#Examples of prophetic callings in the Old Testament

[mindfulldsliving]

Apostolic Authority and the Role of Prophets: A Scriptural Perspective on the Restored Gospel

The Restored Gospel is centered on God’s unwavering love and His desire to guide His children. From ancient times to today, prophets have been essential in delivering that divine guidance. Apostolic authority, deeply rooted in scripture, serves as a bridge connecting humanity to God’s will. This blog explores how prophetic teachings and sacred texts illuminate the restored truths we hold dear…

[thedecadenceofwar]

Elle Argent as Jesus Christ: Heartstopper art analysis.

Yesterday, I made this post where I wordlessly compared Elle's art piece for the Lambert School to the painting that draws her attention at the Louvre, Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus, a depiction of Jesus breaking bread for his disciples after his crucifixion and subsequent rising.

Elle's perspective on the painting / a full view of the painting (source)

The first thing I noticed that helped me draw the connection between these two paintings was their composition, the basic triangular lines that guide the eye in each painting; from Jesus and Elle in the center to the innkeeper and Tao at the top.

Heartstopper also clearly wanted us to make some connection between Elle and this Caravaggio: they focus on her face before they show us the painting, so we wonder what exactly it is she's seeing, which increases its narrative importance. I assumed she recognized herself in a painting; she did, but not in the way I expected.

The National Gallery (see above source) has this to say about the Caravaggio:

On the third day after the Crucifixion two of Jesus’s disciples were walking to Emmaus when they met the resurrected Christ. They failed to recognise him, but that evening at supper he ‘... took bread, and blessed it, and brake and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight’ (Luke 24: 30–31). Painted at the height of Caravaggio’s fame, this is among his most impressive domestic religious pictures. He brilliantly captures the dramatic climax of the story, the moment when the disciples suddenly see what has been in front of them all along. Their actions convey their astonishment: one is about to leap out of his chair while the other throws out his arms in a gesture of disbelief. The stark lighting underlines the dramatic intensity of the scene. Typically for Caravaggio, he has shown the disciples as ordinary working men, with bearded, lined faces and ragged clothes, in contrast to the youthful beardless Christ, who seems to have come from a different world.

Jesus, in the story, opens the eyes of his disciples in more ways than one (I pulled my Bible out for this!). First, in the scene depicted in the painting, the disciples do not know that this man is Jesus until he blesses the bread and breaks it for them, revealing himself as Christ. Second is the context in which Jesus comes to share dinner with his disciples: they meet him on the road during the day before, and he interprets the Old Testament for them: (stay with me I promise we'll leave the Biblical stuff and get back to the gay stuff soon)

Luke 24:13-16 Now on that same day two of [the disciples] were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. Luke 24:25-27 Then he said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?" Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

If Safe Space is an exact analogue to Supper at Emmaus, then Elle takes the position of Jesus, and she draws from the story of Christ's crucifixion and rising a trans metaphor.

Death does not always mean death. For example, in the world of tarot, the card of Death does not signify literal Death, but a transformation: that the idea of death is a catalyst for change. If you're trans or non-binary, you understand the idea of the person you were being dead; that's why they call it a deadname. For me, the girl I was is dead. The person I am now, a living, breathing, non-binary person, is alive.

Jesus died and lived again; the boy Elle was died and the girl Elle is lived. Elle takes the spot of Jesus. Elle is risen.

There's another half to this metaphor: of the disciples that don't recognize Jesus. See where I'm going with this? At first, after Jesus had undergone his transformation, the disciples do not recognize him; literally "Their eyes were kept from recognizing him." The fault is not on them – it is another stronger force that maintains their blindness. But Jesus stays with them, despite the fact that they don't know who he is, and he talks to them about the scriptures.

We don't know much about Elle, pre-transition. But we know that Elle, Tao, and Charlie, at least, were friends before Elle's transition, and she had to come out to them at some point. So, in essence, she is Jesus on the road to Emmaus; unrecognized, a stranger, until she reveals herself for who she is.

She takes the moment Jesus tells his disciples who he is and shows what happens when Elle stays. We don't all have the luxury of being the Son of God, who can just pop away at a moment's notice after coming back from the dead (which is what he does, in the story: once the disciples have their eyes opened, he leaves). But this is Elle, out, resurrected, staying.

"So. There've been a lot of changes in my life over the last couple years. But with this piece I guess I wanted to capture a place that holds a lot of happy memories. Even in the darker times. Somewhere I always felt safe."

Safe Space comes after the moment of realization, after Elle comes out, after her friends' eyes are opened. But implied in its source and its inspiration is the moment of truth, the moment of coming out. There's been a lot of that, this season, coming out. There's people that want to and are scared, and people that refuse to and walk away. We never had to go on that journey with Elle. But she's telling us about it, now. She's telling us that it was glorious, that it was godly, that it was religious, that she died and was resurrected.

Before I leave, I want to touch on Tao's importance in this piece. The disciples in Supper are the two men that are seated; the man standing is the innkeeper, who is not quite a part of Jesus' world. Interesting, that Charlie and Isaac, the two people of Elle's group who are part of the queer community, take the place of the two disciples, and Tao, the token straight friend, is standing in the place of the innkeeper; not a follower of Jesus but a witness to the miracle of his resurrection anyway. They are all different people in this painting; different identities, different lives, different loves. But they were all there to witness Elle revealing herself in her resurrection. Tao, afraid of being left alone, is brought into this inner sanctum of Elle's world. Into her safe space.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Living His Word

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." — Matthew 7:15

In the sinful times we live in deception is a fact of life. Sin takes on many forms and deception is just one of the forms it takes on. In our verse for today Jesus, looking to the times He lived in and beyond to the advent of the church age, warned His disciples about the deceptions that would inevitably come.

His warning was that they should watch out for false prophets. Jesus' disciples would have some understanding about this warning. The Old Testament speaks often of false prophets. Jesus, however, probably had something more comprehensive in mind than people who give false prophecies about the future. He probably had in mind anyone who claims to be a genuine herald of religious truth, but is actually in the service of evil motives.

A false prophet is someone who comes to the disciples of Jesus in sheep's clothing. On the outside, then, they have the appearance of someone who is sincere, helpful, and benign. Like sheep, they appear to be innocent. They appear to be loving and godly people. Based on appearances, the disciples would be inclined to receive them into the fold. False prophets gain entrance by claiming a divine call, by claiming to teach God's will and ways, but who are actually energized by more sinister motives. What they teach and preach is a distortion of the truth, a mere pretense designed to get them what they really want.

What does the false prophet really want? Although outwardly false prophets look like sheep, inwardly they are ravenous wolves. Wolves feed on sheep. The false prophet is in the ministry to use disciples for nefarious purposes, to gain their wealth, to exploit their time and effort, and to live a life of excess. Jesus, for example, accused the scribes and Pharisees of his own day of being hypocrites who outwardly looked righteous and holy, but who inwardly were "full of greed and self-indulgence" (Matthew 23:25).

How can we avoid the deception of the false prophets? The Apostle John says we should "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1). Naivety has no place in the church of Jesus Christ. We must accept the fact that there are false prophets in the world.

We must test to see if the lives and teaching of those who come to us line up with the word of God.

