that speak about material wealth. What do you suppose Jesus would say when He comes back? First of all the plain teaching of Jesus in this passage is to get their focus [meditation, confession] off of material things. He plainly says that the 'gentiles seek these things', and that the disciples are not to be thinking about these things all the time like the gentiles. He tells us to focus on the kingdom as opposed to focusing on material things. He tells us that as we go forth by faith to proclaim his gospel, that he in turn will meet our needs. After all, the disciples left their jobs in order to follow Christ, and he was reassuring them that they would be taken care of materially if they forsook all to follow him.

I find it troubling that some teachers use this very passage in order to justify materialism, while the plain meaning of Jesus words are the opposite. Jesus says you cannot serve God and money. So we must take our minds and thoughts and meditations and focus them on God, not worldly things!

So true prosperity can be defined as God meeting all the needs of his children as they proclaim him in all nations. True prosperity is God meeting our needs while our focus is on him [not on our needs being met!]. True prosperity is being able to preach the word of God without a covetous motive [1 PETER:5:2].

I should make note that there are some who teach that this passage of scripture [MATT. 6:19-24] actually teaches that we have a bank account in heaven with real money credited to our account! And every time we sow [give into] the kingdom of God, that we are actually building a fund in this account. And that by faith you can claim a withdrawal on your account and receive your financial harvest now. But if this is what Jesus was teaching then the entire passage is twisted into turning our attention towards money once again! Jesus plainly warned us against focusing our thoughts on the material things in life, he told us not to be like the unbelievers who have all their possessions in this life only. Jesus told us to build up treasures in heaven, which meant a life lived for eternal purposes as opposed to temporary rewards. I believe that if we get our priorities right, that God will meet our needs, and we will be so excited about God and his kingdom that we wont even have time to think about serving mammon!

CHAPTER 2 'TWISTING THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER'

While a new Christian, enjoying that early honeymoon period with the Lord, I’ll never forget the joy I experienced while learning the bible for the first time. The clarity, pureness and unity of scripture were a sure foundation for a long road ahead. While working as a house painter and listening to Christian radio all day long, it was an early introduction to the various 'streams' of teaching that were being produced in the church. One day my job foreman, who often heard me listening to Christian radio, thought I would enjoy listening to a new tape series that he had just been given. So I popped the cassettes into my radio and listened with the excitement of a new believer in Christ. The cassettes were a new teaching on the parable of the sower. MATTHEW 13:1-9, 18-23 ' THE SAME DAY WENT JESUS OUT OF THE HOUSE, AND SAT BY THE SEASIDE. AND GREAT MULTITUDES WERE GATHERED TOGETHER UNTO HIM, SO THAT HE WENT INTO A SHIP, AND SAT; AND THE WHOLE MULTITUDE STOOD ON THE SHORE. AND HE SPAKE MANY THINGS UNTO THEM IN PARABLES, SAYING, BEHOLD, A SOWER WENT FORTH TO SOW; AND WHEN HE SOWED, SOME SEEDS FELL BY THE WAY SIDE, AND THE FOWLS CAME AND DEVOURED THEM UP: SOME FELL UPON STONY PLACES, WHERE THEY HAD NOT MUCH EARTH: AND FORTHWITH THEY SPRUNG UP, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO DEEPNESS OF EARTH: AND WHEN THE SUN WAS UP THEY WERE SCORCHED; AND BECAUSE THEY HAD NO ROOT THEY WITHERED AWAY. AND SOME FELL AMONG THORNS; AND THE THORNS SPRUNG UP, AND CHOKED THEM; BUT OTHER FELL INTO GOOD GROUND, AND BROUGHT FORTH FRUIT, SOME AN HUNDREDFOLD, SOME SIXTYFOLD, SOME THIRTYFOLD. WHO HATH EARS TO HEAR LET HIM HEAR.........HEAR YE THEREFORE THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER. WHEN ANYONE HEARETH THE WORD OF THE KINGDOM, AND UNDERSTANDETH IT NOT, THEN COMETH THE WICKED ONE, AND CATCHETH AWAY THAT WHICH WAS SOWN IN HIS HEART. THIS IS HE WHICH RECIEVED SEED BY THE WAYSIDE. BUT HE THAT RECIEVED THE SEED INTO STONY PLACES, THE SAME IS HE THAT HEARETH THE WORD, AND ANON WITH JOY RECIEVETH IT; YET HATH HE NOT ROOT IN HIMSELF, BUT DURETH FOR A WHILE: FOR WHEN TRIBULATION OR PERSECUTION ARISETH BECAUSE OF THE WORD, BY AND BY HE IS OFFENDED. HE ALSO THAT RECIEVED SEED AMONG THE THORNS IS HE THAT HEARETH THE WORD; AND THE CARE OF THIS WORLD, AND THE DECEITFULLNESS OF RICHES, CHOKE THE WORD AND HE BECOMETH UNFRUITFULL. BUT HE THAT RECIEVED SEED INTO GOOD GROUND IS HE THAT HEARETH THE WORD, AND UNDERSTANDETH IT; WHICH ALSO BEARETH FRUIT, AND BRINGETH FORTH, SOME AN HUNDREDFOLD SOME SIXTY SND SOME THIRTY'. As the teacher taught through the parable he explained how Jesus was teaching us how to plant [sow] the word [scriptures] in our hearts [through confession, meditation, etc.] in order to receive a thirty, sixty, or hundredfold return. He then applied the entire teaching to reaping an hundredfold return of MONEY! He taught how that at each stage of the parable the devil tries to steal the word so we don’t receive our harvest. He then got to the part where Jesus says 'THE DECIETFULLNESS OF RICHES CHOKE THE WORD', I couldn’t understand how Jesus could be teaching us about reaping a financial harvest, and then say this! It almost seemed like a contradiction. Well the teacher then began to sound uncomfortable as he explained how the deceitfulness of riches was actually that old traditional teaching that says you cant be rich [or something to that effect]! Even as a new believer in Christ I just couldn’t accept this explanation, it was almost as if the teacher was trying to make Jesus words say the opposite of what he meant.

The basic plain meaning of the parable is self-explanatory. There are always obstacles and enemies of the gospel. Ultimately those who overcome these obstacles will bear good Christian fruit in varying degrees [30,60 or 100 fold]. The various hindrances to the word of God include the 'cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches'. If you want to produce fruit for God you cant get caught up in the materialistic pursuits of the world [2 TIMOTHY 2:4].

Many times in connection with this parable is the doctrine of sowing for a harvest taught. Jesus often uses planting [sowing] and harvesting [reaping] illustrations in his teachings. The main focus is usually dealing with the spreading of the kingdom of God and the message of Christ to the nations. Sometimes the seed refers to believers themselves, and other times the actual message preached [MATT. 13: 20,38]. Sowing and reaping also refer to the works we do, as well as the money we give into the kingdom [1COR. 9:11, GAL. 6:8]. While there are many ways you can apply sowing for a harvest, I find it disturbing that some in the church have focused the entire teaching towards financial and material gain. This type of preoccupation with money is in direct opposition to the warning that Jesus gave in this parable, he told us that the deceitfulness of riches could derail us from being fruitful, and the distorted teaching that applies this entire parable to money is in itself a fulfillment of the warning that 'the deceitfulness of riches' can deceive you, because it denies the very warning of Christ and makes him say something that he never said!

CHAPTER 3 'WHAT IS THE ABRAHAMIC BLESSING'

I must admit that out of all the various portions of scripture used to teach a false prosperity gospel, this is one of the most deceptive. In order for us to fully grasp the concept of the abrahamic blessing, we must do a little history.

In GALATIANS 3, the apostle Paul makes one of the greatest N.T. arguments for justification by faith versus law. I personally believe this doctrine to be one of the foundational doctrines in the N.T.

The heresy that Paul is fighting against in Galatians is the heresy of legalism that was taught by the judiazers. The judiazers were the Jewish/Christian sect that taught that gentile believers needed to be circumcised and brought under the law in order to be saved. The main argument that Paul uses to refute this doctrine is in Galatians 3. In this chapter we find Paul going back to the O.T. books in order to show that God established, by covenant, the basis of justifying man by faith without the deeds of the law. The main argument Paul uses is 'the abrahamic blessing'. Paul traces Gods promise to Abraham, made before the law was given, where God says 'in thee shall all nations be blessed' [GEN. 12:3, GAL. 3:8]. This meaning that God would bless [save] all nations through the promised child of Abraham [which would eventually be Jesus]. Paul’s point is to show that God already promised to bless all people through Abraham’s offspring [the abrahamic blessing], and not through the law. The abrahamic blessing referring to justifying the world by faith and giving us 'the promise of the Spirit by faith' [GALATIANS 3:8-14], this argument is also used in Romans 4.

Now here comes the tricky part, some teach that God covenants to make us rich trough the abrahamic blessing [or covenant]. They use this chapter to teach that Christ died so we can receive the abrahamic blessing. They then define the abrahamic blessing as the 'things' that Abraham had. But once again the abrahamic blessing as defined in Galatians 3 is referring to God justifying us by faith as opposed to the law. Paul was in no way teaching the Galatians that God was going to make them rich! He was battling for their very souls! The plain text of this passage shows us that Paul was dealing with the issue of justification, and not finances. And it would make absolutely no sense for Paul to begin to address money issues in the middle of this chapter.

Each time I came across this type of distorted interpretation, I honestly couldn’t understand how so many different teachers could so consistently apply the same passage in the wrong way. It almost reminds me of the O.T. passage that speaks of a conspiracy of the prophets [EZEK. 22:25]. A sort of network of false/distorted interpretations of the scripture that exist among certain groups of believers, and these same false opinions are then propagated again and again until after you hear them long enough they seem to become accepted truth in the church at large. We need to re-examine some of these doctrines and receive correction and make the proper adjustments in our thinking and acting [repentance!], so we don’t continue to spread these false opinions in the church.

CHAPTER 4 'WHAT DID JAMES SAY'

One of the strongest books in the N.T. dealing with poverty and riches is the book of James. Simply reading this book in context would give the modern prosperity gospel a strong rebuke! James contrasts both rich and poor, he says that God has chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom of God. The context also implies that these poor Christians will remain poor in this life! [JAMES 2:5] The prosperity message teaches that if you have faith in God that you will not be poor. It’s obvious that both James and the prosperity teachers of today have a difference of opinion!

Lets look at exactly what the word of God says; JAMES 2:1-6 'MY BRETHREN, HAVE NOT THE FAITH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE LORD OF GLORY, WITH RESPECT OF PERSONS. FOR IF THERE COME UNTO YOUR ASSEMBLY A MAN WITH A GOLD RING, IN GOODLY APPAREL, AND THERE COME IN ALSO A POOR MAN IN VILE RAIMENT; AND YE HAVE RESPECT TO HIM THAT WEARETH THE GAY CLOTHING, AND SAY UNTO HIM, SIT THOU HERE IN A GOOD PLACE; AND SAY TO THE POOR, STAND THOU HERE OR SIT HERE UNDER MY FOOTSTOOL: ARE YE NOT THEN PARTIAL IN YOURSELVES AND BECOME JUDGES OF EVIL THOUGHTS? HEARKEN, MY BELOVED BRETHREN, HATH NOT GOD CHOSEN THE POOR OF THIS WORLD RICH IN FAITH, AND HEIRS OF THE KINGDOM WHICH HE HATH PROMISED TO THEM THAT LOVE HIM? BUT YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR. DO NOT RICH MEN OPPRESS YOU, AND DRAW YOU BEFORE THE JUDGMENT SEATS? How were they despising the poor and being prejudiced in their thoughts? They were treating poor people with contempt while showing honor to the rich. This is exactly what we do in the church, by teaching that poor Christians have little, or no faith, we unconsciously treat them with contempt. We teach that the poor are under a curse and are therefore not living up to all their benefits in Christ. We actually set up a cast system in the church. James says the poor have great faith! He doesn’t portray them as having small faith. He warns the rich not to trust in uncertain riches. The bible flatly teaches that financial abundance is not a measure of ones faith! We must stop teaching that if you would simply believe God you would have an abundance of money. This is not true in every case. Sometimes the abundant supply from God is the grace and patience that he gives to the believer in the face of severe trials or lack. The N.T. clearly teaches that there are believers with lots of faith who are poor! You can't deny the plain word of God. We should not suppose that a lack of financial abundance is a sign of weak faith!

