#case study video production in Rome

[orbispro]

🎥 Unleash the Captivating World of Case Study Videos with ORBIS Production! 🌟

Are you ready to dive into the captivating realm of case study videos? Look no further than ORBIS Production – #1 Case study video production agency in Italy, your gateway to visually stunning and impactful storytelling. Prepare to be amazed as we take you on a journey of authenticity, emotion, and expertise through our exceptional case study video production services.

Let's explore the fascinating world of testimonial video production company in Italy and discover why they have become an indispensable tool for businesses worldwide.

🌟 Authenticity and Credibility: Case study videos are not just about flashy visuals; they are authentic portrayals of real customers and their experiences. By sharing their success stories, these videos offer a credible representation of how your products or services have positively impacted lives and businesses. Authenticity builds trust, reliability, and lasting connections with your target audience.

🤝 Emotional Connection: Did you know that humans are naturally drawn to stories? Case study videos capitalize on this innate desire by presenting your success stories in a narrative format. Through the lens of challenges faced, solutions provided, and positive outcomes achieved, these videos forge a deep emotional connection with viewers. As they immerse themselves in the stories, they can relate to the struggles, feel the triumphs, and envision themselves benefiting from your offerings.

📸 Visual Impact: Lights, camera, action! Video is an incredibly engaging medium that captures attention like no other. With case study videos, we bring your success stories to life through powerful visuals, interviews, testimonials, product demonstrations, and captivating before-and-after comparisons. This fusion of imagery, motion, and sound creates an unforgettable experience that stimulates multiple senses and leaves a lasting impression on your audience.

🔍 Demonstration of Expertise: Are you eager to showcase your industry expertise and problem-solving capabilities? Case study videos provide the perfect platform to demonstrate your skills in action. You can highlight your unique value proposition, exhibit how your products or services address real-world challenges, and proudly showcase the positive outcomes achieved by your customers. Position yourself as a trusted authority, and watch as your audience turns to you for solutions.

💼 Increased Conversions and Sales: Imagine the impact of having tangible evidence of your business's success. Case study videos play a pivotal role in the buyer's journey, particularly during the consideration and decision stages. They provide potential customers with concrete proof of the benefits and value your business delivers. When presented with compelling case study videos, viewers are more likely to convert into leads, make purchase decisions, and become loyal customers.

📲 Versatility and Shareability: Let's talk about the versatility of case study videos! These gems can be shared across various marketing channels and platforms, amplifying your brand's reach and visibility. Embed them on your website, showcase them on social media, incorporate them into email campaigns, and even feature them in captivating sales presentations. Moreover, the viral potential of these videos can generate organic reach, attracting new prospects to your business and igniting a ripple effect of interest and engagement.

Are you ready to embark on a journey that will captivate your audience, establish your credibility, and drive conversions? ORBIS Production – Based in Milan Top #1 Video Production Company in Italy is here to guide you every step of the way.

Our passion for storytelling and commitment to delivering exceptional case study videos set us apart as industry leaders. Join us as we transform your remarkable achievements into unforgettable visual masterpieces.

🎬🌟 Step into the world of case study video production services in Italy with ORBIS Production and unlock the true potential of your success stories.

Let's make an impact together!

If you are looking for a top-rated premier Milan production company - ORBIS Production is your go-to choice for any video production services in Italy and beyond!

[potatotalksculture]

Potato Tweet: Following up on my thoughts about Eurovision being oh so much apolitical that it’s inherently political in a very obvious way, I have watched the video essay by Rowan Ellis [1] on bans placed on LGBTQ+ books, mostly in recent years, mostly in schools, mostly in the US, but also in the UK.

When I studied philosophy, some of my favorite topics were political philosophy and the so-called production of the truth [2]. So the subject of phenomenons, things and/or groups of people being politicized is, as some say, right up my alley.

In her essay Rowan Ellis talks about the fact that books, or any kind of media for that matter, that serves any kind of LGBTQ+ representation, is being deemed political or sexual and so unsuitable for children or even teenagers. (You can catch up with this whole argument by watching her video, I've lined it at the end of this post.) While talking about all this, she mentions that the LGBTQ+ people and their lives became political because the society, expressed in this case mainly by politicians, made them so by taking a very close look at them. I don't have a thorough research to back it up, but I'd suspect that the sudden political interest in this matter was caused by the LGBTQ+ people rising up their voices, coming out of the closets and demanding being seen as they are. So people who didn't like this happening, because anyone who's not white, cisgendered and straight is a threat to the status quo, started looking for arguments to support the claim, that anyone who's not white, cisgendered and straight is at the very least not normal. Ideologically this was followed by claims of those people being a threat not only to the status quo, but mostly to the most precious thing a straight couple can share - their children. The other front are the second most vulnerable members of the straight, cis, white society - the women. What about the men? They are supposed to protect those women and children, so they cannot become another victim group. Obviously leaving the whole discussion about the fragile masculinity aside.

So something, someone, some group of people became the subject of a political debate. They actively wanted that. The fact that oftentimes LGBTQ+ rights and lives are discussed without some direct representation of the group concerned being in the room is another topic. With this fact on the side one can say that being politicized and being part of the political debate are two different things. When someone is a part of a debate, they are active in their role, they can present their arguments and defend them against criticism. When someone or something is being politicized is it a passive part of the debate and gets little to no representation.

The example of the ESC showed that deeming something apolitical is a deeply political statement. When a school board or a legislator deems political topics unsuitable for children, they declare those topics political and the children apolitical. Which is a concept as old as time. Back in the ancient Greece and Rome you had to be of some age, among other requirements, to be allowed to participate in the political life of a state. But what if a child, even before it becomes a teenager, confronts itself with a thought that they are gay, lesbian or trans? If homo- and transsexuality are political topics, does this person become political in the process of realizing their differentness? The intuitive response would be: yes. This child becomes politicized and so an object of a political debate. A kind of debate, none of the people banning books on LGBTQ+ subjects want to be having.

This post will not find an end some day, in some other post, maybe after some research, as soon as I'm done with my studies. I lost my train of thought but it was something about: How do phenomenons get politicized and why?

Thanks for sticking with the text to this point.

________ Sources: [1] Rowan Elis, "The Dangerous Rise of LGBTQ+ Book Banning" [2] My understanding of that is based on the lectures Michel Foucault gave at Collège de France in the years 1977, 1978 and 1979. Those were translated into English and published in two volumes titled respectively "Security, Territory, Population" an "The Birth of Biopolitics".