© 2016 by Bible League International

[marysittingathisfeet]

Mary: Woman of Faith and Prophecy

"My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful     of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me—     holy is his name." Luke 1 46-49

Many books, commentaries, and articles have been written about Mary, the mother of Jesus. I am not under any illusion that I can provide any new insights. But today when I was reading my morning verses, I was struck by the incredible faith that Mary possessed. This was probably why God chose her to be the vessel that carried His son.

She was a woman of faith. This was portrayed in two primary examples. The first was when she was told that she would bare a child. She accepted the news without question.

"I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” - Luke 1:38. Compare her response to Zechariah when he was told that his elderly wife Elizabeth would bare a child.

"Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.” Luke 1:18 Some would point out that Mary did question -“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” Luke 1:34.

The circumstances were different. Wasn't there another elderly woman who conceived int he Bible? Sarah. Zechariah as a priest would have had to memorize scripture. God had demonstrated in the past that he was able to have a woman past menopause conceive and bare a child. Mary was and is the only virgin to ever conceive. It was natural for her to ask how. In addition Zechariah says How can I. His focus is on himself. Whereas Mary asks how will it be done.

Understand that Mary being pregnant out of wedlock was in serious trouble. If she wasn't stoned for adultery, then she would be ostracized and scorned by her family, neighbors, and friends. I am sure that Mary was well aware of this. She had to be concerned. Yet when she meets Elizabeth does she moan or cry about her predicament. Instead she declares that "the Mighty One has done great things for me."

So what great things was Mary talking about? It wasn't wealth. Mary remained poor her whole life. Mary acknowledges her humble state- "for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant." even after she was told that she would.

She was not given prestige and honor in her community. “Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him." Mark 6: 2,3

Here we see that Mary did not hold any special place of honor in her village. She and her children are listed as equals. The speaker does not say anything like, "Jesus he is the mighty Mary's son. Of course God is using him. Like son like mother."

The great thing that Mary was talking about was that she was chosen to bare and care for the Messiah. God's son. The old testament is filled with prophecies regarding Jesus. Mary would have known them and she believed.

Mary was also prophetic. She was correct when she declared, "From now on all generations will call me blessed." She is indeed honored around the world. Even Mohammed who had no respect for woman as evidenced by having said that woman should behave properly because he has seen Hell, and the majority of its dwellers were woman. Mary is mentioned by name (Maryam) about 70 times in the Quran, making her the only woman named in the Islamic scripture and the most exalted female figure in Islam.  However, I am certain she would have been appalled to know that there would be those who would worship her. Honor her yes. Worship her no.

Mary was also submissive to God. When Gabriel the angel tells her of Gods plan, Mary replies quickly and without hesitation; "“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Luke 1: 38

Mary was a disciple of Jesus. Yes he was her son by birth, but she submitted herself to him as God. When the disciples were told to wait in the upper room Mary was there with them.

The apostles had just watched Jesus return to heaven.

"Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. " Acts 1:12-14

So when the day of Pentecost came, we can assume that Mary was there. "When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. " Acts 2: 1-4.

It says ALL of them were filled with the spirit. God showed no partiality that day. Woman and men were filled with the spirit. Jesus brothers and mother were filled as well as the other 100+ people who were in that room. We know that there was about 120 people waiting in the upper room.

"In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty).." Acts 1:15 

Mary was a remarkable woman who served God her entire life but she was not perfect. At one point she seemed to want to interfere with Jesus ministry. Jesus was being accused of being possessed. Mary, her sons and daughters arrive and ask for Jesus.

"Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”" Luke 3:31.

Why? We can only conjecture. Maybe she heard what was being said about her son and fearing for him was trying to get him to come home. The siblings were brought perhaps as part of a family intervention. After all even the disciples did not understand that Jesus would die for mankind. The disciples thought Jesus had come to establish an earthly kingdom where Jesus would rule like David. This is why James and John approached Jesus and said, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” Mark 10:35-45.

I am glad that Mary was not perfect. God can use us to fulfill His will despite our weaknesses. Like Mary we have to have faith, submit, and be grateful for all that God has done.

[hiswordsarekisses]

We are not saved by keeping the law. However, when we get saved God writes His law in our hearts so that it becomes a part of it. As He transforms us we find that we want to live the way HE wants us to live and we find d He has provided the power of His grace to make that possible.

Anyone who has read even just the Matthew chapter 5 can see that He in no way removed or relaxed the law - in fact, because He would provide the motive and power to keep it, He increased it!!! (Read carefully the second half of that chapter! It is even more strict that the original law! See verses 17-28 especially!)

The following is by Leroy Eims, and I just had to share because it is amazingly clear:

“Some people maintain that the "law of love" has replaced even the moral commands of Jesus and that our only rule is to "love our neighbor as ourself."

They quote Paul: "The one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:8-10).

Some people understand Paul to say that the New Testament principle of love has replaced the Old Testament principle of law.

Whereas the Jewish nation in the Old Testament lived under a number of specific moral laws, the church in the New Testament has "come of age" and now lives by the higher principle of love.

Since love must be voluntary and cannot be compelled, so the thinking goes, love and law are mutually exclusive.

But if we realize the moral law is a transcript — a written reproduction — of the moral character of God and that "God is love" (1 John 4:8), we see that we cannot distinguish between law and love.

Both express the character of God. They’re two sides of the same coin.

For example, Paul said in Romans 13:10, "love does no wrong to its neighbor.”

If we didn’t also have the commandments (which Paul quoted in verse 9) against such things as adultery, stealing, and murder, how would we know what it means to harm one’s neighbor?

Love provides the motive for obeying the commands of the law, but the law provides specific direction for exercising love.

“The whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."”

You see, we are held to a higher standard because He has provided everything we need for life and godliness. (2nd Peter 1:3) So if we refuse to lay down our will and take up His with all of its power, that’s our bad.Behold, I give unto you power to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” Luke‬ ‭10‬:‭19‬‬

“‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭17‬-‭20‬ ‭

[eli-kittim]

The Fifth Quest for the Historical Jesus: The Kittim Factor

Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively futurist terms. This unique approach was developed by Eli of Kittim, especially in his 2013 work, The Little Book of Revelation. Kittim doesn’t consider Jesus' life as something that happened in history but rather as something that will occur in the last days as a fulfillment of biblical claims. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futurist eschatology (i.e. future/anticipated history) in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all in the end-times. Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.

Kittim views God's revelation of Jesus in the New Testament gospel literature as a proleptic account. That is to say, the gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently existing or accomplished. They are written as historical fictional stories, meaning that they are fictional narratives set in a specific historical period, incorporating real events and details while allowing for invented characters and plotlines to drive the stories. The term “prolepsis,” in this particular case, refers to the anachronistic depiction of Jesus as existing prior to his proper or historical time. This is based on a foreshadowing technique of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished.

By way of illustration, Second Peter 1:16-19 demonstrates that the so-called “eyewitness accounts” were actually based on visions that were then written down as if they had already happened (proleptically). The same holds true in Acts 10:40-41 in which we are told that Jesus’ resurrection was based on visions because it was only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God.” We find the same motif in Luke’s gospel! No one saw Jesus during or after the so-called resurrection. The women saw a “vision” (Lk 24:23–24). Likewise, Paul’s knowledge of Jesus is based entirely on visions (Gal. 1:11–12).

