#and the commonness of the 'I was iconoclast until act 3'

[casually-inlove]

19 Days Character Archetypes. He Tian

This idea had been dancing around the back of my mind for a little over half a year now. I wanted to compare and contrast 19 Days characters with the list of archetypes proposed in the neo-Jungian research and finally, I got some time to spare. For this post, I am going to talk about He Tian. Before I begin, however, let me clarify a few things. Since the subject is fairly complex, I do not intend to write in detail about the theory itself or the studies mentioned because that is not the purpose of this post. I am only looking to give a quick and basic run-down of the common archetypes shared by the 19 Days characters.

What is an archetype? An archetype is a set of predefined characteristics, a mould. Carl Jung described the archetype as a “fundamental unit of a human mind” or a “primordial image”. Simply put, the archetypes are the recurring and simplified patterns — but also symbols. According to his ideas, these basic symbols exist universally irrespective of epochs, nations, cultures, races, places, etc. Jung believed them to be shared by the so-called collective unconsciousness. However, even before him, the philosophers of old introduced the ideas of pre-existing ideal immaterial forms which shape the material reality. Since the archetypes are fundamentally primordial, they permeate every single sphere of human life. Art, media, movies, day to day interactions — all of them deal in archetypes.

While working on his research, Carl Jung defined the driving impulses of the human psyche. In turn, that data helped him come up with underlying basis for human behaviour. Based on his findings, Jung outlined the so-called primary archetypes. Later his research served as a basis for many other studies and classifications, particularly for The 12 Archetype Model, proposed by Margaret Mark and Carol Pearson in “The Hero and the Outlaw”. Naturally, there can be an infinite number of archetypes, each having their subtleties; still, the short lists give the generalized picture. Deconstructing characters to these basic blueprints is a fair game because a character, no matter how complex, is still an abstract entity.

For this series of posts, I am going to rely on the 12 Archetype Model mentioned above. The list goes as follows:

1. The Innocent

2. The Orphan

3. The Hero

4. The Caregiver

5. The Explorer

6. The Rebel

7. The Lover

8. The Creator

9. The Jester

10. The Sage

11. The Magician

12. The Ruler

Having examined this list, I am led to believe that He Tian primarily represents a mixture of The Hero and The Rebel archetypes.

The Hero and The Rebel

Let us start with the most obvious, the Hero. This archetype is closely associated with the ideas of masculinity, and thus it is also referred as the Warrior, the Crusader, etc.

The Hero archetype characteristics

Motto: Where there is a will, there is a way

Core desire: to prove one's worth through courageous acts

Goal: expert mastery in a way that improves the world

Greatest fear: weakness, vulnerability, being a “chicken”

Strategy: to be as strong and competent as possible

Weakness: arrogance, always needing another battle to fight

Talent: competence and courage

These go very much in line with what we know of He Tian. His childhood flashbacks suggest that he indeed intends to be “the strongest”.

The failure to protect the puppy, the harsh words of He Cheng — all of it led him to become fixated on becoming the Hero, the one who swoops down and single-handedly saves the day. It is in the way he stands in to fight She Li for Guanshan or rushes to prevent Jian Yi from getting kidnapped. It is in the way he attempts to resolve the other boy’s problems with debt collectors. It is in the way he deflects the coke can and decides to meet his father for Guanshan's sake.

He Tian yearns to be the strongest because the alternative — being weak and helpless — has already scarred him in the past. Whatever joy he used to have as a child was taken from him, because he was not strong enough to handle things on his own. He entrusted the puppy to his brother and the man betrayed him — or so He Tian was led to believe.

More than that, he wants Guanshan to come to him, whether it’s talking about his complicated past or whether it’s about learning the guitar.

It goes without saying that He Tian is almost eerily good at anything he does — as such he believes he can learn music from scratch in a short time. That speaks volumes about the confidence he has in his capabilities, and yet to an outsider's perspective this might come off as blatant posturing.

Apart from almost baffling self-confidence that he shows, He Tian is also known for his nearly abnormal physical prowess. He managed to hold his ground against several armed adults (which is probably just flawed writing) and way back he even managed to impress Guanshan by effortlessly hopping over the school fence, so it makes one wonder what kind of training he had undergone.

However, the truth is, The Hero is also susceptible to weakness. In his work, Carl Jung has coined the term “The Shadow”, which became a stand-alone archetype in his list. The Shadow stands for our suppressed, ignored or denied traits, in other words, it is everything that we cannot see or refuse to see in ourselves. The concept of this hidden darkness has been since absorbed into a number posterior studies, such as Robert Moore’s and Douglass Gillette’s “King Magician Warrior Lover”, where they introduce triadic paradigms of the archetypes and their corresponding active and passive shadows. Notably, they link the aforementioned archetypes with the concept of “masculinity” and its development throughout adolescence into adulthood.

What is The Shadow to The Hero archetype? When The Hero cannot fulfill their purpose, they surrender to the shadow. The dark side takes their best qualities and transforms them into flaws. The confidence thus turns into arrogance and hubris, courage into foolhardiness, competence into bravado and posturing — or the complete opposite happens. Courage transforms into cowardice, confidence into insecurity, etc.

Whereas He Tian is concerned, before he had developed an emotional attachment to another person (and by doing so gained something to cherish), we could observe some of the definitive shadow patterns in his behaviour. Until he recognized Guanshan as someone to know and to protect, he used to goad the other boy, if not outright assume the position of his superior, demanding obedience and subservience. He Tian also used the snide tone when talking to Guanshan, and he did so in order to establish his power to steer the boy in what he deemed to be the right direction — that is attempting to curb Redhead’s short temper and brashness. And in doing so, he was not shy of subtly threatening the boy or using physical force to make his point.

To be in touch with his masculinity — that is to channel his energy constructively in order to feel strong and needed, — he required to have someone he could play the knight for. Once he could direct his inner impulses properly, his violent tendencies have subsided.

Even so, in his aspiration to be the ultimate good — driven by the hatred for his family background, perhaps — He Tian often opted for doing rash, foolhardy stuff, such as attempting to take on the debt collectors all by himself, for instance. Sure, he would have gotten to “save the day” and be the hero, but that single moment would have cost him his life.

Now, having glanced at the Hero archetype, let us move to the next one, The Rebel. This archetype is characterized by the following:

The Rebel archetype characteristics

Motto: Rules are made to be broken

Core desire: revenge or revolution

Goal: to overturn what is not working

Greatest fear: to be powerless or ineffectual

Strategy: disrupt, destroy, or shock

Weakness: crossing over to the dark side, crime

Talent: outrageousness, radical freedom

The Rebel is also known as the outlaw, the revolutionary, the wild man, the misfit, or iconoclast.

Indeed, He Tian rebels quite a bit in the manhua. First and foremost, his rebellion is directed at his flesh and blood — Mr He and Cheng.

Not much is known about He Tian’s childhood, yet it is pretty clear that he hadn’t exactly had a happy one. His mother died early on and he was left to grow up practically without parents since Mr He is a textbook absentee father. From what He Tian knows, his brother backstabbed him, an act that keeps plaguing their relationship years after, while his father is labeled as a monster — someone who is ostensibly capable of eliminating people who disobey.

It is also clear as the day that young He Tian is traumatized by whatever dealings his family conducts behind the scenes. At some point, we even witnessed a scene where HT is tossed out of the burning yacht, while his brother is covered in blood and holds a gun. A violent experience such as this inevitably leaves a scar — and actually get to see it. He Tian is shown to experience something closely reminiscent of PTSD, recurring violent nightmares, the fear of the dark, etc.

Back in the present day, we see that He Tian wants to put distance between himself and his family. It manifests in living separately from his kin and cutting the contact to a bare minimum. He makes a point of stating that he is independent, severing the ties he deems to be dysfunctional. Yet the same time He Tian cannot quite let go of his familial bonds. In particular, whenever He Cheng is concerned, the boy sneers and flagrantly shows his impetuousness and disrespect.

In many ways he’s practically stomping his feet, attempting to show that he doesn’t need his brother, yet by doing this he proves the opposite: he still yearns his bitter feelings to be validated by He Cheng — and by his father too, to an extent.

This results in bratty behaviour on his part: He Tian orchestrates property damage at the He mansion, impishly rejects Cheng’s gestures of goodwill, etc.That is the work of the Rebel’s “shadow” counterpart — when the desire to overturn things and break free takes on darker shade and slips into dangerous territory. Resisting and opposing then becomes a way of life, and only through it does the “shadow rebel” feel certain of their self. 

He Tian pushes at the boundaries of what is permitted and socially acceptable to feel in control of the situation. If we examine the way He Tian interacts with others, we will see that the shadow manifests in many other ways. He Tian is compelled to stir and instigate others, using his wit and cunning to make them uncomfortable or confused, and thus easy to manipulate to his amusement.

Speaking of socially acceptable behaviour, Chinese culture places a great emphasis on the respect towards senior family members — and I probably cannot stress this enough — He Cheng lets him get away with this lack of reverence. Deep inside He Tian seeks his brother’s approval and attention, but rejects it when he is given, and in the process he sets out to tear down anything that displeases him.

Establishing a connection with Guanshan let He Tian fulfill his Hero potential and channel his energy in constructive ways, and yet at the same time, it allowed him to tap further into his “Shadow” Rebel tendencies. That is, to it rub in into He Cheng’s face that he’s no longer welcome or needed.

Naturally, as a character, He Tian possesses traits of other archetypes — such as The Lover, for instance — albeit to a lesser extent, so I’m not going to dive deep in here. Let me just mention, that as a Lover, He Tian is compelled to increase his attractiveness to his love interest  — we often see him fishing for compliments and validation on Guanshan’s part, which underscores his inner need to feel needed and wanted, yet also turns into clinginess at times.

With that, this quick rundown of He Tian’s character patterns is complete. All in all, you could say that He Tian is fairly archetypal at his core, and yet it’s the combination of these “trite” features that mark him as an utterly realistic and believable character. It is because we’ve seen these archetypes countless times before that He Tian appears to be true to life.

Lastly, this is going to turn into a series of posts, but right now I cannot say when the next part is going to be up since writing this took me some time. In the meantime, you can read a bit more below ✨. 

 A bit more about He Tian | Support me at Ko-Fi 

[soyforramen]

BHDC - Round 3 - Pirates

(Thanks to @satelliteinasupernova for helping me pick a historical era for this!)

Weak in the Knees

The sea was a harsh mistress - fickle, stormy, and deadly if you weren’t careful.  She would take your life as quickly as she took your heart.  Never could man tame her, nor could he understand her, he could only pray that he stayed on her good side.  She was also the best thing that had ever happened to Forsythe Jones the Third.

Employed at ten on a small trading sloop, sent to man the crows nest and work the rigging, he’d lost his heart to the open skies and lawless waves.  By fifteen he’d learned enough to become a crewman, his gangly body’s reach a boon during rough storms.  In his sixteenth year he, along with the rest of The Intrepid, had been pressed into British service for a war they neither knew nor cared about.  And by eighteen he’d traded the British Naval Fleet’s canon and tack for the crew of The Whyte Wyrm.  His shares were one one-hundredth of what it should have been, but Jones would have gladly worked for rum and plantains to get away from Admiral St. Clair’s savage rule.

The Captain of the Wyrm took a strange liking to Jones, partially because they shared the same strange name and partially because Jones was a quick, eager study.  An old, wizened drunkard too fond of the stories of his youth, F.P. had taken Jones under his wing and trained him in the manner of a second mate to the ire of the older crew.  Yet none complained for F.P. fostered a camaraderie that the British Navy, despite all their ineffectual pomp and circumstance, could never hope to rival.

Among the younger crew Jones found camaraderie of his own.  Each had lived on the sea longer than they ever had on land and knew a ship better than themselves.  So when the Wyrm sank due to the Captain’s error off the lagoon reefs of Bermuda, the younger crew staked a claim in their own future.  

Four years of hard work, scraping together their funds doing jobs for smugglers, merchants, and the occasional naive Lord who wanted the true ‘Treasure Island’ experience, had led to this moment.  They’d managed to save enough to trade for an old merchant ship, tried and true, one that had weathered many a storm.  Mr. Lodge had promised that this was a ship worthy of any seafaring man worth his salt.  It was an offer too good to pass up for the quartet, and so Fangs had readily negotiated for her.

“Doesn’t it make ye want to weep?” Fangs asked.

He clapped Jones on the shoulder and slid an arm around Toni’s waist.  Sweet Pea grunted, but even he couldn’t hide his excitement.  Standing on the dock the quartet gazed in marvel at the run down ship, it’s hide tattered by hastily filled canon holes and barnacles six inches deep, the sails eaten through by rats, and the mast standing only through a feat of tar, rope, and a strange aversion to gravity.

Weep was perhaps too strong a word, but despite its tattered disposition, The Iconoclast was theirs.  For once in their short, miserable lives they had something to their names.  Their future was their own.  To pirate or pillage, to trade or travel; the decision was theirs and theirs alone.

And the thought made Jones weak in the knees.

A brisk sea wind tickled the back of Elizabeth’s neck and she ran a hand across it to disperse the strange vulnerability she felt.  Necessity required her hair to be shorn almost to her scalp, but that didn’t mean she didn’t feel a pain of regret.  The loss of her hair made her feel naked in a way the harsh wool of the trouser should have.  The trousers, at least, facilitated her movement and helped her hide in plain sight.  

She walked down the docks to the next ship in port and was greeted by a leather faced man with a missing eye, the empty socket puckered and black.  Elizabeth swallowed her revulsion and stepped up to the man with her chin high despite the shaking of her hands.  The man chuckled at her bravado.  He made an awful retching noise and spat up a glob at her feet.  

“Lookin’ fer werk?” he drawled, amused by her if his grin was anything to go by.

“Yes.”  She winced at how high her voice sounded.  She cleared her throat and did her best to flatten the pitch to a gravel that itched her throat.  “Yes, I am.”

The man guffawed and winked lewdly as if he knew her secret.  “We’re dry docked until the captain sobers up.  Try the tavern off the square.  Ask fer Fangs.”

She nodded a thanks and turned back towards the town.  The man’s voice slowed her step and she turned back to him.

“They’re bastards, the whole lotta them,” he said.  “I’d be careful around those curs if I were you, sir.”

Elizabeth scurried away, the man’s hacking laughter haunting her.  She burrowed further into her coat.  If she weren’t able to blend in as a man she’d be found out quickly and sold to the highest bidder, pressed into service at the local bar or brothel, or worse.  Brought back to her mother and pressed into marriage.

It was easy enough to find the square in the bustling town.  Finding the tavern containing a ‘Fangs’, however, was much harder.  Almost every building around the square housed a tavern full of brawling, drunken men stinking of sweat, dirt, and rum, their companions ladies whose hard lives were etched in the lines around their eyes, skirts cut short above the knee.  These were the places her peers whispered about, aghast at the sheer depravity and jealous of the unrestrained revelry.  In all her life, Elizabeth never could have foretold this sort of people could be her saving grace.

It wasn’t until the fifth tavern that she had any luck.  Behind the bar was a rough looking woman, her leather skin beaten by the sun and highlighted with rouge and tattoos.  Elizabeth shouted above the din and the bartender nodded.

“But you din’t want a thing to do with them, laddie.  Only greenhorns looking fer an early grave,” the woman cautioned.

Elizabeth bit her lip to keep from pleading.  This was the third coastal town she’d been to and the first she’d found any hope of leaving Bermuda.  With a sigh, the barkeep nodded towards the back corner of the room where a pair were holding court at a wooden table by the fireplace.  Elizabeth nodded her thanks and picked her way through the rank crowd.

The large one of the pair, dark complected and scowling, gave her pause.  He towered over his companion even while seated, his arms coursed through with muscles borne of fighting the sea.  A black and blue sea snake coursed through waves drawn on his arms, its tail propelling the creature from one wrist to the other.  Next to him sat a petite woman, her long, sun kissed hair strewn through with pink and purple ribbons.  Kohl outlined her dark eyes and brightened her smile.  They made an odd pair in this tavern full of old, sun-beaten men and women, both too young and new to have much experience.

She swallowed down her fear; Elizabeth hadn’t made it this far to let her own prejudices hold her back.  It didn’t matter if they were young or old, experienced or not.  All she needed was a ship that could take her away from this island as quickly as possible.  

“Fangs?” she asked in a wavering voice when she drew near.

The tall man sneered at her and crossed his arms, a threat that made the sea snake writhe along the inked sea.  The woman peered at her in curiosity.  Elizabeth drew her fingers into her palms to keep from rearranging the ill fitting clothes.  Without the gloves she normally wore her nails bit into her skin and the pain reminded her why she was there.

“I heard you were looking to take on crew.”

The man snorted and waved her on, as dismissive a gesture as she’d ever seen at any of Lord Mantle’s dances.  Elizabeth held her ground.

“Are you Fangs?” she repeated.

The woman, taking pity on her, shook her head.  The ribbons danced, a hypnotic wave of color that rivaled any fashionable trend from London.  

“You just missed him.  But I don’t think this is the crew for you,” she said kindly.

Elizabeth was stunned.  Never before had she been denied anything; the daughter of a landed Baron - former Baron - she’d grown up with all manner of worldly creations at her feet.  Anything her hearts desire had been done at once, unless it went against her mother’s wishes.

“And why not?”