[acosmic]

reading/watching/listening, 2021 [pinned]:

books (favourites asterisked):

*Zeroville - Steve Erickson

*The Day of the Locust - Nathanael West

*The Haunting of Hill House - Shirley Jackson

The Bluest Eye - Toni Morrison

The Case Against Satan - Ray Russel

Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art - Scott McCloud

The Shining - Stephen King [ugh]

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns - Frank Miller

*Surfacing - Margaret Atwood

The Love of the Last Tycoon - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Murder Mysteries - Neil Gaiman, P. Craig Russell

The Book of Illusions - Paul Auster

Sandman: Season of Mists - Neil Gaiman

Devil in a Blue Dress - Walter Mosley

*House of Leaves - Mark Z. Danielewski

Come Closer - Sara Gran

*The Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. Kiernan [killer, haven’t finished it]

*Whipping Girl - Julia Serano

Darryl - Jackie Ess

*Laziness Does Not Exist - Devon Price

An Unauthorized Fan Treatise - Lauren James (internet novel available here - for now)

honourable mention/large chunks of poetry but not full books: William Carlos Williams, H.D.

movies:

A Place in the Sun (1951) [hate it]

Barton Fink (1991)

Adaptation (2002)

Nosferatu (1922)

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

something by neil breen (roommate is evil)

short films: Illusions (1983), Emak Bakia (1926)

unfinished: The Watermelon Woman (1996), Paterson (2016) [horrible]

secondary sources re: assigned literature:

Batman: “The Dark Knight Errant: Power and Authority in Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Returns” - Christopher Bundrick (Riddle Me This, Batman! : Essays on the Universe of the Dark Knight, McFarland, 2011); “Additionality and Cohesion in Transfictional Worlds” - Roberta Pearson, (The Velvet Light Trap, U of Texas, 2017)

House of Leaves: “What’s Beneath the Floorboards: Three Competing Metavoices in the Footnotes of Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves.” - Michael Hemmingson (Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction, 2011); “House of Leaves: Reading the Networked Novel” - Jessica Pressman, (Studies in American Fiction, 2006)

The Day of the Locust: “Artists in Hollywood: Thomas Hart Benton and Nathanael West Picture America’s Dream Dump” - Erika Doss (The Space Between, 2011); “Productive Desires: Materialist Psychoanalysis and the Hollywood Dream Factory in Nathanael West’s The Day of the Locust” - Todd Hoffman (Literature, Interpretation, Theory, 2018) [interesting but objectionable]; "The Paintings in the Day of the Locust" - Jeffrey Meyers (Anq, 2009)

Nietzsche [secondary source for Layton assignment, read originals later]: “Apollo and Dionysos in Dialectic” and bits of “The Tragic Moment” - Paul Raimond Daniels (Nietzsche and “The Birth of Tragedy,” Routledge, 2014).

secondary sources not explicitly related to specific assigned literature:

film [assigned]: “The Whiteness of Film Noir” - E. Lott (American Literary History, 1997); “Reading Hollywood” - Jonathan Veitch (Salmagundi, 2000); “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectatorship” - bell hooks (Black Looks: Race and Representation). did a lot of skimming of articles and didn’t finish or thoroughly read many of them! probably missing some. rip.

misc: “The Concept as Ghost: Conceptualization of the Uncanny in Late-Twentieth-Century Theory” - Anneleen Maschelein (Mosaic [Winnipeg], 2002)

refreshing concepts [not assigned]: chapters 3/“Narrative” and “16/Genre” in The Craft of Criticism: Critical Media Studies in Practice (Routledge, 2018)

short stories, poems:

Fritz Leiber - Smoke Ghost

Ray Bradbury - There Will Come Soft Rains

T. S. Eliot - The Waste Land

Irving Layton - The Birth of Tragedy; The Fertile Muck

Margaret Atwood - It is Dangerous To Read Newspapers

Leonard Cohen - The Only Tourist in Havana Turns His Thoughts Homewards; A Kite is a Victim

AJM Smith - The Lonely Land

Jillian Weise - Ashley Shew Just Invented The Word Cryborg

Isabel Fall - Helicopter Story

June Martin - I sexually identify as the “I sexually identify as an attack helicopter” controversy

rest TBA

essays/articles [very, very incomplete]:

A. H. Reaume - Brain fog

Michael Hobbes - Everything you know about obesity is wrong

Charlotte Hyde - We already have a name for that: why “zoom” fatigue is nothing new.

Gretchen Felker-Martin - “I wish there was a world for us”: on the choice to consume small art; What’s the harm in reading?; 

Katie J.M. Baker - The road to terfdom: Mumsnet and the fostering of anti-trans radicalization

Alex V. Green - The Pride flag has a representation problem

Jamie Mackay - The whitewashing of Rome: Colonialism is built on the rubble of a false idea of ancient Rome

Jules Gill-Peterson - A microdose of liberation

David Davis - XVII, Part 3: On genital preference

Marquisele Mercedes - The unbearable whiteness and fatphobia of “anti-diet” dieticians

Sophie Lewis - Collective turn-off

Daniel M. Lavery - Art criticism in a world where museums let you lick the art

re: helicopter story - How Twitter can ruin a life (Emily VanDerWerff); G F-M piece above; Clarkesworld removes Isabel Fall’s story (Mike Glyer); That Twitter thread [on criticism] (Lee Mandelo); The talented victim is not the point (Conor Friedersdorf);

miscellanea:

smaller stuff by more knowledgeable trans than i

a shitton of student presentations, small papers (pretty good), and slides with audio (terrible)

yewchube: corsetry-related videos by costumers, furniture repairs/restoration, recipes/cooking, friend catchup

note: silly formatting meant to aid reading. very, very incomplete. if you want to read any of the books/articles lmk there’s a 90% chance of me still having the file saved.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

#5yrsago Robots are taking your job and mine: deal with it

Two striking articles on the roboticization of the workforce: first is Kevin Kelly in Wired, with "Better Than Human", an optimistic and practical-minded look at the way that robots change the jobs landscape, with some advice on how to survive the automation of your gig:

Now let’s consider quadrant C, the new jobs created by automation—including the jobs that we did not know we wanted done. This is the greatest genius of the robot takeover: With the assistance of robots and computerized intelligence, we already can do things we never imagined doing 150 years ago. We can remove a tumor in our gut through our navel, make a talking-picture video of our wedding, drive a cart on Mars, print a pattern on fabric that a friend mailed to us through the air. We are doing, and are sometimes paid for doing, a million new activities that would have dazzled and shocked the farmers of 1850. These new accomplishments are not merely chores that were difficult before. Rather they are dreams that are created chiefly by the capabilities of the machines that can do them. They are jobs the machines make up.

Before we invented automobiles, air-conditioning, flatscreen video displays, and animated cartoons, no one living in ancient Rome wished they could watch cartoons while riding to Athens in climate-controlled comfort. Two hundred years ago not a single citizen of Shanghai would have told you that they would buy a tiny slab that allowed them to talk to faraway friends before they would buy indoor plumbing. Crafty AIs embedded in first-person-shooter games have given millions of teenage boys the urge, the need, to become professional game designers—a dream that no boy in Victorian times ever had. In a very real way our inventions assign us our jobs. Each successful bit of automation generates new occupations—occupations we would not have fantasized about without the prompting of the automation.

To reiterate, the bulk of new tasks created by automation are tasks only other automation can handle. Now that we have search engines like Google, we set the servant upon a thousand new errands. Google, can you tell me where my phone is? Google, can you match the people suffering depression with the doctors selling pills? Google, can you predict when the next viral epidemic will erupt? Technology is indiscriminate this way, piling up possibilities and options for both humans and machines.

It is a safe bet that the highest-earning professions in the year 2050 will depend on automations and machines that have not been invented yet. That is, we can’t see these jobs from here, because we can’t yet see the machines and technologies that will make them possible. Robots create jobs that we did not even know we wanted done.