Acts 3:20-21 also says that Christ will not be sent to earth until the consummation of the ages (cf. Mt. 19:28). Put differently, the gospel stories were written down as if the events they were depicting had already happened (proleptically). Similarly, First Peter 1:10-11 claims that the New Testament prophets “predicted the sufferings of the Messiah” in advance (cf. Isa. 46:10)!

In contrast to the gospels, the epistles demonstrate that all these events will occur at the end of the ages, or at the end of the world. For example, Galatians 4:4 proclaims that Jesus will be born during the consummation of the ages, expressed by the apocalyptic phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which is defined in Ephesians 1:10 as the end of the world! Christ’s birth in Revelation 12:5 is also set in the future. Verse 5 describes the birth of the messiah, and the immediate next verse talks about the great tribulation of the end times. Even Luke 17:30 claims that the Son of man has not yet been revealed! In First Peter 1:20 it is explicitly stated that Jesus will be initially revealed “at the final point of time”. Hebrews 9:26 leaves no room for doubt about what is being communicated when it states that Jesus will die for the sins of humankind once “at the end of the ages” (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων)! A word study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Dan. 12:4 LXX). Revelation 19:10 also informs us that the testimony to Jesus is prophetic (not historical).

In fact, most of the evidence with regard to the Messianic timeline in both the Old and New Testaments is consistent with the epistles rather than the gospels. For example, Zephaniah 1:7-8 declares that the Lord’s sacrifice will occur during “the day of the Lord” (not in antiquity; cf. Zeph. 1:14-18). Isaiah 2:19 says that people will hide in the caves of the rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth.” In other words, the Lord’s resurrection is not separate from but contemporaneous with judgement day (cf. Rev. 6:15-17)! Similarly, Daniel 12:1 puts the death and resurrection of the anointed prince just prior to the great tribulation of the end times. In fact, First Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by James Dunn). That’s precisely why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are essentially futurist. Kittim’s method is therefore revolutionizing the field of historical Jesus Studies.

Kittim’s new findings falsify the conclusions drawn from the previous quests for the historical Jesus both epistemologically and methodologically. Epistemologically because what we thought we knew was derived from fiction, not fact. And methodologically because the approaches were not, in fact, based on historical or expository data. Therefore, if we take all the research into account, especially from the Greek New Testament epistles, the future story of Jesus makes the most sense and fits with all the evidence!

Eli Kittim’s work seeks to develop certain new criteria to the study of the historical Christ. His extensive research project is primarily based on translation and exegesis of Biblical Greek, with special attention given to the New Testament epistles. In his view, instead of using subjective criteria to evaluate sources, it’s best to employ a different approach to research methodology. The problem in the previous quests for the historical Jesus was that everything was centered on the gospels without much attention given to the epistles. For centuries, we’ve tried to interpret the explicit (epistles) in light of the implicit (gospels). And yet, it’s the didactic portions of the Bible that teach with clear and explicit statements. Thus, priority must be given to the epistles. This represents a significant paradigm shift, which certainly contributes to the historical Jesus studies and could, perhaps, be viewed as the fifth quest for the historical Jesus. Studies in New Testament Greek have confirmed Kittim’s unique interpretation of Jesus! In fact, both the biblical and extra-biblical sources complement rather than contradict Kittim’s findings. It's no wonder why Philo, the most prolific commentator on the Bible, and a contemporary of Jesus, who visited Jerusalem, had no knowledge of Jesus and didn’t write about him. If Jesus’ life in the New Testament epistles is, in fact, set in a different context than previously assumed, then it would necessitate that we revisit our previous considerations.

[nach-yomish]

Welcome to Nach Yomi!

This is a blog devoted to the project of studying and discussing the later books of the Tanakh: the Prophets (Nevi'im) and the Writings (Ketuvim). We will be reading one chapter (perek) a day, except for on Yom Tov and Shabbat. Most discussions will be happening on our new discord server, send an ask for an invite! Most posts will be by @etz-ashashiyot, whose idea it was, with assistance from @resplendent-ragamuffin.

Anyone is allowed to participate by reading the text from Sefaria or their copy of the Tanakh and listening to the lecture (shiur) linked in each post.

I am Jewish and will be leading this discussion using Jewish methods of text study, but non-Jews are welcome here.

This is a sideblog of @etz-ashashiyot and @resplendent-ragamuffin, and so post replies will come from there.

Please add your thoughts in reblogs to help keep the discussion in one place.

I'd love to participate but am feeling in over my head due to all the Hebrew and background Jewish context. What should I do?

Totally understandable! I would suggest doing some background reading to get up to speed. I am also happy to answer questions to the best of my ability if you're still feeling lost after reviewing these resources.

Resources for Jewish Background Context and Judaism:

What is the Tanakh?

Why not just study Torah/the full Tanakh?

Jews study a portion of the Torah each week and traditionally chant it aloud at Shabbat morning services. This is called the weekly Torah portion or Parsha.

Therefore, most religiously involved Jews are already familiar with the Torah, but often less familiar with the later books of the Tanakh.

Some portions of the Nach also get read weekly as part of the Torah reading. This is called the Haftarah. However, these are just excerpts and do not cover the full Tanakh.

That sounds interesting! Where can I find a schedule for the parsha and haftarah? Hebcal, Chabad, Sefaria and other major Jewish websites list them up to date and for the future.

Isn't the Tanakh the same as the Christian Old Testament? Not exactly. There are many similarities and overlap, but the translations are different (different histories and theological motivations) and the books are ordered differently in the Old Testament in order to better set up the Jesus narrative.

This involves a lot of history that I wasn't taught. Not to worry! There's an app for that.

I'm struggling to follow the Hebrish (English with lots of Hebrew words and phrases) used by the podcast instructors. Here is a resource for looking up some of these. If you're still lost, please feel free to ask, although there's a chance I don't know either. Edit: @resplendent-ragamuffin has graciously been detailing them on each post and honestly, I've learned a lot from reading them, too!

Okay that's great, but why do some of these words seem to exchange the "T" sound for an "S" sound? That's a quirk of Ashkenazi Hebrew pronunciation; one explanation here.

I have some other question about Judaism that you didn't address here. Understandable! There's a lot to learn if you are from (for example) a Christian background and don't know much about Judaism, Jewish history, or Jewish culture. Jew FAQ is an excellent website for newcomers, as well as Essential Judaism by George Robinson (my favorite introductory book to recommend to people.)

[psalmonesermons]

Why be born again? Part 2

Nicodemus comes to see Jesus: John 3:1-4

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee- which means he was a deeply religious man, who scheduled prayer 7 times each day, he also visited the temple 3 times a day, and would include discussions on theology and perform charitable deeds on a regular basis.

Nicodemus was in the ruler of the Jews, a ruler of the people, in other words, a top man and a VIP. Some historians think that Nicodemus might have been part of the Ben Gurion family who were a wealthy and powerful family in Israel in those days.

Nicodemus as a Pharisee would have known the Law and the Prophets' scriptures and would certainly have learned them by heart.