The woman raised her eyebrows.  “Have you ever been asea?  Have you ever held on for your life while Poseidon crashed down around you, determined to take you for his own?  Have you ever sat on deck for days on end while Helios does his best to make you believe you’re in a Maharaja’s palace?  Have you ever -“ she glanced down at Elizabeth’s hands, pale and unblemished “-worked a day in your life?”

Fury ran up Elizabeth’s chest into her face; no one dared to speak to her in this way, especially not some commoner.  Her nails bit deeper, drawing a bit of blood.  She squeezed harder until the fury ebbed.  That wasn’t her place anymore.  She was, if nothing else, lower in status than the two in front of her and if she didn’t act with the proper etiquette she would quickly be found out.

“I’m willing to do whatever work you require.”

The tall man snorted and purposefully looked away from her.  “Keep walking.”

“Are you Fangs?” Elizabeth challenged again.

“If I’m not?”

“I was told Fangs was hiring.  If you aren’t Fangs -“

An arm was thrown over her shoulders and she stiffened at the overly familiar touch.  The smell of rum, pomade, and a day spent in the sun overwhelmed her.

“You were looking fer me?”

Elizabeth turned her head a fraction to find a man with close cropped hair crowding her.  “Fangs, I presume?”

He grinned.  “Aye.  And you are?”

“Eli-“ she caught herself, though not quick enough at the woman’s interested glance. “zar.  Elizar Smith.”

“Well then Eli, what fate brings you our way?”  Fangs said as he sat down at the table.  He sloshed out a bottle of amber liquid into three waiting cups and pushed one towards her.  Forgoing a cup, he drank deeply from the bottle.

Elizabeth - Elizar now, she supposed - pursed her lips.  A farce done once was theater; a farce done twice was folly.  

“Work.”

Fangs looked her up and down, a mirror to what had just concluded.  “Can you climb?”

“Yes.  My father couldn’t keep me out of the cork trees he kept.”

“Can you follow orders?”

“I’ve been doing it all my life, I don’t see why I should stop now,” she said sourly, remembrances of all her mother’s chastising coming to mind.

Fangs and the woman laughed at her cheek.  

“Can you cook?”

Her mouth went dry.  A woman of her station always had someone to cook for them, to clean and launder for them, but how hard could manual labor be?  A bit of water, a bit of heat, and you have a meal; a bit of elbow grease, thread, and cloth and you have a sail.  

A lie, though, could not fall from her tongue.  Regardless of her urgency, she’d heard too many stories from her brother of pirates killing their own, hanging them off the side of the deck and watching for sport as the sharks and eels and piranhas leapt to eat their crew.  How easily they’d eat their own companions when food ran low, or how quick they were to draw guns over an insult.  

“No.  I’m afraid I’ve never had the privilege.”

Fangs nodded at her honesty.  He raised his glass in a toast that no one else joined.  “We push off at dawn in two days.  You’ll be paid a hundredth of anything we make, minus provisions.”

He held out his hand and Elizabeth shook it, ignoring his companions.  Business concluded, Elizabeth stood and made a shaky exit.  She escaped into the alley behind the tavern to catch her breath.  Without lies or deception she managed to make her way in the world.  Though she’d never had to do anything more taxing than a waltz with a suitor, she was determined to make this work.  

She had to, if she wanted to be free of this island she’d been brought to as a babe.  The prospect of leaving the broken mess of her mother’s dreams behind; the shame of her sister; the anger of her father.  It was almost too much to be denied it now.

The reality of it made her weak in the knees.

(Cross posted on Ao3)

[thetherobio]

WELCOME

William S. Burroughs,  in the introduction of his novel ‘Naked Lunch’, claims Jack Kerouac, his fellow Beat Pioneer, suggested the book’s title, maintaining that “It means exactly what the words say: naked lunch, a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork." Alan Ginsberg, the third literary iconoclast in that particular group of authors, was said to have misread the title of the manuscript, which was, purportedly, ‘Naked Lust’.   Either story works for me, because, as an overweight, middle aged white man, I admit that I lust for whatever is on the end of my every fork on any given frozen moment of my life.  

Lunch is an abbreviation taken from the more formal North English Word ‘Luncheon,’ derived from the Anglo-Saxon word nunchin, meaning ‘Noon Drink’, a tradition carried on in the Financial District of Manhattan with the 80% tax-deductible ‘3 Martini Lunch’.  Which is probably why the Stock Market is so fucked up.  

Lunch is the popular pastime of groups of middle aged women immortalized by Steven Sondheim, in his  song ‘Ladies Who Lunch’ from his Musical ‘Company.’ The most famous rendition performed by Elaine Stritch, a venerable Broadway Diva, (or  Old Bag, depending on your point of view) whose voice might actually make you LOSE your lunch.

But since 1580 AD, the word has been used to describe the meal taken between two more substantial meals.  

However, there are parts of the world where Lunchisthe main meal of the day.  In some countries, such as Germany, Portugal, Hungary, parts of Eastern and Southeastern Europe and Asia, lunch is when a person really chows down.

In Bengal, where a traditional lunch is a SEVEN course meal, consisting of vegetables in a coconut sauce, a vegetable curry over rice, a fish curry over rice, a meat curry over rice, deep-fried sweet semolina balls, yogurt, and capped off with ‘Paan’, which is a bitter leaf which acts as the final palate cleanser.  Even a fat bastard like me think that’s just a bit much.  You shove all that shit down your piehole, you’re not going back to work.  You’re napping for about 4 hours.

In Scotland, a country whose sole contributions to humanity are Golf and Whiskey, the NUMBER ONE lunch item, popular to the point where it almost qualifies as The National Dish, is a deep fried Mars Bar.  Let me repeat that.  THE NUMBER ONE LUNCH ITEM IN SCOTLAND IS A FUCKING DEEP FRIED MARS BAR.  Which is not altogether that surprising, when you consider that their most famous dish is Haggis, a savory pudding containing sheep's pluck (heart, liver, and lungs); minced with onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, and salt, mixed with stock, and cooked encased in the animal's stomach.   It’s my contention that this is why they began distilling scotch in the first place, because you’d have to be pretty fucking drunk to eat that shit.

Here, in North America, lunch is a moderate meal, generally consumed between 11 AM and 2 PM, depending on your hours.  It’s usually a quick meal, if not taken at a restaurant, office cafeteria or food cart, then brought from home and eaten at your desk.  The majority of children bring theirs to school in a brown paper bag, in which is usually a sandwich, (traditionally bologna, cheese, tunafish or peanut butter and jelly) and a piece of fruit which is almost always used to barter for something better, like a cookie.  My mother used to habitually pack me a smoked turkey on white bread with mayo.  Not exactly barterable, especially because it looked like a sliced raw baby sandwich, although I think raw sliced baby would probably taste a shit ton better than that that Anemic, Light Pink Colored Processed Mystery Meat.  I know it was supposed to be turkey, but, if it was, I’d bet my next lunch check it was from the neck.

At least in this country, Lunch is really only one of three meals between Breakfast and Dinner.  One on either side of the feast the very entity you are reading celebrates.  

One is ‘Brunch’, which is a hybrid of a late breakfast and early lunch, hence the compound name. It is almost always served on weekends, and involves standard morning fare: eggs, bacon, pancakes, et. al, combined with menu items that are usually reserved for later in the day;  various carved meats and seafood items from the raw bar) The latter, arguably, is merely included to justify day drinking. Which is the only reason anybody ever goes to Brunch.  (“Bloody Marys and Mimosas!  They’re not ‘Drink Drinks’!  They’re both based on Breakfast Juices!’ )  

The second meal between Breakfast and Dinner is ‘The Early Bird Special’.  There should be an asterisk alongside the phrase, as it is, in reality, actually a dinner, albeit one that is eaten not more than one hour after 3 O’clock.  ‘The Early Bird Special’ is not just a meal, it’s a phenomenon.  

Because,

1 - It’s usually only found in areas located in warmer climes.

2 - It is generally only available at mass market chain restaurants known for being open 24 hours a day and feature menu items with cute names like ‘Moon Over My Hammy’, and

3 - The demographic of those who partake in it is traditionally one that resides in retirement communities: Men wearing green polyester pants hiked up to their nipples and women sporting angora sweaters draped around their slight, bony shoulders.

Seemingly, it’s the bargain offered by the restaurant on the meal that holds the allure. There appears to be no person over the age of 62 who can resist the temptation of Pot Roast and Gravy, Mashed Potatoes and Creamed Corn, with choice of soup or salad, coffee or soft drink and dessert of the day, even if it means they have to take it between 2:59 and 3:59, and they’ve just finished lunch at 2.

But at whatever time, in whatever form it’s embraced, Lunch is the magical meal that is universally adored.  No matter the country, culture or creed, the siren call of the break in the middle of the day to consume sustenance to keep us going until the last school bell rings or we punch out on the time clock, is anticipated with great eagerness.  

In the pages that follow, we will discuss how this culinary gift of God is done in the different parts of this country.  We will explore menu items germane to specific geographical locations, and how the fare varies from State to State.   Some of the opinions voiced between these covers will, no doubt, be fraught with controversy, causing passionate, sometimes hostile debate over which city has the better hot dog, what constitutes a ‘chili’, or the proper way to eat a slice.

But in the end, it is my fervent hope that we can all find common ground in the delightfully diverse meal that, ultimately, unites us all.

So...have your girl call my girl. 

 Let’s do lunch.

[kevinpolowy]

Shirley MacLaine on Her New Film 'The Last Word' and the Joke She Wants Made in Her Obituary

Shirley MacLaine at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival (Getty Images)

“Why are people still interested in me?” That was Shirley MacLaine’s modest response to learning how much fans enjoyed her 2014 Role Recall interview with Yahoo Movies. As for her enduring popularity, let’s begin with her legacy. A certifiable screen icon, MacLaine’s long, successful career launched with the 1955 Alfred Hitchcock film The Trouble With Harry, includes classics like The Apartment and Being There, and features six Oscar nominations, with one win for Terms of Endearment. Six decades later, the 82-year-old continues to release challenging, interesting films.

In her latest comedic drama, The Last Word, MacLaine stars as Harriett, a cantankerous advertising retiree alternately wallowing in loneliness and simmering in hostility until she realizes that she may have burned so many bridges that there may not be anyone left to say anything positive about her when she dies. To rectify that, Harriett hires a skeptical young obituary writer (Amanda Seyfried) to craft a eulogy the control-freak elder woman can personally approve.

In a candid sitdown with Yahoo Movies at the film’s Los Angeles press day, MacLaine talked about her own obituary, hip-hop, selfies, career turning points, last month’s Oscars snafu, and much more.

Harriet is such a dynamic character. What commonalities did you find with her? What could you relate to? She knew what she wanted. I kind of know what I want. My god, people are so grateful if you know what you want, I’ve noticed. So nobody gets confused. That’s really the truth. That’s why I act this way. I have permission to act this way. Because nobody wants to be confused.

So you think you’re very similar? Mmm-hmm. Well, I’m not quite as blunt as Harriet. I don’t lead with the spears as she does. But I do, when inefficiency becomes apparent. I have a dancer’s mentality: Do your best.

Do you think there are parallels between the battles Harriet had to face as a woman in the business world and what you’ve had to face as a woman in Hollywood? I never felt that in life, Kevin. I came privileged. I was Hitchcock’s new little child from Trouble With Harry. And I went straight from there. I didn’t audition once. I identified with [what Emma Stone’s character Mia faces in] La La Land to an extent because it was about the time it takes to devote to love and the time it takes to devote to your creativity.

And trying to find a balance. That’s right. And feeling like you’re letting somebody down. But no, I went from Hitch to Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis [in Artist and Models] to [Around the World in] Eighty Days. So I don’t know what that audition process, or trying to fight the system in Hollywood, was. Until I made it, and then I had to decide, “Am I really going to do everything they say?”

Amanda Seyfried, Shirley MacLaine and AnnJewel Lee Dixon in ‘The Last Word’ (Bleecker Street)

Has the experience of making The Last Word made you contemplate how you would like your own obituary to read? [Laughs] Yes. I’m going to make a joke here. I want it to read, “I’m not dead. You just think I am.” And that would be folding into my books. No one ever dies. That’s why I don’t go to funerals.

You believe in reincarnation, that you’re reborn. Of course, that. But that’s another story. I believe as all the scientists, including Einstein, that nothing ever dies, it just changes form. Energy is eternal. So I’m interested in the soul of it all, not the body of it all.

It’s outlandish in Harriet’s case, but many media outlets pre-write obits for public figures and celebrities. Is it odd knowing yours may already be written? No, it saves time. [Laughs] I would like them to make a joke about my belief that nothing ever dies. I’d like that.

Harriet struggles to find adulation. You’ve had no shortage of that over your career. What is the nicest thing anyone has ever said about you? A friend of mine was at one of my An Evening With [live shows]. The one I’ve done since I’ve gotten old, where I take questions from the audience. And he said the best thing about this is you allow the audience to be themselves. I thought that was the best compliment I ever had. They knew what they wanted to ask, they didn’t want to be shy about it, or reluctant about it in any way. That was the nicest thing, I loved that.

Watch a clip from ‘The Last Word’:

I loved the music in The Last Word. Harriet’s a surprisingly hip music listener. She loves the Kinks. I never heard of them. I don’t know who the hell they are.

Do you keep up with any new music? Some of it. But you know what I miss? I miss the harmony of the wonderful songs of Dean [Martin] and Frank [Sinatra] and so forth. I miss the lyrics that you can understand. And I miss the rhythms. Of course, the rhythms today are much more sophisticated. And being a dancer, I love that. But I miss the purpose of music, which is to move your heart. Not necessarily your body.

You do move your body a bit in the film. Had you ever danced to hip-hop music before? No. [Laughs]

How do you feel about hip-hop? I love all that music. But I miss lyrics and the harmonics of the music.

What is your impression of your costar Amanda Seyfried? You guys go toe-to-toe in this film. Oh, she’s wonderful. My golly she’s a nice person. Really brilliant, one of the few I know who can cry on cue. We talked about that, she gave me some of her secrets. And I love that I was privileged to watch the love affair between her and [fiancé] Thomas [Sadoski]. I feel like I’m kind of the godmother to the baby. [The couple is currently expecting.] She’s something else. And her eyes! Her whole face is so open.

Did you give her any of your secrets? No. I don’t know what that would be.

Do you ever find any of the actors you work with getting starstruck? Well, they say they are afterward. But I didn’t feel it, no. We just focus on the script and what the scene is about, and what the director wants. It’s not terrifically glamorous. Now what they think about me is another story. But it certainly isn’t to me.

What is a typical fan encounter like for you, when someone approaches you in public? They usually talk about some moment in their past about 50 years ago [laughs], when they saw The Apartment or something. Or they’ll talk about loving all my bitchy parts, from Steel Magnolias on. Or they’ll talk about the “give her the shot” scene in Terms [of Endearment]. But they usually talk about themselves. I find that so complimentary. Not talking about how good I was, but how it made them feel.

Do people ask for selfies? Oh yeah.

Do you take them? I hate it. But I’ll do it if I’m on my way out.

Watch our ‘Role Recall’ interview:

When we did the Role Recall interview, we talked through what we considered your most iconic roles. But which film of yours do you think is most underappreciated? Good question. Probably Madame Sousatzka. She was a great artist, a great piano teacher and artist herself. But [it showed] how artists think with aging. What they want from their students. How they want them to be serious about performing and the art of music. It was well done and we got recognized, but I had hoped that the audience would know it better.

I had a wonderful time shooting Wild Oats with Jessica Lange, the one I did right before this that we shot in the Canary Islands. That didn’t even get a release. That was disappointing that they didn’t recognize that one more. Even for the scenery [laughs].

The Turning Point turns 40 this year. I feel like that’s a film people forget got 11 Oscar nominations, even though it didn’t win any. How do you look back at the film? Very much with nostalgia and appreciation for what my early life was, which was ballet. I was in a ballet class every day of my life from the age of 3 to maybe in my mid-20s. Big deal, that’s my work ethic. Being disciplined, loving the music, working as a team player. And basically doing what’s expected. I might seem like a very iconoclastic [person]. Harriett is a very vinegary and sarcastic put-downer. But that’s not what I am. I’m just about getting the job done.

Did your career having a turning point? I don’t know, probably Terms. It’s had so many turning points, Kevin, my god. It’s had so many. I can’t really analyze what they’re about, or why they happened. Or didn’t… I never thought that much about it, never planned anything. I’m not good at the diabolic of being famous. I just do what I do, and let the spontaneous moment rule.

You had a great moment with Charlize Theron at the Oscars this year. Did you know her beforehand? Were you aware she was such a fan? I’ve known her for a while, but never had any idea that she was so inspired by The Apartment until a few days before the Oscars. Really, I didn’t know that at all. And seeing that footage again — every once in a while I’ll run into on TCM or something and I just turn it off. But it was interesting watching that. It was almost like when I walked out there with her I was an older version of Fran Kubelik.

The show obviously ended on a surprising note. What did you make of the Best Picture mishap? Come on, it was very bad for everybody’s sensibility, to tell you the truth. I keep saying, “What if it had been the other way around? What if the people from Moonlight were thanking each other, and then the white guys had to come up on stage?” So you have to look at the plus. It makes you understand that life is basically a series of snapshot moments of triumph and embarrassment [laughs], and everything in between.