Kelly is one of the great technological optimists of our era, and always makes a good case for the net benefit of technology. I really admire What Technology Wants, his 2010 book, not least because it sets out a program for deciding how to integrate technology with your life, and, more importantly, how and why to refuse to adopt some technologies (Kelly frames as being a "technology gourmet," someone who knows what she wants from technology and seeks it out; versus being a "technology glutton," who pigs out on whatever technology is on offer).

Now, contrast that robot-human co-existence manifesto with Why Workers Are Losing the War Against Machines, an excerpt from Race Against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy , a new book by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee that's being serialized in The Atlantic:

Skill-biased technical change has also been important in the past. For most of the 19th century, about 25% of all agriculture labor threshed grain. That job was automated in the 1860s. The 20th century was marked by an accelerating mechanization not only of agriculture but also of factory work. Echoing the first Nobel Prize winner in economics, Jan Tinbergen, Harvard economists Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz described the resulting SBTC as a "race between education and technology." Ever-greater investments in education, dramatically increasing the average educational level of the American workforce, helped prevent inequality from soaring as technology automated more and more unskilled work. While education is certainly not synonymous with skill, it is one of the most easily measurable correlates of skill, so this pattern suggests that demand for upskilling has increased faster than its supply.

Studies by this book's co-author Erik Brynjolfsson along with Timothy Bresnahan, Lorin Hitt, and Shinku Yang found that a key aspect of SBTC was not just the skills of those working with computers, but more importantly the broader changes in work organization that were made possible by information technology. The most productive firms reinvented and reorganized decision rights, incentives systems, information flows, hiring systems, and other aspects of organizational capital to get the most from the technology. This, in turn, required radically different and, generally, higher skill levels in the workforce. It was not so much that those directly working with computers had to be more skilled, but rather that whole production processes, and even industries, were reengineered to exploit powerful new information technologies. What's more, each dollar of computer hardware was often the catalyst for more than $10 of investment in complementary organizational capital. The intangible organizational assets are typically much harder to change, but they are also much more important to the success of the organization.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee are more economist-jargon heavy than Kelly, and more downbeat, and they're also pointing out something obvious, which is that there are losers in technological revolution. See, e.g., Bruce Sterling's end of the year roundup:

Come 2013, I think it's time for people in and around the "music industry" to stop blaming themselves, and thinking their situation is somehow special.  Whatever happens to musicians will eventually happen to everybody.

Nobody was or is really much better at "digital transition" than musicians were and are.  If you're superb at digitalization, that's no great solution either. You just have to auto-disrupt and re-invent yourself over and over and over again.

It's pretty awful to be a musician and have no possibility of health insurance (as Jaron Lanier keeps pointing out), but you could have been a Nokia engineer.  You'd have been blindsided even harder and faster, and you wouldn't even have had the girls and the weed.

Which is to say that even though technology makes us more "productive" and puts more goods into more peoples' hands, that the transition isn't bloodless, it isn't fair, and it isn't always very nice.

But here's the thing that neither of these articles -- or even  Bruce's acid observations -- touches on: once technology creates abundance, what possibilities exist for distributing the fruits of that abundance such that the benefits are more evenly felt? We've been talking about an increase in productivity producing an increase in leisure for a long time, but instead, the "winner take all" world of Brynjolfsson and McAfee often seems to produce a "winner" class that works itself into an early grave by running 100-hour work weeks at astounding payscales, and a much larger "loser" class that works itself into an early grave by working 100-hour weeks in shitty, marginal, grey-economy jobs, trying to stitch together something like an income.

In America, anyone who proposes an increase in overall quality of life through public schools, health programs, libraries, or even Internet access, is immediately branded a socialist and dismissed out of hand.

On the other hand, the Internet-age's sweetest dividend is the creative possibilities: the chance to sit in your little grass shack or organic farm or urban crackerbox and use the tubes to carry on debate; to contribute to software and Wikipedia; to crowdsource capital for your creativity; to find makers who have solved 90% of the problem that's nagging you and who will help you solve the remaining ten percent; to access a library of human creativity and knowledge without parallel; to have your art and creativity accessible to all, and to find the mutants who're wired the same as you and jam with them.

That world of de-marketized, non-market, non-commodity and/or gift economy living is something that seems tantalizingly within our grasp today, and it feels like automation holds the key to so much of it. But is it just the latest version of the dream of a leisure society? Or can we Craigslist and Kickstarter and Freecycle and Etsy and Thingiverse and Open Source Hardware and Wikipedia and Creative Commons our way to a world where the means of information is owned by no one and yet tended by all?

https://boingboing.net/2013/01/01/robots-are-taking-your-job-and.html

[ayerayerproject]

Picking up the Pieces

by Sarah Ichioka

Sarah Ichioka writes the keynote essay for Plasticity, a photography series by visual artist Ernest Goh on plastic pollution found on Punggol Beach, Singapore. The photography series was made during Exactly Foundation Art Residency programme 2018-19.

Sarah Ichioka writes the keynote essay for Plasticity, a photography series on microplastics and plastic pollution found on Singapore’s Punggol Beach, by visual artist, Ernest Goh for Exactly Foundation Art Residency programme.

On each page, a new object catches my eye; like jewels, like candy. I turn them over in my mind’s hand, admiring their lustrous surfaces, vivid colours.

My consumer-lust is aroused from its never too-deep sleep. That red shaft would make a stunning cocktail ring; that green streak, a tasty topping for a cake.

Mysterious figures appear on the white horizon. Our gazes meet. A wide-eyed soldier hoists his bayonet aloft. A wrinkled beast—a yak?—cocks a smirk in my direction. And wait, is that a… missile?

But then, suddenly, my fantasy falls to the ground. A bent red bottle cap, its curved white logo instantly recognisable. Intrigue flattens to disgust. These aren’t exotic goods whose heft begs handling; they’re nothing but so many tiny bits of trash.

++++

People who spend their time in or near the water—surfers, divers, sailors—are amongst the most passionate anti-plastic campaigners, because they see and feel the effects of ocean pollution first-hand. Photographer Ernest Goh traces the origin of his personal anti-plastic journey to a wave-borne shopping bag that smothered his face. Other friends—a married couple—have shared with me their experience of snorkeling and watching pieces of discarded plastic float by—including food packaging designed by the husband’s very own company.

Even when mediated through photos or videos, for folks more frequently in shopping malls than in the surf, there is a visual aspect of the plastic pollution crisis that imparts an immediate sense of accountability. That object I see lodged in the sea turtle’s nose is most certainly a plastic straw, just like the one I sucked my kopi peng through this morning; that cigarette lighter inside the ribcage of the albatross chick’s carcass is unmistakably the same item that my husband hides beneath his cufflinks and credit card receipts.

This visually self-evident character differentiates our plastic pollution crisis from some of the concurrent, compound emergencies we humans have created. Take our carbon pollution crisis: I have to believe climate scientists when they tell me that my holiday flights hasten the thawing of the permafrost. Or our nitrogen pollution crisis: I have to trust hydrology experts when they say that runoff from fertiliser used to grow my lunch causes massive downstream dead zones. In such cases, obfuscation and denial are easier to sustain, whether by ourselves, by industry lobbyists or by politicians.