Now to one of the most recent 'new revelations' that is being taught in the church. I first heard this from a very respected soul-winning evangelist. I then heard it taught from a variety of other teachers. As of this writing it seems to be accepted 'truth' in certain circles. Lets read JAMES 5:1-6 'GO TO NOW, YE RICH MEN, WEEP AND HOWL FOR YOUR MISERIES THAT SHALL COME UPON YOU. YOUR RICHES ARE CORRUPTED, AND YOUR GARMENTS ARE MOTHEATEN. YOUR GOLD AND SILVER IS CANKERED; AND THE RUST OF THEM SHALL BE A WITNESS AGAINST YOU, AND SHALL EAT YOUR FLESH AS IT WERE FIRE. YE HAVE HEAPED TREASURE TOGETHER FOR THE LAST DAYS. BEHOLD, THE HIRE OF THE LABOURERS WHO HAVE REAPED DOWN YOUR FIELDS, WHICH IS OF YOU KEPT BACK BY FRAUD, CRIETH: AND THE CRIES OF THEM WHICH HAVE REAPED ARE ENTERED INTO THE EARS OF THE LORD OF SABAOTH. YE HAVE LIVED IN PLEASURE ON THE EARTH, AND BEEN WANTON; YE HAVE NOURISHED YOUR HEARTS, AS IN A DAY OF SLAUGHTER. YE HAVE CONDEMNED AND KILLED THE JUST; AND HE DOTH NOT RESIST YOU. The first time I heard this 'new' truth, the preacher said that this passage was dealing with the end-time transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. It was explained that in verse 3 'YE HAVE HEAPED TREASURE TOGETHER FOR THE LAST DAYS’ meant that the rich gathered together their wealth so it could be given to the church in the last days. While I have no problem with the idea of the world’s wealth being used for kingdom purposes, I do have a problem with distorting the word of God to prove our points! A simple reading of James 5:1-6 shows us that the reason the rich are being reproved is because they spent their lives building up financial fortunes without being rich toward God [LUKE 12:16-21]. This scripture also plainly says what is going to happen to their wealth. Is it going to be 'transferred' to us? Is it going to be given to the Christians in the last days? Is it going to be used at all? NO! It is going to canker, rust and corrupt! It is going to be destroyed! It will be of no help at all in the day of judgment [PRVB. 11:4]. It will be a witness against them for living covetous lives. The entire theme of James follows this line of thought. To read all the other things that James says about the rich and poor in this epistle, for us to then interpret this passage and say that James was now teaching the Christians that they would become rich through the end-time transfer of wealth, is ridiculous. Once again the plain meaning of scripture is being distorted in order to make it say the complete opposite of what it means.

One more thing before we leave James. The early Christian community did not equate poverty with being under a curse. They did not equate poverty with sin. There are many rebukes in the N.T. against sin in the church, but the poor in the church were praised, not rebuked! The very mindset of looking upon the poor as a lower class permeates this teaching. If the poor are cursed, not living up to their inheritance, don’t know how to apply faith principles or simply don’t know/believe the word concerning prosperity, then in essence we are despising the poor through our belief system. The N.T. plainly teaches that it is okay to be poor! We need to heed the warning from this N.T. epistle and stop despising the poor!

CHAPTER 5 'WHOSE MINISTRY, JESUS OR OURS?'

I'll never forget the time I was watching 'Christian' TV and saw a preacher holding up his Rolex watch and then teaching the people that this was an example of his faith in action! He then went on to explain that when we use our faith to obtain things, we can then show these things to people as a witness of our faith. If this is what it means to go witnessing for Christ, I think most people would be standing in line to sign up!

Over the years I have heard it taught that the only way the world would be saved is if the church becomes extremely rich financially so she could send the gospel to the world. That the world would see our extreme wealth and would ask 'where did you get all that money?' and we would then say 'from God', and the lost would then want what we have and get saved! Convenient isn’t it. But is this a biblical picture of the N.T. church and her witness in the earth?

In order to answer this question, we need first to look at what the N.T. church is. The church consists of communities of believers scattered throughout the world. All over planet earth, right now, there are believers thriving and testifying of Gods grace in all types of circumstances and situations. The community of believers that Jesus launched 2 thousand years ago is still going strong. She answers to no man or human govt. She has outlasted empires, persecutions, false religions and every other conceivable attack that can be imagined. The prophecy of Jesus has been fulfilled ‘THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST HER’ [MATT. 16:18].

As of today there has been no other single institution upon earth that has had more influence in the history of the world than the church! Now, if the church truly consists of believers [seeds], planted [sown] all over the world under the lordship of Christ, with various giftings [Apostles, Prophets, etc.] operating under the administration of the Holy Spirit, this ministry [the kingdom of God] already has the potential of a worldwide witness to all nations. As a matter of fact this worldwide gospel of Christ has been prevailing magnificently throughout the generations. This wonderful kingdom, under Christ’s rule, has been active. It has been supernaturally deploying ministers from day one [ACTS 13]. It has even witnessed for Jesus Christ when its main ministers were broke! [ACTS 3:6]. The witness of the gospel has done extremely well throughout the centuries and will continue to do so, whether or not we all become rich!

The reason I say this is because there is a mindset in the church [American mostly] that equates the witness of the gospel with the success of American charismatic entrepreneurial ministries. We have been deluded into believing that unless we all become rich, we will never be able to reach the world. The overall success of the kingdom of God has never been dependent on any budget of any ministry past or present! Most of the modern day proponents of the prosperity gospel usually head up American ministry organizations and equate the sowing of seed [finances], with giving money to help support their organizations. They then sincerely believe that unless their organization makes more and more money, they will never be able to fulfill the great commission of reaching the world.

The N.T. clearly teaches the principles of our witness for Christ, and the focus has never been extreme wealth. But on sacrificial living, loving each other unconditionally, a sharing caring community of people who are known for good deeds of charity. In the book of acts the early church had a powerful witness, and they weren’t rich financially, yet they did reach their world for Christ. How? Through great sacrificial living, through miraculous signs and wonders, through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and through a bold proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not one sermon in the book of acts focused on anything else than Jesus Christ and his great work for us. Their hearts and lips flowed with the message of Christ, not money!

I find it troubling that many of the ministries who teach the prosperity gospel usually do receive extreme amounts of money, not to proclaim the message of Jesus [speaking about him], but to simply propagate a money making gospel! You can tune into some of these ministries and find them talking about money all the time. What if a lost person tuned in? Would he hear about Jesus or money? What about when Jesus said out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks? [MATT. 12:34]. If someone is always talking about money where is his heart, what’s his treasure?

We need to shift our focus back to the pure N.T. message of Christ, and understand that his gospel is the power of God unto salvation! Jesus said the world would be saved when the truth is preached in all nations by a united church, not when we all become millionaires so we can finance our own ministries!

CHAPTER 6 '1 TIMOTHY 6'

I have often heard it said 'if you’re happy with just enough money to get by, you’re selfish and living in sin, you need to believe God and have faith for increased wealth so you can finance the gospel'. Is this a biblical concept? Should we teach people that being content with what you have is a sin?

Lets look at the word of God HEBREWS 13:5-6 'LET YOUR CONVERSATION BE WITHOUT COVEOUSNESS; AND BE CONTENT WITH SUCH THINGS AS YE HAVE: FOR HE HATH SAID, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, OR FORSAKE THEE. SO THAT WE MAY BOLDLY SAY, THE LORD IS MY HELPER, AND I WILL NOT FEAR WHAT MAN SHALL DO UNTO ME. This scripture plainly teaches us to be content with what we have! I even heard a prosperity preacher teach that this means to be happy with what you have now, while using your faith to obtain more. WHAT! When will we stop distorting the plain meaning of scripture?

1 TIMOTHY 6:1-12,17-19 'LET AS MANY SERVANTS WHO ARE UNDER THE YOKE COUNT THIER OWN MASTERS WORTHY OF ALL HONOUR, THAT THE NAME OF GOD AND HIS DOCTRINE BE NOT BLASPHEMED....... IF ANY MAN TEACH OTHERWISE, AND CONSENT NOT TO WHOLESOME WORDS, EVEN THE WORDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH IS ACCORDING TO GODLINESS; HE IS PROUD KNOWING NOTHING, BUT DOTING ABOUT QUESTIONS AND STRIFES OF WORDS, WHEREOF COMETH ENVY, STRIFE, RAILINGS, EVIL SURMISINGS, PERVERSE DISPUTINGS OF MEN OF CORRUPT MINDS, AND DESTITUTE OF THE TRUTH, SUPPOSING THAT GAIN IS GODLINESS: FROM SUCH WITHDRAW THYSELF. BUT GODLINESS WITH CONTENTMENT IS GREAT GAIN. FOR WE BROUGHT NOTHING INTO THE WORLD, AND IT IS CERTAIN WE CAN CARRY NOTHING OUT. AND HAVING FOOD AND RAIMENT LET US BE THEREWITH CONTENT. BUT THEY THAT WILL BE RICH FALL INTO TEMPTATION AND A SNARE, AND INTO MANY FOOLISH AND HURTFUL LUSTS, WHICH DROWN MEN IN DESTRUCTION AND PERDITION. FOR THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL: WHICH WHILE SOME COVETED AFTER, THEY HAVE ERRED FROM THE FAITH, AND PIERCED THEMSELVES THROUGH WITH MANY SORROWS. BUT THOU O MAN OF GOD FLEE THESE THINGS.........CHARGE THEM THAT ARE RICH IN THIS WORLD, THAT THEY BE NOT HIGHMINDED, NOR TRUST IN UNCERTAIN RICHES, BUT IN THE LIVING GOD, WHO GIVETH US RICHLY ALL THINGS TO ENJOY; THAT THEY DO GOOD, THAT THEY BE RICH IN GOOD WORKS, READY TO DISTRIBUTE, WILLING TO COMMUNICATE; LAYING UP IN STORE FOR THEMSELVES A GOOD FOUNDATION AGAINST THE TIME TO COME, THAT THEY MAY LAY HOLD ON ETERNAL LIFE. Paul is clearly teaching the concept of 'you came into this world with nothing, you cant take it with you when you die, so be content with what you have'. I have heard prosperity preachers say that this type of mindset is a religious spirit, and has no foundation in the word of God. This passage of scripture teaches plainly against the mindset of the prosperity gospel. The entire theme and thought of the apostle goes 100 percent against the grain of the prosperity movement. Paul clearly says that some will equate gain with godliness, if he is not dealing with the distortions of the modern prosperity movement, then who is he speaking about? He says that some will equate godly living with financial gain, or they will teach if you’re godly you will gain much money. This is exactly what the modern prosperity movement teaches!

He says that those who want to become rich will fall into many foolish and hurtful lusts. The craving [coveting] to become rich can either be through confessing scripture, through meditating on abundance, through the sowing of seed into good soil or any other means imaginable. The scripture simply says that if the acquiring of money, for whatever purpose [even godly purposes], has become your goal, then your motivation is wrong and you have been sidetracked.

Now the 'love of money' verse. 1 TIMOTHY 6:10 'FOR THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL: WHICH WHILE SOME COVETED AFTER, THEY HAVE ERRED FROM THE FAITH, AND PIERCED THEMSELVES THROUGH WITH MANY SORROWS'. I have heard it said 'brother, this says the love of money, not money' and then the preacher will go right past the warning and talk all about money, not even giving a second thought to the warning! These passages, read in their entirety, give a powerful rebuke against the prosperity movement. They teach us to' be content with what we have,' they tell us' don’t desire to be rich', they plainly state that the pursuit of material wealth will sidetrack you, and they even state that 'you came into the world with nothing, when you die you cant take it with you, so be happy with what you have!' I would exhort any person who is having difficulty breaking away from this movement to read 1 timothy 6 every day for a year and allow your mind to be renewed to the word of God!