‘The Last Word’ is now in theaters. Watch the trailer:

Read more:

King (Kong) of the Movies: A Look at the Giant Ape’s Trips to the Cinema Through the Years

All About That ‘Gay Moment’ in ‘Beauty and the Beast’: We Answer Your Burning Questions

‘The Last Laugh’ Director on Grappling with Humor and the Holocaust

[johnchiarello]

Sunday sermon

SUNDAY SERMON- 8-11-19

John 19:30 

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

[Post below]

Blog-  https://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/

The blog is my main site- on some sites if you click the link it gives a ‘warning’- if that happens- simply type the address in or search on google- the site is safe- the most up to date posts are on the Blog.

Site- https://ccoutreach87.com/

Follow us on Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

Subscribe to our Youtube channel- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber

Follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/john.chiarello/channel/

Friend us on VK https://vk.com/id533663718  

Friend us on OK https://ok.ru/profile/589985645111

Follow us on Tumblr http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

Connect on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/home?trk=hb_logo

Watch our videos here-

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ccoutreach87/

https://www.dailymotion.com/ccoutreach87/videos

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/jsS961GkXUSn/

Other sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/links-to-my-sites-updated-10-2018/  

Cloud links- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

[Links to all my sites at the bottom of this post]

NOTE- Every so often some of my sites think I am Spam- or a Bot- I am not. My name is John Chiarello and I post original content [all videos and text are by me]. I do share my past posts from my other sites- but it is not spam- Thank you- John.

 Sunday Sermon videos-

https://youtu.be/cIrdw_zuzOs

https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg1_6ulPeVEYNLbAy

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ok99cciktacbccq/1-28-18%20Sunday%20sermon-%20it%20is%20finished.mp4?dl=0

 ON VIDEO [filmed walking out of the Corpus Christi Cathedral- good view of downtown C.C.]

.Lord’s Supper [Eucharist means thanksgiving]

.Church history

.Ordinances/Sacraments

.Council of Trent

.The Cross- The Crucifix

.Iconoclast controversy

.The memorial of his death

.The gospel

.It is finished

.Apocrypha

.Origen [church father]

.Septuagint

.Jerome

.Latin Vulgate

 1 Corinthians 2:2

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

    TEACHING [Past posts below]

Today I did not plan to teach- my daughter had the flu and I was just going to go to church and take a rest.

I didn’t get a chance to review any verses- but had the thought of speaking about communion.

 I wound up going to the Catholic Mass and of course received communion [I never rejected my Catholic upbringing- so I am able to partake].

 The Mass I attended was the Spanish Mass- so I really have no idea what the verses would be for this Sunday.

I spoke briefly on the ordinance/sacrament of Communion [Eucharist] and how Jesus gave us this ordinance- for us to remember his death-

 Luke 22:19

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 Why?

The bible speaks of the love of God shown toward us- because Christ died for us-

Romans 5:8

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 Christians have debated over the remembrance of the death of Jesus- about how the various Crosses/Crucifixes should depict Christ-

I talked about this on the video.

 Some say we should focus on the Resurrection of Christ- which of course is true.

But Jesus never gave us a specific ordinance to remember the Resurrection.

We of course do celebrate it once a year as Christians- but there is no specific ordinance like the Communion table-

1 Corinthians 11:24

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: THIS DO in remembrance of me.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

  The death of Jesus shows the Love that God has towards us- there are many verses that connect the fact that Christ died for us- proving he loved us-

 The most famous verse of all- which just happened to be one of the chapters I spoke about today- is-

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that HE GAVE his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 The love of God is displayed because he gave his son.

 I also talked about the history of this sacrament- and will try and add the past teachings I did on this below.

But for this day- we remember that Christ died for us-

And in so doing- he showed us how much he loved us-

 John 15:13 [Full Chapter]

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

 PAST POSTS that relate to this post- OTHER VIDEOS at the bottom of this post.

https://ccoutreach87.com/galatians-johns-gospel/

https://ccoutreach87.com/john-complete-links-added/

https://ccoutreach87.com/romans-updated-2015/ [see chapters 4-5]

https://ccoutreach87.com/2018/01/29/sunday-sermon-1-21-18/ 

1-30-18 Update- Christ died for you https://youtu.be/Rfa0_Lx4y_U 

https://ccoutreach87.com/2018/01/29/sunday-sermon-1-21-18/ 

  (565)      John 3[radio # 586]- Nicodemus comes secretly to Jesus, he is one of the few in leadership that is having doubts. The others with one voice reject Jesus, Nicodemus is wondering. Jesus rebukes him for being a ‘ruler’ of the Jews and not being able to comprehend the most basic stuff. I have found it disheartening over the years to talk with Pastors who heard someone teach that because Jesus had an expensive coat, that he must have been rich. Despite all the evidence in the New Testament how Jesus was the son of a carpenter and lived an average life. The tons of verses where Jesus is reproving rich people. The whole historical and biblical truth of Jesus being a man of humble means. The fact that he had an expensive coat can more than likely be explained by the custom of people doing extravagant acts of worship towards him. The woman and the expensive perfume poured on him. Things like this. Someone probably gave him the coat. But for Pastors, who are good men, to fall for this stuff was unbelievable. Sort of like Jesus telling Nicodemus ‘you are a leader and can’t discern the most basic stuff’! Jesus teaches the reality of the new birth. All people must be born of God thru belief in Jesus, or they will not be saved. We must stand strong for Jesus as the only way to God. John the Baptist will be told that all men are going to Jesus. John says ‘great, he must increase and I must decrease’ John understood that the role of leadership [prophets] was to point to the fame and persona of Jesus. Not to go down the common road of pointing people towards us. In modern ministry we draw people to our gifts and abilities. We structure modern churches around the gift of the Pastor. We allow leadership to become preeminent in our minds and thoughts. John knew better. We also see that the wrath of God abides on all who do not believe in Jesus. If you believe in Jesus you escape Gods wrath. It can’t touch you. Whether you are in heaven or earth, or like David said ‘in hell you are there’. That is you can’t escape Gods presence anywhere. So if you are in Christ, wrath can’t get you. If you are not in Christ, it continually abides on you. You do not escape wrath by leaving the planet during the tribulation. If an unbeliever was on a rocket ship right before the tribulation started, and wound up on the moon during the 7 years of wrath, he wouldn’t escape Gods wrath. You don’t escape judgment by being in the right geographical location, you escape it by being IN HIM! John also says a man can receive nothing unless it is given to him. Why be jealous if all of our gifts and abilities are free gifts? We act like we earned them! John says no man receives his testimony, then he says ‘to those who have received it’. What’s this mean? Paul told the Corinthians that we have received the Spirit of God so we might know the things that are freely given to us from God. God gives us his Spirit first, so we can receive his testimony. This goes back to the early centuries of the church and hits all the major doctrines on sovereignty. Augustine, Calvin, Luther [Yes Luther was a strong believer in predestination, it was no accident that he was an Augustinian monk!] Paul tells the Ephesians that were are dead in sins and completely incapable of receiving spiritual truth until God pours his Spirit into us and we become alive. Thank God that even though no man [in the natural] can receive his testimony, that God gives us his Spirit and births us so we can know the things that he has freely given to us in Christ!

  ROMANS 4-7

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2-11-15-romans-4-7.zip

Video

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/700-galatians.wav?_=1 This is an old radio show I made years ago- thought it fit well with what I’m teaching now- you’ll need to use Internet Explorer browser to hear it.

 The apostle Paul quotes a lot of Old Testament scriptures in this letter- I hope to cover some of them on the video- but as you read these chapters- it would be helpful to read Genesis 12- 13- 15-and 17- these are the main chapters Paul uses in the life of Abraham to show Abrahams faith- and how he was justified by faith- before he was circumcised [Gen 15].

He will describe the faith of Abraham by using the story of Abraham and Sarah having a son in their old age [Gen. 17] – and talk about how the heirs of the promise- that Abraham would be ‘heir of the world’ was made to ALL THE SEED- meaning not just to his Jewish brothers who would believe- but also to the Gentiles- who were never granted the ‘right of the covenant’ [circumcision].

Paul explains that Abraham was justified BEFORE he was circumcised- so- he is the father of all the kids- even the Gentile believers who were never circumcised- but had the faith of Abraham.

Now- there’s’ a lot I am trying to cover in this Romans study- for those who watch the videos- you will see that I’m also covering the divisions within Christianity- primarily those that arose out of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. I quote the book of James- and show how James says ‘was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar’. It’s important to see- that these words JUSTIFIED BY WORKS- are indeed used in our New Testament- in the videos I’m explaining this- but the point I’m making is James uses the account of Abraham- in Genesis 22- and shows us that the progressive work of ‘Justification’ can- and is- applied to the act of Abrahams obedience- and when God saw Abraham DO A JUST THING [a work] James says ‘he was then justified’- the same word used in the initial act of our Justification- seen in Genesis 15- ok- this might be a bit much to take in now- but over time when we get a better grasp on this- I believe it will help to foster unity in the Body of Christ.

 James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

NOTE- As I do this study- I’m copying/pasting an old commentary I wrote years ago- I guess I should read the commentary first- after I penned the above- I read it- I basically covered the same thing- at least I’m consistent!

  ROMANS 4: 1-12  Now, Paul will use one of his most frequent arguments to prove that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, need to be justified by faith and not ‘by works’. The most famous singular figure that natural Israel looked to as the ‘identifier’ of them being a special people was ‘Father Abraham’. Paul does a masterful job at showing how Abraham was indeed justified by faith and not by works. The ‘work’ of circumcision came before the law. It would later become synonymous with law keeping [Ten Commandments] and Paul can certainly use it here as implying ‘the whole law’. But to be accurate this work of circumcision was a national identifying factor that Israel looked to as saying ‘we are better than you [Gentiles]’. Paul is showing Israel that God in fact ‘made Abraham righteous’ before he circumcised him! [Gen. 15] And the sign of this righteousness was circumcision. This meaning that Abrahams faith in Gods promise [a purely ‘passive’ act! This is very important to see. Later on as we deal with the famous ‘conversion texts’ we need to keep this in mind] justified him without respect to the law. God simply took Abraham outside and said ‘look at the stars, your children will be this abundant’ and Abraham simply believed this promise to be true. Much like the passive belief of Cornelius house at their conversion [Acts 10]. The simple belief in the promise of Jesus justifies the sinner! Now this fact of Abraham believing and being made righteous, before being circumcised, is proof [according to Paul] that Abraham is the father of ‘many nations’ not just natural Israel. All ethnic groups who HAVE THE SAME FAITH AS ABRAHAM are qualified to be ‘sons of Abraham/ heirs of God’. The fact that Abraham carried this justification along with him as he became circumcised, shows that all Jewish people as well can partake of this ‘righteousness by faith’ if they have the same faith as Abraham had. Jesus did say ‘Abraham rejoiced to see my day’[ John’s gospel]. In Gods promise to Abraham of a future dynasty of children, this included the promised Messiah. So indirectly Abraham’s belief in the promise of being the father of ‘many nations’ included belief in the coming Messiah. So according to Paul, all ethnic groups who have faith in Jesus are justified/made righteous. The very example Israel used to justify ‘ethnic/national pride’ [Father Abraham] was taught in a way that showed the truth of the gospel and how God is no respecter of persons.

 · ROMANS 4:13-14 ‘Now the promise that Abraham would become the inheritor of the world was not going to be fulfilled thru the law [natural Israel] but thru faith [all who believe, both Jew and Gentile]’. I have spoken on this before [see note at bottom] and will hit on it a little now. The historic church can be defined for the most part as ‘a-millennial’, that is they interpreted the parables on the Kingdom of God and the promise of ‘inheriting the world [which includes the Promised Land]’ as being fulfilled thru the church. That Jesus established Gods kingdom and the church basically fulfills these promises by expanding Christ’s ‘rule’ thru the earth. Some historians saw the 4thcentury ‘marriage’ of Rome and Christianity as a fulfillment of this. During the 19th and 20th century you had the rise of Dispensationalism, a ‘new/different’ way of interpreting these land promises. Many good men showed the reality of Christ’s literal coming and pointed to a future time where Jesus literally sits on a throne in Jerusalem and rules all nations. These brothers are called ‘Pre-millennial’, they believe that Jesus comes back first [pre] and then establishes his ‘millennial rule’ on earth. The Premillennialists would see the Amillennialists as ‘replacement theologians’. They said that these brothers were taking the actual promises that God made to Israel and ‘replacing’ Israel with the church. In essence they accused the Amillennialists of spiritualizing the promises to Israel and saying the church would be the recipients of the promises. Now, both sides have truth to them, I personally believe the Amillennialists have a lot more truth! But I do see some of the good points that the Premillenialists made. I want you to simply read these verses [Romans 4:13-14, Galatians 3:18] and see for yourself how Paul does teach the reality that the promises to Abraham are to be fulfilled thru the church [spiritual Israel]. This does not mean that there is no future physical return of Jesus. But the body of scripture leans heavily on the Amillinnialists side. [see entry 703] NOTE- To be fair, some historic thinkers held to the Premillennial position. The majority were Amillennial.

 · ROMANS 4:15-25 ‘For the law worketh wrath, for where there is no law there is no transgression’. I simply want to touch on the concept of ‘wrath’ being a very real part of judgment. One of the ways the gospel ‘saves us’ is by promising a future [and present!] deliverance from wrath. While death ‘reigned’ before the law was given, it wasn’t until the law where you had a clear picture of transgression and atonement. We will deal with this later in Romans. Now Paul once again hits on the theme of Abraham being the ‘spiritual father’ of many nations [all who believe] and how the promises of God to Abraham were to be fulfilled thru this ‘new race of people’ [the church]. Paul is careful to not demean Israel; he couches his terms in a way that says ‘God will fulfill these things thru the circumcision who believes [Jews] and the un-circumcision who believe’ [Gentiles]. I want to stress the very plain language Paul uses to show us that we should not be seeing Gods ‘covenant promises’ thru a natural lens. Christians need to be careful when they support [exalt!] natural Israel in a way that the New Testament doesn’t do. ‘To the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is the faith of Abraham’. Now Paul tells us that when God made promises to Abraham that Abraham believed against hope. When all things looked really bad, he still believed. When he was 100 years old and Sarah around 90, he held to the promise [read my commentaries on Genesis 15-18 and Hebrews 11] and therefore God imputed righteousness to him. How closely are you paying attention to Paul’s free use of Abraham and Genesis? If you carefully read this chapter you see Paul ‘intermingle’ the story of Abraham being ‘made righteous upon initial belief’ [Gen. 15] and the later story of Sarah having Isaac [Gen. 17]. I think Paul was simply using the description of Abrahams faith, as seen in the Gen. 17 [and 22!] accounts of his life, to show the type of faith he initially ‘exercised’ [I don’t like using this term to be honest. God actually imputes faith to the believer at the initial act of regeneration]. The important chapters from Genesis that we all need to have a ‘working knowledge’ of are Chapters 12 [the initial promise], 15 [the oft mentioned ‘imputed righteousness’ verse], 17 [the receiving of the promised seed- Isaac], and 22 [the ultimate act of obedience that Abraham showed in offering up Isaac. This will be described in James epistle as ‘righteousness being fulfilled’. James, who is concerned about ‘works’, will say that when Abraham offered Isaac he was fulfilling the ‘imputed righteousness’ that God gave him earlier. James actually describes this as ‘being justified by works’{James 2:21} and James says ‘the scripture was fulfilled that saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness’… ‘see how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only’. The classic view taken by many confuses the ‘justified’ part with the initial act of justification that Paul centers on. James uses ‘see how he was justified by works’ in a future ‘judicial decree’ sense; that is God having the ongoing ‘freedom’ to continually say ‘good job son, you did well’. The word justification is used in a fluid sense much like salvation. Christians need to be more ‘secure’ in their own assurance to be able to see these truths. When we approach all these seemingly ‘difficult passages’ in a defensive mode, then we never arrive at the actual meaning]. When we see the overall work of God in Abraham’s life we see the purpose of God in ‘declaring people just’ [initially ‘getting saved’]. The purpose is for them to eventually ‘act just’ [obey!] ‘Jesus was delivered for our offenses and raised again for our justification’ thank God that this process is dependant on the work of the Cross! [see # 758]

 · Romans 5:1-9 ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God thru our Lord Jesus Christ’. There are certain benefits ‘results’ of being ‘made righteous by faith’, peace being one of them. Paul goes on and says we glory in hope and also trials, because we realize that thru the difficulties we gain experience and patience. Things that are needed for the journey, we can’t substitute talent and motivation and ‘success principles’ for them. We need maturity and God produces it this way. Those who teach otherwise have a ‘self inflicted wound’ their teachings are very immature! That is there was a ‘strain’ of teaching in the church that said ‘we don’t learn thru difficulty and suffering, we learn only thru Gods word!’ [that is reading it]. Those who grasped onto this false idea have produced some of the most unbalanced teaching in the church, stuff that even the younger generation is saying ‘what in the heck are these guys preaching’?  If you by pass the difficult road, you will be shallow. Now Paul says ‘God commended his love toward us, that when we were sinners Christ died for us’ ‘being now justified by his death, we shall be saved thru his life’ [saved from wrath thru him]. Once again this theme pops up; ‘since we are justified, made righteous by believing with the heart, we shall be saved [continual, future deliverance] from wrath thru him’. I don’t know if you ever realized what a major theme this is in Romans? The ongoing, future ‘being saved’ is a result of ‘being made righteous’. Later on in chapter 10, when we read that the righteous call for salvation, we need to understand this context. Remember, when the two are linked together in the same verse, it is not saying ‘saved’ in the sense of some sinner’s prayer. It is speaking of the ongoing, promised deliverance [from many things, not just wrath!] to the ‘justified caller’. We have access ‘by faith into this grace wherein we stand’. Wow! That’s some good stuff, Jesus ever lives so that those who come to him are ‘being saved’ to the uttermost. This grace we are in is available to us all of the time, are we availing ourselves of it?