The comparative legibility of our plastic pollution crisis might suggest that it is more politically “solvable” than some of these other potentially existential, yet less easily illustrated crises we face.

Having accepted our culpability, how might we begin to atone for it?

One response offers an appealing narrative of consumer activism: maybe we can (mindfully) shop our way out of this mess, by opting for more durable, reusable items? Certainly making a habit of carrying a water flask, a canvas shopping bag, and a set of bamboo eating utensils is a decent place to start, not least as a conversation starter and signal of one’s concern.

Perhaps the problem can be solved if we try our best to #recyclebetter, as the current Singaporean campaign urges? Or is recycling merely a “fig leaf on consumerism” as Jane Muncke, Director of Zurich's Food Packaging Forum puts it?

Maybe we should just tidy up a bit more? When I was a kid, my father would take me for an annual volunteer clean-up of the coast near our California home. Ending the day with sore muscles and a sack full of bullet casings (from a nearby shooting range), cigarette butts, condoms, deodorant rollers, and crumbling chunks of styrofoam was deeply satisfying to me, as tangible evidence of my personal concern and participation. Last year, I chaperoned my daughter’s preschool class on a similar clean-up outing to Singapore’s East Coast Park. This time, I felt rather less contented, overwhelmed by the seeming futility of our attempts, observing casual littering by park users and the floating trash ready to wash ashore as soon as we’d cleared our patch of beach.

As it happens, in about the same timespan as that between my leaving university and becoming a mother, the global volume of plastic production doubled. The same report that documents this leap estimates that global industries have produced 8,300 million metric tons of plastic since 1950. 6,400 million metric tons of this plastic—that’s roughly 100 times the weight of the concrete used to build the Three Gorges Dam, the world’s largest manmade structure—have become waste, nearly 80% of which sits in landfills or our natural environment. Less than 10% has been recycled, while the remainder has been incinerated (as has until recently been standard practice in Singapore).

In Singapore itself, plastic waste per capita has increased nearly 20 percent over the last 15 years. Looking at this country’s plastic bag usage alone, about 2,640 bags are thrown away every three seconds.

Projecting forward current production and pollution trends, another report predicts by 2050 our oceans could contain more plastics than fish (by weight), while the plastics industry itself could consume 15% of our annual carbon budget, and 20% of global oil production.

While our plastic pollution crisis is so overwhelmingly large, it is also mind-twistingly small. Here I mean small in the sense probed by Goh’s photographs: the scale of the microplastics, and now nano-plastics, whose presence has been documented in nearly every corner of our terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and which are now entering our food chain, with unknown, but potentially toxic effects.

The proximity of Goh’s plastic-strewn Punggol beach to a seafood restaurant seems apt. We study the food chain and hydrological cycles as concepts in school, but when most of us enter the “real” world we conveniently forget the practical implications of our systemic connections with the rest of nature.

Understanding the interconnected nature of plastic pollution’s causes and effects is a kind of reawakening. It destabilises the narrative that sees human culture as separate from the natural environment. That story of separation has been a necessary psychological cover for the exploitation of living systems that underpins nearly every aspect of our current economic and political order. Once we remember that ecocide is suicide, will we continue it?

Have we trashed Earth beyond habitability? No problem, we’ll just migrate to Mars, as deckhands or stowaways on a tech oligarch’s spaceship. But wait, turns out we’ve already trashed outer space too. Parts of broken satellites and rockets currently amount to over 8 million kilos of space waste. Rather like ocean plastics, the larger bits of space waste are fragmenting into smaller and smaller pieces, which interfere with digital communications and might even hinder future spacecraft launches.

So let’s turn our eyes back to our damaged and depleted, yet still living and magnificent planet.

“Reduce, reuse, recycle, refuse”? Yes of course, let’s do that. But politely declining plastic straws and rinsing our Coke bottles is simply not enough. Also—and in my view, more importantly—we must act not just as individual consumers but collectively, as concerned citizens and social beings.

With this in mind, let me leave you with an alternative “4 Rs” to consider:

Rebel: Let us raise our voices together, unashamed to share our grief, rage, and disgust at the devastation that our overconsumption-based society has unleashed all around us, clogging our commons and poisoning our sources of sustenance. Let’s insist on better, for ourselves, and for the complex living systems upon which our survival depends.

Root: Let us ground the solutions to our plastic pollution crisis in the lived history and culture of Singapore and its region*. What local wisdom and practices, from karung guni men, to metal tiffins, to banana leaf wrappers and beyond, might be usefully revisited for contemporary use? How might technological and behavioural innovations ground themselves in Singaporeans’ particular resources and values?

Relate: Let us decipher and then communicate the underlying systems that perpetuate this global crisis. Let’s understand for example, who benefits from the otherwise dangerous proliferation of plastics, and how they exert influence on policies and regulations. Let’s study why some national and local governments have taken action to solve the plastic pollution crisis more swiftly than others, and what successful changes early actors have made. Let’s explore how our plastic pollution crisis intersects with other economic, environmental and social systems.

And finally, Regenerate: Let us draw inspiration from the natural world to craft materials and manufacturing cycles that are truly waste-free. Let’s design, build, and inhabit systems that proactively repair past damage, clean up our rubbish, and co-create the conditions for our living world to flourish. It will be a beautiful sight.

Sarah Mineko Ichioka is a Singapore-based urbanist, curator and writer. She leads Desire Lines, a consultancy for environmental, cultural, and social-impact organisations. www.sarahichioka.com

*Ernest Goh’s MA thesis at Goldsmiths followed a similar vein, looking to historical urban successes to inspire contemporary applications. In Goh’s case, the water fountains of ancient Rome inspired the idea for new public water fountains for Singapore, which will be piloted as a part of this project at ADEX 2019.

++++++

Further reading: https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/

https://polymerdatabase.com/polymer%20classes/Plastics%20Industry%20Facts.html

https://polymerdatabase.com/Polymer%20Brands/Plastic%20Manufacturers.html

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lookup.php (tip: enter “plastic” in the Issue search field)

https://www.edb.gov.sg/en/our-industries/energy-and-chemicals.html

http://singapore-companies-directory.com/categories/singapore_plastics.htm

[johnchiarello]

Romans 1-3

ROMANS 1-3

Romans 1-3 videos-

[The videos below should all be the same- I’ll add multiple links to this study- as well as others down the road- of the same video- because I have learned over time if a site deletes your videos- the links are no good- so for that reason- regardless of what happens down the road- there will be at least 1 link that still works- embedded in the teaching post]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz4xrnpMFhU

https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMhRWSt6Bar8L1ZhQn

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10B590nvz5_myWvPziBYakbj8VMqlDee9/view?usp=sharing

Blog- www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

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

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

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

 For the next 3-4 weeks I plan on covering the letter to the Romans- written by the Apostle Paul- Below are excerpts from a commentary I wrote years ago- try and read the book of Romans the next week or so.

Actually reading thru the bible- in context- is one of the best habits you can develop.