One more thing before we leave this chapter, in verse 12 Paul exhorts Timothy to 'lay hold on eternal life'. He says this in the context of comparing eternal life against materialistic living. He is saying in essence 'live for eternal things, not temporary rewards [or money!]'. I just finished watching a minister on T.V. spend 30 minutes explaining how the eternal life that Paul is referring to deals with the abundance of God in the area of finances. He flatly said that Paul was teaching us to lay hold of an abundance of money! This type of extreme distorting of scripture actually takes the warnings in the word of God that speak against materialism and turns them around to teach the exact opposite! When our own interpretations of scripture go against the plain flow of the text of scripture, then we have usurped the word of God in order to teach our own traditions!

CHAPTER 7 'WERE JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES RICH?'

One day while listening to a preacher trying to prove that Jesus and the disciples were extremely wealthy, he used the common ‘proof texts’ to prove his point. He then went on to explain that religious tradition portrayed Jesus and the disciples as being poor [or average], and that the word of God teaches us that they were really rich. He also explained how important it was for us to know this 'truth', because if Jesus and the disciples were rich, and Jesus wants us to be like him, then we are in disobedience if we are not striving to become wealthy!

A simple plain reading of the N.T. portrays Jesus as someone who came with a radical message of forsaking all to follow him. He often approached people who were in business [fishermen], or were rich, and challenged them to leave all and follow him. He would reassure these followers if they forsook all for his cause and the gospel, that they would be taken care of. This same type of radical call continued into the book of acts, where the early followers of Jesus also told the people that to be a follower of Christ they had to forsake all to follow him.

If you look at the overall picture [not the prooftexts!], you see the early Christian community as a people who forsook all for the gospel. You find them living and sharing as a corporate community who took care of each-others needs [ACTS 2:44-47]. You find those who were wealthy [not all of the church, but certain individuals, ACTS 4:32-37] sharing their wealth for the needs of the Christian community. You can even trace the ministries of some of the early apostles and still find them many years later proclaiming Christ through much suffering and persecution. Not only does the N.T. portray the early Christian community in this light, but also church history confirms it. You find the apostles still learning to deal with financial lack many years later well into their ministries [PHIL 4:11-12, 2 COR. 11:27]. You see a beautiful picture of a people willing to suffer for the cause of Christ cheerfully. You also see a gracious Lord who met all their needs according to his abundant grace. You find stories where the material needs of people were supernaturally met [not by extreme wealth, but by Gods miraculous intervention [MATT. 14:17-19, 15:34-36].

Now what about the promise Jesus made to Peter in MARK 10:28-31 'THEN PETER BEGAN TO SAY UNTO HIM, LO, WE HAVE LEFT ALL, AND HAVE FOLLOWED THEE. AND JESUS ANSWERED AND SAID, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, THERE IS NO MAN THAT HATH LEFT HOUSE, OR BRETHREN, OR SISTERS, OR FATHER, OR MOTHER, OR WIFE, OR CHILDREN, OR LANDS, FOR MY SAKE AND THE GOSPELS, BUT HE SHALL RECIEVE AN HUNDREDFOLD NOW IN THIS TIME, HOUSES, AND BRETHREN, AND SISTERS, AND MOTHERS, AND CHILDREN, AND LANDS, WITH PERSECUTIONS; AND IN THE WORLD TO COME ETERNAL LIFE. Did Peter personally posses [inherit] more houses, lands, sisters and mothers? How was this promise fulfilled in Peter’s life? In the book of acts Peter became a part of the 'Christian family' who had all things common, they shared everything and had no lack [ACTS 4:32-34, 2:44-47]. They had no lack because of their membership in the family of God. The fulfilling of the law of love in their sharing of material things was the fulfillment of Jesus promise to Peter, not making him financially rich!

Look at all the apostolic ministries in the book of acts. Wherever they went, whatever city they ministered in, their needs were always met. Why? Because when they became part of the Christian community, the homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, lands and all the other resources were SHARED by all the believers. They ministered to each other’s needs, they supported one another, they truly fulfilled the law of love by bearing one another’s burdens!

This picture of Jesus and the apostles as extremely rich 20th century American evangelists who headed up big budget ministries is absolutely no where to be found in the plain reading of the N.T.! I just don’t find Jesus and the disciples as rich evangelists going into the world with extreme wealth, while at the same time telling rich people to sell all they have to come follow him! [MATT. 19:23-24,LK. 1:53, 6:24, 16:19-31, 18:18-25]

CHAPTER 8 'COVENANT THEOLOGY'

The early settlers [pilgrims] of our nation came by faith in God, believing their new nation to be a promised land of freedom that the Lord had given to them. One of the descriptions of the 'belief system' of these puritans is called covenant theology. They saw themselves as 'new covenant' people who were inheriting a promised land, much like the old covenant people [Israel] inherited their promised land. They claimed and believed the many O.T. promises of God concerning the inheriting of nations. They took God at his word, and it worked!

In a sense all believers are covenant theologians, whether they realize it or not. It is through our covenant with God [the blood of Jesus], that we are made right with God [justified], have forgiveness of sins and are made children of God. As a matter of fact, everything that God does for us, or that 'we do for him', is based upon the bedrock foundation of the covenant of the blood of Jesus Christ.

Now, it has been taught because of our covenant with Christ, we can go through the bible and find all the promises that are good and by faith hold God to his word and 'cause the things that are not seen [not manifested] to become seen [manifested]', or to put it simple, to get the things that God has promised us by putting our faith into action. I believe this principle is both scriptural and profitable. But the covenant cuts both ways.

When people enter into covenant, the 2 parties have complete access to each-others rights and privileges. There are times were the Lord will require of the believer all that he has [leave your nets and follow me mentality]. There are even times where the Lord called people to lay down their lives in martyrdom in order to receive a better resurrection [HEB 11:35, ACTS 7]. As a matter of fact there are many examples of people of faith who have endured great sufferings even though they had great faith [HEB. 11].

So what does it mean to be a covenant believer? It not only implies going throughout the bible and claiming all the good promises and quoting them by faith [sowing], it also carries with it the meaning of laying down all that we have [in this world] for the cause of Christ [HEB. 10:34].

While the early puritans did claim and receive the promises of God by faith concerning their 'promised land', they also endured tremendous suffering and loss [many died in their pursuit!] in order to obtain a noble goal. The N.T. commands us not only to believe and teach the good parts [or the parts we like the most!], but also to heed the warnings [LUKE 12:15, ACTS 20:27]. If we reduce covenant theology to a belief system that only reads and quotes the 'good' promises, but never heeds the warnings, then we are failing to proclaim the full gospel and are presenting a distorted view of the Christian life [ACTS 14:22]. A simple overview of the N.T. shows us how the principles of the N.T. are supposed to work. For example, you never find Jesus or the disciples going around quoting the money verses in order to receive a harvest! As a matter of fact, if we teach people to 'quote, meditate, memorize and only think on the money scriptures', we would be doing the exact opposite of what Jesus said in MATT. 6:31-34. He specifically told us to take no thought [meditate, focus our minds, etc.] of what we shall eat, drink or wear [material things], the whole point of this passage was to teach the Christian NOT to focus on these things!

You also never find any of the suffering Christians acting like they 'fell short' of their covenant rights. Instead they counted it a privilege to suffer for his names sake [ACTS 5:41]. The entire flow of the N.T. goes contrary to the 'picture painted' by unbalanced prosperity preaching. The focus of the N.T. was Gods advancing kingdom throughout the nations! Their own lives and the things they could get to make themselves more comfortable ran 100% contrary to the fulfilling of their mission [2 TIM. 4:10, 1 JOHN 2:15]. A simple plain reading of the N.T. in context teaches us that the character of N.T. Christianity is one of self-sacrificial living, not a 'get all you can by faith' mentality.

CHAPTER 9 'SOWING INTO GOOD SOIL'

A simple reading of the N.T. gives us a broad picture of the life of the believer, which includes giving and receiving, Gods promises of funding the work of the ministry, the Christian concept of charity, and a basic overall view of finances and the kingdom of God. One of the most basic reasons of giving money in the N.T. is to share what we have with those who are less fortunate [JAMES 2:15-16, 1 JOHN 3:17]. As a matter of fact Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his day for their willingness to tithe to the temple while neglecting to use their finances to meet the needs of people in need [MARK 7:6-13]. One of the most recognized passages of scripture used to describe the character of Christ is found in Luke 10:30-37, an example of someone ministering to the needs of ‘the down and out’.

Even in the book of acts the main focus on giving was to meet the needs of people [ACTS 2:44-46, 4:32-37, 6:1]. The very scripture that we use to exhort saints to put in their offerings on ‘Sunday’, is really speaking about a collection being taken to meet the needs of the ‘poor saints’ who lived in Jerusalem [1COR. 16:1-3].

This basic Christian principle of charity is a well-established Christian doctrine that most people would agree with, except for certain teachers in the prosperity movement! I remember listening to a certain teacher actually teach that in order to receive a good financial harvest, you must plant your seed [money] into good soil. He then went on to teach that good soil meant ministries, or individuals, who taught prosperity and were financially rich! He even implied that giving to prosperity ministries would make you rich, while giving to ‘poverty mentality’ ministries would make you poor [because you reap the same anointing from the ministries you so into]. The problem with this is that the bible teaches that giving to poor people [people with a poverty mentality] is good, and that the Lord will reward you for it [PRVB. 22:9,16,19:17,28:27, PSALMS 112:9].

While the N.T. does deal with Gods provisions for ministry [PHIL. 4:14-19,1COR. 9:1-14], this certainly in no way justifies perverting the gospel into a mindset of giving into wealthy ministries in order to receive a financial harvest!

Jesus, Paul and all the other N.T. ministers did receive finances and provisions from God in order to fulfill their callings, but at the same time they also warned the people emphatically against materialism. They spoke out against covetousness/idolatry, while at the same time believing God to meet their needs [LUKE 12:15, EPH. 5:3, COL. 3:5, 1 THESS. 2:5, HEB. 13:5, 2 PETER 2:3]. Were they being hypocrites? NO! They understood the difference between using the things of this world without abusing them [1 COR. 7:31]. There is a big difference between believing God to meet our needs, and twisting the entire character of N.T. Christianity into a money focused mentality! The Christian should have a proper understanding of finances, as well as physical exercise, balance in family life and relationships, dealing with the practical concerns of life. But to exalt anyone of these areas of life and to make it the message of Christianity, and then to reshape the entire image of Christianity in order to make it fit our ‘peculiar’ style of belief would be wrong.

The very fact that there are in existence today million dollar ministries [which in itself is not wrong!], that teach people to give into their ministries with the promise of a sure return, and even appeal to poor saints to give out of their lack [social security checks, etc.], while all the while propagating a false gospel, is wrong!

These same ministries use the funds collected by false pretense and then preach the gospel of money, instead of a clear presentation of the gospel of Christ! Many of these ministries sincerely believe that it is a witness for Christ to have extravagant salaries, wear Rolex watches, drive a Cadillac and be a millionaire. They actually justify this by their own belief in the message they preach. They do not see it as wrong in the sight of God to finance this type of lifestyle/ministry from the offerings sent in by poor saints and widows! Many of their supporters are average, or struggling financially, and they give out of a sincere desire to better their own lives while at the same time furthering the work of God.

I know some of these precious believers who are struggling financially while sending in their ‘widow’s mite’ with hope and faith that things will turn around for them. No where in the N.T. do you find rich preachers appealing to poor saints to give into their ministries in order to receive a harvest! This is 100% against the character of N.T. Christianity. The bible actually condemns the idea of ‘shepherds’ taking advantage of their flocks for personal/financial gain [EZEKIEL 34, MATT. 23:14, 1 PETER 5:1-2].

The very fact that we have poor Christians sending in sacrificial offerings to millionaire ministries, often times because the preacher is appealing by the ‘word of the Lord’ to them, is wrong! Many of these ministries are using these funds to propagate a false view of Christianity to the world. They are preaching an unbalanced gospel while they themselves are bringing in large amounts of money. I appeal to the church at large to finance worthy ministries who are actually meeting the real needs of people around the world [good soil!], and to stop financing a false gospel!