 · ROMANS 5:10-21 ‘For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to him by the death of his Son… much more we shall be saved by his life’. Now, some have ‘divided’ the role of Jesus death and resurrection in salvation. I heard a radio preacher teach that all the people who think they are ‘saved’ because Jesus died for them were deceived. He used this verse to say they need to believe in his ‘life’ [resurrection] to ‘be saved by his life’. Well I get the point, but he was missing the meaning of the verse. Why? Because once again we see ‘saved’ as initially ‘getting saved’ while here it is in a continual sense. Paul is saying ‘if God reconciled us [justification] while we were deadly enemies, how much more shall the actual ministry and life of Jesus at Gods right hand do for us!’ The New Testament teachers that we have actually entered into an eternal covenant with God thru his Son. Jesus ‘ever lives’ to make intercession for us [Hebrews]. Therefore he is able to ‘save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him’. The bible teaches an ongoing ‘saving’ relationship that believers have with the Messiah. This ‘relationship’ would not be possible if he were dead. Now we ‘joy in God thru Jesus Christ from whom we have received the atonement’ good stuff! Isaiah says God will meet with those who ‘rejoice and do what is right’. We have both of these ‘abilities’ because of the atonement. The rest of the chapter teaches the Pauline doctrine of original sin. That because Adam sinned, death and sin passed to all men. So likewise the ‘righteousness’ of one man [Jesus- the last Adam] has passed upon all men [those who receive of the abundance of grace and the gift of life]. This is an interesting angle that Paul uses to teach redemption. He shows the reality that there are only 2 ‘federal heads’ of mankind. You are either in the first or last Adam. The ‘righteous act’ is speaking of the Cross [Philippians says Jesus was ‘obedient unto death’. The singular act of obedience that allows this righteousness to pass to all who believe is the Cross. Some have misunderstood this chapter to teach that the obedient life of Christ, his sinless life, saves us. I feel this is a wrong reading of the chapter. The sinless life of Jesus, pre Cross, made him the true candidate to be the substitute for man. He was able to die in our place [obedience unto death] because he was the sinless Son of God. We are now ‘saved by his life’ because he ever lives to make intercession for us]. All who believe in Jesus can now trace their lineage to the ‘last Adam’ [Jesus] and be free from ‘original sin’.

· 

I mentioned Origen on some of the videos that go with today’s post- Sunday Sermon- 1-28-18 below are my past comments on him-

 (1235) 2ND CORINTHIANS 12- Before I get into a long history discussion with you guys, let’s hit a few verses. Paul says ‘when I was with you, did I gain a profit from you, take advantage of you?’ or ‘when I sent Titus, did he gain a profit from you?’ He then goes on and says the fathers lay up money for the kids, not the other way around. He says he has spent out of his own pocket for them, and he will continue to do so. He says he does all this so people won’t have the excuse ‘he’s just in it for the money’. Notice, Paul himself did not have the common mindset we see in ministry today. Often times financial appeals are made from Paul’s writings in Corinthians, these appeals often say ‘we are not asking for ourselves, but for you’ it is put in a way that says it would be wrong to not take money from people. That in some way not taking an offering would violate scripture. Paul flatly said he did not take money from them for personal use, nor would he. When the modern church uses Paul’s other sayings in this letter to appeal to giving, we need to share ‘the whole counsel of God’ not just a few verses that fit in with what we practice. Now, Paul speaks about being caught up into ‘heaven’ [Gods realm-Paradise] and hearing truths from God that were not lawful for men to speak. He states that God gave him truth that came from Divine revelation. If you skip a few pages over in your bible, you will hit Galatians. In the first chapter he says how after he was converted he did not confer with the other leaders at Jerusalem, but received teaching straight from God. Let’s discuss what revelation is, how we come to know things. The last few centuries of the first millennium of Christian history you had the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ which was a political/religious union of church and state. Under the emperor Charlemagne the territories of the empire were vast. Those who came after him did not have the same control over the regions that were vast. Eventually you had a form of rule arise that was called Feudalism; the sections of the empire that were too far to benefit directly from Rome would simply come under the authority of the local strongman [much like the present dilemma in Afghanistan, I think it’s time to get our boys out of that mess]. People would come under the authority of a ruler and he would lease out land to the citizens and they would benefit from his protection. The citizens were called Vassals and the land was called a Fief. At one point king John of England would do public penance in a disagreement he had with the Pope and all of England would become a Fief under the rule of the Pope. Now, this would eventually lead up to the development of the strong nation states, an independent identifying with your state/region as opposed to being under Rome and the papacy. This type of independence would allow for the 16th century reformation to happen under Luther. If it were not for Frederick the Wise, the regional authority in Germany where Luther lived, he would have never had the protection or freedom to launch his reformation. Luther also had the influence of being a scholar at Wittenberg. Around the 12th-13th centuries you had the first university pop up at the great cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. The word university simply meant a co-operative effort from two or more people. It applied to many things besides learning. It was also during this time that the church began to develop a system of harmonizing Christian doctrine; she began to do systematic theology. The writings of the Greek philosophers [Aristotle] were rediscovered after centuries of them being hidden, and the great intellectual Saint Thomas Aquinas would wed Aristotle’s ideas with Christian truth. This became known as Scholasticism. Aquinas believed that men could arrive at a true  knowledge of God from pure reason and logic. But man could not know all the truths about God and his nature without ‘special revelation’ [the bible and church tradition]. All Christians did not agree with Aquinas new approach to Christian truth, the very influential bishop Bernard would initially condemn Aquinas over this. Bernard said ‘the faith that believes unto righteousness, believes! It does not doubt’. The Scholastic school taught that the way you arrive at knowledge was thru the continuous questioning and doubting of things until you come to some basic conclusions. These issues would be debated for centuries, and even in the present hour many argue over the issue of Divine revelation versus natural logical reasoning. Tertullian, an early North Afrcian church father, said ‘I believe because it is preposterous, illogical’ he became famous for his saying ‘what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens’ meaning he did not believe that Greek philosophy should have any part with Christian truth. Origen, his contemporary, believed the other way. So the debate rages on. Why talk about this here? Some believers ‘believe’ in a type of knowledge called ‘revelation knowledge’ they mean something different than the historic use of the term. Historically ‘revelation’ meant that which God revealed to us THRU THE BIBLE, not something outside of the bible. For instance, the first canon of scripture put together was by a man called Marcion. His ‘bible’ contained the letters of Paul and parts of :Luke. He believed the revelation God gave Paul was for us today, not the Old Testament or the historical gospels. He was condemned by the church as a heretic. The point being some took Paul’s writings about receiving knowledge from God as an indicator that what God showed Paul was different than what the church got thru the other apostles. In point of fact the things that God revealed to Paul, or to you or me; all truth is consistent, it will not contradict any other part of Gods truth. Paul’s letters are consistent with the gospels, not in contradiction. When believers cling to an idea that their teachers are sharing ‘special revelation’ or a Rhema word that is somehow above the scrutiny of scripture, then they are in dangerous territory. Paul did appeal to his experience with God as a defense of his gospel, but he backed up everything he said with Old Testament scripture. God wasn’t ‘revealing’ things to Paul that were outside of the realm of true knowable ‘truth’. You could examine and test the things Paul was saying, he wasn’t saying ‘because God showed it to me, that’s why I’m correct’. So in today’s church world, we want all the things we learn and believe to be consistent with what the church has believed thru out the centuries. Sure there are always things that are going to be questioned and true reform entails this, but beware of teachers who come to you with ‘revelation knowledge’ or a ‘Rhema word’ that goes against the already revealed word of truth.

[parts]

https://youtu.be/hKB_bQbmiNo  1st Peter

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/10-9-16-1st-peter.zip 

ON VIDEO-

.No money for the healing

.Lepers healed

.3 words for love in Greek

.’I’m famous’!

.We are the letters

.Nero’s legacy

.See the Lexington and the great Bayfront view of Corpus Christi

Correction- On the video I mention the healing of a leper [verses below] and say Elijah healed him. Actually it was Elisha- his protégé’

PAST LINKS [verses below]

I add sections like this on the videos/posts because when I review the videos if I mention a teaching- like Logos- Nero- Orthodoxy- etc.- then I simply cut and paste my old teachings on the subject.

I add the WP links because if I quote from a bible book- like Corinthians- I simply link my entire teaching- commentary- from the past- instead of re-writing new notes.

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/1st-2nd-corinthians/ 

(835)ROMANS 7:1-4 Paul uses the analogy of a married woman ‘don’t you know that the law has dominion over a person as long as he is alive’? If a married woman leaves her husband and marries another man she is guilty of breaking the law of adultery. Now, if her husband dies, she is free to marry another man. The act that freed her from sin and guilt was death! Every thing else in the scenario stayed the same. She still married another, she still consummated the new marriage. But because her first husband died, she has no guilt. I always loved this analogy. For years I wondered why these themes in scripture are for the most part not ‘imbedded’ in the collective psyche of the people of God. We have spent so much time ‘proof texting’ the verses on success and wealth, that we have overlooked the really good stuff! Now Paul teaches that we have been made free from the law by the ‘death of our husband’ [Jesus] so we can ‘re-marry’. Who do we marry? Christ! He has not only died to free us from the law, he also rose from the dead to become our ‘husband’ [we are called the bride of Christ]. Paul connects the death and resurrection of Jesus in this analogy. Both are needed for the true gospel to be preached [1st Corinthians 15]. Notice how in this passage Paul emphasizes ‘the death of Christ’s body’. The New Testament doesn’t always make this distinction, but here it does. In the early centuries of Christianity you had various debates over the nature and ‘substance’ of God and Christ. The church hammered out various decrees and creeds that would become the Orthodoxy of the day. Many of these are what you would call the ‘Ecumenical councils’. These are the early councils [many centuries!] that both the eastern [Orthodox church] and western [Catholic] churches would all accept. Some feel that the early church fathers and Latin theologians [Tertullian, Augustine and others] had too much prior influence from philosophy and the ‘forensic’ thinking of their time. They had a tendency to describe things in highly technical ways. Ways that were prominent in the legal and philosophical thinking of the West. Some of the eastern thinkers [Origen] had more of a Greek ‘flavor’ to their theologizing [Alexandria, named after Alexander the great, was a city of philosophy many years prior to Christ. This city was at one time the center of thinking in the East. That’s why Paul would face the thinkers at Athens, they had a history in the east of Greek philosophy]. Well any way the result was highly technical debates over the nature of God and Christ. The historic church would finally decree that Christ had 2 natures, Human and Divine. And that at the Cross the ‘humanity of Jesus’ died, but his ‘Deity’ did not. I think Paul agreed by saying ‘we are free from the law by the death of Christ’s Body’ here Paul distinguishes between the physical death of Jesus and his Deity. Note- actually, Augustine would be in the same school as Origen. Alexandrian.

[parts]

My approach to these types of debates is I’m what you would call Ecumenical- I believe that Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox- and all the other ‘churches’ that profess Christ- I believe they are all Christian.

 Now you might say ‘well John- doesn’t everybody?’ Actually no- many of the most knowledgeable Apologists do indeed go after the other groups. Quite often you will have a strong protestant defender [usually from the Reformed faith] that will really hit the Catholic church- in my view- too hard.

 While it is true that historically Catholics and Protestants have differences- I have often found that Many ‘average’ Catholics/Protestants are not really aware of the real differences- they often have very limited perspectives about the ‘other side’ and these limited ideas [often wrong] seem to stay with the people- for most of their lives.

 One example- the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception- what is it?

 The teaching became Official- only in the last 2 centuries of the Catholic church- though it was held  by many- it finally became official in the last 2 hundred years [ 1854 for the Immaculate Conception- 1950 for the Assumption of Mary doctrine].

 The doctrine teaches that the Virgin Mary- Jesus Mom- was born ‘without the taint of original sin’. Now- what does that mean?

 Some Protestants think the Catholics teach that Mary was ‘sinless’ in the same way Christ was sinless.

 Actually- that’s not the official doctrine [see- it’s important to know the official teaching when we engage like this]. The actual teaching- that has the churches Imprimatur on it- is that Mary WAS A SINNER- just like the rest of us- but in order for Jesus to have been born from a pure vessel- that the actual work of the Cross- Redemption- it was applied to Mary ‘ahead of time’.

 Yes- the official teaching is that Mary ‘was saved’ from her sin- just like the rest of us- thru the Cross. The difference is the forgiveness that came to Mary- came to her before she was born- yes- the teaching does teach that Mary was born ‘without sin’ but not like Jesus was without sin- but she was ‘without sin’ because her salvation was applied ahead of time- way ahead of time- before she was born.

 Okay- do Protestants believe in this teaching? No. But is it ‘so way out of line’ to the point where we should view our Catholic brothers and sisters as ‘non Christian’ because of it? No- not in my view.

 Plus- many Catholics don’t even realize that this is what the doctrine teaches- many think it is talking about the birth of Jesus- being born without sin- by the act of the Holy Spirit descending upon the Virgin Mary and Mary conceiving.

 No- this is what we call ‘The Virgin birth- conceived by the Holy Ghost’. Jesus being born from a virgin with no earthly father.

 This is not the Immaculate Conception.

 So right here alone [trust me- there are many more examples that I could give] Both Catholics and Protestants usually get the doctrine wrong- yet they remain divided their whole lives- over something that they are not even right about.

 So I have found this type of stuff to be a problem while striving for Christian unity- and many Christians prefer to see the ‘other side’ in a negative light- and will continue to view them that way- till they die.

 I always feel bad when I lose a friend from the site- sometimes you can’t help it [other times it is my fault!] but sometimes it’s because we have views about things- strongly held views- and when others hold to a different view- well we try and avoid them.

 One day I received a Friends Request- to my surprise- it was from a young Catholic priest- I did not know him but he must have read a few posts of mine and liked them. He often gave me Thumbs Up comments on the posts- and at times would tell me he loved the posts.

 Most were my Theology/Church history posts.

 Often times Catholics and Protestants can agree and enjoy these types of studies. I love studying and teaching on the Church Fathers and early Christian history- and these sources all have a very strong Catholic flavor to them- so I see my fellow Catholics as being a part of a long tradition of Christian history.

 Many famous converts to the Catholic Church [Bishop John Newman- converted from the Anglican Church] convert because they read the Church Fathers- and when you read them- it’s obvious to see the catholic nature of the early church in these men’s writings.

 So anyway I was very happy to have a Catholic priest as one of my ‘on line students’ [and honored].

 But one day- during one of my studies [covering one subject for a month or so] to my surprise I saw he was gone [yes- the dreaded block]. I thought- geez- wonder why?

 I realized it was right in the middle of a study I did on Islam- and while I was doing the posts- I was also going thru a study on Islam- by the same guy who teaches it to the U.S. govt. - yes- it was a prof. [I think named Espinoza?] who teaches Islam to our govt. employees [sort of like a tolerance type thing].

 Though the teacher was Catholic- yet he was VERY much pro Islam- I mean to the point where I had to reject some of the stuff he was saying- and finish the study from my own education on Islam.

 At one point- he taught that the spread of Islam thru out the world had a wonderful- liberating effect on all the women in the lands where Islam spread. I mean it was so obvious that the man had no idea what he was talking about [in this area] that I realized he was not a good source [this happens every so often].

 And it was more troubling that this was the guy Obama picked to teach Islam to our govt. employees [don’t get me wrong here- he teaches our govt. workers- not to convert them- but more of an informative type thing- just like you would teach any other course about sexual harassment- or whatever].

 Anyway- in one of my posts while teaching on my site- I did refer to Mohamed as ‘the prophet’- now- I don’t receive Mohamed that way myself- but because I was teaching some Muslims who did recently join the site- well I used the title in this way.

 I think that might have been the ‘last straw’ for my student/priest- he ‘went on Pilgrimage’ right after that post.

 Okay- today’s point is we all should try our best to be ‘tolerant’ that is- we should give people as much grace/mercy as possible- but at the same time we also need to be honest about the Christian faith.

 Yes- as Christians we believe salvation comes thru Christ- he was not just ‘one religious leader among many’ no- we believe he is the Way- the Truth- the Life/light- no man comes to the Father- but by him.

 Sometimes we do our best not to offend- we might even go out of our way to receive people- other religions and systems that are not Christian- that’s okay- I have Muslim and Jewish and all types of friends- I’m glad they are my friends!

 But we also have to be honest about our beliefs- and every now and then that might- just might- earn you a BLOCK.

  Here are my past teachings that contain the word apocrypha- something I mentioned on today’s post- S- sermon 1-28-18

 The past few weeks I had a few friends ask me about the Dead Sea Scrolls- and a few other questions about the ‘lost books of the bible’ and some other common- and mistaken ideas [like the original sin being Eve had sex with the serpent].

So- I figured I would cover a little Jewish history- which would help in this study of Hebrews-

And also hit on a few of these subjects.

As we read Hebrews- it helps to also understand some of the history that we don’t have in our bibles [though the Catholic bibles do have some of it in the Apocrypha].