2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

v2 Might have been to avoid public scrutiny or might have been both men were busy during the day. Nicodemus calls Jesus rabbi meaning ‘professor’ or ‘teacher’ indicating that he was impressed with Jesus’ learning at a soulish level. However, intelligence is soulish, and Nicodemus did not call Jesus Lord.

When Nicodemus called Jesus Rabbi (a teacher from God) he had got it right thus far, for the many miracles Jesus did were a proof that he was messiah.

The miracles of Jesus included those prophesied in the old testament for example from Isaiah 29:18-19 (deaf, blind healed etc.), and in Isaiah 35: 4- 6 (deaf ears opened, mute healed, and the lame leaping etc.). These miracles were prophesied some 700 years BC. Another miracle Jesus performed was to heal people with leprosy. Nicodemus would be aware that although the priests routinely diagnosed leprosy as in Leviticus 13, no one until Jesus had actually cured leprosy (see Leviticus 14). Modern medicine has only found a cure for leprosy in the last twenty years.

When John the Baptist-heard of the works of Christ-he sent messengers to ask Jesus are you the expected Messiah…? Jesus answered in a spiritual manner-quoting the miracles! Nicodemus wants to talk theology, but Jesus wants to talk spiritually to him (remember Nicodemus has only a dead spirit).

v3 Jesus tells him, Amen, Amen, your spirit needs to be born again (regenerated or made alive) or you cannot see the Kingdom of God. Nicodemus’ dead spirit needed to be regenerated i.e. brought to life.

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

v4 Nicodemus responds from his soul asking if Jesus meant a physical rebirth showing that Jesus’ words sounded crazy to him -he did not understand what Jesus was telling him.

In Part 3 we continue to explore the fascinating dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus in

[cheerfullycatholic]

Biblical Revelation teaches that all human beings possess inherent dignity because they are created in the image and likeness of God: “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ […] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:26-27). With this, humanity has a specific quality that means it is not reducible to purely material elements. Moreover, the “image” does not define the soul or its intellectual abilities but the dignity of man and woman.

In their relationship of equality and mutual love, both the man and the woman represent God in the world and are also called to cherish and nurture the world. Because of this, to be created in the image of God means to possess a sacred value that transcends every distinction of a sexual, social, political, cultural, and religious nature. Our dignity is bestowed upon us by God; it is neither claimed nor deserved. Every human being is loved and willed by God and, thus, has an inviolable dignity. In Exodus, at the heart of the Old Testament, God shows himself to be the one who hears the cry of the poor, sees the misery of his people, and cares for those who are least and for the oppressed (cf. Ex. 3:7; 22:20-26). The same teaching can be found in the Deuteronomic Code (cf. Dt. 12-26); here, the teaching on rights is transformed into a manifesto of human dignity, particularly in favor of the threefold category of the orphan, the widow, and the stranger (cf. Dt. 24:17). The ancient precepts of Exodus are recalled and applied to the moment in the preaching of the prophets, who represent the critical conscience of Israel. The prophets Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah have entire chapters denouncing injustice. Amos bitterly decries the oppression of the poor and his listeners’ failure to recognize any fundamental human dignity in the destitute (cf. Am. 2:6-7; 4:1; 5:11-12). Isaiah pronounces a curse against those who trample on the rights of the poor, denying them all justice: “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice” (Is. 10:1-2). This prophetic teaching is echoed in Wisdom Literature. For example, Sirach equates the oppression of the poor with murder: “To take away a neighbor’s living is to murder him; to deprive an employee of his wages is to shed blood” (Sir. 34:22). In the Psalms, the religious relationship with God comes through the defense of the weak and needy: “Do justice for the weak and the orphan; give justice to the poor and afflicted. Rescue the weak and the needy; set them free from the hand of the wicked” (Ps. 82:3-4).

Dignitas Infinita, paragraph 11

[alpaca-clouds]

Something that irks me about religion

Let me talk about something, that irks me about religion. Mostly about Christianity, but I am rather sure that it is true for many others as well, though maybe not quite to the same degree as it is with Christians.

Now, if you follow me a bit longer, you know that I am all about accepting people of different religions and faiths and that I am annoyed by the general atheist movement acting all enlightened because they do not believe in any god.

But... at the same time there is also the tendency of religious people to just fucking cherry pick their religious texts, ignoring both the textual context and the historical context.

Again, speaking about the bible because I think it for one is one of the most extreme examples of this - and also because I know most about it. Oh, and also because it has been most used in terms of colonization and supressing other people.

A lot of the people preaching hate with the use of the bible will just ignore the core message of the thing. They will be all about Jesus, but just ignore Jesus's teachings. Because Jesus, the man, did not talk about the gays at all. But he was very big on the entire "love thy neighbour" thing - and on the "rich people are bad, actually" thing as well. He did defend prostitutes, adulterers, and yes, also people who were probably read as gay at the time. But he raised his hand against the rich people, who would not share. Yet, that context is completely ignored, when it comes to those people. Rather they will stick to the two mentions (one in the letters of Paul and one in the old testament) of gay being bad and ignore most of the things Jesus has said.

I grew up in a very, very sternly catholic environment. And I have read the bible. Several times. And even as a teenager I joked, that a lot of Christians should call themselves Paulians, because they sure give a lot more meaning to what Paul is writing in his letters, than what Jesus is actually saying in the gospels.

But especially with the bible, there is another thing that people keep ignoring:

The translation

The choice of books to be included

See, the bible was originally written in Hebrew (though of some parts we only have Greek manuscripts surviving). From which it was translated into Latin with the Latin version being the one that was around for the longest time. Modern translations in some cases build on the Hebrew original - in some cases on the Latin version, though.

So, even if you do unquestioningly believe that the bible is the Word of God... The translation ain't. And we do know that there are things that were mistranslated. Some probably accidentally, while others have probably been mistranslated to further a political agender.

One of those accidental mistranslations is the eagle that was mentioned several times, while it was originally a vulture.

One of the very non-accidental mistranslations is Eva being created out of Adam's rip. But in the Hebrew version it actually just says she was made of "a part" of Adam, with the word implying that she was mde of his half. Making her much more equal than the "rip" translation.

And stuff like that is very common. Especially with the old testament.

Meanwhile with the new testament... Well, if you have ever read Dan Brown or listened to any conspiracy theories at all, you will know that there are actually way more than four gospels. And while I do not necessarily think that this is a big conspiracy or anything... All the stuff that is in the new conspiracy - and all the stuff that was left out - was chosen as such by bishops in the 4th century. They were the ones who canonized what we know as the bible today. And yes, part of that happened for political reasons.

Let's come back to my entire thing about the Paulists. Paul played a large role in establishing Christianity in Rome and all of that, yes. But technically... He never met Jesus and he also was not a prophet or anything. For the most part he is a historical figure, not a religious one. Yet, not only are all his letters part of the New Testament, a lot of religious violence and persecution is justified through them, even though his words are not Words of God. Even Paul never claims that they are. They are just the words of some dude who converted to Christianity early after having a supposed encounter with Jesus' ghost.

And, you know, having all of that in there... it is most certainly a choice. And just refering to that, rather than what Jesus actually says, is too.