Rome was the city of influence at the time of Paul- located just east of the bend of the Tiber river- about 18 miles from the Mediterranean Sea.

The letter to the Romans- would be read orally to both Christians and Jews in the city- in the days of the writing of these letters [which now make up our bible] they were living in an ‘oral’ culture- and the letters were intended to be read aloud to those in the early Christian communities [remember- you didn’t have books back then- like we have today- and the mass production of writing/publishing did not yet exist].

So- Paul was a strategic thinker- and he penned this letter hoping it would be a ‘shot in the dark’- that is the darkness of sinful man-

The letter to the Romans is the closest thing to a systematic theology found in the New Testament.

Its impact in church history is great- John Chrysostom- the great 5ht century preacher- had it read aloud to him- once a week.

 Saint Augustine attributes it to his radical conversion- the story goes he heard some kids singing ‘take up and read’.

 He picked up a copy of the letter to the Romans- and history was changed.

 Luther- the great 16th century reformer- was teaching this letter- as a Catholic priest/scholar- out of Germany- when he read ‘The just shall live by faith- therein is the righteousness of God revealed’-

It lead to what we call today ‘The Protestant Reformation’.

 A few hundred years later- the Great Methodist founder- John Wesley- would say his heart was ‘strangely warmed’ while hearing a message at Aldersgate- and it lead to his conversion- sure enough- the message was from the letter to the church at Rome.

 So- when the great Apostle sat down and penned this ‘arrow’- hoping it to go forth and have great impact for the Kingdom of God- his hopes were indeed realized.

Enjoy-

 · ROMANS 1: 1-16 many believe this letter to be Paul’s best, I wouldn’t disagree. The letters of the New Testament do not appear in chronological order, some feel this to be a huge obstacle in understanding scripture. I think it helps to know the times when Paul wrote the letters, but this in itself doesn’t prevent us from learning scripture. Romans is addressed to the church at Rome and is significant in that Paul did not ‘plant this church’. Unlike the other letters of Paul, he is writing to the believers with whom he had no strong prior relationship. He roots his gospel in the historical facts of history and scripture. ‘The gospel of God that the prophets foretold- Jesus of the seed of David who was proved to be the Son of God by the resurrection’. Make no bones about it, Paul is coming down strong on the gospel of Jesus Christ and he positions himself well right at the start. There were ‘other gospels’ [Galatians] that were circulating and at times might have even outnumbered Paul’s message! The Jewish sect from Jerusalem who embraced both Jesus and the law were very influential in Paul’s day. When Paul combats a legalistic gospel, at times he is running ‘neck and neck’ with the Judaizers. Paul will make a foundational statement that will run true thru out the rest of the New Testament. ‘I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is the power of God unto Salvation to everyone who believes. For in it is the righteousness of God revealed’. Now, I have hit on this theme before, but it is so fundamental to the rest of this study that we need to spend some time with it. I always wondered why so many Evangelicals, and scholars, could not ‘rightly divide’ this biblical doctrine. I am speaking of ‘Righteousness by faith’ as being the root of all other ‘Salvation’. What I mean is many have confused the doctrine of ‘the salvation of the righteous’ with the salvation of the sinner. The reason why the gospel is one of salvation, is because this is the tool that God has ordained to administer ‘righteousness- justification’ to the believer. When God ‘saves- delivers’ a sinner from an ‘unjust state of being’ this act can be called ‘being saved’ [Ephesians 2]. Also thru out the scriptures you have people who are ‘just- righteous’ who experience ‘continual salvation’ because of the fact that they are righteous. This doctrine can be called ‘the salvation of the righteous’. David in Psalms says ‘the righteous cry and the Lord hears and delivers them out of all their troubles’ ‘The salvation of the righteous is from the Lord’. Peter speaks of God delivering the ‘just- righteous’ from wrath. Both Lot and Noah are said to have been ‘saved’ because they were righteous. The whole point here is as we progress thru Romans Paul will use the term ‘salvation’ and ‘righteousness’. Whenever [chapter 10] you have a combining of the righteous [believers] calling, crying out to God for ‘salvation’ it needs to be understood that this does not mean ‘salvation’ in the sense of the initial act of justification. While the two are closely related, the testimony from scripture does make a distinction. So Paul shows us that the reason the gospel is Gods power ‘unto salvation’ is because this is the way God chose to ‘make people just’. Paul will spend a few chapters [3 and 4] laying the foundation of righteousness by faith. But first he will argue his case for why all men need to have this righteousness. [ see entry # 704 for more comments on ‘the salvation of the righteous’]

  · ROMANS 1:17-21 ‘for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness’. Now, we have already established the ‘mode’ by which the gospel ‘saves’ us. Once we believe in the gospel, it immediately, and progressively ‘saves’ us. The immediate act of justification can be described as ‘getting saved’. But there is also a large amount of scripture that speaks of ‘continual and future salvation’. Now Paul begins showing us how this salvation works. He says ‘the wrath of God is revealed against unrighteousness’ the previous verses showed how the believer is made righteous. So we are ‘delivered from the wrath to come’ [Thessalonians] ‘saved by wrath thru his life’ [Romans 5:9] ‘he will appear from heaven the second time to bring salvation to those who look for him’ [Hebrews] and many other verses testify of this theme. Paul is showing us one aspect of this ‘ongoing, future’ salvation by saying ‘see, since Gods wrath is promised to come upon the unrighteous, once you believe with the heart unto righteousness, you then become someone who is off the radar screen from wrath’ [John 3- the wrath of God abides on the unbeliever, but the believer is in a state of ‘no condemnation’]. This understanding will be important as we get to the later chapters in Romans. Now I also want to share a somewhat ‘unique’ interpretation of the following verses ‘that which may be known of God is manifest IN THEM [some say ‘to them]; for God hath showed it unto them [not necessarily meaning ‘showed it to them from created things’!] For the invisible things of him [his attributes! Invisible stuff] from the creation of the world [since the beginning of time, that is since God created all things he has imbedded a witness of himself into all creation; ‘all creation groans and travails’ Paul will attribute ‘human like’ characteristics to all creation. In essence all creation has this testimony and yearning for God in it] are clearly seen [not with the natural eye, but thru this ‘imbedded testimony of Gods attributes that he has placed in all creation’] being understood by the things that are made [not understood by ‘looking at the things that are made’; creation. But actually being understood ‘by them’] so that they are without excuse’. The normal way of seeing these verses says ‘God has left a witness of himself thru his creation. All people are without excuse because they can see his creation and know he is’. Now, is this concept true? Of course! David says ‘the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament SHOWETH his handiwork’. The only problem is ‘all men can’t see!’ I don’t mean to be trivial here; I want to show you that if you read this passage like I just taught it, that it basically is saying ‘since the beginning of Gods creation he has left man without excuse. He has always revealed his inner attributes to man. The witness of moral law and conscience is imbedded in the creation. All men ‘hold’ [possess] the ‘truth’ [this inner moral witness] in unrighteousness, therefore they are without excuse’. I don’t want to be a contrarian simply for the sake of being one. But if you see what I just told you, this fits in with Paul’s understanding of salvation. God’s wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness, yet those who say ‘that’s not fair, God made us this way!’ have no excuse, because God gave all men [and creation] an inner witness that they could have acted on- ‘when they knew God, they glorified him not as God but became vain in their imaginations’. All men have at one time ‘known God’ even those who have never seen Gods testimony from creation! Therefore they are without excuse.