Ok- the ruling empire at the time of Christ was Rome- just prior to the appearance of Jesus- the Roman Emperor- Caesar Augustus- consolidated the Roman Empire under his rule-

Rome was ruled by a senate- some famous names from history were in it- Cicero being one.

Caesar Augustus was the nephew of Julius Caesar- his real name was Octavian [Octavius].

After the death of Julius Caesar- there were some power struggles that took place- between some other famous people.

Marc Antony being one of them [Cleopatra too- he was in love with the girl for sure].

Now- we read about Augustus in the New Testament- and we read in the book of Revelation about the Mark of the Beast- and that those who don't worship- give homage to the Beast- they will be killed.

So- Many Christians would be killed because they would refuse to give homage to Caesar Augustus [meaning son of the Divine].

‘Wow- how did he get a name like that’ [there was more than one Caesar by the way- as well as more than one Herod- who did play a part in these power struggles- it can get confusing- even to me].

When Octavian defeated Marc Antony at Actium [32 BC].

Herod [The Great] had a problem- he had previously sided with Antony and found himself on the losing side.

Yet he was smart- did some ‘brown nosing’ as we say-and patched things up.

Herod had 3 sons- who would eventually take positions of authority in the Roman government at the time of Christ.

Herod Antipas was over the region that we read about in the New Testament where Jesus did most of his ministry- Galilee.

Ok- Octavian claimed deity because of a heavenly sign associated with his rise to power- and this is how he became called ‘Caesar Augustus’.

He sort of saw himself as a   ‘re-incarnate’- of his great uncle Julius Caesar.

‘John- what in the heck does this have to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls’.

Ok- good question.

The Jews had various responses to the empires that ruled over them during various times.

Alexander the Great instituted Hellenization- a sort of cultural compromise over the people he conquered.

They could keep their religious/cultural roots- but would be subservient to Alexander and Greek rule.

Some Jewish people rejected any compromise- we call them the Essenes- they moved out of town- so to speak, and lived in what we refer to as the Qumran community.

This was a few centuries before the time of Christ- and this was where the Dead Seas Scrolls were found in the 20th century.

A Bedouin boy was looking for his goats- threw a rock in a cave right off the Dead Sea- and that’s how we found the scrolls.

The scrolls might have been hidden there by the Essenes-

Now- when my friends asked me about them- I told them that it’s been a while since I read up on any of this- but to the best of my memory the thing that made them significant was the fact that they were very old manuscripts- from the bible- and they backed up what we had had all along.

I did read up this week- and basically had it right.

The earliest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament we had previously dated back to around 900- 1000 A.D.

These manuscripts went back about 1000 years earlier- and they contained portions from almost every book of the Old testament- and some complete books.

The only book missing was Esther.

So- this was indeed a very significant find for scholars.

But the Scrolls also contain some of the writings from the Essenes themselves- things we never had before- so this too was significant.

There were Jews at the time of the first century who tried to ‘get along’ with Rome- and with the person in charge of their region [one of the sons of Herod the Great at the time of Christ].

These are referred to as Herodian’s in the bible.

Some wanted a revolution to rid Rome from Jerusalem- these were the Zealots [one of Jesus disciples was in this group].

Some thought if they returned to a legalistic obeisance of the law- that this would bring in a deliverer- like the stories we read about in the Old testament- these were the Pharisees.

And some took more of a political compromise- these were the Sadducees.

Eventually a war with Rome would be fought [By the way- Josephus- the famous 1st century historian- fought on the side of the Jews in the war- and after Jerusalem was sacked in A.D. 70- he went to Rome and wrote his great works- thinking he would make a case for the Jewish people with the Romans. This is why we have his works today- which are very valuable to scholars].

NOTE- In time I’ll try and cover how we ‘got our bibles’ [called the Canon- meaning Rule/ Measurement].

Frankly- there is a lot of confusion in the general public about conspiracies [like the Catholic Church had some type of plot to keep certain books out].

Or stories about how the Church taught Mary Magdalene was a prostitute so they could discredit her.

Actually- we read in the gospels that Jesus cast out ‘spirits’ from a woman who was probably living this type of life-

And Jesus had a ministry to the down and out- it is indeed possible that Mary was one of these women-

And if true- it would not demean her in any way-

That’s how this tradition more than likely developed- But- we don’t know for sure.

So a few years back the Church officially said ‘we don’t know’.

Ok- Plot?

No- just being careful.

So there are other misguided beliefs like this- that sincere people have- and over time I hope to get to them.

I’ll do one more in keeping with this post.

I mentioned above that Caesar Augustus did indeed take the title of ‘son of God’.

And some critics of the Church say ‘see- there were all types of religions that had Sons of God’.

I watched one show a few years back- and it stated that these religions had ’12 disciples- a leader named Lord and Savior- and he healed and claimed to be God’s Son- and rose from the dead’.

Ok- that show was ‘fibbing’ to put it lightly- they went too far [historically speaking] in trying to diminish the Christians claim of Christ by doing this.

Now- is there some truth to this at all?

Yes- like I just mentioned above- Octavian did indeed claim deity- a ‘son of god’.

So- how do we explain this?

In the book of Galatians the bible says ‘in the FULLNESS of times God sent forth his Son’.

Jesus came at a set time in history- in fulfilment of the Jewish Prophets- to be who he was- and to do what he did.

Now- this is not special pleading here- but I find it a masterpiece that God’s Son came at a time when the Roman Empire had one sitting on the throne- who too claimed deity.

Yet Jesus was in a region of the lower class- his men were not highly educated- and his followers were people under oppression.

Augustus lived in the wealthy and influential capital of ‘the world’- he had all you could ever ask for- he was worshiped as a god.

Yet in 3 short centuries- one of the heirs of the empire- Constantine- would have an experience – not with a former Caesar- but with a vison of a Cross-

He would convert to Christianity- and declare Christianity to be the religion of the realm.

[parts]

https://ccoutreach87.com/2016/12/04/2-witnesses/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2016/12/01/logos/

https://ccoutreach87.com/hebrews-updated-2015/

https://ccoutreach87.com/galatians-johns-gospel/

https://ccoutreach87.com/romans-updated-2015/ 

I mentioned Herod- here’s some past teaching I did on him-

So- I figured I would cover a little Jewish history- which would help in this study of Hebrews-

And also hit on a few of these subjects.

As we read Hebrews- it helps to also understand some of the history that we don’t have in our bibles [though the Catholic bibles do have some of it in the Apocrypha].

Ok- the ruling empire at the time of Christ was Rome- just prior to the appearance of Jesus- the Roman Emperor- Caesar Augustus- consolidated the Roman Empire under his rule-

Rome was ruled by a senate- some famous names from history were in it- Cicero being one.

Caesar Augustus was the nephew of Julius Caesar- his real name was Octavian [Octavius].

After the death of Julius Caesar- there were some power struggles that took place- between some other famous people.

Marc Antony being one of them [Cleopatra too- he was in love with the girl for sure].

Now- we read about Augustus in the New Testament- and we read in the book of Revelation about the Mark of the Beast- and that those who don't worship- give homage to the Beast- they will be killed.

So- Many Christians would be killed because they would refuse to give homage to Caesar Augustus [meaning son of the Divine].

‘Wow- how did he get a name like that’ [there was more than one Caesar by the way- as well as more than one Herod- who did play a part in these power struggles- it can get confusing- even to me].

When Octavian defeated Marc Antony at Actium [32 BC].

Herod [The Great] had a problem- he had previously sided with Antony and found himself on the losing side.

Yet he was smart- did some ‘brown nosing’ as we say-and patched things up.

Herod had 3 sons- who would eventually take positions of authority in the Roman government at the time of Christ.

Herod Antipas was over the region that we read about in the New Testament where Jesus did most of his ministry- Galilee.

Ok- Octavian claimed deity because of a heavenly sign associated with his rise to power- and this is how he became called ‘Caesar Augustus’.

He sort of saw himself as a   ‘re-incarnate’- of his great uncle Julius Caesar.

‘John- what in the heck does this have to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls’.

Ok- good question.

The Jews had various responses to the empires that ruled over them during various times.

Alexander the Great instituted Hellenization- a sort of cultural compromise over the people he conquered.

They could keep their religious/cultural roots- but would be subservient to Alexander and Greek rule.

Some Jewish people rejected any compromise- we call them the Essenes- they moved out of town- so to speak, and lived in what we refer to as the Qumran community.

This was a few centuries before the time of Christ- and this was where the Dead Seas Scrolls were found in the 20th century.

A Bedouin boy was looking for his goats- threw a rock in a cave right off the Dead Sea- and that’s how we found the scrolls.

The scrolls might have been hidden there by the Essenes-

Now- when my friends asked me about them- I told them that it’s been a while since I read up on any of this- but to the best of my memory the thing that made them significant was the fact that they were very old manuscripts- from the bible- and they backed up what we had had all along.

I did read up this week- and basically had it right.

The earliest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament we had previously dated back to around 900- 1000 A.D.

These manuscripts went back about 1000 years earlier- and they contained portions from almost every book of the Old testament- and some complete books.

The only book missing was Esther.

So- this was indeed a very significant find for scholars.

But the Scrolls also contain some of the writings from the Essenes themselves- things we never had before- so this too was significant.

There were Jews at the time of the first century who tried to ‘get along’ with Rome- and with the person in charge of their region [one of the sons of Herod the Great at the time of Christ].

These are referred to as Herodian’s in the bible.

Some wanted a revolution to rid Rome from Jerusalem- these were the Zealots [one of Jesus disciples was in this group].

Some thought if they returned to a legalistic obeisance of the law- that this would bring in a deliverer- like the stories we read about in the Old testament- these were the Pharisees.

And some took more of a political compromise- these were the Sadducees.

Eventually a war with Rome would be fought [By the way- Josephus- the famous 1st century historian- fought on the side of the Jews in the war- and after Jerusalem was sacked in A.D. 70- he went to Rome and wrote his great works- thinking he would make a case for the Jewish people with the Romans. This is why we have his works today- which are very valuable to scholars].

NOTE- In time I’ll try and cover how we ‘got our bibles’ [called the Canon- meaning Rule/ Measurement].

Frankly- there is a lot of confusion in the general public about conspiracies [like the Catholic Church had some type of plot to keep certain books out].

Or stories about how the Church taught Mary Magdalene was a prostitute so they could discredit her.

Actually- we read in the gospels that Jesus cast out ‘spirits’ from a woman who was probably living this type of life-

And Jesus had a ministry to the down and out- it is indeed possible that Mary was one of these women-

And if true- it would not demean her in any way-

That’s how this tradition more than likely developed- But- we don’t know for sure.

So a few years back the Church officially said ‘we don’t know’.

Ok- Plot?

No- just being careful.

So there are other misguided beliefs like this- that sincere people have- and over time I hope to get to them.

I’ll do one more in keeping with this post.

I mentioned above that Caesar Augustus did indeed take the title of ‘son of God’.

And some critics of the Church say ‘see- there were all types of religions that had Sons of God’.

I watched one show a few years back- and it stated that these religions had ’12 disciples- a leader named Lord and Savior- and he healed and claimed to be God’s Son- and rose from the dead’.

Ok- that show was ‘fibbing’ to put it lightly- they went too far [historically speaking] in trying to diminish the Christians claim of Christ by doing this.

Now- is there some truth to this at all?

Yes- like I just mentioned above- Octavian did indeed claim deity- a ‘son of god’.

So- how do we explain this?

In the book of Galatians the bible says ‘in the FULLNESS of times God sent forth his Son’.

Jesus came at a set time in history- in fulfilment of the Jewish Prophets- to be who he was- and to do what he did.

Now- this is not special pleading here- but I find it a masterpiece that God’s Son came at a time when the Roman Empire had one sitting on the throne- who too claimed deity.

Yet Jesus was in a region of the lower class- his men were not highly educated- and his followers were people under oppression.

Augustus lived in the wealthy and influential capital of ‘the world’- he had all you could ever ask for- he was worshiped as a god.

Yet in 3 short centuries- one of the heirs of the empire- Constantine- would have an experience – not with a former Caesar- but with a vision of a Cross-

He would convert to Christianity- and declare Christianity to be the religion of the realm.

[parts]

My past teaching where the word Septuagint showed up-

(882)1ST SAMUEL; INTRO, CHAPTER 1- Originally the books of 1st and 2nd Samuel were one volume. When the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament was made [the Septuagint] they were added with 1st and 2nd Kings and were called ‘The books of the kingdoms’. In order to keep this volume from becoming too big, they were divided into the present divisions. In chapter one we see the family of Elkanah and Hannah [and wife #2 Pininnah!]. They go up to the Tabernacle of the Lord in Shiloh to worship the true God. Hannah has no children while wife # 2 does. This becomes a point of contention and jealousy between the two wives. Hannah pours her heart out to the Lord and makes a vow. She tells the Lord if he gives her a son that she will dedicate him to the Lord. Eli the priest sees Hannah praying silently [her lips moving but hearing no voice] and he assumes she’s drunk! Why? Was she stumbling and acting drunk? No. It was because he thought she was mumbling [speech] like a drunk. In Acts chapter 2 the same thing is assumed. Those who received the outpouring of the Spirit were thought to be drunk. Why? Were they stumbling and falling? No, once again it was a speech thing. They were speaking all types of unknown languages [known to the various groups there that day] and people thought they were acting like drunks when they can’t talk clearly. I emphasized this because it’s common today for renewal movements to associate the Spirit with people actually stumbling and driving in a drunken type state. While I don’t want to be dogmatic and say this can never be of God, yet many of these believers will use the Acts chapter 2 example to justify their belief. Act’s 2 does not teach ‘being drunk in the Spirit’ in this manner. Now the Lord hears Hannah’s request and she gives birth to Samuel. She keeps him until he is weaned [2 or 3 years old] and then she honors her vow and dedicates him to the Lord. She actually gave him up to become a full servant of God at Shiloh. It was not an easy vow to keep. As we go thru this book we will cover lots of interesting history. Samuel will become a mighty prophetic leader in Israel. He will be the one to introduce king Saul as Israel’s first king. The last verse in Judges says ‘there was no king in the land in those days, every man did what he thought was right in his own eyes’. It’s common to think this means God punished Israel for not having a human king. In actuality God will tell Israel that they were rejecting his kingship over them by wanting a ‘king like the other nations’. We will learn that God did not originally intend for Israel to have a singular human king. The description from judges simply shows us that sinful people, who reject God’s law, will go astray. In these instances a king can bring some sort of stability and government. The kings of Israel will serve in this capacity.

Because our bibles were written in Greek [which shows you how strong the Greek influence effected the early church- our first New Testaments were written in Greek- though the Roman Empire was the world Empire of the day.

 But Alexander the Great- the famed Greek conqueror who came a few centuries before Christ- he instituted what we refer to as Helenization.

 A form of conquering where you let the people you conquer keep their culture- but you also use parts of your culture [in this case the Greek language] to permeate the vanquished.

 So- the Roman Empire of Jesus day [who at one time were under the rule of the Greek Empire] continued to write in Greek.

 It wasn’t until around a few centuries after the time of Christ that the first Latin bible was written [by Saint Jerome].

 But even his bible [the Latin Vulgate] used the Greek Old Testament [called the Septuagint] instead of the Hebrew- for his Latin translation.

 Ok- the point being- the Greek world did indeed have a strong influence on the early church.

 And the church had to refute the belief that all matter was evil.

 The Christian doctrine of creation [developed under saint Augustine- the 4th-5th century bishop of Hippo- North Africa].

 Was the teaching that matter was good- that God created the material realm- so it is not  inherently evil.

 But- after the fall of man [Genesis 1-3] a curse did indeed come upon the earth [some times when the bible says ‘the world’ it is speaking of the earth- but other times it is speaking of the fallen order- the sinful realm of man. That’s why there is some confusion- till this day- among Christians. They might read verses like this- and think the bible is saying the earth itself- the planet- is wicked. Actually in those verses it is speaking about the fallen order of sinful men. See? ‘For all that is in THE WORLD- the lust of the flesh- the lust of the eyes and the pride of life- is not of the father- but is of the WORLD- and the WORLD is passing away’- this is one example from the epistle of John- here the World is not saying the planet- but the world of sinful man- a fallen ‘world’ order.]

 So- in conclusion [if I ever get there!] we- as believers- reject the belief that all matter is evil.

 No- man was created in the image of God- and God is the creator of all things- both visible [earth- man- etc] and invisible [mentioned in the above chapter].

 The evil we see in the ‘world’ today is simply a result of mans sin- mans choice to live in rebellion against God.

 We can’t escape ‘this world of sin’ by simply denying ourselves [though that is one aspect of the Christian life].

 But God sent his Son into the world to redeem man- Christ died for all men- and this is the Divine act of Salvation.

 When we as humans partake of this Salvation- we are then free- free to enjoy this life- that God gave us- and we don’t have to have the mindset of a Socrates- who saw this natural life as evil.

 The apostle Paul says in his letter to the Romans;

 ‘Present your bodies as a living sacrifice- HOLY and acceptable to God’.

 See?

 Our bodies- the actual flesh we live in- can be Holy- sanctified- when submitted to the will of God.

  This is from my Romans teaching I did a few years ago- ROMANS 11-13

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/3-12-15-romans-11-13.zip 

[note- there’s much more on the video than the post]

.ROMANS 11

.ROMANS 12

.ROMANS 13

[parts]

St. Thomas and Augustine.