And there are many things like this. Things that get left out or ignored or are never questioned.

I mean, just look at the thing about pork. Christians still have the old testament saying that animals with parted hooves are impure. But in ONE of the four gospels Jesus says "Yeah, no, actually, go ahead, eat 'em pigs!" But, again, those gospels were just four of many. And it is not said in the other gospels. So... Did Jesus really say it or was it just put in there, because it made it easier in marketing the religion to Europeans, who sure loved their pork?

I know a lot of people are told how they are supposed to read their holy texts. And, heck, a lot of religions (not only Christianity) has a whole lot of issues going on about who gets to interpret those religious texts. But... I really wished a lot of people would interact with them more critically.

I do not have a problem with any religion per se. I think there are a lot of valuable lessons you can get from any holy text. And if the text to you is the Word of God, I am totally fine with that.

But I really do wish people would just see, that even if it is the Word of God, it got still delivered to us through human hands. Be it through those translators - or through those who taught it to us. And I feel we really need to do better with questioning their agenda.

Just a thought.

[pickmeforjesus]

another day, another pro gun "Christians" swaying souls into hell by twisting the Scriptures

This one is going to be long and I know that hardly anyone will read it, but I actually do it for 1) for God who explicitly told me to "do my part" and 2)the 1% of Christians who are actually dedicated to follow Christ and not trample the word of God because of their sinful entitlement to murder.

If even one (1) person reading this actually changes their mind on gun violence than it will be a Grace from the Lord and I am glad of being a useful servant of Christ.

I'm going to call out the misquote, dishonesty and LIES of typical pro gun Christians. Since tumblr isn't really handy for text formatting I'm going to color code every "chapter" of the exposé to smoothen up the read

Israelites prerogatives ≠ Christian prerogatives

The bigger picture

Jesus is the Sword - not guns

God is the only self-defense

Let's begin ! ✝️💙

1. Israelites prerogatives ≠ Christian prerogatives

I'll tackle down the tumblr user reply to the ask later, to focus on the link she posted as a "pretty well done exploration" as of why gun violence is seemingly a-OK to Christians.

I'd like to start off saying that every Christian using Old Testament Prescriptions to legitimize the use of violence to CHRISTIANS is either, uneducated about basic Christian theology, a liar, a false prophet or a maybe everything at once. That's why this website quoting plentiful of OT (=Old Testament) prescriptions FIRST is a very bad omen forecasting the piss poor theology that's going to unfold in that page.

Israelites had to abide to specific rules and commandments that matched their own very specific purpose : they had to fight/go to WAR to create the EARTHLY kingdom of God. The commandment compelling to not kill was only for Israelites (because Israelites went to war and killed cities foreign to Israel). And even within the Kindgom of Israel, there were cases where murder was allowed in situations when it was sanctioned by God to kill (those caught breaking the sabbath had to stoned, for example).

Ever since Jesus crucifixion and the veil got torn, Christians don't abide to the prescriptions of Israelites. There's no more kingdom of God on earth. There are chances that you, who's currently reading this, are living in a country with defined frontiers that you don't have to go to war to defend and/or expand (as God told you to).

We do not abide to the 613 commandments of Israelites anymore : we can eat pork (no more "impure food"), don't have to stone anyone not doing the sabbath, circumcise newborn son, etc.

Interestingly, the same Christians who use OT prescription enabling the use of violence and murder, don't feel compelled to follow the other set of commandments abiding to Israelites. They're cherry-picking what goes their way simply because they a) don't understand the Bible b)are dishonest.

Israelites had to obey to ALL commandments - disobeying to one, was like disobeying to the WHOLE Torah (James 2:10-11)

Feel entitled to Israelites rights? Fine, abide to their OBLIGATIONS, too.

You think you still have God sanctioned right to kill? Then keep that same energy for the other 600+ commandments of those having the same right : do the sabbath, circumcise your sons, stop eating pork, stone adulterous people, etc etc. You cannot be a CHRISTIAN while abiding to cherry-picked Law prerogative. You cannot have it both ways.

2. The bigger picture

In the tumblr post reply, she refers to the passage in Luke where Jesus lets his disciple arm themselves moments before he gets arrest. This passage is infamously misquoted by pro gun zealots. Their trick is that they ALWAYS disregard the second part of the story where Jesus scold the very person who used their weapon to protect him (Peter) and went as far as heal the man, which shows how dishonest they are. But that's not enough ;

In the website she linked, we reach a whole new level of Scriptural twisting dishonesty

It's interesting how this person is switching the word of the passage from "sword" to "gun". I'll elaborate on this later on the point #3, but the "sword" is a very significant symbol in the Bible, and seeing this person recklessly replace it with a "gun" truly shows how off base they are when it comes to biblical literacy. Bad theology all around.

"It is difficult to make absolute claims beyond these observations" then why quoting those passage in a pro gun defense article? If you can't draw a conclusive interpretation from that passage, what's the point of bringing it up?

Jesus giving his consent for his disciple to bring along weapons doesn't mean he endorsed their use. Jesus said "That's enough", not "That's good" or "That's right". The Bible is full of examples of God "consenting" to humans carrying on their sin up until a certain point. It doesn't mean God condoned the sin itself. And yet, many pro gun Christians use this cherry-picked passage of Jesus in Gethsemane to act like Jesus endorsed gun use.

Jesus explicitly saying ""Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" and ""Stop! No more of this" are pretty clear, actually. The author quotes them here :

It's not that we're "getting a sense of(...)", OP. That's literally what Jesus says, that's not an impression or a feeling. What's more straightforward then saying "Stop" when witnessing a violent act? why are you acting like there was any ambiguity about the actual intention or message of Jesus saying that? There's not. Jesus doesn't want violence to happen. Period.

But you wanna know why the author is acting oblivious about the straightforwardness of those passages ? because if they admit that Jesus rebuked violence, then their stance in favor of gun violence ends up moot. So they act dumb.

Note that after that explanation, the author states : "The sword is not always the appropriate response, especially in persecution for Christ." but they miserably fail in showing in what situation using the sword is actually an "appropriate response" beside quoting the Old Testament (which I already explained in point #1 why Christians weren't entitled to OT prescriptions). And when they do quote the New Testament, they do so in a fashion that leaves out the whole picture to twist the actual message of that passage (e.g quoting Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭35‬-‭38 to act like Jesus condoned gun carrying when he allowed to do so to publicly rebuke them later and make his point known to a multitude of people)

3. Jesus is the Sword - not guns

Now I'd like to reflect on the Sword that is repeatedly used in the Bible, and what it actually represents in the Gospel (plot twist : not guns)

One fundamental staple of a sound theology is acknowledging that words usage do matter in the Bible and are particularly relevant when they are consistently rehashed through the books. The Sword is one of them.