 · ROMANS 1:21-32 the scripture says that all creation ‘knew God’. The indictment is ‘there is no excuse’. The previous verses proved that God not only made man, but that because man was made in Gods image, he therefore had an ‘inner imprint’ of his maker inside him. Now man chose to ‘change the image of God into that of animals’. Man could not escape this inert desire to worship, this thing in him that said ‘there’s more to life than simple flesh’. So he didn’t just become an atheist [though that’s what they would have you believe] but they became ‘changers of Gods image’. They came up with an alternative ‘religion’. Scripture says they changed God’s image into that of an animal [idolatry] and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator. Evolution was Darwin’s feeble attempt at ‘changing the image of God into that of animals’. How so? Modern man was too enlightened [after all we had the enlightenment!] to actually go out and make an image of an animal and bow to it. Instead he bought into the idea that he evolved from animals. Scripture says we are made in Gods image, evolution says ‘we are made in the image of an animal’. Men did not ‘like to retain God in their knowledge’. They had to have some controlling worldview, they came up with one. Now Romans says God gave them up to become like that which they chose to worship. Man was designed to worship God, in seeking and going after God they would become more like him. When man chooses to empty his mind from the creator, God allows him to fill it with what he wants. He receives a ‘reprobate mind’. He fixates on the animal instincts that are a natural result of ‘worshipping four footed beasts’. Now man has no choice but to be formed into the thing that he worships. Paul is here telling us that man became immoral as a result of his own choice to eradicate God from his thoughts. Man received the just recompense of his choice. At the end of the chapter Paul closes with ‘they know that those who do these things are worthy of death’. Once again the idea of judgment ‘the wrath of God is revealed from heaven’. Paul’s summary; Man is unrighteous. God is righteous in punishing man. Man chose to become like this. The only way to escape an inevitable meeting with wrath is to ‘become righteous’. This is accomplished thru believing the gospel. When you believe you become righteous and are no longer on Gods radar screen for judgment.

[One note on Evolution- In the future I hope to cover various views on Evolution- and explain some of the objections that Christian’s have- are actually not good arguments. For instance- in the creation account- Genesis 1- we read that the ‘waters brought forth life’- we see that in the creation account itself- there are progressive acts- God ‘made man’ from the dust- do Christians object to ‘the dirt’? No. We don’t argue ‘no- we weren’t made from dirt! – God made us’! True- but God can use progressive acts- and materials- that are ‘base’ in his creative acts- see?]

 · ROMANS 2:1-13 ‘Therefore thou art inexcusable, o man, whosoever thou art that judgest’. Now, this chapter will run with the theme ‘who do you think you are to judge, you do the things that you say are wrong’. Yikes, this type of preaching convicts us all. But we need to understand that Paul is saying a little more [well, a lot more!] than this. Here’s where we need to do some history. This letter is addressed to believers in Rome, those ‘called to be saints’. Paul is also giving one of his strongest defenses of his theology, he realizes that a large Jewish population are also at Rome [Acts 28]. By the time of this letter the lines are being drawn between ‘Paul’s gospel’ [the true gospel] and the ‘Jewish law gospel’ coming from the Judaizers out of Jerusalem. The main fight is over whether or not Gentile believers need to be circumcised and come under the law in order to ‘be saved’ [Acts 15]. Now the mentality of the Jewish mind was ‘we have been given Gods precepts [true] and because we are the inheritors of the law and moral standards of God, this puts us in a better class than the Gentiles’ [false]. In essence the law was supposed to reveal mans sin to himself, it was to show us our need for a Savior. But in the legalistic mind it created enmity between Jew and Gentile. This is what it means when Paul writes the Ephesian letter and says ‘the middle wall of partition has been removed in Christ’ this ‘middle wall’ is referring to the law and how it divided Jew and Gentile. So here Paul is saying ‘you Jews who are trusting in the fact that you were the recipients of the law, who use the law as a measuring rod to justify yourselves. This measuring rod was actually given to show you your sin. Did it never occur to you that the very fact that the ‘rod’ says “don’t commit adultery, don’t steal” that these things are actually sins that you yourselves do [the legalistic Jews]. And yet the very rule [law] of God that you are using to justify yourselves, this law you actually break!’ Now you are beginning to see the context. And not only were they breaking the law, but at the same time they were saying to Paul’s Gentile churches ‘unless you get circumcised, you are not accepted with God’. The Gentile believers were actually born of God and stopped doing the things that the law commanded them not to do. They were ‘fulfilling the law by nature’. So Paul is really rebuking this hypocritical mindset that said to the Gentile believers that they weren’t saved. And at the same time the ‘judgers of the law’ were actually breaking the law, while the Gentle converts were keeping it by nature! In this context verse one means a lot. Now to an important verse ‘for not the hearers of the law are just before God, BUT THE DOERS OF THE LAW SHALL BE JUSTIFIED’. Just the fact that this statement is made by Paul in this letter is amazing. Paul will spend lots of time in this letter saying ‘those who try and become justified by keeping the law are missing it’. He will go over and over again stating that trying to become righteous by works and law keeping are futile. Yet here he says ‘the doers of the law SHALL BE JUSTIFIED, not the hearers’. Keep in context what I just showed in the beginning of the chapter. The New Testament has a theme that I have hit on before [read the Hebrews 11 commentary on this site]. The theme is ‘men are justified’ [declared legally righteous] by faith. This faith also ‘sanctifies’ [which can also be called ‘justified’ a sort of progressive justification. James uses this in his letter. Paul says in Galatians ‘having begun in the Spirit [legal justification] are you now made perfect by the flesh’ [law keeping]. Now the New Testament teaches that God wants people to actually ‘be righteous’. Johns 1st epistle uses this as the marker of whether or not you are a child of God ‘by this we know… those that do what is righteous are born of God, those that do evil are not’. In Jesus judgment scenarios ‘those that have DONE good are raised to life, those that have done evil to damnation’. So Paul in essence is saying ‘God ‘justifies’ [using the term in a ongoing- futuristic sense] the righteous, not the ones who only hear the law [the Jewish legalists] but those who by nature do it’ [Paul’s gentile converts]. Got it? This distinction is very important. One of the historic reasons why the Protestant and Catholic churches are divided is over this issue. The Catholic Pope [Leo] who initially condemned Luther did so on grounds like this. The Pope who succeeded Leo re-read all of Luther’s documents, in an honest effort to bridge the schism, and came to the same conclusion. Now I like Luther and side with him more so than the Pope, but one of the problems was some of Luther’s writings seemed to say ‘Justification is solely by faith [true] therefore sin hardily’ [false]. Now Luther didn’t intend to come off this way, but that’s the way it sounded. So the Catholic doctrine fell more on the side of ‘Gods grace makes you righteous, God cant declare people actually righteous until they actually are righteous’ this is called the ‘Legal fiction’ argument. They said Luther’s idea was a ‘legal fiction’. In essence some of what the Catholic scholars were saying was correct. Now God does declare us righteous at the moment of belief, before we actually ‘become totally righteous in practice’. But the error of the Catholic argument saying ‘God cant declare you righteous until you are’ was missing the point. When God says ‘you are righteous’ then you are! God doesn’t lie. But I understand the Catholic point. I think Paul understood it too. In this chapter Paul says ‘not the hearers of the law, but the doers shall be justified’.