CHAPTER 10 ‘IS THERE HOPE FOR FALSE PROPHETS?’

Why write this book? Over the years of struggling with these issues I would often come across an article, book or some type of testimonial that would expose many of the errors that are dealt with in this book. Some of the books I read seemed to leave little or no room for repentance and restoration of the ‘prosperity preachers’. I not only believe that Gods ultimate purpose in exposing sin is for the restoration of the individual, but there are examples of former prosperity preachers who have seen some of these gross errors and have returned to a balanced presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What constitutes a false prophet? While there are many characteristics that we can mention, I would like to deal with one specific area relevant to our study. That area is motivation. In 2 Peter chapter 2, the apostle deals with covetousness as a motive for teaching heresy [2 PETER 2:1-3]. He states that Balaam was a false prophet who ‘loved the wages of unrighteousness’ [2 PETER 2:14-16]. Although balaam's gift was legitimate, it was his motivation [the love of money] that caused him to use his gift in a wrong way. So you can have a true prophetic gift, and yet be a false prophet because of a covetous motivation [JUDE 11]. The early church even went so far as to brand someone a false prophet if they hung around more than a few days and charged for their ministry! [Read the Didache].

As mentioned earlier, Paul and Peter warned against being in ministry for financial gain [1 TIM.6, 2 PETER 5:2, TITUS 1:11]. Jesus himself laid down a strong warning against the hireling mentality [JOHN 10:12-13].

It is clear from these warnings [and the many others in the N.T.], that the early Christians were very aware of the dangers of the love of money. I have heard it taught that this ‘fear ‘ or ‘scared’ attitude towards money is just a ‘religious mindset’ that has no foundation in the word of God. This just isn’t true! The bible contains many warnings against materialistic living and covetousness that were the foundation of the ‘healthy fear’ that the early church had towards money.

Now the scripture teaches that there will be a time when certain teachers [false prophets] who are motivated by money, will teach false doctrines [Jesus and the disciples being rich, etc.] and that these teachers would connect faith and money [gain and godliness], as going hand in hand. Now if the current abuses of the prosperity movement do not fall into this category, then who does? We just can’t deny all the evidence pointing to this movement as one of the fulfillments of the ‘false prophets’ who teach that gain is godliness! We as a church must see this before there can be any true restoration of those involved, or more importantly a preventing of this false gospel from being taught to a whole new generation of believers!

The scripture says to rebuke false prophets sharply so THEY MAY BE SOUND IN THE FAITH [TITUS 1:13]. Even the false shepherds of Ezekiels day were promised restoration and usefulness in their latter years [EZEKIEL 44:10-14].

If we begin to renounce our errors and return to the Lord [repentance], there will be true renewal in the church. Jesus warned the church to repent because she had within her those that held to the ‘doctrine of balsam’ [REV. 2:14-16]. It is possible for those who have taught these errors to repent and be restored to a pure gospel of Christ.

Jesus dealt with the ‘money changers’ of his day just prior to the establishing of Gods kingdom. MARK 11:15-17 AND THEY COME TO JERUSALEM: AND JESUS WENT INTO THE TEMPLE, AND BEGAN TO CAST OUT THEM THAT SOLD AND BOUGHT IN THE TEMPLE, AND OVERTHREW THE TABLES OF THE MONEYCHANGERS, AND THE SEATS OF THEM THAT SOLD DOVES; AND WOULD NOT SUFFER THAT ANY MAN SHOULD CARRY ANY VESSEL THROUGH THE TEMPLE. AND HE TAUGHT, SAYING UNTO THEM, IS IT NOT WRITTEN, MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED OF ALL NATIONS THE HOUSE OF PRAYER? BUT YE HAVE MADE IT A DEN OF THIEVES. The moneychangers served as a sort of currency exchange for anyone wanting to bring any offerings or do any legitimate worship at Jerusalem, but needed to exchange their type of currency for the official currency that was accepted at Jerusalem. I find this interesting, because the function of the moneychangers themselves was a legitimate business function. But their business itself brought a type of merchandising to the temple that Jesus himself found highly offensive. I find a present day application to the moneychanger mentality in the modern prosperity movement. The movement teaches Christians to focus their attention on the return they will get on their investment into the kingdom. It causes Christians to give their offerings with the expectation of some type of return on their money. While this in itself is not wrong, for we know that God does reward his children [HEB. 11:6], the tendency of the prosperity message actually appeals to the covetous nature of people in order to make disciples of Christ! Jesus told people to forsake all to follow him, while the movement tells people if you follow him he will make you rich! I have heard it taught that as you sow your seed [money] into the offering basket that you need to 'picture' your harvest of what you are believing for in your mind [whether healing, a new car or house, the salvation of a loved one, etc.] and then your seed [money] will produce your harvest! The very idea of exchanging your money [or changing it!] into the visualized harvest of your own expectation is just as off base as the money mentality of the first century moneychangers. This is the only recorded incident in the N.T. where Jesus was visibly angry.

REVELATION 4:14-22 ‘AND UNTO THE ANGEL OF THE CHURCH OF THE LAODICEANS WRITE; THESE THINGS SAYETH THE AMEN, THE FAITHFULL AND TRUE WITNESS, THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD; I KNOW THY WORKS, THAT THOU ART NEITHER COLD NOR HOT. SO THEN BECAUSE THOU ART LUKEWARM, AND NEITHER COLD NOR HOT, I WILL SPUE THEE OUT OF MY MOUTH. BECAUSE THOU SAYEST, I AM RICH AND INCREASED WITH GOODS, AND HAVE NEED OF NOTHING; AND KNOWEST NOT THAT THOU ART WRETCHED, AND MISERABLE, AND POOR, AND BLIND, AND NAKED: I COUNSEL THEE TO BUY OF ME GOLD TRIED IN THE FIRE, THAT THOU MAYEST BE RICH; AND WHITE RAIMENT, THAT THOU MAYEST BE CLOTHED, AND THAT THE SHAME OF THY NAKEDNESS DO NOT APPEAR; AND ANOINT THY EYES WITH EYESALVE, THAT THOU MAYEST SEE. AS MANY AS I LOVE, I REBUKE AND CHASTEN: BE ZEALOUS THEREFORE, AND REPENT. BEHOLD, I STAND AT THE DOOR, AND KNOCK: IF ANY MAN HEAR MY VOICE, AND OPEN THE DOOR, I WILL COME INTO HIM, AND WILL SUP WITH HIM, AND HE WITH ME. TO HIM THAT OVERCOMETH WILL I GRANT TO SIT WITH ME IN MY THRONE, EVEN AS I ALSO OVERCAME, AND AM SET DOWN WITH MY FATHER IN HIS THRONE. HE THAT HATH AN EAR, LET HIM HEAR WHAT THE SPIRIT SAITH UNTO THE CHURCHES.

#bible #Jesus #God #religion #christianity

1 note · View note

dalyunministry · 4 years ago

Text

BEWARE OF DIFFERENT JESUS' AND SPIRITS

(Galatians 1:6-9)

Before we begin our study let us pray,

Dear Heavenly Father,

We come before You in the Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Holy Father, please bless our time in this study of Your Word. Please grant us the spiritual wisdom and understanding to better understand what You are teaching us. And Father, please grant us the discernment and conviction to heed you warnings.

Amen

INTRODUCTION

In our previous study we read about some of the different gospels that were and are creeping into the church. In addition, we also saw that those who taught or preached a gospel other than the one given by Jesus Christ were to be eternally condemned. To refresh our memories let us read from the theme of this study,

Galatians 1:6-9

"[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- [7] which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! [9] As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

Since it is imperative for our eternal well being that we remain steadfast in our faith in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, we also discovered that the Scripture exhorted us to stay away from and avoid all false prophets and teachers.

Romans 16:17

"[17] I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."

However, the Bible does not stop here. There is more, much, much more. To see this let us now read from a similar warning that was given to the body of Christ that was in Corinth.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4

"[3] But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. [4] For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

Notice that in the above Scriptures we are warned about being led astray to follow:

a. Different Jesus'

b. Different Spirits

c. Different Gospels

Since in our last study we covered the issue with respect to different gospels, this study will focus on the following two topics: (1) Different Jesus’ and (2) Different spirits.

For the first topic we will,

1. Review the characteristics and/or attributes of the true Jesus Christ of the Bible.

2. Review the characteristics of some of the different Jesus’.

In the second topic we will,

3. Review the characteristics and/or attributes of the Holy Spirit.

Given this introduction and outline, let us begin our study of,

DIFFERENT JESUS'

Before we look at some different Jesus', let us first refresh our memory with respect to exactly who is,

THE REAL JESUS, THE JESUS CHRIST OF THE BIBLE

To do this we will briefly review five main characteristics and/or attributes of Jesus Christ.

Before we do this it will be helpful for us to recognize that the term “Christ” means “Messiah” or “Anointed One” or “The Lord’s Anointed One”. Thus, when we say the Name Jesus Christ what we are saying is: “Jesus, the Anointed One.”

With this background let us now review the first critical attribute of Jesus Christ which is that,

JESUS CHRIST IS GOD WHO TOOK ON HUMAN FLESH

To see this let us read about His birth as recorded in,

John 1:1-4

"[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He was with God in the beginning. [3] Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. [4] In him was life, and that life was the light of men."

Let us notice the following verses,

1 … The Word is another name to for Jesus Christ. To see this let us read an excerpt from a description of Jesus that is recorded in,

Revelation 19:13

[13] He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

Let us also note that in the last portion of verse one, “The Word” or Jesus was and is God.

2 … Through Jesus Christ all things were made.

3 … In Jesus is life.

And now let us read from,

John 1:14

"[14] The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

The second attribute of Jesus is that to become a man, the Bible teaches us that He,

JESUS CHRIST WAS BORN BY A VIRGIN

To see this let us read about the birth of Jesus Christ as recorded in,

Luke 1:26-35

"[26] In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, [27] to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. [28] The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." [29] Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. [30] But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. [31] You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. [32] He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, [33] and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." [34] "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" [35] The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

Let us notice the following verses,

31 … His name is to be Jesus.

32 … He will also be called the Son of the Most High.

33 … His Kingdom will have no end.

34 …Mary told the angel Gabriel that she was a virgin.

35a … Gabriel told Mary that her Child will ne conceived by the Holy Spirit. Thus, Jesus will be and was true God and true man.

35b … Consequently, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that is He is Lord and God (see Chapter 5, Volume I).

This brings us to the third attribute which is that Jesus Christ is

THE ONE AND ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD

We discover this by reading why Jesus came into the world. As we read this passage let us remember that the key words are "one" and "only."

John 3:16

""[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

The fourth attribute of the true Jesus Christ is that,

ONLY THE JESUS CHRIST OF THE BIBLE CAN SAVES US FROM OUR SINS

To verify this let us read an excerpt from what the Apostle Peter while bearing witness of Jesus Christ. To do this we go to,

Acts 4:12

"[12] Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.""

Consequently, those who are not true born again believers in Jesus Christ remain in their sins. Hence, they are still under God's wrath and under the penalty for their disobedience to God's Laws.

The Bible teaches us that to save us from our sins and extend to us eternal life, Jesus Christ was crucified, died and was buried. However, in reading the New Testament we also discover that Jesus did not stay in the tomb. The Jesus Christ of the Bible physically rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven and is now sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

Thus, the fifth attribute of the true Jesus Christ is that,

HE IS ALIVE AND LORD OVER ALL THINGS

To see this let us read Paul’s prayer for the church in Ephesus. To do this we go to,

Ephesians 1:15-23

[15] Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, [16] do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: [17] that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, [18] the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, [19] and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power [20] which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, [21] far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. [22] And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, [23] which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

As another side note, the above prayer is a good model for us when we pray for one another.

Unfortunately, not everyone nor every religious organization recognize or accept or even teach these truths about the Jesus Christ of the Bible. In fact we find there are many different Jesus' that are preached and/or worshipped. So that we are not deceived and led astray to a Jesus who cannot save us from our sins, let us look at some examples of,

SOME DIFFERENT JESUS'

It must be noted that even though the following organizations teach or preach a different Jesus than the one of the Bible does not mean every person within these organizations either believe or are even aware of their organization’s heresy. Only each individual person and God knows their true beliefs.