 I mean these are 2 of my favorite Catholic scholars.

 Augustine- the 4/5th century Bishop of North Africa- and Thomas- the great 13th century Doctor Angelicas [Angelic Doctor].

 Yes- these are some big players in Theology and Philosophy.

 So why have the media reported that the pres used them in his war strategy?

 They are also famous for the development of the Just war Theory.

 Yeah- people for centuries have appealed to these great thinkers in their justification for war.

 But Obama- how does he find the time to read these guys?

 I mean- unless their names are on the golf balls [he just played his 100th round!]

 I don’t see him having time to read them.

 So why mention it?

 Because he fumbled the ball with our Catholic friends [who just began a 2 week prayer and fast against the repression of religious liberty- because of the presidents demands that they provide birth control thru their institutions].

 And he needs to make amends- so lo and behold- he loves reading the Catholic scholars!

 If you put all this together- the ongoing scandals- not just one.

 The actual lies- the ones they have been caught in- on paper.

 I mean even a mainline reporter could not believe that the revealing of this was ‘no big deal’.

 And now- the fact that the pres came out the other day and addressed the nation ‘me and my Whitehouse have not released any CLASSIFIED information’.

 ‘It’s an insult to think this’.

 Then- one week later- on Friday- they sent a letter to congress- declassifying the drone war

in Yemen.

 They were basically saying ‘yeah- we were behind the releasing of all the info- it’s just we ‘declassified it’ first’.

 He is going to say when he released the info- his office first ‘declassified it’.

 But when he addressed you- and me- he was outraged- he made it sound like he was not aware of the leaks.

 And 99 % of the public took it this way.

 Look- when you get caught doing this- over and over and over- I mean this is not a one time affair.

 Then it does make the public wonder about everything else.

 And when the public asks for answers- and you respond by playing the race card- then it’s time for some people to resign.

[parts]

Here are my past teachings where the word Eucharist was found-

ACTS 2- The Apostles are gathered together in the upper room. As they continue in unity and prayer the Spirit of God comes upon them like a rushing wind. There appear ‘cloven tongues’ like fire above each of them. Why this image? Why not ‘ears’ or some other sanctified body part? God is going to give supernatural power to the words that they will speak. In a few chapters we will read how an angel will supernaturally deliver Peter from prison and say ‘go, speak the words of this life’. These tongues are a precursor to the tremendous fire that will be loosed from their lips. James says the tongue is a little member but boasteth great things, it has the ability to start fires. Jesus said he came to earth to ‘start a fire’ and how he wished it were already burning. Here he gets his wish! Now the Apostles and early believers experience the gift of tongues. They begin speaking and prophesying in the unknown languages of all those who are gathered together to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. God ordained this event to be strategically done at this time. All the surrounding regions heard the believers speak the ‘wondrous works of God’ in their native tongue. Peter stands up and delivers a scathing message! He basically tells Israel ‘this is that which the prophet Joel spoke about’ he goes on and says this outpouring is part of Gods predetermined plan to pour out his Spirit on all flesh in the last days. He speaks of divine manifestations [dreams, visions] and carries the prophecy right to the end of the age. He then speaks the gospel of Christ and tells Israel ‘this is the Jesus you killed’. Wow, these guys are bold. Peter leads them to faith in Christ, their public baptism is the immediate sign of their willingness to be identified with Jesus and 3 thousand Jews become believers this day. Now, what is the church? This corporate group of first time[overblog- see the rest here- https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/05/19/sunday-sermon/ ]followers do 4 basic things. They ‘continue in the Apostles doctrine and breaking of bread and prayers and share their goods with all in need’[true fellowship]. This early community was a brotherhood who actually gave priority to the teachings of Jesus passed on to them from the Apostles. Don’t miss this! Many will develop all sorts of practices and beliefs that ‘make up church’. Some will justify extra biblical beliefs under the guise of ‘the Apostles doctrine’ as in if it were something totally contrary or not known thru the gospels or the writing of scripture. Paul will tell Timothy to stay true to the traditions he passed on to him. But I want to focus on the fact that the Apostles doctrine was not something different then the basic instructions Jesus left us in the gospels. Paul will add to this basic body of Christian doctrine thru his letters to the churches, as well as the whole New Testament. But we do not see a bunch of strange or unknown doctrines that come from this time period. The basics are mentioned above. I do want to stress the fact that this early expression of church life had no ‘Pastor’ in the sense of their gatherings being a time where a singular authority figure had oversight of the entire community. They had strong leaders to be sure, but would avoid the Protestant idea of Pastor. They had no church building or belief in a strong liturgy. The ‘breaking of bread’ was a common meal where they all shared together in a real life setting. And of course their giving was radical, it was not ‘a tithe’ and it was done to meet the real needs of the community around them. All these elements are basic to what the New Testament church is. A functioning society of people in whom Christ Spirit dwells and who see themselves as a real spiritual community of people. As we progress thru out the history of the church as seen in Acts we will never lose this basic mindset. It will be carried into the epistles of the New Testament and remain the best idea of ‘local church’ as found in the first century. There is a trend going on right now in Evangelicalism that says ‘lets return to the ancient practices of the church and see what we can find’. As an avid reader of church history I am not totally against this movement, but I do see a danger in thinking ‘the ancient practices’ are the 2nd or 3rd century development of liturgy and Eucharist and other early ideas, and by passing the ‘real ancient’ story in the book of Acts. To put it simply, some of the Protestant and Evangelical ‘practices and beliefs’ that have developed since the reformation are ‘ancient’. I believe we all have a long way to go, but the ‘low view’ of the Lords Table [low as opposed to ‘high church view’. Though I personally believe in the Lords table as a memorial, not as the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. Yet I personally don’t like referring to such an important practice as low!] seems to be the true ancient practice as seen in Acts. The absence of the Priest officiating over the altar is no where to be seen in the actual ‘church’ setting. This ancient church is really a simple brotherhood of believers having all things common and having the resurrection of the Son of God as the central organizing principle of their lives.

 JOHN 13-

John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

https://youtu.be/lvx4uZsk37c  John 13

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/8-18-16-john-13.zip 

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.  Jesus

 ON VIDEO-

.Maximillian Kolbe

.Bag lady

. Should you be concerned?

.Did Jesus seal Judas fate?

NEW- [past posts- verses below]

THE STRANGE MEAL-

Jesus sits with his men- for the proverbial ‘last meal’.

John’s account is unique- Jesus does not mention the institution of the Eucharist- Lords Supper.

‘Do this in remembrance of me’-

Yet- he adds the foot washing incident- none of the other gospels show this.

Now- Jesus is at the table- and yes- he does a strange thing.

Strange in the fact that he is the Lord and master- and even in Jesus parables he teaches that the Lord does not serve the servant- but the servant serves the Lord.

Yet here- once again- we see the dichotomy of the kingdom at work.

He takes off his outer clothes- and wraps himself with a towel- and begins to wash the disciple’s feet.

He comes to Peter-

Peter ‘not so Lord- never’.

Jesus ‘if I don’t wash you- you have no part with me’.

Peter ‘ok- then give me a bath’.

Jesus ‘he that is washed- only needs to wash his feet’.

Principle?

In this world- yes- we get dirty.

There’s stuff that defiles us.

At those moments in life- you don’t 'start all over’

No- you just receive the cleansing for that day.

It’s important to avoid the ‘all is lost’ mindset- when we have setbacks in life.

[I’ll link my addiction recovery teaching here- because I deal with that mindset in depth-https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/christian-recovery-from-addiction-long-version/ ]

Now- we see another interesting thing.

Jesus pronounces that one at the meal will betray him.

I mean that statement can really shake up the group.

And the one who might be the most insecure- well- he really wants to know.

So- Peter says to John ‘ask him who it is’.

John asks- and Jesus makes another declarative statement ‘he to whom I give the bread- after I dip it- he’s the one’.

Notice Jesus did not simply describe what was going to happen- he SPOKE IT.

One WILL BETRAY ME- and it’s the one I GIVE THE BREAD TO.

It’s almost like Jesus is giving permission- he himself is opening the door for the dirty deed.

How?

In this chapter satan puts it into the heart of Judas- to betray Jesus.

Yet- it is not until Jesus makes these declarative statements- that satan ‘enters Judas heart’.

I think Jesus had to give the permission- and he did it thru his own words.

He said no man could take his life- but he had to willingly give it up.

We also know Jesus could have called thousands of angels- if he wanted.

But he chose to lay his life down.

Now- as far as I can tell- the only one at the table that knew Judas was the one- was John [and of course Jesus and Judas].

But the others were left in the dark- especially the insecure one- Peter.

Jesus tells them he is going to go away- and his men will not be able to follow him.

Peter pipes up ‘why not- I will die for you Jesus’!

We see the insecurity here-

‘I’m the toughest guy in the room’.

Jesus responds

‘before the roster crows- you will deny me- 3 times’.

As the chapter ends- I think Peter was rocked by this statement.

Things were moving fast- Jesus just said one would betray him.

And Peter had no idea if it was him.

Now- Jesus tells Peter he will deny him.

I think Peter thought it was him.

Today we make a distinction between the betrayer and denier.

But at that table- that strange table- it was a test for his men.

And Peter will be sifted soon.

Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.  James

 I mentioned the council of Trent on today’s post- Sunday sermon1-28-18 Here’s my past teaching on Trent-

I mention Corinthians on today’s video- here’s my study- https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/1st-2nd-corinthians/

The 6th session of Trent was the one where the church dealt with justification [how we become saved in Gods sight].

Rome made a distinction between mortal and Venial sin in the council- the church said that Baptism is the INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE of justification. Yet faith is the Root- Foundation and Initial act that justifies.

Rome also taught that Mortal sin kills the grace in the soul that brings justification- and when a person commits a mortal sin- they need the ‘2nd plank of justification’ in order to be brought back into a state of Grace.

This 2nd Plank is the Sacrament of Penance [confession]. Catholic Moral Theologians use an example to show the difference between Mortal and Venial sin.

Drinking- if you take a drink [alcohol] not a sin. If you get tipsy- Venial- and if you get flat drunk- mortal.

This is a true teaching by the way- not making this up.

Catholic scholars are not in total agreement on all the Mortal/Venial sins.

Some teach that missing Mass on Sunday is a Mortal sin.

I just threw this in to show you the debates that take place.

The teachings from Trent are referred to as Tridentine.

The Protestants [early on] rejected the belief that a person can lose Gods grace once he has it- later on the Protestants would divide- severely- over this teaching- Predestination and the Perseverance of the Saints.

But early on all the major Reformers did indeed teach this.

Luther believed in the doctrine of Predestination just as much- if not more- than John Calvin.

But sometimes in these history shows they get this wrong and say Luther and Calvin disagreed on it- that’s a common mistake that you hear every so often.

Luther actually wrote a book dedicated to the subject [The Bondage of the Will] Calvin never wrote a book solely on the subject.

Okay- as we end this brief study of the Protestant Reformation- you could also call it a primer on Catholic doctrine [short one].

Why is it important that we study this?

In John chapter 17 Jesus said that he desired unity for all of Gods people- and many of these divisions- which date back 500 years- are commonly misunderstood on both sides.

It is common in our day to run across an ex Catholic who might say ‘you know- I left the church because I don’t believe I need to confess to a priest’ or ‘the Catholic church teaches you are saved by works’.

The original Reformers did not have a problem with confession- the Lutherans carried the practice over into their communion.

And like I just showed you- the Catholic church rejected the doctrine of being saved ‘by works’ [Pelagianism] and simply emphasized the teaching found in the bible- the book of James- and focused more on James than Paul [who the protestants focus on].

So yes- there are still differences- but if we are not informed- then it makes it harder to strive for unity- and at the end of the day God does desire unity for all his people.

The other day I quoted the great Civil rights leader- MLK. In one of his famous speeches that’s played when we celebrate his life- you hear Martin say that not only was he seeking unity among the races- but also in the church.

He said he wanted to see Catholics and Protestants- as well as Blacks and Whites- sit down together- he referred to us all as Gods kids.

I think we should strive to achieve the desire of Martin- and Jesus.

Amen. [parts] 1782- PROTESTANT REFORMATION CONCLUSION

Today let’s finish up the study on the Protestant Reformation. We left off on Luther disputing with the church over the doctrine of how a person becomes just in the sight of God- is it by works or faith?

Now- to the surprise of many Protestants [and Catholics!] both sides agreed that a person cannot be justified by works.

Yes- the Catholic Church rejected what was known as Pelagianism. In the early centuries of the church there was a Catholic priest- named Pelagius- who taught that people had the ability within themselves to obey Gods law and become saved that way.

He rejected the doctrine of original sin and another famous bishop- Saint Augustine- would refute Pelagius and teach salvation comes by the Grace of God. The official Catholic position was to reject Pelagius and accept Augustine.

Okay- then where’s the difference?

The church council that spells it out is the Council of Trent [named after the Italian city where the council took place in the 1500’s- Trento].

This council is often referred to as the Counter Reformation. The church rejected the Protestant line- but also acknowledged the need for reform and made some changes.

This is the council where the church rejects Pelagianism- and also says the position of Luther [Justification by Faith ALONE] was flawed.

The church appealed to the New Testament letter of Saint James- where James uses an example from the life of Abraham [found in Genesis 22] where Abraham obeys God and is willing to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar.

Of course this never happens- God was simply testing Abraham- but James says this act of obedience justified him in Gods sight.

James says ‘see how a man is justified by works- and not by faith ALONE’.

The argument from Rome was Faith played THE major role in justification- but was not sufficient by itself- there had to be righteous works eventually associated with it in order for God to say ‘you are just’ [saved].

Luther disagreed and said God justified Abraham before he had good works- we find this in Genesis 15. God says to Abraham ‘look- count all the stars- so shall your offspring be’ and Walla- the bible also says Abraham was justified in God’s eyes the moment he believed the promise.

Who’s right?

Actually they both are.

I have taught this a few times over the years- and it would take too much time to re-do right now.

But I believe James and Paul [the 2 who debate this in the bible] are simply looking at different aspects of salvation/justification.

Paul emphasized faith- and James showed us how true faith always has works with it.

When you read the statements that came out from the council of Trent- some of them do seem to indicate that both sides might have been talking past each other at some points.

In the heat of the day they were too quick to condemn the other side- without really trying hard to achieve unity [like politics!].

The 6th session of Trent was the one where the church dealt with justification [how we become saved in Gods sight].

Rome made a distinction between mortal and Venial sin in the council- the church said that Baptism is the INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE of justification. Yet faith is the Root- Foundation and Initial act that justifies.

Rome also taught that Mortal sin kills the grace in the soul that brings justification- and when a person commits a mortal sin- they need the ‘2nd plank of justification’ in order to be brought back into a state of Grace.

This 2nd Plank is the Sacrament of Penance [confession]. Catholic Moral Theologians use an example to show the difference between Mortal and Venial sin.

Drinking- if you take a drink [alcohol] not a sin. If you get tipsy- Venial- and if you get flat drunk- mortal.

This is a true teaching by the way- not making this up.

Catholic scholars are not in total agreement on all the Mortal/Venial sins.

Some teach that missing Mass on Sunday is a Mortal sin.

I just threw this in to show you the debates that take place.

The teachings from Trent are referred to as Tridentine.

The Protestants [early on] rejected the belief that a person can lose Gods grace once he has it- later on the Protestants would divide- severely- over this teaching- Predestination and the Perseverance of the Saints.

But early on all the major Reformers did indeed teach this.

Luther believed in the doctrine of Predestination just as much- if not more- than John Calvin.

But sometimes in these history shows they get this wrong and say Luther and Calvin disagreed on it- that’s a common mistake that you hear every so often.

Luther actually wrote a book dedicated to the subject [The Bondage of the Will] Calvin never wrote a book solely on the subject.

Okay- as we end this brief study of the Protestant Reformation- you could also call it a primer on Catholic doctrine [short one].

Why is it important that we study this?

In John chapter 17 Jesus said that he desired unity for all of Gods people- and many of these divisions- which date back 500 years- are commonly misunderstood on both sides.

It is common in our day to run across an ex Catholic who might say ‘you know- I left the church because I don’t believe I need to confess to a priest’ or ‘the Catholic church teaches you are saved by works’.

The original Reformers did not have a problem with confession- the Lutherans carried the practice over into their communion.

And like I just showed you- the Catholic church rejected the doctrine of being saved ‘by works’ [Pelagianism] and simply emphasized the teaching found in the bible- the book of James- and focused more on James than Paul [who the protestants focus on].

So yes- there are still differences- but if we are not informed- then it makes it harder to strive for unity- and at the end of the day God does desire unity for all his people.

The other day I quoted the great Civil rights leader- MLK. In one of his famous speeches that’s played when we celebrate his life- you hear Martin say that not only was he seeking unity among the races- but also in the church.

He said he wanted to see Catholics and Protestants- as well as Blacks and Whites- sit down together- he referred to us all as Gods kids.

I think we should strive to achieve the desire of Martin- and Jesus.

Amen.

[parts] NOTE 3- Augustine.

I personally am a fan of Saint Augustine. He is one of the famous church fathers of the early centuries.

In my view he holds a distinct place- he is admired by both staunch Protestants [Reformed Theologians]- and Catholics.

Why?

The original Protestant Reformation of the 16th century had 3 key figures.

Martin Luther [Germany]- Ulrich Zwingli [Swiss] and John Calvin [studied for the priesthood in Paris- later took a key role in Geneva Switzerland].