 · ROMANS 2:14- 3:18- Paul says ‘you are called a Jew and are confident that you are a teacher and an instructor of the law’. Read my Hebrews commentary, chapters 5 and 6. It is interesting that Paul understood the teaching role that the Jewish nation was to play among the Gentile nations. In Jesus parables he also hits on these themes. Hebrews says ‘when the time has come [the appointed time of Messiah- Galatians 4] that you ought to be teachers, you have need to be taught the first principles again’. Here Paul tells them they are proud to be the ‘possessors’ of the Old Testament, yet thru their disobedience to it the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles [ouch!] Paul fully acknowledges the privileged role that Israel had, he himself was brought up with this ‘elitist/intellectual’ mindset. But here Paul rebukes them for not fully living up to the law. ‘Well brother, how could they live up to it? Paul himself says that this is impossible.’ If they carried thru with the receiving of Messiah, which their law spoke and testified of, then truly they would have been fulfilling the law as new creatures in Christ. In essence their indictment is ‘you never fully followed thru with your own law’! Now Paul will flatly say that circumcision and being the guardians of the law profit nothing. That the ‘circumcision of the heart’ is what matters. He says if the gentiles, who have no historical attachment to the law, if they do by nature the things in the law then they are ‘spiritually circumcised’ [set apart unto God]. But if the circumcised do not obey the law and character of God [thru the new birth] then it profits nothing. I want to note the strong disconnect between the way Paul speaks about natural Israel and her heritage, and how some in the American church present her. Paul, who himself is a Jew, makes it very clear that Israel is in a state of ‘danger’ by not receiving Messiah. Though he will admit their special place and role in history, yet he refuses to exalt her in her natural ‘state’ [of being]. Now Israel’s response to Paul [which by the way Paul interjects himself. I want to make a note here. Paul will give ‘both sides’ of the argument in his letters. He will say things like ‘and you will say to me such and such’. He actually try’s to add both sides of the conversation in his letters. Recently there has been some discussion on whether or not we can really understand the New Testament without fully knowing all the background and history of the letters. Some have said just knowing the letters are like hearing only one side of a phone conversation. To be honest this isn’t really true. The writers of the letters and the gospels lived in an ‘oral culture’. This is why Paul himself gives instructions on his letters being read- as opposed to saying ‘pass the letters around for everyone to personally read’. The point is we can understand a whole bunch of scripture just by reading it!] Now Israel asks ‘what good is the whole thing, why even have Jews or circumcision or any history with God at all’? Paul realizes that his whole argument for law and circumcision meaning nothing without a changed heart, that some would respond back like this. He in turn says ‘the law and all the history of Israel with God were very important! It was Gods way of getting his prophetic word [oracles] to man’. In essence God chose to ‘start a conversation’ with Abraham and extend it forward to his children. Over a long history of God interacting with Israel, God would speak thru prophets and ‘wise men’ and these prophetic words were being recorded [meticulously by the way!]. God would reveal himself and his purpose of Messiah thru these writings that came from this relationship [though rocky!] that he had with Israel. Now Paul will say ‘does their unbelief negate Gods promise’? No! Let God be true and every man be a liar. The fact that Israel as a nation were ‘not believing’ in their Messiah, didn’t effect the actual power of the Messiah to be believed on among the Gentile nations. A couple of things here; dispensational theology teaches that the Kingdom of God has been postponed until Christ’s return. I think this contradicts Paul’s argument. Paul said Israel’s unbelief could not negate the full purpose of God. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead and is presently seated at God’s right hand proves this. Also Paul will teach later in this letter that the actual reason why salvation has gone out to the gentiles is because Israel rejected Messiah. In essence Israel’s unbelief could not negate what God purposed to do all along.

 · ROMANS 3:19-31 ‘Now we know that what things the law says, it says to those who are under the law… that every mouth may be stopped and all the world becomes guilty before God’. One of the questions that arise as a response to Paul’s gospel is ‘if the law cannot make us righteous, then why even have it’? Paul will consistently teach the concept that Gods intention for the law was simply to reveal mans sin to him. Man would have this ‘form’ of the law written on stone tablets and as he tried to live up to God’s standards he would come to the proper diagnosis that all men are sinners. This diagnosis would then lead him to a place of faith in Jesus. After he believes in Jesus he then fulfills the law naturally, out of having a new nature ‘yea, we establish the law’ [3:31]. I have found it interesting over the years to teach people this. To explain to sincere people, church goers. To say ‘did you know the bible says that no man can be saved by trying to obey Gods Ten Commandments’? I will always explain that this doesn’t mean that God wants us to break them! But when we come to the Cross we by nature keep them. These verses lay down the foundation of ‘justification by faith’. He that believes is righteous. To declare Jesus righteousness for the remission of sins that are past. Having faith ‘in His Blood’. Both Jews and Gentiles need to be made righteous thru faith/belief in Jesus. I want to establish this fact in your mind. Paul without a doubt describes this experience as being ‘justified by faith’. This is the same as saying ‘believing with the heart unto righteousness’. Later on [chapter 10] this needs to be understood when parsing the verses that say ‘with the heart a man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’ many are confused about this, to get it right you need to see that Paul spends much time early on establishing the fact that ‘those who believe unto righteousness’ are justified by faith already!

  Below are just a few clips from Romans 1-3- I hope to hit on these in the video.

 Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

     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’.

 · ROMANS 6- Lets talk about baptism. To start off I believe that the baptism spoken about in this chapter is primarily referring to ‘the baptism of the Spirit’, that is the work of the Holy Spirit placing a believer in the Body of Christ. The Catholic and Orthodox [and Reformed!] brothers believe that Paul is speaking about water baptism. The MAJORITY VIEW of Christians today believe this chapter is referring to water baptism. Why? First, the text itself does not indicate either way. You could take this baptism and see it either way! You are not a heretic if you believe in it referring to Spirit or water. You are not a heretic if you believe in Paedo baptism [infant baptism]. ‘What are you saying? Now you lost me.’ Infant baptism developed as a Christian rite over the course of church history. The church struggled with how to ‘dedicate’ new babies to Christ. Though the scriptures give no examples of infant baptism, some felt that the reason was because the scriptures primarily show us the conversion of the first century believers. There really aren’t a whole lot of stories of ‘generations’ of believers passing on the faith to other generations. So some felt that the idea of dedicating babies to the Lord through infant baptism was all right. The examples they used were the circumcision of babies in the Old Testament. Infants were circumcised [a rite that placed you under the terms of the Old Covenant] though they weren’t old enough to really understand what they were doing! This example was carried over into the Christian church and applied to infant baptism. Now, I do not believe in infant baptism. But I can certainly understand this line of reasoning. As Christian theology developed thru the early centuries, particularly thru the patristic period, you had very intellectual scholars grapple with many different themes and ideas. Some that we just studied in chapter 5. Some theologians came to see infant baptism as dealing with original sin. They applied the concept of infant baptism as a rite that washes away original sin. The church did not teach that this meant you did not have to later believe and follow Christ. They simply developed a way of seeing baptism as ‘sanctifying’ the new members of Christian households. This basic belief made it all the way to the Reformation. The Reformers themselves still practiced infant baptism. It was the Anabaptists [re-baptizers] who saw the truth of adult baptism and suffered for it, at the hands of the reformers! Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, would have them drowned for their belief. Some Protestants stuck with the infant rite, while others [the Restorationists] would reject it. Today most Evangelicals do not practice infant baptism, the majority of Christians world wide do. Now, the reason I did a little history is because Evangelicals [of which I am one] have a tendency to simply look at other believers who practice this rite as ‘deceived’. Many are unaware of the history I just showed you. The reasons the historic church developed this doctrine are not heretical! They used scripture and tradition to pass it down to future generations. I do not believe or practice infant baptism, many good believers do.