With this in mind, let us now read some of the organizations who claim to be Christian but preach a different Jesus.

1. JEHOVAH WITNESS - Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel.

2. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE – Jesus is a man; Christ is an ideal.

3. LATTER DAY SAINTS - Jesus is the first of many spirit children of Elohim.

4. HEALTH AND WEALTH MINISTRIES - Jesus is like Santa Claus who, on demand, provides His people with health and financial prosperity.

5. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH – Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient to save us from all our sins. Consequently, a person who died with an un-confessed, small or venial, sin is required to go to purgatory to make atonement for them and cleanse their soul (RCC 1030-1031).

We also find there are religious organizations that do not claim to be Christian but do teach about a different Jesus. For example,

1. JUDAISM - This religious organization believes that Jesus is a dead prophet.

2. EASTERN MYSTICISM (TM, BUDDHISM, KRISHNA, ETC.) - These organizations believe and teach that Jesus is a dead teacher or master.

3. ISLAM – He was a prophet called Isa. He did not die on the cross or was physically resurrected from the dead.

This brings us to,

THE POINT OR MESSAGE FOR THIS PORTION OF OUR STUDY

As we did with our study of different gospels, let us now find out what the Bible has to say about those who come and preach a different Jesus. To do this let us read from,

2 John 7-11

"[7] Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. [8] Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. [9] Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. [10] If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. [11] Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work."

Let us notice the following verses,

7 … The person who teaches or preaches about a Jesus, other than the one who is revealed to us in the Bible is a deceiver and an antichrist.

8 … We must be diligent to not be deceived and led astray.

9 … Those who do not continue in the Biblical teaching of Jesus Christ do not have God. However, those who continue in the true Biblical Gospel teaching have both the Father and Jesus Christ.

10-11… Do not welcome, that is accept the teaching or beliefs of those who teach or preach a different Jesus. Notice, if we do welcome or accept them and their beliefs we are really sharing in their work. This does not mean that we are not to pray for or share with them about our Lord Jesus Christ and His saving work on the cross. We must always remember that Jesus came to save all of us.

Let us now proceed in our study to explore in a bit more depth the issue of,

DIFFERENT SPIRITS

For us to discern a spirit other than the Holy Spirit, we must first recognize and believe that,

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE THIRD PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, THAT IS THE TRINITY

As we study the New Testament we find that Jesus Christ never referred to the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force. Jesus always referred to the Holy Spirit as a person. For example, let us read what Jesus said to His disciples to prepare them for the arrival of the Holy Spirit,

John 16:13

"[13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

In addition to being a person we also find that the Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit is also God Himself. To see this let us read what the Apostle Peter said to Ananias when Ananias lied about an offering he (Ananias) made to the church. We find this conversation recorded for us in,

Acts 5:1-4

"[1] Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. [2] With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. [3] Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? [4] Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.""

Let us notice the following verses,

3 … Peter accuses Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit. Notice Peter did not treat the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force but as a person, that is someone who can be lied to.

4 … Peter identified the Holy Spirit as God.

Consequently, any person or organization that does not believe or teach this doctrine is not from God. Some examples of organizations that claim to be Christian but do not teach that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead are,

1. JEHOVAH WITNESS - This organization teaches that the Holy Spirit is the invisible force of Almighty God which moves his servants to do his will.

2. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE - This religious system teaches that the Holy Spirit is Divine Science; the development of eternal life.

3. LATTER DAY SAINTS - This religious organization teaches that He is the influence of deity, the light of Christ, or of truth.

In addition to being the third Person of the Godhead we find that,

THE HOLY SPIRIT ALWAYS BEARS WITNESS TO JESUS CHRIST

To see this let us read another passage of what Jesus said to prepare His disciples for the arrival of the Holy Spirit. This time we will read from,

John 15:26

""[26] When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."

With this background let us read a word of exhortation that is written in,

1 John 4:1-3

"[1] Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. [2] This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, [3] but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."

Let us notice the following verses,

1 … We are encouraged to test the spirits. In other words, just because someone or some organization say they are from God we are to test the spirit to be sure they are from God.

2 … As we saw above, the Holy Spirit will always bear witness to the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

3 … Any spirit that does not bear witness of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible is from the evil one.

The above observations or doctrines are what could be called objective facts or truths that may be easily recognized. However, since we are dealing in spiritual matters we must also learn to discern or hear the spirit. To do this let us begin by recognizing that,

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS "HOLY"

Therefore to determine whether or not a teacher or preacher has been sent by God and the Holy Spirit is speaking through them, the fruits of the Holy Spirit should be manifested and growing in their lives (2 Peter 1:1-11). The fruits of the Holy Spirit are listed in,

Galatians 5:22-23

"[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

In fact, it is the Holy Spirit’s fruit of love that fulfills the Law for us. To see this let us read what Jesus once said to a lawyer. To do this we go to,

Matthew 22:35-40

[35] Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, [36] “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” [37] Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ [40] On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

In contrast to these fruits we find that the spirit of the world or our sinful nature is far from holy. To see this let us read from,

Galatians 5:19-21

"[19] The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; [20] idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions [21] and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

In addition, let us read what Jesus has to say about those who teach, preach or operate in spiritual gifts and yet continue to live their life in accordance with the spirit of the world or their sinful nature. His warning to these false prophets and teachers is recorded for us in,

Matthew 7:15-23

""[15] Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. [16] By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? [17] Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. [21] "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' [23] Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Let us notice the following verses,

15 … On the outside the false prophets or teachers appear to be righteous and holy. However, on the inside they are still full of the spirit of the world.

16-20 … It is by the fruits of one's life we can determine whether or not they are from God. In other words, if the fruits of the Holy Spirit are present and growing in a person's life then they are filled with the Holy Spirit and are from God. On the other hand if the fruits of their life are still the fruits from their sinful nature, then we should not accept them as a teacher or preacher sent from God.

21 … If we profess that Jesus Christ is our Lord and do not do what He says then is He really our Lord?

22-23 … It is not the spiritual gifts or wonders that we may perform in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that makes us a disciple of Him. No, our discipleship is based upon whether or not we are yielded to the Holy Spirit and His fruits are being manifest and growing in our daily walk (2 Peter 1:1-11).

Not only does Jesus say that He never knew these false prophets or teachers, but the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul tells us to stay away from them. To read His instruction we go to,

2 Timothy 3:1-5

"[1] But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. [2] People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, [4] treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-- [5] having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."

0 notes

ltworld · 4 years ago

Text

Revelation, Coronavirus, and the Mark of the Beast: How Should Christians Read the Bible’s Most Fascinating Book? Part 3

Kevin DeYoung

I started this series when the whole world was talking about COVID-19, and some people were wondering if the signs of Revelation were unfolding—or would soon unfold—before our eyes. That’s what prompted these three posts on how to read the book of Revelation. Let me bring this short series to a close by trying to explain what may be the most famous sign in Revelation: the mark of the beast.

In order to understand the mark of the beast in Revelation 13:18, we need to see what is happening in the rest of the chapter. In the first half of chapter 13, we’re introduced to a beast from the sea. This beast is broadly representative of the political sphere. In the second half of chapter 13, we are introduced to a beast from the earth. This beast is broadly representative of the religious sphere. If the first beast is the perversion of the state, the second beast is the perversion of true worship.

With that as a basic outline, let’s go verse by verse through the second half of the chapter. Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon (v. 11).

This imagery comes from Daniel 8 where Daniel sees a vision of a ram with two horns. That’s where the picture comes from, but what it points to is a counterfeit Christ. This beast looks like Christ, the lamb, but speaks the lies of the dragon, that is, the Devil.

Remember, the first beast is the perversion of the state, and the second beast is the perversion of Christianity. We shouldn’t expect false religion to appear immediately and obviously false. We should expect other religions to talk about love and morality. We should expect there to be many similarities, some real and some perceived, between true Christianity and false Christianity. We should expect false Christian cults and perversions to speak highly of Jesus. We should expect them to talk about the cross. We should expect similar religious language and themes, which is why we must be wise. The beast may look a lamb, but if you are discerning, you will hear that the voice is the voice of a dragon.

It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed (v. 12).

The second beast is an accomplice to the first. He acts on his behalf and leads people to worship him. In the first century there was a large imperial cult. There were priests and sacred rituals and officials insisting on the deity of the emperor. They encouraged, and sometimes made mandatory, the worship of the state. Religion is at its worst when it does nothing but lends credence to and encourages support of the corrupt and blasphemous state.

We all feel the need to experience something bigger than ourselves. We all want to touch transcendence. We were created to worship God. There is something hard-wired in all humans that compels us to search after the divine or find something spiritual. That’s the good news. God made us for God.

The bad news is the human heart is an idol factory. We find God in all the wrong places. The Devil is perfectly happy to have everyone searching for God. He is entirely content to have all of us on a spiritual journey looking for transcendence. There’s a reason hardly anyone is an atheist. The Devil doesn’t care if people believe in God. He just doesn’t want people to believe in and be satisfied in Jesus Christ. So if we can find a religious-like feeling in political activism or spirituality in the entertainment industry or experience transcendence in art or make a god out of the family, then the Devil has won. The second beast lives wherever the Devil entices people to worship something man-made, to make an idolatrous image out of anything other than Jesus Christ, who alone is the image of the invisible God.

It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived (vv. 13-14).

The second beast is a false prophet. Three times, Revelation makes reference to the beast and the false prophet (16:13; 19:20; 20:10). The second beast is the Minister of Propaganda, deceiving people to follow after the first beast. In verse 11, we saw the second beast as a false Christ. Now we see him as a false Elijah. Elijah, you recall, called down fire from heaven to burn up the sacrifices in full view of the prophets of Baal. The beast can do impressive feats just like Elijah. Don’t think false religion will appear worthless. Idolatry will boast of great accomplishments, even miracles. The priests of Egypt had their secret arts too. Don’t be impressed with mere signs unless they point to the Son that you might be impressed with him.

And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain (v. 15).

“He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast.” In other words, the second beast persuades the world that the image of the first beast is truly God. In the first century, this meant that the religious establishment convinced people that they should worship statues and images of Caesar. In our day, the beast may not directly instruct us to worship the state or the president, but he still functions as the mouthpiece for the Devil. He entices us to make money the desire of our hearts. He convinces us that sex will be most fulfilling when it is most free of commitment and ethical norms. He lies to us about the lasting value of fame and power and professional success and academic prestige. The beast gives breath to these things so that they seem god-like in our eyes. We must have them. We will not be happy or fulfilled or valuable without them.

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name (vv. 16-17).

No one knows exactly where this imagery comes from or if it even has allusion to anything in the first century. It cold be an allusion to slave’s branding, or soldier’s tattoo, or some practice of compulsory idol worship developing in the first century. Any or all of these may serve as background imagery for these verses, but the mark in reality is not a visible mark. It is an invisible spiritual mark. The righteous and believing have the Father’s name written on their foreheads, and the wicked and unbelieving have the name of the beast. In both case we are talking about a spiritual mark, an invisible stamp of approval. This verse has nothing to do with bar codes or UPC labels or credit card numbers or Social Security numbers. The point of these verses is much simpler: if you don’t compromise with the worldly system, you will suffer. In the first century, this meant that your refusal to worship Caesar (to be spiritually identified with the beast) could mean persecution or discrimination or alienation. The world has a way of operating and when we choose a different way, we must be prepared for setbacks, strange looks, and often shame and suffering.

This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666 (v. 18).

This is probably the most debated verse in Revelation. It certainly is the verse that has produced the most fruitless debate. All sorts of numerical schemes have been concocted in various languages to try to decode 666. Here’s a list of referents I’ve seen for 666: Caligula, Domitian, Caesar God, Lateinos (the Roman Empire), “beast,” Antemus, Phoebus, Gensericus, Balaam, Mohammed, Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell, Kaiser (Wilhelm), Hitler, the Nicolaitans, Euanthas, Teitan (Titans), the initials of the Roman emperors from Julius Caesar to Vespasian (minus Otho and Vitellius), the triangular number of 36 which is the triangular number of 8 which is significant because 8 is associated with Gnosticism or because the Antichrist in Revelation 17 is called the eighth king, the Latin Kingdom, the Italian Church, various Popes, all the Popes, the phrase “Vicar of the Son of God” and phrases like it, Ronald Reagan, and William Jefferson Clinton. I’m sure there are more.