I'd like to quote verses of the New Testament featuring the Sword

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

The Sword is SPIRITUAL. And you know who's the "Word of God"? JESUS (John 1:1 and 14)

Hebrew 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Here the God of Word is again metaphorically represented as a sharped tool ("sharper than any twoedged sword")

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Only Jesus is entitled to carry a Sword ; because HE is the Sword. Has Jesus used a physical sword to kill people while on earth? or called his disciples to carry a physical sword? in Luke 22:35-39 in which Jesus tells them to "buy" a sword, a few moments later he rebukes the one who actually used it, so it's definitely NOT a physical sword he was talking about. Why would Jesus incite his disciples into possessing something (carrying a sword) only to scold them for using it moments later?? it doesn't make any sense. His disciples definitely got something wrong in the process (=understanding the sword as something physical, not spiritual). That's why reading Luke 22:35-36 as elevating weaponry as godly sanctioned is a total misconception.

The Sword that Jesus does bring is SPIRITUAL. He's the Sword of the Spirit that will separate His children from the rest of the flock. The joint vs the narrow. The goat vs the lamb. Heaven vs Hell.

Pro guns are misguiding people into believing that guns are the equivalent of the "sword" that's talked about in the Bible. That couldn't be more untrue.

Either those people either know that the biblical Sword = Jesus and LIE about it to project what they want into Jesus teaching, or they don't and by their ignorance, they are professing a destructive theology that's bewildering many Christians. Hosea 4:6

This person is LYING to you. That's why they obsessively resort to quote prescriptions for ISRAELITES to back up their falsehood. The Philistines aren't a thing anymore. CHRISTIANS don't have a Kingdom to protect & expand. Christians are dispatched through the Nations - there's no more united "people of YHYW nation". The only relevant kingdom to defend is THE SPIRITUAL KINGDOM OF GOD.

Possession of weapons is discouraged in the sense that Christians aren't entitled to violence (see point #4). This is the same logic as acknowledging that Christians shouldn't possess porn videos because adultery is forbidden. And inb4 the comparison with knives (who can also be used a deathly weapons) : knives actually have a purpose beside hurting or killing. Normal people don't buy knive having in mind hurting someone ; therefore owning them isn't sinful.

To show you how dishonest this person is, look at them quoting Romans 12:19 that states to "NEVER take [our] revenge".

How "NEVER". is remotely compatible with "oh in some cases it's okay to use violence"?? And yet it doesn't seem to ring a bell into the author's mind. Crazy.

Then the author proceeds to make the more asinine examples of "good" use of violence

As tackled in point #1 the shady usage of Israel prescription to justify how CHRISTIANS can use violence is an instant giveaway of bad theology and should be dismissed when it comes to CHRISTIAN (not Jewish) theology

But can we also talk about the author saying that David is "not a soldier???" KING David? who spend almost his whole life FIGHTING IN WARS and building the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel?? "NOT a solider"???? .......This person can't be serious, and I'm legitimately embarrassed for anyone taking seriously anything coming from this page.

Then the author compels to use to look into worldly entertainment(??!!) for example of proper use of violence *shrugs*

The cognitive dissonance of quoting Romans 12:19 ("Never take your revenge") just after elevating -full of violence and aggressiveness- gunfight/Western movies as an example of "great virtue" is mind-blowing....

4. God is the only self-defense

The reason some Christians rely on their gun -instead of God- is because of their unfaithfulness.

They don't believe that God can protect them when needed, so instead they elevate physical weapons and shoe horn them as biblical.

They also undermine God's power by acting like beside physical violence, we cannot help people :

This couldn't be further from the truth!! There are NO EXAMPLE IN THE BIBLE OF CHRISTIANS USING VIOLENCE TO SAVE PEOPLE.

Abiding in the Lord asks for resilience and Love. Which is someone pro gun Christians desperately lack. Love is not compatible with Death.

The reason Jesus didn't resort to use violence against the men who came to arrest him (when he could) is out of obedience to the Lord. Non-violence is a direct commandment from God ; therefore Christianism is fundamentally non-violent.

Proverbs 3:31

Do not envy the violent or choose any of their ways

Matthew 5:38-39

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Therefore, every Christian defending the use of violence are disobeying God ; and every child of rebellion will end up in Hell.

No human is entitled to kill another creature of God. Their body belong to God, and we are not entitled to "steal" God's property.

TL;DR :

every Christian using Old Testament Prescriptions to legitimize the use of violence to CHRISTIANS, is either uneducated about basic Christian theology, a liar, or a false prophet

You cannot be a Christian while feeling entitled to the Law prerogative. If you want to be entitled to murder like the Israelites, then you necessarily have to abide to the same Law as them. Christians can't have it both ways : the Law is incompatible with the Grace & Salvation covenant (Romans 8)

Jesus giving his consent for his disciple to bring along weapons doesn't mean he endorsed their use. Jesus said "That's enough", not "That's good" or "That's right". The Bible is full of example of God "consenting" to humans carrying on their sin up until a certain point. It doesn't mean God condoned the sin, but rather let humans learn & grown from their mistake.

The Christian "Sword" is Jesus, not guns

The reason some Christians rely on their gun -instead of God- is because of their unfaithfulness

[buggie-hagen]

Sermon for Third Sunday of Advent (12/17/23)

Primary Text | 1 Thessalonians 5:16-24

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

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

          In Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians, we get noticeably short verses like “Rejoice always” “Pray without ceasing” “Give thanks in all circumstances.” Much could be said about such things. But this year we will focus on vss. 19-20: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets.” God the Spirit, whom we call life-giver and Lord, is a person distinct from God the Father and God the Son. Though, of course, we believe they are yet just one God. Hence, the Trinity. (pause) If we did not have the Holy Spirit on our side, we would know nothing of Jesus Christ or God the Father. Therefore, without the Holy Spirit we would know nothing of Christmas or Easter or anything at all of God’s good and gracious heart. It is Jesus Christ who makes God’s good and gracious heart known to us. Therefore, it also matters if the Jesus we know is the actual Jesus or a counterfeit Jesus. But we would know nothing of this if the Holy Spirit did not shine the light of Christ into our heart.

So we must know what precisely the work of the Holy Spirit is. How does he do his work? And what does Paul mean when he warns us not to “quench” the Holy Spirit and why does he warn “Not to despise the words of prophets” as he does in 1 Thessalonians. The Spirit’s work is to make Christ known. Pay attention here because a lot of people misunderstand the Holy Spirit. He’s not a warm fuzzy feeling. Nor does his work commence once we do something to prepare for him. For example, he does not come about when we cross our legs looking inward to see if there’s something in there. Nor does waiting in silence with a clear mind get him to act. No, the Holy Spirit is given through the word. And when I say the word, yes we can talk about the written word as we have it in the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures, in both Old and New Testaments, are the authority and norm for all Christian faith and life. Lest we think we can be a lone wolf Christian, privileged above what is written is the oral word. “Faith comes by hearing” is the principle active here. Meaning, the word spoken into our ears by somebody else. The word is an external thing. It is called a word because it is a preached thing. God the Holy Spirit is always pointing us away from ourselves and what we think and to the word that comes from beyond ourselves. This word is not a thought or a feeling, he is a person. Jesus Christ, the Lord. (pause) The word can be compared to a bonfire. You got the wood stacked together, the fuel to get it burning, and the flame to get it going. With it we enter into the joy of our Father. We feel its warmth because the Spirit has carried us out of the cold and to the bonfire of the word. When St. Paul warns us against quenching the Spirit or despising the words of prophets he means don’t take a big ol’ pale of water and douse out the bonfire so that it no longer can give its warmth by which we may have life. To quench the Spirit or to despise the prophets means to take a pale of water to the fire of the word. This refers to Third Commandment issues, like not to listen to sermons, not to regularly receive the Lord’s Supper, not to be baptized in the Triune name, not to hear the absolution—especially when otherwise one could. The Advent of  Christ in the preached word and sacraments are the logs the Holy Spirit uses to create and to strengthen our faith. The Spirit is quenched when we disregard his ways and when we demote the status of his instruments, the oral word and sacraments, making them something other than a divine institution.