One of the key beliefs- of at least 2 of these 3- was the doctrine mentioned above- Predestination.

It is a common mistake in our day to see historical documentaries [I have seen some] that refer to Calvin as someone who believed in Predestination [true] and that Luther disagreed with him.

That’s wrong [but you have to study theology to find this out- a brief reading of church history does not show you this- that’s why some of the well meaning documentaries you might see on the History channel get this wrong].

Okay- Martin Luther was a Catholic Monk- under an order called the Augustinian order- named after St. Augustine.

See?

Even though he would break away from the church- and the Lutheran church would form- yet he held to the original belief that the founder/namesake of his order taught.

Now- you do indeed find many verses in the bible that speak about God choosing us- and not us ‘choosing him’.

Or chapters [Romans 9] that say Gods choice of us has nothing to do with our own goodness- but he chose us because he loved us.

So- this teaching does indeed have scriptural backing.

But- you also have scripture to back up the opposing view- which is referred to as Arminianism.

Named after another church leader- Jacob Arminius.

He held to the Calvinist view at first- but as he began studying- to defend this view- he came to the belief that this view [at least among its more radical adherents] was wrong.

These 2 groups- Calvinists- Armenians- became enemies as the Protestant Reformation grew.

The followers of men like John Wesley [founder of the Methodist church] disagreed strongly with those who held to the Calvinist view.

In our day- you still have adherents of both views- seeing the ‘other side’ as non Christian.

It’s sad- but this is just one- of thousands of teachings- that have had this effect.

The Catholic leaders warned of this at the time of the breakaway- which took place in the 16th century.

They feared that once you made a clean break from the historic church- that the ‘breaking’ would never stop.

As you look at the scene over the past 500 years- it’s hard to say they were wrong.

One last note- many modern Protestants do not hold Augustine- or any of the men mentioned above- in high regard at all.

Some hold to a belief [another popular one in groups that are Restorationist- as opposed to Reformist] that all of the early Christian expressions got off course [apostatized] and that the only ‘true’ church- just happens to be the group they are in.

Once again- this type of belief simply increases the division in the church- in my view.

Many reject men like Augustine- because of his influence by the Greek philosophers- they charge that some of the early church leaders were too much into philosophy.

For instance- one of the first Christian schools ever founded was in Alexandria- Egypt.

In the 2nd/3rd century Origen- an early church father- would take over the school and teach Christian theology.

But- the school was basically a school that first taught Greek philosophy.

Origen is respected by many [like me] but officially the church does not recognize him as a legitimate Church farther.

Why?

Because he did indeed hold to some views that were not Christian based- like the pre- existence of the soul.

This belief comes straight from Greek philosophy- not Christianity.

He also believed in what we refer to as Universalism- that at the end- everyone gets saved- even the Devil!

So- this debate has gone on for centuries- the debate over how ‘Platonic’ so and so is- or did men like Thomas Aquinas [ 13th century- another favorite of mine] simply mix Aristotelian thought [Aristotle] in with Christian teaching- and thus water down the true faith.

This is also the reason many [most] Protestants do not teach Philosophy- as a basic plank- in their seminaries.

I think this is a big mistake.

Philosophy- as a field- deals with the basic issues of life.

Why are we hear- what’s the purpose of mans existence- etc.

For the Protestant church to have basically abandoned this field- this left the secular world to shape it as they wish.

But- the Catholic Church has indeed engaged in this field- and in my view- has presented a better world view- than the secular philosophers.

Okay- now this post is becoming an entire study!

That’s it for now- I have lots of posts like this on the blog- if you want- just look them up there. [The above comes from my study on the Protestant Reformation- here’s the complete study- https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/protestant-reformation-luther/ ] [parts]

GW BRIDGE- https://youtu.be/70CVdZxFIMg GW bridge ON VIDEO- .Foundation stones .Why Bishops? .Gnostics and Docetism .Dads boat .GOV Christie and hot dogs .Restore the paths .Isaiah and John .Memories of a kid- train tunnel .Robert Moses to blame? .Mayor LaGuardia .The argument for Rome .Church fathers .Mystics .Suicide signs .Apostolic succession .What church is the ‘true church’? .Most amazing intellectual discourse ever? Only if you don’t hear [have to watch to get it- sorry] .Bedrock .I am homeless- can you spare a 5?

NOTE- I made the video- and typed the notes sitting in my car at Hudson County Park [in the rain] Ill upload tomorrow at Dunkin Donuts [or somewhere else]. What big financial budget was needed for this? None. One of the things I want my minister friends to see- is it’s not about money. Sure- it would be easier to be at my home office- or even a home. But you don’t need it- you can use the things that you have. This has been one of my ‘pet peeves’ for many years. I want you to see how simple all of this is- the friends you see [both in Texas and here] are just friends I made along the way. The kingdom is about relationships- and sharing with one another- even Marie quoted Jesus- and as far as I know she’s not a Christian. So- maybe this whole unplanned experience was God’s will. To be honest- I never know- at least at the start. Be spontaneous- I left Texas on Sunday- because I heard the song ‘Head East’ [or group?] So yes- we all have limited time on the planet. Don’t live ‘too safe’ or you won’t live- at all. FRIDAY NIGHT- PARKING LOT- https://youtu.be/UYOvIw6jhiI Friday night- parking lot Just finished the GW bridge walk a few hours ago- and being it might be the last night sleeping in the car, I figured I’d do a video for a few minutes. This will probably be the last time you’ll be able to see- real time- me living in the car like this. But- like they say ‘you never know’. [parts]

VERSES- 13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. Acts 19 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet. 2nd Peter 2 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Lk:11 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. Rev. 14:15 Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. Ps.103:20 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1st Jn. 2:22 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1st Jn. 4:3 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. Jn. 20 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. Lk. 4:23

http://www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com facebook.com/john.chiarello.5 https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. I deal with issues at times that it would be beneficial for some of you to download and save the file from the Word Press link. This creates a permanent record. The on-line videos are only good if sites are not hacked- which has happened in the past. Thanks- John.# THE SCEPTER OF THE KINGDOM- https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/4-3-16-the-sceptre-of-the-kingdom.zip https://youtu.be/9mWfbwDW-F4 The Scepter of the kingdom

ON VIDEO- .Austin .Reeds n Rods .Mystery fan? .The dream .Carnival .G.I. Joe .Morning Glory .See me throw the rod VERSES- Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Ps. 45:6 11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. [parts] ROMANS 1-3

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2-3-15-romans-1-3.zip

.CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS;

· Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose him?

· When Paul says ‘he makes our bodies alive’ is he only speaking about resurrection?

· Does God use difficulty- or is it to be rebuked?

· Was Paul a ‘hyper- Calvinist’?

(839)ROMAN 8:1-4 ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh [sinful nature] but after the Spirit [new nature]’. Now, having proved the reality of sin and guilt [chapter 7] Paul teaches that those who ‘are in Christ’ are free from condemnation. Why? Because they ‘walk according to the Spirit’ the ‘righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in them’. Having no condemnation isn’t simply a ‘legal function’ of declared righteousness, and Paul didn’t teach it that way! Paul is saying ‘all those who have believed in Jesus and have been legally justified [earlier arguments in chapters 3-4] are now walking [actually acting out] this new nature. Therefore [because you no longer walk according to the flesh] there is no condemnation’! This argument helps bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant theology, part of the reason for the ongoing schism is over this understanding. After the Reformation the Catholic Church had a Counter Reformation council, the council of Trent. They dealt with a lot of the abuses of the Catholic Church, things that many Catholic leaders were complaining about before the Reformation. They did deal with some issues and reformed somewhat. To the dismay of the more ‘reform minded’ Catholics [with Protestant leanings] they still came down strong on most pre reform doctrines. This made it next to impossible for the schism to be healed. But one area of disagreement was over ‘legal’ versus ‘actual/experiential’ justification. The Catholic position was ‘God can’t declare/say a person is justified until they actually are’ [experientially]. The Protestant side [Luther] said ‘God does justify [legal declaration] a person by faith alone’. Like I taught before, both of these are true. The Catholic view of ‘justification’ is looking ahead towards a future reality [The same way James speaks of justification in a future sense- He uses the example from Genesis 22, when Abraham does a righteous act] while the Protestant view is focusing on the initial legal act of justification [Genesis 15]. Here Paul agrees with both views, he says ‘those who walk after the Spirit [actually living the changed life] have no condemnation’.

Here’s some stuff on the iconoclast controversy-

(887)SAMUEL 4 CONTINUED- Okay, let’s finish it up. In this chapter we see an important historical event, the capture of the Ark of the Covenant [the box that held the 10 commandments, not Noah’s Ark!] The children of Israel fight with the Philistines and take a loss of 4 thousand men. They go back to camp and regroup. They decide to take the Ark of God and involve it with human warfare. A big mistake! This speaks of the sad history of the crusades and other mistaken ideas of ‘holy war’. God does not involve himself in mans efforts of domination thru power. So the Philistines hear that the Ark is in the battle and they fear. ‘Oh my God, this is the God of Israel who defeated the Egyptians’. They knew the history of Israel and how the God of Israel was great. The battle rages and Israel takes a greater loss of 30 thousand men. Plus the Ark is captured and the two sons of Eli are killed. The runner runs back to Shiloh [the headquarters of the Ark, where the tabernacle of Moses still stood] and brings the terrible news to Eli [the high priest]. Eli hears about the Arks capture and falls back and breaks his neck and dies. One of the daughters in law to Eli goes into labor and delivers a boy. She names him Ichabod, which means God's glory has departed. She did this because the Ark was taken. The Ark represented Gods glory and presence among the people. It seems as if Israel began to treat it in an idolatrous way. Sort of like what happened with the brass serpent that Moses made in the wilderness. God has to step and rebuke his people when they mistake the true worship of God with religious objects. The history of the Christian church has been divided over this for centuries. You can have religious art, it should not become a thing of worship. The iconoclast controversy of the Catholic and Orthodox churches have gone to extremes on both sides. At times believers would go into the ‘churches’ and destroy all the religious art they found. Others would hold to a view of icons [religious paintings] and statues that would seem to cross the line in areas of worship. I remember hearing a story about a prophet who stood up in a church meeting and said ‘thus saith the Lord, I have judged this church and people. My glory is no longer here. I have written ‘Michelob’ on your door posts’. Well, after he sat down he realized he mistook the word ‘Michelob [beer]’ for 'Ichabod’. He then stood up again and said ‘Thus saith the Lord, I meant to say Ichabod’.

   https://youtu.be/-x4Bz60irJo  Christian- Muslim dialogue

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1-15-17-christian-muslim-dialogue.zip 

https://youtu.be/0i-V7qr7Kbg   Corpus Christi- Questions [I posted the video yesterday- but wanted to tag it to a post- Because I talked about current world issues as well, things that I feel are relevant right now]

ON VIDEO

.Muslim encounter at Kingsville Fire Dept.

.What makes Christianity unique?

.Muslims shared some of the same concerns as many Protestants

.Iconoclast controversy

.Expressions of the Trinity

.The development of the office of Bishop- 5 main cities

.The ‘pre’ renaissance that took place within Islam

.Aquinas responds to Islamic apologists [13the century]

.Ad Fontes

.Florence Italy- the Medici’s

.Gnosticism

.I bought him a Persian bible

.Erasmus- Luther

.Protestant Reformation

.My Muslim friend [at Timons]

.Who gave Bobby a ride?

.Wycliffe- Huss- Coverdale

.Gutenberg came just in time

.Catholic church warned ‘you will have too many splits’.

.They indeed were correct

.I quote from the Quran at the end

PAST TEACHING [Past teaching I did that relates to today’s video- verses below]

https://ccoutreach87.com/islam/

https://ccoutreach87.com/protestant-reformation-luther/ 

JOHN 6

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

https://youtu.be/--3fJK_dqiU  John 6

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/7-3-16-john-6.zip 

GALATIANS [Links]

https://ccoutreach87.com/2016/12/26/galatians-1/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2016/12/30/2nd-samuel-3-homeless-friends/ 

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/02/galatians-2/ 

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/10/galatians-3/ 

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/12/the-seed/ 

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/16/galatians-4/ 

 ON VIDEO-

.See the quads

.it was a test

. ‘We don’t have enough money for the ministry Jesus’?

.What did Jesus do- multiply the money- or the bread?

.Don’t  leave the crumbs behind

.Nungesser’s bowling alley

.The acid trip

.Manna a sign

.A little Greek stuff

.Zwingli

.Lake Geneva

.Renaissance

.Florence- Italy

.Medici family

.Aquinas

Aristotle

.Greek lexicon

.Proof texting a no no

.Hocus Pocus?

.Fundamentalism

.Aldous Huxley

MY LINKS [verses below]

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/protestant-reformation-luther/

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/further-talks-on-church-and-ministry/

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/house-of-prayer-or-den-of-thieves/

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/overview-of-philosophy/ 

MY LINKS ON JOHN

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/amos-5/ 

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/jesus-christ/ 

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/father-abraham/ 

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/the-flood/  John 3

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/the-well-john-4/

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/john-5/ 

[parts]

The renaissance was the 13-14th century revival of culture and learning that was lost for centuries- It began in Florence Italy.

The catch phrase for it was ‘Ad Fontes’  meaning ‘back to the sources’- both in philosophy- as well as in Christian learning.

This began a revival of studying the Greek New testament again from its original language.

The Catholic Humanist- Desiderius Erasmus [15-16th century] - re introduced the New Testament in the Greek version [He was referred to as a Dutch renaissance Humanist- as well as a Catholic Priest and scholar]

Now- Erasmus was a critic of the Church- like Luther- but chose a ‘middle road’- he did not join the breakaway Protestant Reformers- but chose to stay within the fold of Rome- while speaking out against the abuses he saw.

But his first Greek translation of the New Testament did indeed set a spark- because it allowed the Priests to see the bible in its original language.

And Luther was actually teaching this book of Romans to his students in Germany when the Reformation began.

Today the Catholic Church [as you can see in the official Catechism that I have been posting] does indeed teach the bible as God’s Word.

The divisions between Protestants and Catholics are many- but they did agree that the bible was the Word of God.

Some Protestants do not know this- they think the church holds Tradition higher than the bible.

No- the church does believe that God speaks both thru tradition- and scripture.

They see the tradition of the church as simply another means by which God uses the church [Magisterium] to explain scripture- but the Catholic Church does not elevate tradition over the bible.

And indeed- it was a catholic scholar- Erasmus- who introduced the first Geek version of the New Testament.

NOTE- Erasmus disagreed with Luther on the doctrine of Predestination- which I covered in the last video. Luther was for it- Erasmus was what we would call ‘Free Will’.

In his writings- which were very influential- he wrote in Greek and Latin- the language of the elites.

He did this on purpose- for his target was the influential leaders of the Church.

He rejected offers of money- because he did not want to align himself with any particular movement- so he could be an independent writer with no strings attached.

He had many criticisms of the Catholic Church- and was very influential for the later reforms- those we see at the Council of Trent [Though the church criticized him- they said he ‘Laid the egg that hatched the Reformation’].

He taught that the church/priests/popes should be the servants of the people-

He rejected the idea that the Priests/leaders made up the ‘whole of the church’- but he believed all believers made up the true church.

Erasmus was a firebrand in his own way- rejecting the language that Luther and some of the reformers used [they were vulgar at times]-

Luther respected the works of Erasmus- he thanked Erasmus for debating with him on the nature of Justification by Faith-

He disagreed in the end- but said this debate was at the heart of the gospel- and was glad that Erasmus was willing to engage.

 RENAISSANCE ARTISTS-

The famous renaissance artists- DaVinci- Michelangelo- Raphael- used their artwork as a form of knowledge- the images taught things- they were not just paintings.

DaVinci’s most famous work was his painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel in the Vatican.

It took him 4 years to complete.

The renaissance period- from about the 13/14th century to the 17th- [though there was a sort of Renaissance that took place- yes- in the Islamic world before the European Renaissance] was marked by what we term Humanism.

Today we associate this term with ‘secular Humanism’ which often has a bad connotation- especially among Christians.

But it meant something different back then.

It was a new focus on breaking the limits off of man- and for man to excel in knowledge and skill- and to see man as having value.

There was somewhat of a break away from the church in a sense- in that the church and its teachings were not the only source of wisdom for man.

But- Jesus himself taught that ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not man for the Sabbath’- so- the Humanist spirit- elevating the value of man- does have a Christian basis in my view.

Leonardo daVinci [15/16th century] was what we refer to as a true Renaissance man- meaning his knowledge was in many fields- not just art.

He actually considered himself a sculptor first- then an artist- though he is most famous for his Fresco mentioned above.