All of these solutions are calculated by a process known as gematria. In the ancient world every letter corresponded to a number, just like A might equal 1, and B equal 2, C equal 3, and so on. The numbering scheme was often more complicated, but that’s the idea. Every letter could also be a number, so names could be translated into numbers. Kevin, for example, in our simplified scheme would be 11+5+22+9+14, which equals 61. That’s gematria. And people did use it in the ancient world, more than we think. There’s a text that identifies Jesus’s gematria name as 888, which is supposed to be significant because 8 is the number of re-creation. So through all sorts of complicated gematria calculations in different languages, people have come up with all the names in the list above.

Some of the names in the list are absurd. Most of the interpretations are not widely followed. The only name that has really gotten a strong following is Nero. If you take the Greek Neron Kaisar and transliterate it into Hebrew you get 50+200+6+50 and then 100+60+200, all of which together equals 666.

A possible corroboration for this view can be found in the Latin version of his name. Neron Kaiser transliterated in Latin gives you 616, which is the number of the beast in some alternative manuscripts (also the area code for Grand Rapids, Michigan). Nero fits with the story line of Revelation better than the other alternatives. Nero killed himself in AD 68, but it was rumored that he would come back to life or was still living, just like the beast received a fatal wound that was healed. So, according to many scholars, 666 is most logically a reference to Nero. And by putting Nero in the form of a riddle like this, it protected the Christians from charges of sedition and further persecution.

So the number of the beast could refer to Nero. That’s the most plausible person to be connected with 666. But there are also problems with the calculation.

First, it is far from certain that most of John’s audience would have known Hebrew. Some were probably Jewish Christians who understood Hebrew, but most certainly, many were not. So relying on your readers to not only know gematria but also transliterate a name into another language they may not have known seems like a poor way to communicate, unless John wasn’t interested in his audience knowing the answer to the puzzle.

Second, to come up with 666, you have to spell Neron Kaisar incorrectly in Hebrew. You have to leave out a yodh, which some claim was an acceptable spelling, but it was certainly not the normal usage.

Third, none of the early church fathers calculated Neron Kaisar from 666. There is a fifth-century document that calculates Nero, but it uses the word antichristus to get 616.

Fourth, verse 18 does not call us to solve a riddle. When it says, “let him calculate the number,” the solution is given in the next line. The number is 666. We are not told to solve the question of 666. We are told that 666 is the answer to the question. More on that in a moment.

Fifth, finding hidden, precise meanings in numbers is not the way numbers work in Revelation. The imagery in Revelation is broader and less exact. The church is symbolized with pictures (the 24 elders, the two witnesses, the woman) and a number (144,000). The church age is symbolized by pictures (the measured temple, the trampled witnesses, the woman protected in the wilderness) and numbers (42 months, 1260 days, 3 ½ years). Likewise, false religion is symbolized by a picture (the beast) and a number (666). In each case, the pictures and numbers mean something, but they refer to general truths, not to specific people or referents.

Sixth, if dozens of names can be calculated from 666, how effective is this means of communication? As one author puts it, it doesn’t tell us much that a certain key fits the lock, if it’s a lock that works with almost any key. I once came across these three tongue-in-cheek “rules” for calculating the number of the beast: if the proper name doesn’t work, add a title; if Greek doesn’t work try Hebrew or Latin; if that doesn’t work try a different spelling. That’s more or less the approach most people take, and it yields a hundred different answers.

So if 666 isn’t code for Nero or anyone else, what does it mean? Here’s my humble opinion (he said humbly!): 666 is not meant to be a riddle hiding the name of the beast; 666 is simply the name and number of the beast. The number 666 is man’s number (cf. 21:17). You could understand this to mean “666 is a number of a man” or “666 is the number of man.” I think it’s the latter.

What have we seen with this second beast? He is a counterfeit. He leads people into false religion. So how do you express numerically counterfeit religion? 7 is the number of perfection and holy completion in the book of Revelation (7 churches, 7 lampstands, 7 eyes, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, and so on). The number 6, then, would be the number of imperfection and unholy incompletion. If 7 is the number for God, then 6 is the number of that most resembles, but is not, God—namely, man.

In other words, 666 is man’s counterfeit to the holy Trinity of 777. The Africa Bible Commentary puts it well:

The beast seems to be near perfection and almost messianic; it is, after all, a caricature of the Lamb who was slain (13:3, 11, 13). But it is not perfect, and that makes all the difference. It is actually diabolically and utterly opposed to God (13:4). The number 666 represents a threefold falling short of perfection (dragon: 6, beast: 6, false prophet: 6). But it is close to perfection, and has most of the hallmarks of truth, and so can easily deceive. No wonder wisdom is required!

All of which is to say, whatever you think of the way the medical establishment and the media and our politicians have handled this global pandemic, the mark of the beast is not going to be found in an implanted microchip. If, however, doctors or politicians or members of the media or anyone else, for that matter, elevates himself to a position of Godlike authority and knowledge, then that is what Revelation warns Christians against. Whatever or whomever appears as true Christianity in order to draw us away to some human counterfeit, that is the work of the beast, and his number is 666.

Note: This post was first published through The Gospel Coalition website.

#deyoung #revelation

1 note · View note

bldgrelationshipwgod · 5 years ago

Text

youtube

Some Will Depart from the Faith, P1 | Derek Prince

This evening I’ll be speaking about religious deception. I suppose for every person deceived by atheism, there must be at least a thousand persons in hell, whom the devil deceived by religion.

Atheism really has very little power to deceive people for any length of time, it is too OBVIOUSLY FALSE, to be acceptable for more than a brief generation. lol

But false religion has deceived humanity down through the ages, century by century, in untold numbers.

And this situation has not changed today. The Bible warns us very clearly that at the close of this age, the period we are obviously living tonight, that the deceptions of religion are going to increase in a remarkable measure.

And those that believe are going to subjected to every kind of pressure to seduce them from their true faith.

Many of the prophetic discourses in Revelations, of the Scriptures concerning these last days we are warned again & again: Against false Christs, false prophets, & deceiving spirits.

And everything that we see in the United States is an illustration & confirmation of the accuracy of these warnings.

There are two main forms of deception, that I want to deal with tonight:

1st is what I would call “departures from Christianity” Deceptions that claim to have origins in Christianity, often lay claim of being Christian.

2nd kind of deception are forms of religion or spiritual activity, which lay no claim to be Christian.

We will try to cover both of these. This is essentially a teaching message not an evangelistic message; & it will require your close attention.

1] DEPARTURES FROM CHRISTIANITY

1 Timothy 4:1-5 | Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, & doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, & commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe & know the truth. For every creature of God is good, & nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God & prayer.

2 Peter 2:1-3 | But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily (secretly) shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, & bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not (not idle/inactive), & their damnation slumbereth not (not asleep).

But there is a clear example of why the Bible says they do it privily they shall bring in damnable heresies; they do it sneaky underhand way.

They don’t stand up & tell you: Now we’re going to deny everything by which Christianity really stand.

But they begin to appeal to your sense of intellectual honesty.

Q: “Do you think as an up-to-date person living in the 20th century, that we can really accept the old fashion view point & so on & so forth.”

Well personally I still believe the Lord Jesus knew what He was talking about. That’s my personal conviction.

If I had to choose between Him & any modern teacher of psychology or psychiatry I’d go to Jesus for the truth.

There was a bishop in the Anglican Church of England, who wrote a book called ‘Honest to God.’ The theme being that let’s be honest about our doubts, we really don’t believe these things, let’s stop pretending to believe them.

Well I was trained to believe in intellectual honesty, & I respect it but my criticism about such presentations is that they are only half-way honest.

They are honest about their doubts, & what they don’t believe, but they’re not honest about the results of the results of denying these things.

If you deny the virgin birth, if you deny the record of creation, if you deny the realities of hell’s judgments, what does it make Jesus?

Because there is no doubt whatever that Jesus believed & taught all those things. The only logical conclusion you come to in relation to Jesus is this: Either He was deceived, or He was a deceiver.

And if we’re going to be intellectually honest, let’s go all the way with it. Let’s come out with the full implications of our doubts.

Let’s be honest all the way.

But to me this half baked intellectual honesty, is honest about our doubts, but not honest about the conclusions of those doubts is actually just what’s described here. It’s privy, it’s sneaky & underhanded. It is deceptive.

However it says in 2 Peter 2:2, that many shall follow their pernicious ways. They are going to deceive many people.

And as a result of this, reproach will be brought upon the actual way of truth!

Christianity will be misrepresented in the eyes of the world, through these false teachers.

So we’ve got to expect these things happening & it is happening. However the very center of these heresies is found in that phrase: Denying the Lord that bought them.

And in essence, every damnable heresy is that it denies the Lord Jesus Christ & His redemptive work on the cross.

Any teaching that undermines, or denies any of these aspects of Scriptures’ truth is a damnable heresy.

I believe Jesus is divine, He is God. He was born of a virgin, & He led a sinless life, & He died an atoning death as a substitute for the sins of the human race. He rose physically from the dead on the 3rd day, & ascended physically into Heaven, & He’s coming again in like manner as He was seen to go.

I would say that any teaching that touches or undermines or denies any of those truths is a damnable heresy.

#religious deception #departures from Christianity #misrepresented #reproach to truth

0 notes

thescienceofapologetics · 8 years ago

Text

SIX MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE SHACK

Though you might be swayed into thinking the god of The Shack is the same as the God of the Bible, there are several problems that arise if we take a close look at The Shack. Here are six concerns that develop as Mack converses with William P. Young’s caricatures of the Trinity.

Problem #1: According to Young, justice and love are at odds and cannot be reconciled.

He reasons that God will never judge people for their sins because He is limited by His love. Neither will He enact eternal judgment upon those who reject Him or send anyone to torment in hell. But why would Jesus Christ die a criminal’s death on the cross if not to save us from something? What a wasteful and pointless act it would be if Christ did not take on our just punishment, the wrath of God, for our sin. We cannot remove the wrath of God from Scripture. It is as surely a part of His character as His love and mercy are. But God’s wrath is not a human anger that flares up because of wounded pride or envy. His wrath is not self-indulgent, but rather, as theologian J.I. Packer says in his book Knowing God, “a right and necessary reaction to objective moral evil. God is only angry where anger is called for. . . . all God’s indignation is righteous.” The Bible is very clear about why Jesus came to earth, humbly taking on the very nature of a servant (see John 3:16-18, Philippians 2:6-7). Jesus Himself warned about the coming judgment and hell, commissioning His followers to proclaim the Gospel that the lost might be saved—that they might choose life (see Matthew 25:31-46, Revelation 21:6-8). Ultimately, that is what every person must do: Either choose salvation through the atoning blood of Jesus or choose the wrath of the righteous God. Would Mack really want a God who would not punish evil? Would he be okay with a God who would not exert justice for the evil done to his daughter? Would God be good and loving if He said to Mack, “We’ll just let this slide”? Of course not. He shows us His love by both punishing sin and providing us with an escape: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). He is “the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished” (Exodus 34:6-7).

Problem #2: Another theme in The Shack that doesn’t square with the Word of God is the idea that God forgives all of humanity, regardless of whether or not they repent and believe in the redeeming work of Jesus.

It is an idea rooted in universalism—the belief that all roads lead to God and that Jesus is walking with all people in their different journeys to God, whether they call Him Jesus or Buddha or Allah. In fact, Young asserts that there is no need for faith or reconciliation with God because all people will make it to heaven. The Bible is very clear that only those who call on the name of Jesus will be saved: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12. See also 1 Timothy 2:5, Romans 10:9). Universalism is a dangerous and malicious lie. It leads people to think that it doesn’t matter what you believe, sin is not really a problem, and there is really no need for a Savior. Universalism single-handedly destroyed Christianity in much of Europe, and universalism is working hard to destroy the faith of remnant believers in the American church today. Jesus is not the same as Buddha or Krishna; He does not hide behind such false and impotent gods. He became flesh and dwelt among us that we might know Him. He wants us to know the one true God. He wants the glory that He deserves, for He alone is God: “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isaiah 42:8). Are you willing to risk your eternal future on feel-good fluff? Sin is real. It is rebellion against God, and it requires justice. God’s justice and wrath were poured out on Jesus Christ to reconcile us to the holy God (see 1 Peter 2:24-25). But we must have faith in Jesus, confessing His lordship and believing in His resurrection.Jesus calls out to us, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). Beware of the “broad road” theology of The Shack.