The Large Catechism gives us several tips on this matter. In the section on the Creed it says, “Neither you nor I could ever know anything about Christ, or believe in him and receive him as Lord, unless these were offered to us and bestowed on our hearts through the preaching of the gospel by the Holy Spirit.” So notice, it is the Spirit who is the one doing the preaching. Not Logan. Not Jon. Not Beatrice, not Jack and Jill—even though you see that we are the ones flapping our lips. It continues, “The work is finished and completed; Christ has acquired and won the treasure for us by his sufferings, death, and resurrection. But if the work remained hidden so that no one knew of it, it would have been all in vain, all lost.” So yes, Christ has done it all, But it would do no good if we didn’t know something about Christ. So the catechism continues, “In order that this treasure might not remain buried but be put to use and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to be published and proclaimed, in which he had given the Holy Spirit to offer and apply to us this treasure, this redemption.” I like how it says God has caused the Word to be published and proclaimed. Notice the word is not a matter of one’s own private take or personal interpretation. Instead it is God going public and publishing the word himself. Again, you see, how necessary the word is and how the Holy Spirit is the one to apply the treasure to us—through the word the Spirit gives forgiveness to you, through the word the Spirit gives life to you, and redemption unto you. And finally, the Large Catechism says, “Therefore being made holy is nothing else than bringing us to the Lord Christ to receive this blessing, to which we could not have come by ourselves” (LC 2:38). And this is the key. We do not come to these treasures and blessings by ourselves. The Holy Spirit must come to us by the oral word and make known these treasures and blessings to us. And then they will do us some good. And then, the warmth of the fire cures us of our cold hands and toes. If someone did not carry you to where the bonfire was we would never see it or know its warmth. But as it is, you and I have been brought to the bonfire—where God’s warmth heals us from the sin that made our bodies dead cold—making you truly alive like never before.

In St. Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, he gives a final blessing. He says, “May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And hear this: “The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do this” (1 Thess. 5:23-24). There we move from the law to gospel. The gospel is that God has called you to himself by the word. He has proclaimed and published this. Your sins are forgiven. That is a promise. By God’s very nature he cannot lie. Therefore we know that God is faithful to this word and to what he has spoken to you by somebody else. This promise remains for you all your life. The Spirit has made you and will keep you holy and you will therefore be blameless at the Advent, the Arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not by your own effort, not by your own strength, but because God himself has done it all.

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: REVERED PROPHETS: DID JESUS HAVE SIBLINGS?: Part 2

“Brother” and “sister” in the Bible

The word “brother” in the Old Testament has a very broad meaning; it refers to the immediate descendants of the father, the son and the male relatives as a whole, cousins, in-laws and those with blood ties and even includes friends and those with whom a person has political dealings. The words “brother” and “sister” were sometimes used to portray the main family members as we see in the example of the forty-two “brethren” of King Uzziah. Another interesting example is in the Song of Solomon, where two lovers are serenading one another, and the young man says in some verses of the song, “How sweet is your love, my sister, my bride.” Maurice Bucaille, commenting on the word “brother” in the New Testament states that the words “adelphoi” and “adelphai” in Greek refer to biological brother and sister, and he said that these words, had been defectively translated from Semitic languages, where they had been used to denote “kin” in the general sense and the people in question were probably cousins. As the word “cousin” did not exist in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages spoken by both Jesus and his disciples, they probably had no other option; they could either use the word “brother” or would have to define a person by calling them “my father’s sister’s son” and so on, which is neither easy nor appropriate, and this was the likely reason for Jesus using “brother” for his close acquaintances.

In the New Testament, the equivalent of the brother in Aramaic was given as the word “adelphos,” which in the general sense means “brother” or “brotherly friend,” a kind of sign of closeness to someone. Unlike in Hebrew or Aramaic, the word “anepsios” in ancient Greek gave a distinct meaning to the word “cousin,” but those who wrote the scriptures used “adelphos” or “friend” to correspond “cousin.”

So we understand from this that the writers of the New Testament used the same word “adelphos” from ancient Greek to convey the meaning of “friend” and for the meaning of “two sons of the same family” or “biological brothers.” This is very confusing when the text is translated into English or any other language.

According to the New Testament

One of the reasons for opinions that Jesus had brothers or sisters several verses in the New Testament which say that Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they had come together Joseph realized that she was carrying a child and had decided to leave Mary. But an angel came to Joseph in his dream and told him the truth of the miraculous conception, and Joseph decided to take Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:18–20; Luke 1:27; 2:5). There is no mention in the Qur’an or hadith of Joseph, the person said to be betrothed to Mary in the Bible, and there is certainly no report of the Biblical scriptures found in the Qur’an and hadith stating that Mary married this man called Joseph. However, there are a few weak reports of some historical sources that say that there was a carpenter of the same name who was a member of Mary’s family and both of them were serving at the Temple during the same period.

Another matter which leads the Protestant churches to believe that Jesus may have had brothers and sisters is the verse in the Gospel of Luke saying that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” (2:7). However, this declaration is no reason to believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters, this statement being rather a declaration that her first child would be a holy servant of his Lord (Luke 2:23) a declaration invoking legislation in the scriptures.

As further evidence, the Gospel of Luke (2:41–52) tells how Jesus attended the Temple in Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover with his parents, that he went missing, and that his parents were searching for him. We see there is no mention at all of any other children except Jesus. To the contrary, the context leads us to believe that there was only one child present.

Another special detail is that according to the Gospel of John (19:26–27), Jesus entrusted his mother to one of the disciples when he was being placed on the crucifix, so immediately the question arises: if Jesus had brothers and sisters, then why did he entrust his mother to someone else? Even if we assume that Joseph, who was claimed to have married Mary was not alive at the time, there being no mention whatsoever of the existence of Jesus’ brothers or sisters at this point is another aspect which seems to invalidate the allegation.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The Books of the Bible: Old Testament (1 of 2) The Books of the Bible in order with introductions and summaries for the Old Testament.

The Five Books of the Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy

Genesis The Book of Genesis is the first book of the Christian Old Testament. Genesis speaks of beginnings and is foundational to the understanding of the rest of the Bible. It is supremely a book that speaks about relationships, highlighting those between God and his creation, between God and humankind, and between human beings.

Exodus The Book of Exodus is the second book of the Christian Old Testament. Exodus describes the history of the Israelites leaving Egypt after slavery. The book lays a foundational theology in which God reveals his name, his attributes, his redemption, his law and how he is to be worshiped.