Here’s my study on The Reformation-

https://ccoutreach87.com/protestant-reformation-luther/

And my past teaching on the Western intellectual tradition-

https://ccoutreach87.com/western-intellectual-tradition/ 

       VERSES

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

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

 Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

1Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2 Corinthians 5:21

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

OTHER VIDEOS

8-4-19 Sunday sermon  https://youtu.be/XYD0rOWHI84

2nd Samuel 21  https://youtu.be/ahBwNwiQ1s0

Eli’s book  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhC9-xexP8DMLPHqs

2nd mile  https://youtu.be/YcfnxpqOOo4

Acts 11  https://youtu.be/OIxINgzEoTE

Homeless friends  https://www.dropbox.com/s/q9oy2ypyyxzg4au/7-7-17%20Jason-%20Albert-%20bobby-%20Claire.mp4?dl=0

Hebrews 10-13  https://dai.ly/x78xabc

The word endures  https://flic.kr/p/2gzaERi

2-17-19 Sunday sermon  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMil4a9tApT-GYM2ar

5-20-18 Sunday sermon  https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ef1v8e4f6j7nwr/5-20-18%20Sunday%20sermon.mp4?dl=0

Acts 1  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMddxUWpVS9RrGHjM

Preview- Mark 9  https://youtu.be/uKm5kCsO8dY

Homeless friends  https://www.dropbox.com/s/25c5s8n1hh605qd/7-7-17%20Furman%20and%20Bill.mp4?dl=0

Scriptures fulfilled  https://www.bitchute.com/video/Bz8FQEJZ5bl8/https://www.bitchute.com/video/Bz8FQEJZ5bl8/

Water rescue  https://youtu.be/p0cjdz6CVzs

NYC  https://www.instagram.com/tv/BxM3ekoHcQZ/?utm_source=ig_web_options_share_sheet

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos/10205944576051723/

5-6-18 Sunday sermon https://www.dropbox.com/s/ldjx7kfegjfbfq3/Sunday%20sermon%205-6-18.mp4?dl=0

 1-20-19  SUNDAY SERMON  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMikYc30VvFVnVlHnn

No Nukes  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0h2H6GumSSg5sCm

7 eyes  https://youtu.be/NLI7cAmYvXQ

1 of the days of the Son of man  https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wuq3mu63x3vyo6/7-7-16%20One%20of%20the%20days%20of%20the%20Son%20of%20man.mp4?dl=0

Teaching in NYC  https://youtu.be/1J_vUmTGvgw

Isaiah 42  https://dai.ly/x78xabd

Anti christ  https://flic.kr/p/2gxCEEp

Friends- teaching https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMixGQ5cTCvWYpPfpS

5-7-17 Sunday sermon  https://www.dropbox.com/s/cahvsj1qiunmfgg/5-7-17%20Sunday%20sermon.mp4?dl=0

Acts 10  https://youtu.be/tamgFDbzsjI

7-23-17 Sunday sermon  https://www.dropbox.com/s/jc3fdxyklx1n56m/7-23-17%20Sunday%20Sermon%20%5BC.U.%20verses%5D.mp4?dl=0

For you are dead  https://dai.ly/x78tw6c

10-22-17 Sunday sermon  https://flic.kr/p/2gwYtDs

Ephesians 1  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhCrMCv6eqngiL5Ew

Romans 11-13  https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej7tvvd64txxeoh/3-12-15%20Romans%2011-13.mp4?dl=0

Wal Mart and creation  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhCzYHgfNO-AOR4Mr

Bringing in the sheaves  https://youtu.be/GwzEoi0TNJI

1 Lord- 1 baptism  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhClF0tCVRHsxiWNO

San Antonio  https://youtu.be/inxugv3ueys

John 7  https://www.dropbox.com/s/knqrtf5bikuiuqd/7-6-16%20John%207.mp4?dl=0

Homeless friends https://dai.ly/x78tw6d

Fear and trembling  https://flic.kr/p/2gvzWvw

3-3-19 Sunday sermon  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMimBBoveua1D24H4j

Romans 4-7  https://www.dropbox.com/s/iy3a9t1z9st7sbt/2-11-15%20Romans%204-7.mp4?dl=0

QM  https://youtu.be/XKfs4SIQ1FA

Teaching at the Lexington  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhCs-5ZNQ76AI-V_h

Kings 5  https://youtu.be/nQ6ZDItEM_w

Mark 12  https://www.dropbox.com/s/fvofyq35ztxq875/7-6-17%20Mark%2012.mp4?dl=0

Bus to NYC  https://www.bitchute.com/video/rla5AYhz4gMS/

GW bridge- NYC  https://www.instagram.com/tv/BxKTTdenpyt/?utm_source=ig_web_options_share_sheet

1-6-19 Sunday sermon  https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMikMM-7-sYRUoGRBQ

Romans 8-10  https://www.dropbox.com/s/533k3rb0c32rzfi/2-24-15%20Romans%208-10.mp4?dl=0

 Sunday sermon  https://ccoutreach87.com/2019/08/04/sunday-sermon-text-3/

Acts 6  https://ccoutreach87.com/2019/08/06/acts-6-text/

Acts 7  https://ccoutreach87.com/2019/08/08/acts-7-6/

 Baby goatshttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1aAnLyPHVrdxNf0KIZw6Vhuo2qS6UjBPi/view?usp=sharing

Galatians 3 https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMb7uGiBkitnB9foQ

Rams horn https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZe7fz7Zqpv9o3rb5WR4O7OmoNuVI0t8fu2V 

Bus to NYC https://youtu.be/OOJCdV0gYMg 

The capstone https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZ4Jnz7Zby6x92IbP37gEahtCxvHPXgaYhTk 

The seed https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMcE6961pCHM63GqU

Pops https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VGZ_kk0nYf3LDzyTt5dRBBC0OhfqDV-i/view?usp=sharing 

 MY SITES

Active sites-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com  [Main site]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks  

https://www.facebook.com/ccoutreach1/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel&eid=ARCo7sBBI_1fHMUwrHJbFUGf73C6FmpZxtgTcWET2gVwpdHCKmXSGxs6wyeA-qGCnbsr2ILaXqpd4ACt  [my page]

https://ccoutreach87.com/  

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

http://ccoutreach87.webstarts.com/__blog.html?r=20171009095200

http://ccoutreach87-1.mozello.com/

https://ccoutreach87.site123.me/

http://ccoutreach87.wixsite.com/mysite

https://corpusoutreach.weebly.com/

http://ccoutreach87.strikingly.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

https://johnchiarello.webs.com/

https://vk.com/id533663718

https://steemit.com/@ccoutreach

https://www.linkedin.com/home?trk=hb_logo

https://ok.ru/profile/589985645111

 Link sharing sites-

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://mix.com/jchiarello

https://trello.com/b/swhF9Vr8/ccoutreach87com

 http://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/p/one-link_18.html [Link to past teaching]

 Inactive- work in progress

http://ccoutreach87.webs.com/

https://sites.google.com/yahoo.com/ccoutreach87/home

http://johnchiarello.doodlekit.com/

http://corpus-christijohnchiarello.simplesite.com/

https://spark.adobe.com/page/6INKwX1tFT7WA/

 Video sites [Can view and download my videos free of charge]

Youtube  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber

Youtube Playlist- https://ccoutreach87.com/youtube-playlist/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ccoutreach87/

https://vimeo.com/user85764413

https://www.dailymotion.com/ccoutreach87/videos

https://bit.tube/ccoutreach87

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/jsS961GkXUSn/  

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0G_aInmCi8XUC-C

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZ1sXP7ZardKGRUxFByiFYi667jeup7MD1Sy

https://mega.nz/#F!7WQCSIJR!-4v9-zUQRq4MIQbBfI2n4A  

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d43nhtrgysqg493/AAAlCszxZXJoRtk8UudtuR9ma?dl=0

https://ln.sync.com/dl/3e1f4c5e0/tcnm9p32-xiwe4nbu-zjbkitqj-4fvemf6m

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0MwmUCJ1XM3q9ui  [Upload- unzipped- all teaching videos to 12-18 here]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos?lst=1779330793%3A1779330793%3A1546906912  [My Facebook videos]

https://www.instagram.com/john.chiarello/channel/

https://icedrive.net/dashboard/#/cloud

https://www.brighteon.com/channel/ccoutreach87

Cloud sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

 Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on-  Copy text- download video links- make complete copies of my books/studies and posts- everything is copyrighted by me- I give permission for all to copy and share as much as you like- I just ask that nothing be sold. We live in an online world- yet- there is only one internet- meaning if it ever goes down- the only access to the teachings are what others have copied or downloaded- so feel free to copy and download as much as you want- it’s all free-

 Note- I have many web sites- at times some question whether I’m a ‘bot’ because I do post a lot.

I am not a ‘bot’- I’m John- so please- if you are on the verge of deleting something- my contact email is ccoutreach87@gmail.com - contact me first- thank you- John

[zeroviraluniverse-blog]

10 Surprising Facts About Burt Reynolds

Visit Now - http://zeroviral.com/10-surprising-facts-about-burt-reynolds/

10 Surprising Facts About Burt Reynolds

If your first memory of Burton Leon Reynolds is from the 1993 film Cop and a Half, then you’re probably too young to remember—or even realize—that Burt Reynolds was once Hollywood’s biggest movie star. To put it in perspective: Every year from 1973 to 1984, Reynolds was listed as one of Quigley’s “Top 10 Money Makers,” and held the top spot on the annual poll from 1978 to 1982 (the only other person to boast a record five consecutive years at the top of the list is Bing Crosby, back in the 1940s).

After a serious knee injury and subsequent car accident ended a promising football career at Florida State University, Reynolds found his way into acting. He got his start in a series of television roles, including a regular gig on the western series Riverboat, then hit the big screen big time with his breakout role in John Boorman’s 1972 backwoods classic, Deliverance.

Reynolds followed Deliverance up with such hits as Smokey and The Bandit (a film Playboy called “the Gone with the Wind of good-ol’-boy movies”), Semi-Tough, The Cannonball Run, and The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Though he hit a bit of a rough patch for a few years, all of that changed when Reynolds agreed to star in Boogie Nights, Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1997 ode to pornography, which earned the actor a Golden Globe award, a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination, and one of the biggest comebacks of the decade. Here are 10 things you may not have known about the mustachioed Hollywood icon, who turns 80 years old today.

1. HE TURNED DOWN SOME MAJOR ROLES.

Over the course of a near-60-year career, one is bound to pass on some prime roles. And Reynolds has turned down a lot, including (by his own admission in the video above) Han Solo in Star Wars, R.P. McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Edward Lewis in Pretty Woman, and John McClane in Die Hard. Although he doesn’t regret that final one: “I don’t regret turning down anything Bruce Willis did,” Reynolds told Piers Morgan.

More notably, and perhaps more regrettably, Reynolds turned down a chance to play James Bond in 1969. As Reynolds explains it: “In my infinite wisdom, I said to [producer] Cubby Broccoli, ‘An American can’t play James Bond. It just can’t be done.’ And they really tried to talk me into it. It was a 10-minute discussion. Finally they left. Every night, I wake up in a cold sweat.”

The role Reynolds laments turning down the most, however, is a role that was written specifically with him in mind. When director James L. Brooks approached him about playing Garrett Breedlove in 1983’s Terms of Endearment, Reynolds balked, instead taking a role in Hal Needham’s Stroker Ace. “When it came time to choose between Terms and Stroker, I chose the latter because I felt I owed Hal more than I did Jim,” Reynolds explained (Needham also directed Smokey and the Bandit, Hooper, and The Cannonball Run). “Nobody told me I could have probably done Terms and Universal would have waited until I was finished before making Stroker.” The role went to Jack Nicholson, who took home the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in 1984.

2. HE POSED NUDE IN A 1972 ISSUE OF COSMOPOLITAN.

It may be common knowledge that Burt Reynolds posed naked in Cosmopolitan. What may be less known is that he regrets that decision. “I’m very embarrassed by it,” Reynolds told Piers Morgan. Editor Helen Gurley Brown asked Reynolds to do the photo shoot after the two appeared together on The Tonight Show. “I thought it would be a kick,” Reynolds said. The issue came out only a short time before Deliverance was released in theaters and all 1.6 million copies of the magazine sold out.

Despite the popularity of the spread, Reynolds now believes that it may have distracted from the critical reception of Deliverance. “I thought it cost some actors in Deliverance an Academy Award,” Reynolds told Morgan. “I think it cost Jon [Voight]. I think it cost Ned Beatty, who certainly deserved an Oscar nomination. I think it hurt me, too.”

3. HE TURNED DOWN HIS OSCAR-NOMINATED ROLE IN BOOGIE NIGHTS. SEVEN TIMES.

Paul Thomas Anderson was adamant that Burt Reynolds play iconoclastic porn producer Jack Horner in his 1997 masterpiece, Boogie Nights, despite Reynolds’s aversion to the material. Anderson asked seven times, and got seven passes from Reynolds. “One night—the eighth time—[Anderson] came to my hotel room,” Reynolds recalled. “And I said, ‘Look, you don’t get it.’ And I went a little berserk. And at the end of the tirade, he said, ‘If you can do that in the movie, you’ll get nominated for an Academy Award.’ And he was right.”

4. AN ON-SET STUNT CAUSED HIM A LIFE OF PAIN.

The 1980s weren’t always kind to Reynolds. “I can’t believe I did all those bad films in a row until I looked at the list,” he said. During the filming of 1984’s City Heat, Reynolds was struck in the face by a metal chair and shattered his jaw. He developed TMJ as a result of the injury and ended up losing 40 pounds due to his inability to eat solid food. The shocking weight loss fueled speculation that Reynolds had contracted AIDS, a rumor he spent years refuting. He also developed a severe drug dependency as a result of the chronic and debilitating pain he suffered from TMJ; at one point Reynolds was taking up to 50 Halcion sleeping pills a day.

Reynolds eventually kicked the pill addiction, but was not so lucky with the pain. He still suffers daily from the more than 30-year-old injury.

5. HE HAD AN IMPROMPTU PIE FIGHT WITH DOUBLE DARE HOST MARC SUMMERS ON THE TONIGHT SHOW.

Burt Reynolds had just finished up his segment as a guest on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno in 1994 and had shifted over to make way for the next guest, TV show host Marc Summers (Double Dare, Unwrapped). Reynolds became visibly irritated with Summers for, ostensibly, turning his back on him while he was speaking to Leno. Summers then made the comment to Reynolds, “I’m still married, by the way.” This jab precipitated a water fight between the two combatants: Reynolds dumped his mug on Summers’s lap, Summers retaliated, so on and so forth. The donnybrook culminated in a rather violent pie fight followed by a very awkward hug.

“This was not a bit,” Summers explained. “I didn’t know what to expect. He was going through a divorce with Loni Anderson at the time and he was angry … He hugged me and said, ‘I only did that because I really like you.’ You wait to get on The Tonight Show your whole life. You’re sitting next to Burt Reynolds. He drops water on your crotch, then you get into a pie fight!”

6. HE PISSED OFF ELMORE LEONARD.

Reynolds was a longtime admirer of writer Elmore Leonard. After reading Leonard’s novel, Stick, Reynolds decided that he wanted to direct and star in the film version. Things did not go well.

After watching Reynolds’s first cut of the film, the studio pushed back its release date and forced him to re-shoot the second half of the movie, much to the actor/director’s dismay. “I turned in my cut of the picture and truly thought I had made a good film,” Reynolds told the Los Angeles Times. “Word got back to me quickly that the [studio] wanted a few changes … I gave up on the film. I didn’t fight them. I let them get the best of me.”

The biggest blow came from Elmore Leonard. “Leonard saw the film the day he was interviewed for a Newsweek cover and told them he hated it,” Reynolds shared. “After his comment, every critic attacked the film and he wouldn’t talk to me. When I re-shot the film, I was just going through the motions. I’m not proud of what I did, but I take responsibility for my actions. All I can say—and this is not in way of a defense—is if you liked the first part of Stick, that’s what I was trying to achieve throughout.”

7. HE DABBLED IN THE NIGHTCLUB BUSINESS.

Burt Reynolds’s foray into the booming 1970s nightclub business was a short-lived one. He opened Burt’s Place in the late 1970s at the Omni International Hotel in downtown Atlanta. The club’s most notable feature was a stained glass dance floor that featured a rendering of Burt’s face and the words, “Burt’s Joint”—which was odd, considering that wasn’t even the name of the establishment. Burt’s Place/Joint closed after a year.

8. MARLON BRANDO WAS NOT A FAN OF REYNOLDS.

Coming up in the movie business, Burt Reynolds was a huge Marlon Brando fan. Brando did not share the sentiment. When Reynolds was being considered for the role of Michael Corleone in 1972’s The Godfather, Brando adamantly declared that if Reynolds was given the role, he would remove himself from the project. The rest is history.

Brando later said about Reynolds, “He is the epitome of something that makes me want to throw up … He is the epitome of everything that is disgusting about the thespian … He worships at the temple of his own narcissism.” Ouch! To be fair, in the same conversation, Brando admits that he had never even met Reynolds.

9. HE RELEASED AN ALBUM. 

Hot off his success in Deliverance and his nude spread in Cosmo, a solo album seemed like the next, most Hollywood-appropriate course of action.

Reynolds released his debut record, “Ask Me What I Am,” in 1973 and somehow this gem seems to have evaded critics and fans alike. We do know that the album came with a double-sized poster of Reynolds in a blue jumpsuit and cowboy hat. You can listen to a track on YouTube, but if you must hear it in its entirety, it’s available on Amazon.

10. HE DOESN’T THINK DELIVERANCE COULD BE RE-MADE TODAY.

“They keep talking about a remake, but I don’t think you could find four actors crazy enough to do it,” Reynolds said. “Not by any stretch of the imagination were we white water experts. We’d quit for the day and come back and practice. We got to the point where we were more proficient, or at least we didn’t get tipped over all the time. I have to admit that, in spite of the danger, or maybe because of the danger, it was the most fun I ever had.”

Reynolds has often said that Deliverance is the finest of all of his films.