Problem #3: In The Shack, the god character tells Mack that “submission is not about authority or obedience” and that the Trinity is even submitted to Mack

The Bible in its entirety points us to the need to submit to God. Submitting is by definition yielding to the authority of another. God created man, and man cannot dictate terms to God. As Isaiah 29:16 says, “You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘You did not make me’? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘You know nothing’?” God does not answer to us; we answer to God. In this way we remain in His love: “If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete” (John 15:10-11). Submission is about obedience, and that’s because obedience is ultimately about love. Jesus Himself said, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching” (John 14:23). To minimize obedience is to minimize love for God.

Problem #4: Young alleges that the Bible limits God, implying that it was man who reduced God’s voice to paper: “Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book”

Thus the Bible is portrayed as inadequate to know God. If the Bible were simply a book written by man, then it would be about as useful as The Shack. However, the Bible was written over the course of about 1,800 years with many different authors all inspired by the Holy Spirit. They all through various time periods and life experiences tell the same story, pointing us to the Messiah—Jesus, who is the very Word of God made flesh (John 1:1-4, 14). It is through Scripture that God chose to reveal Himself to us. The Bible is a divine product. Jesus Himself trusted the Scriptures and used them to teach about Himself (see Luke 24:44-47). If the risen Lord values, trusts, and feeds on the Bible (see Matthew 4:1-11), should we not also look to it as the saving Gospel it is? Let us therefore heed Paul’s words: “Continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

Problem #5: The God portrayed in The Shack seems casual and unconcerned with holiness, which is inconsistent with what we see in the Bible.

Mack’s troubling disrespect and disregard for the Trinity would be impossible if he had encountered the sovereign, holy God. By presenting a god wholly different from the true God revealed in the Bible, Young mocks the importance and uniqueness of the Word of God. He makes the Bible equal to or less than whatever personal imagination anyone might have of God. Mack did not encounter the Holy God of heaven and earth in the shack, but a created god who is controlled and manipulated by man—like an idol that is put away in a closet and brought out when needed. The Shack exchanges “the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being” (Romans 1:23). While it’s a righteous desire to want to know God, Mack’s fictional experience of encountering God is demonstrably inconsistent with what we see in Scripture. It's also a poor sequel to the true story we already have of God’s interactions on earth through Jesus Christ. When Moses asks God to show him His glory, God warns, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:20)—such is the dangerous magnificence of the Father’s glory. We must be careful of assigning any image to Him that diminishes His holiness. In Scripture, when people face the Lord, they fall down in repentance and worship. Isaiah’s response was: “Woe to me! . . . I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty” (Isaiah 6:5). When John is swept up to heaven in a revelation from God and sees the glorified Jesus, he falls at His feet “as though dead” (Revelation 1:17)! When Job was confronted by the Lord as He laid out His majesty, Job replies, “My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5-6). God is awesome, and we simply cannot stand in His presence. Neither can we live without Him.

Problem #6: In The Shack, Young tries to answer the important personal question of suffering—and he thinks the answer is to change who God is.

But God has already answered this question perfectly according to His true and unchanging character. He answered it with the Gospel. He answered it on the cross. He answered it through Jesus Christ our Lord. As we carefully consider the ideas presented in The Shack, the greater question we must ask ourselves is: Am I willing to accept God’s gift of eternal life as it is revealed in Scripture? Am I willing to accept God’s salvation the way He provided it—even if I want something else that accommodates my wishes, desires, and emotions? Am I willing to accept Truth over what makes me comfortable, realizing that Truth is what I need—for it alone leads to eternal life? We must not allow ourselves to be swayed by emotionalism. We must instead be like the Bereans, who “examined the Scriptures” rather than readily accepting what they heard as Truth (Acts 17:11). Because no story, no matter how compelling, can ever improve upon God’s story of redemption in the Bible.

Beloved, the best place to meet God is not at the shack, but at the cross. For the Gospel is the greatest story ever told, and better still, it is true. [x]

#the shack #the shack movie #christianity #religion #apologetics #text #I've got a lot of people on my dash wondering about The Shack #so I thought I'd post a big comprehensive sweep of the most blatant herecies

174 notes · View notes

green-sociology · 3 years ago

Text

How do feminist thinkers view religion? Discuss the main feminist criticisms of religion using examples of women's positioning on this theme (70).

Religion can be defined as a cultural system that holds a value consensus, which means that those who belong to a religion have shared beliefs, values and rituals that provides them with a sense of meaning and purpose. Religion allows for an ‘’idea of reality that is sacred, all-encompassing and supernatural’’ (Durkheim, 1965; Berger, 1967; Wuthnow, 1988 cited in: Giddens, 2006). Sociologists look to investigate the social organisation of religion as religions are often influential in society. Sociologists are not concerned with whether or not religious beliefs are true or false, although generally sociologists do believe that religions are a social construction – meaning that society has established this institution. Religious beliefs and rituals are perpetuated through socialisation, as parents socialise their children into a certain set of norms and values that they have previously been taught (Swann, 2011).

Feminism is a movement and sociological theory that highlight’s women’s inequality in society and advocates for women’s equal rights (Swann, 2011). Feminist’s state that modern society is characterised by a hegemonic patriarchal force which enlists the use of religion to legitimise the domination and oppression of women (Swann, 2011). Armstrong, 1995 adds to this theory by stating that ‘’none of the major religions has been particularly good to women. They have usually become male affairs and women have been relegated to a marginal position’’. Additionally, the rise of fundamentalism has contributed to the reinforcement of women’s traditional gender roles. For example, in the United States of America there has been an increase in violence against women who choose to control their fertility through contraception and abortion. Many right-wing religious pro-life groups are using terrorist tactics to close down family planning clinics (Langley et al. 2010). There are also many fundamentalist groups like this in Iran, Israel, Afghanistan et cetera that demand the conservation of women’s traditional roles, positions and dress. An example of this is the Taliban searching communities for women’s rights workers in order to murder them as the Taliban believe these advocates for women’s rights are a threat to women’s ‘traditional’ position (Langley et al. 2010). There are various feminist theories on religion, however, the main theories relate to liberal feminism and radical feminism.

Liberal feminists work to gain equal opportunities for both women and men, and argue that this can be done through passing legislation and changing attitudes. Liberal feminists believe that gender roles are socially constructed through the family, religion, education and the social media in the way that socialisation and sex role conditioning lead to gender inequalities in society (Swann and Thompson, 2011). Additionally, liberal feminists believe that religions are predominantly patriarchal, however, liberal feminists believe that the patriarchal components of religion can be abolished (Swann and Thompson, 2011). Liberal feminists often focus their attention to the positive aspects of religion for women, rather than wholly criticise religion and also prefer to focus on the progress that feminism is making within religions. Holm 1994 notes that not all religions oppress women and the patriarchal nature of religion is not universal; Holm speculates that there are three main reasons for this, concluding that some religions do not have firm connections to patriarchy and some religions are in a state of fluidity, changing due to the pressures of feminism, whilst also some religions can provide opportunities for women rather than restrict them. Badawi highlighted that some aspects of Islam can be positive for women, for example, women are able to retain their own family name when they marry (Badawi, 1994, in Holm and Bowker 1994). Furthermore, Ahmed 1992 found that the veil that Muslim women wear allows them a sense of liberation, in that they are able to keep modest in a modern society.

Although liberal feminists provide some insight into the positive and changing nature of some religions, they have been criticised for being overly-optimistic and assuming that socialisation is a passive process (Langley et al. 2010). Radical feminists have also criticised liberal feminists for working within the patriarchal system rather than challenging it, whilst Marxist feminists, who argue that women’s oppression is linked to capitalism, have noted that liberal feminists generally only represent the interests of middle class educated professional women (Swann and Thompson, 2011). Furthermore, Fang-Long Shih 2010 (in Swann and Thompson, 2011) criticised Holm, stating that although there has been an increase in ordained women in the Church of England, sexist attitudes are still persistent.

Unlike liberal feminists, radical feminists believe that there should be a radical transformation of society in order to remove gender inequalities. In addition to this, radical feminists believe that patriarchy is the oldest and main source of oppression in society and that religion became patriarchal due to the way in which men distort (and possibly misinterpret) religious figures (Saadawi, 1980). Simone de Beauvoir is a leading radical feminist that notes that religion is used by men to control and oppress women and that religion provides women with a false belief that they will be rewarded for their oppression on earth through equality in heaven. Furthermore, Beauvoir notes that women provide a vital role in religion as they are generally heavily involved in religious organisations and socialise children into religious ideals (Beauvoir, 1949). Radical feminists further highlight that religions have not always been predominantly patriarchal, in fact, women were a fundamental element of spirituality – such as archaeologists have discovered a number of variations of the ‘’Great Mother Goddess’’ in many locations including Europe et cetera (Armstrong, 1993). However, women often had no social standing in ancient societies. Daly 1973 notes the disparate ways in which women are exploited in society, which includes a sex role segregation, derivative statuses – gaining their status from their husbands, sex role socialisation – differential socialisation for both sexes and patriarchal religious ideology – which aims to justify patriarchal institutions through religion. Religions work to justify the patriarchal nature of society, suggesting that it is ‘the will of god’ (Daly, 1973). Furthermore, Oakley 1972 highlighted how parents canalise and manipulate their children; canalisation is a process by which agents of socialisation such as the family and religion channel children’s interests into toys and activities that are regarded as traditional for that sex and further encourage or discourage behaviour on the basis of appropriateness for the sex of the child.

Radical feminism has often been criticised for being too profound, and often work off of the assumption that all women share the same inequalities, however black feminists - who argue that much of the work of feminist groups in the late 20th century have ignored ethnicity, and Marxist feminists argue that this is not a realistic assumption due to class and racial factors (Swann and Thompson, 2011). In addition to this, liberal feminists state that radical feminists do not recognise the extent to which progress for gender equality has been made (Langley et al. 2010).

Despite some religions having a patriarchal nature, several studies have revealed that women are predominantly more religious than men; for example, Miller and Hoffman 1995 suggest that women attend church more often than men, have stronger personal religious commitments and are more likely to express a greater interest in religion. Additionally, Bruce found that women are more likely to be involved with sects, and noted that the female-to-male ratio is about 2:1. However, in caveat to Bruce, Miller and Hoffman, in more recent years, Brierley 2006 recorded that between 1998 and 2005 over 51,000 women were leaving churches, in comparison, about twice the rate of men. Aune et al. 2008 suggested that this may be due to the rise of feminism in the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. To a certain extent, it could be argued that contemporary women could be divided into three different groups in their practice of religion in a modern society. Firstly, there are home-centred women who prioritise family and home life, these women are generally Christian, and Christian beliefs coincide with this. Secondly, the ‘jugglers’, which refers to women who balance work and home, and often belong to ‘alternative spirituality’ religions which encourage both family commitments and female empowerment. And lastly, work-centred women who reject traditional notions of femininity and follow male patterns in the sense that they ‘abandon’ church going due to a busy lifestyle. (Woodhead, 2005).

All feminist thinkers believe that religion is dominated by patriarchy, and that religion is used as a device to legitimise society’s patriarchal ruling and to oppress women or limit their rights by reinforcing traditional values (Langley et al. 2010). Overall, radical feminists believe that religion should be eradicated from society in order to gain some liberation for women due to the oppressive and patriarchal nature of main religions; while liberal feminists argue that although some of the major religions in society are patriarchal, they believe that it is not to the extent that radical feminists presume, and further believe that religions can be changed with feminist action (Swann and Thompson, 2011). However, despite the patriarchal nature of religion, women are more heavily involved with the religious community than men (Miller and Hoffman, 1995. And Bruce, 1995) and there are positive aspects for women in the major religions in contemporary society as Badawi 1994 and Ahmed 1992 have outlined in their studies of women in Islam. Although there are patriarchal elements to the major religions in contemporary society, which both liberal and radical feminists highlight, there are some positive influences and opportunities for women in religion and women are more likely to be involved with religious activities than men despite patriarchal elements.