Leviticus The Book of Leviticus is the third book of the Christian Old Testament. Leviticus receives its name from the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament) and means "concerning the Levites" (the priests of Israel). It serves as a manual of regulations enabling the holy King to set up his earthly throne among the people of his kingdom. It explains how they are to be his holy people and to worship him in a holy manner.

Numbers The Book of Numbers is the fourth book of the Christian Old Testament. Numbers relates the story of Israel's journey from Mount Sinai to the plains of Moab on the border of Canaan. The book tells of the murmuring and rebellion of God's people and of their subsequent judgment.

Deuteronomy The Book of Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Christian Old Testament. Deuteronomy ("repetition of the Law") serves as a reminder to God's people about His covenant. The book is a "pause" before Joshua's conquest begins and a reminder of what God required.

Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles

Joshua Joshua is a story of conquest and fulfillment for the people of God. After many years of slavery in Egypt and 40 years in the desert, the Israelites were finally allowed to enter the land promised to their fathers.

Judges The book of Judges depicts the life of Israel in the Promised Land—from the death of Joshua to the rise of the monarchy. It tells of urgent appeals to God in times of crisis and apostasy, moving the Lord to raise up leaders (judges) through whom He throws off foreign oppressors and restores the land to peace.

Ruth The book of Ruth has been called one of the best examples of short narrative ever written. It presents an account of the remnant of true faith and piety in the period of the judges through the fall and restoration of Naomi and her daughter-in-law Ruth (an ancestor of King David and Jesus).

1 Samuel Samuel relates God's establishment of a political system in Israel headed by a human king. Through Samuel's life, we see the rise of the monarchy and the tragedy of its first king, Saul.

2 Samuel After the failure of King Saul, 2 Samuel depicts David as a true (though imperfect) representative of the ideal theocratic king. Under David's rule the Lord caused the nation to prosper, to defeat its enemies, and to realize the fulfillment of His promises.

1 Kings 1 Kings continues the account of the monarchy in Israel and God's involvement through the prophets. After David, his son Solomon ascends the throne of a united kingdom, but this unity only lasts during his reign. The book explores how each subsequent king in Israel and Judah answers God's call—or, as often happens, fails to listen.

2 Kings 2 Kings carries the historical account of Judah and Israel forward. The kings of each nation are judged in light of their obedience to the covenant with God. Ultimately, the people of both nations are exiled for disobedience.

1 Chronicles Just as the author of Kings had organized and interpreted Israel's history to address the needs of the exiled community, so the writer of 1 Chronicles wrote for the restored community another history.

2 Chronicles 2 Chronicles continues the account of Israel's history with an eye for restoration of those who had returned from exile.

Books of Poetry and Songs: Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah

Ezra The book of Ezra relates how God's covenant people were restored from Babylonian exile to the covenant land as a theocratic (kingdom of God) community even while continuing under foreign rule.

Nehemiah Closely related to the book of Ezra, Nehemiah chronicles the return of this "cupbearer to the king" and the challenges he and the other Israelites face in their restored homeland.

Esther Esther records the institution of the annual festival of Purim through the historical account of Esther, a Jewish girl who becomes queen of Persia and saves her people from destruction.

[ifmypeopleza01]

Covenants and Testaments

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:33 Webster) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sin. (Matthew 26:28 Webster) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and groweth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13 Webster)

Question 1. How many times does the word "Testament" appear in the Old Testament? 0 Question 2. How many times does the word "Testament" appear in the New Testament? 14 Question 3. How many times does the word "Covenant" appear in the Old Testament? 272 Question 4. How many times does the word "Covenant" appear in the New Testament? 21 Question 5. How many times does the word "Covenant" appear in the Gospels? 1 Question 6. How many times does the word "Covenant" appear in Hebrews? 14

"Why all the questions?" you may ask. Strangely, we do not ever see the word "Covenant" being used by Jesus. The other thing is that the one book addressed specifically to Hebrews contains the most references to the term, all of them explaining what Jesus did in bringing the New Covenant. Yet, Jesus always used the word "Testament". For sure, the only time He used it was at the Last Supper where he instituted Communion - a remembrance meal. Why does Jesus call what He came to do a Testament and not a Covenant? Is there a difference between the two words? What is the difference? We already know what a Covenant is as we have defined this word already, however, let me give an extended definition using the definition from Webster's 1828 dictionary, but applying it to what we have learned. A Covenant is an agreement between two parties to work together on an issue or to make peace between them. The Covenant is usually mediated by a neutral third person who goes between the two parties stating the terms of the agreement ensuring they both understand and agree to the terms. The ceremony is usually witnessed by others. A Covenant often has a symbol or sign connected with the covenant. A common example of a covenant is a marriage where the rings are the symbol. As defined by Webster's 1828, a Testament is "A solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death. This is otherwise called a will. A testament,to be valid, must be made when the testator is of sound mind, and it must be subscribed, witnessed and published in such manner as the law prescribes." Clearly, two vastly different legal documents, one an agreement, the other a final wish as to how his estate is to be wound up. Author of Hebrews understood "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." (Hebrews 9:16 Webster). Those that are mentioned in the Testament are considered "heirs" and they inherit something from the estate. "And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:29 Webster) "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" (Ephesians 1:11 Webster). We can see that the New Testament is replete with the language of a will or testament. Yet, the prophets spoke of a New Covenant that was going to come. for example: "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jeremiah 31:31-33 Webster) At this point, I will say I find this all interesting. Not totally earth shattering. But when I realised that "Covenant" was virtually unused in the New Testament, that was kinda weird to me, yet it made total sense too. Hang in with me. There is still an entire Old Testament to learn in order to gain understanding of this last Covenant. I am taking quite a while, but I think it necessary. Father I pray that as we look at this Covenant that you give us clarity. Help us understand what has happened. Thank you that we are inheritors of the Testament of Christ.

[hiswordsarekisses]

“The book of Acts is full of the centrality of preaching. The apostles recognized that God’s supreme instrument for renewing His people in the image of His Son was and is through His word, as His Spirit works through it.

In Acts 6 we see an example of the priority and protection the apostles gave to those called and equipped to teach. The apostles recognized the sobering importance of being entrusted as servants to bring before the people the very words of God Himself.

The Old Testament books refer to the “oracles” of the prophets; this word can also be translated as “burden” (see, for instance, Isaiah 13:1, KJV). It describes a weight upon the heart and mind that comes about because of the awesome responsibility of speaking God’s truth to people.

Back in the nineteenth century C.H. Spurgeon acknowledged this burden by declaring his pulpit to be more influential than the throne of the king of England, for he brought a message from the throne of God to that pulpit and delivered the truth of Christian doctrine.

We must pray for and protect those called to teach the truths of Scripture, whether to a congregation, or to little children, or in any other context.

It is no small thing to stand regularly between a holy God and His people, declaring His word. It is a heavy burden as well as a wonderful privilege.

In addition to praying for our teachers and preachers, we must also be humble and eager to sit and learn under the authoritative teaching that is based on the New Testament truths revealed to the apostles and built upon the foundations of Old Testament doctrine.

We must not be spending all our time snacking on the fast food of that confirms what we already think.

Instead, we need to feast on the word of God. Let that be your spiritual food and you will find each day that the Spirit of God leads you deeper into the truths and the joys within it.”

~ Alistair Begg