References

Ahmed, Leila. 1992. Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. Michigan: Yale University Press.

Armstrong, K. 1993. The End of Silence: Women and the Priesthood. London: Fourth Estate.

Aune, K. Sharma, S. and Vincett, G. 2008. Women and Religion in the West: Challenging Secularisation. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Beauvoir, S. D. 1949. The Second Sex. New York: Knopf.

Brierly, P. 2006. Pulling Out of the Nose Dive: A Contemporary Picture of Churchgoing; What the 2005 English Church Census Reveals. London: Christian Research.

Bruce, S. 1995. Religion in Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Daly, M. 1973. Beyond God the Father. Boston: Beacon Press.

Giddens, A. and Sutton, P. W. 2013. Sociology. 7th Ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Glock, C. and Stark, R. 1966. Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism. New York: Harper & Row.

Heelas, P., Woodhead, L. and Seel, B. 2005. The Spiritual Revolution. Malden: Blackwell.

Holm, J. and Bowker, J. 1994. Women in Religion. London: Printer Publishers.

Holm, J. and Bowker, J. 1994. Picturing God. London: Printer Publishers.

Langley, P. and Chapman, S. and Moore, S. 2010. Sociology AS for OCR. London: Collins Educational.

Miller, A.S and Hoffman, J.P. 1995. ‘Risk and Religion: An Explanation of Gender Differences in Religiosity’. In: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 34. (1) 63-75.

Oakley, A. 1972. ‘Feminism, Motherhood and Medicine -Who Cares?’, in: Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. 1986. What is Feminism? Oxford: Blackwell.

Saadawi, N. E. 1980. The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World: 1. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Swann, F. 2011. Socialisation, Culture and Identity. London: Collins Education.

Swann, F. and Thompson, V. 2011. Social Inequality and Difference with Research Methods. London: Collins Education.

Woodhead, L. 2005. Christianity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP.

1 note · View note

whatisonthemoonarchive · 5 years ago

Text

'According to the Jewish theology Yahwe is the source of both good and evil. This is the basic doctrine of monotheism:

"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things." Isaiah 45:7 (ESV)' Divine Principle is wrong

'Therefore I also gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live.' (Ezekiel 20:25LITV)

During the Christian era a council of theologians made the decision that the Old Testament and the New should be bound in one book, without any differentiation, as if they were root and branch. Christian churches accept the Old Testament as being of 'equal divine authority' with the New. This unqualified acceptance covers the entire content of the Old Testament and is the source of much confusion in the Christian churches since acceptance of the dogma requires contradictory beliefs about the nature of God. The same God who by commandment to Moses exhorts men to love their neighbors also commands them to 'destroy'*[1] their neighbors. Moses, who first appears bringing the moral commandments from God, brings, in the end, the command from god to commit genocide, the moral commandments having been converted into their opposites between Exodus and Numbers. In the course of this conversion the God who begins by commanding the people not to kill or to covet their neighbors' wives and possessions, finishes by ordering a tribal massacre of a neighboring people, only the virgins to be saved alive*[2]. Thus was founded the doctrine of racial hatred, murder and revenge in the name of religion.

What relationship can there be between the universal, loving God of the Christian revelation and the cursing*[3] Old Testament god of Deuteronomy? Its as if they are two different Gods. As noted, evidence of a disparity can be seen even within the Old Testament itself. Indeed, the Old Testament can be viewed as a composite of two different traditions originating from two different Gods; one, the God of Israel - El Elyon - Most High, and the other, Yahweh, the god of Judah.

In the Old Testament, Israel, the northern confederation of the ten tribes, is often called 'the house of Joseph', in pointed distinction from 'the house of Judah' which was a petty chiefdom in the south. Judah, from which today's Zionism comes, was a tribe of ill repute. Judah sold his brother Joseph, the most beloved son of Jacob-called-Israel, to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver (as Judas, the only Judean among the disciples, much later betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver), and then founded the tribe in incest, (Genesis 37-38). The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, 'Joseph and Judah typify two distinct lines of descent' and adds that Judah was 'in all likelihood a non-Israelitish tribe'. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Judaism developed long after the Israelites had merged themselves with mankind, and that the true relationship of the two peoples is best expressed in the phrase, 'The Israelites were not Jews.' The little tribe in the south, Judah, became identified with the landless tribe, that of the Levites*[4]. These hereditary priests, who claimed that their office had been bestowed on them by Yahweh on Mount Sinai, were the true fathers of Judaism and the Jewish Bible.

As they drew up the Law of the Old Testament, the masters of Judah, the Levites, took the God of Genesis, creator of Heaven, Earth and mankind and in the course of four books of the written Law, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, conflated him with Yahweh, the racist, deal making, tribal deity who promised earthly rewards in exchange for obedience: territory, treasure and power over others in return for a ritual of sacrifice and offerings, to be performed at a precise place in a specified land. The Law of the Old Testament rested on the assertion of Yahweh, that 'the Israelites' (in fact not Israelites but the Judahites) were his 'chosen people' who, if they did all his 'statutes and judgments', would be set over all other peoples and be established in a 'promised land'.

The two hundred years during which Israel and Judah existed separately are filled with the voices of the Hebrew prophets, condemning the Levites and the Yahwist cult they had established just as Jesus condemned it seven or eight hundred years later, when it was long established, at the Temple in Jerusalem. These prophets were nearly all Israelites; most of them were Josephites. The Israelite prophets were protestants in their time and gave warning of the consequences of the Levitical racial creed. The claims of the Levite priesthood moved them to protest, particularly the priestly claim to the firstborn and the priestly insistence on sacrificial rites. The Israelite prophets saw no virtue in the bloodying of priests, the endless sacrifice of animals and the 'burnt offerings', the 'sweet savor' of which was pleasing to Yahweh. They rebuked the priestly doctrine of slaying and enslaving 'the heathen'. The Israelite God, they cried, desired moral behavior, mercy and justice towards the poor, the fatherless, the widow and the oppressed, not blood sacrifices and hatred of the heathen*[5]. The Israelite prophet Jeremiah delivered this message from the God of Israel to the cult of Yahweh:

'For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.' (Jeremiah 7:22 ESV).

In such words Jeremiah, like Jesus later, refuted Yahweh and protested against the 'destruction' of the Law in the name of its fulfillment. It seems that even in Jeremiah's time the Levites still exacted the sacrifice of firstborn children, because he adds,

'And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire*[6], which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind.' (Jeremiah 7:31 ESV).

The student of the curses listed in Deuteronomy 28:15-68, prescribed for failure to fulfill the letter of the law, might suspect that the deity in whose name they were spoken is more diabolic than divine; believing that the name, 'God', in the sense which has been given to it, cannot be connected with such evil. The student finds this suspicion expressly confirmed in chapter 20 of the book of Ezekiel*[7]. Here, Ezekiel appears to answer Jeremiah's attack on the Levites in the matter of sacrificing the firstborn (Jeremiah 7:31. above). Ezekiel's answer provides the key to the whole mystery of 'the Mosaic Law': Yahweh had made evil laws in order to inspire misery and fear:

'Therefore I also gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live. And I defiled them by their own gifts, by making all that open the womb to cross the fire, so that I might waste them, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah (Yahweh -ed.).' (Ezekiel 20:25-26 LITV)*[8]

The ruling of Christian theologians, that the Old Testament is of 'equal divine authority' with the New, presumably includes this passage. How unfortunate for the world that this ruling binds Jesus Christ to his crucifiers and clouds the light of the Christian revelation with the darkness of Yahweh and the Old Testament. We can rightly say that the weight of the Old Testament has hobbled God's Providence and set Christianity back a thousand years.

The above article draws on themes and expression from the book 'The Controversy of Zion' by Douglas Reed

________________

Notes

1. ('...and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, "Destroy them"'. Deuteronomy 33:27 KJV, etc.)

2. 'Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.' (Numbers 31:17-18 ESV, etc.)

3. Deuteronomy 28:15-68 Curses for Disobedience

4. Levites as the Exodus Group: Egyptian Connection Some scholarship suggests that the Levites were originally non-Israelites from Egypt who joined the indigenous and settled Israelite tribes. As landless sojourners, this group found their place working as cultic professionals throughout the territories of the Israelite tribes. Scholars fostering this theory point to the fact that so many of the important Levite figures identified in the Torah’s narrative have names with Egyptian etymologies (Moses, Aaron, Miriam; also Phinehas, Kehat, and Merari). According to this theory, once the Levites began to serve as cultic professionals for the Israelites, they introduced their own story, that of the exodus from Egypt, as a national tale of origin among this larger population; perhaps they were even the ones to bring the worship of YHWH to this group.' TheTorah.com 5. 'Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The Temple of the Lord, . . .(the formal, repetitious incantations) . . . but thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, oppress not the stranger, the fatherless and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place (the ritual of blood-sacrifice and the ordained murder of apostates). . .Will ye steal, murder and commit adultery, and swear falsely. . . and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, "We are delivered to do all these abominations" (the ceremonial absolution after animal-sacrifice). Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?' (Jeremiah 7:4-11 ESV)

6. '...it has sometimes been inferred, from the phrase "pass through the fire to Molech," that children were made to pass between two lines of fire as a kind of consecration or februation; but it is clear from Isa.57:5 and Jer. xix. 5 that the children were killed and burned. The whole point of the offering consisted, therefore, in the fact that it was a human sacrifice. From Jer. vii. 31 and Ezek. xx. 25, 26, it is evident that both prophets regarded these human sacrifices as extraordinary offerings to Yhwh. Jeremiah declares that God had not commanded them, while Ezekiel says Yhwh polluted the Israelites in their offerings by permitting them to sacrifice their first-born, so that through chastisement they might know that Yhwh was Yhwh. The fact, therefore, now generally accepted by critical scholars, is that in the last days of the kingdom human sacrifices were offered to Yhwh' The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

'Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of the rocks?' (Isaiah 57:5 KJV)

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible: Isaiah 57:5

'Slaying the children - That is, sacrificing them to the idol-gods. This was commonly done by burning them, as when they were offered to Moloch, though it is not improbable that they were sometimes sacrificed in other ways. It was a common custom among the worshippers of Moloch. Thus it is said of Ahaz 2 Chronicles 28:3, that he ‹burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire.‘ The same thing is said of Manasseh, to whose time the prophet most probably refers. ‹And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom‘ (2 Chronicles 33:6; compare Jeremiah 7:31). In the valleys - The place where these abominations were practiced by the Jews was the valley of the son of Hinnom (see the references above); that is, the valley of Jehoshaphat, lying to the south and the southeast of Jerusalem. A large hollow, brass statue was erected, and the fire was enkindled within it, and the child was placed in his heated arms, and thus put to death. The cries of the child were drowned by the music of the תף tôph or kettle-drums (see the notes at Isaiah 5:12, where this instrument is fully described), and hence, the name of the valley was Tophet'

7. The book of Ezekiel is the most significant of all the Old Testament books. It is more significant than even Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers because it seems to be the fountainhead from which the dark ideas of those books of the Law first sprang. During the period of captivity in Babylon when the Levites completed the Law, Ezekiel of the High Priest's family was possibly its chief architect and probably all five books of the Law, as they have come down, bear his mark.

8. 'Therefore I also gave them statutes that were not good,...' (Ezekiel 20:25-26)

Ezekiel is not much concerned about the lot of the sons and daughters but is clearly enraged by the charge that the Lord had not commanded the sacrifice of the firstborn, when the scribes had repeatedly ascribed this command to him. His retort is concerned only to show that Yahweh had so commanded and thus to justify the priesthood; the admission that the commandment was evil is casual and nonchalant, as if this were of no importance. Ezekiel, in his day, forbade any protest by quickly adding, '...And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you.' (Ezekiel 20:31 ESV)

0 notes