 · ROMANS 6: 1-11 ‘shall we continue to sin, so grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein?’ Now begins the ‘actual part’ the result, if you will, of being ‘made righteous by faith’. One of the main accusations against Paul, by the Jewish believers, was that he taught ‘sin a lot, because you are no longer under the law’. Paul spends time defending himself against this accusation thru out the New Testament. Here Paul teaches that the believer has been joined unto Christ [baptized, immersed into him] and this ‘joining’ identifies him with Christ’s death. So how can ‘we, who are dead to sin, live any longer in sin’? Paul’s argument for righteous living comes from the fact that we have died with Christ unto sin. ‘We have died with him, and we have also been raised with him to new life’. In Ephesians chapter 2, Paul says we who were dead in sins have been made alive in Christ. Now, we live a new life, free from sin [practically speaking- not absolute sinless-ness!] because we are identified with Jesus in his new life, we are ‘alive with and in him’. ‘Since we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection’! Jesus died once, and now he lives forever unto God ‘likewise count yourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God thru Jesus Christ our Lord’. Paul’s basis for the transformed life is Grace and being ‘in him’. Paul does not appeal to the law to try and effect holiness in the believer, he appeals to Christ ‘in him you have died to legalistic practices, trying to earn salvation and acceptance; and now because of this new position [placement] you too have died to the old man [lifestyle] and are alive unto God’. Paul obviously did not teach ‘sin hardily’ to the contrary he taught ‘live unto God’.

 (834)Romans 6:12-23    ‘Let not sin therefore rule in your mortal body’ if we have died with Jesus, we are ‘dead with him to sin’. If we are risen with Jesus ‘we are alive unto God thru him’ for this reason don’t sin! Paul makes sure his readers understand him, he in no way was teaching a sinful gospel. He encourages the believers to renew their minds to this truth. ‘For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace’ Paul clearly saw the dangers of legalism [living under strict ‘do this, don’t do this’ guidelines] he saw that the law actually quickens the fleshly nature and brings to the surface mans sin. Now, because we are under grace, does this mean we get to keep on sinning? ‘God forbid!’ Paul launches into the explanation of sin and bondage. Remember, sin was in the world before the law. Men were dying ever since Adam sinned. So for Paul, this means even though we are not under the restraints of law, yet the reality of sin, bondage and punishment still exist. Paul says ‘if you yield to sin and allow it to rule you, you will become its slave’. There will be a penalty and price to pay ‘the wages of sin is death’. But because you are identified with Jesus ‘sin shall not have dominion over you… you have been made free from sin’. Paul teaches the victorious Christian life. He does not deny the struggle [next chapter!] but he shows the reality of redemption. He obviously never taught the concept of ‘sin more, so grace can abound’. He understood the dangers of preaching ‘we are not under the law’ but he also understood the reality of ‘being under grace’ he figured it was worth the risk of being misunderstood if he could truly imbed the gospel into the believing community.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Romans 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

Romans 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Romans 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Romans 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Romans 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Romans 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Romans 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Romans 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

  (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.

  (836)ROMANS 7: 5-13 ‘But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of the Spirit, not in the oldness of the letter’. This is such a powerful statement! WE ARE DELIVERED FROM THE LAW, surely Paul must mean ‘the fleshly law [carnal nature] in our members’? No, he means ‘the law’, the actual moral code that was contained in the Ten Commandments. He writes to the Colossians ‘Jesus took the handwriting of ordinances that were against us [the real law, not the sinful nature!] and nailed it to his Cross’. He tells the Ephesians ‘the middle wall of partition [law] has come down in Christ’. I know it’s easy to develop ideas that justify this radical grace concept in our minds, it’s just part of mans nature to want to be able to do something, contribute some way to our salvation. ‘Surely the law helps me stay in line’? No it doesn’t! You are ‘dead to the law by the Body of Christ’. We now live and are regulated by the ‘Spirit of life in Christ Jesus’. It is the fact that we have been raised to life in Christ that frees us, not the law. Paul goes on and explains that there was a time when ‘he was alive without the law’ but when the commandment came ‘sin revived, and I died’. Paul was a strict Pharisee, the further he advanced in law, the more he found himself to be ‘exceeding sinful’. The more he learned, the worse he got! It’s sort of a catch 22, you see and hear the ‘do not do this’ portions of law, and it stirs up the sinful nature to ‘do it’. Now Paul recaps an earlier theme of the law serving the function of revealing sin to man. He defends the law by saying ‘was that which is good [law] death unto me’? No, but the law simply ‘awakened’ the sin that was always there, hiding under the covers. It brought to a head the ‘disease’. The law revealed the underlying problem of sin, and made it ‘exceeding sinful’. The law is good, we are bad! [apart from Christ and the Spirit of life].

 (837)ROMANS 7:14-25 Paul now shows us the reality of Gods law and its effect on man. ‘When I do something that I DON’T WANT TO DO, then I consent unto the law that it is good’. Did you ever think of this? The fact that you [or even the atheist!] have done things that ‘you don’t want to do’ proves the existence of God and natural law [which the 10 commandments were only a glimpse, they reveal a small part of Gods character and nature]. So if you, or anybody else, have ever struggled with ‘I am doing something that I hate’. Then why do it? Or better, why hate it? You yourself are an actual living testimony of ‘the law of God’. Your own conscience testifies that there are  ‘good things’ and ‘bad things’. You also testify of the fact of sin ‘why do you keep doing the bad things’? Alas, that thing called ‘sin’ does exist! Paul shows us that the experience of every human member on the planet testifies to both the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man. Freud [the father of modern Psychology] saw this war rage in the psyche of man, he came up with an idea that we need to ‘free man’ from this inner moral struggle. He espoused the idea that in mans ‘head’ he has this preconceived image of ‘God’ and right or wrong. Being Freud was a child of the Enlightenment, as well as a student of Existentialism [though the Father of Existentialism was a Christian, the Danish theologian/ philosopher Soren Kierkegaard] he taught that if we could just eliminate this ‘God idea’ and ‘church moral code’ from mans mind, then all would be well! Geez, I could hardly think of a more destructive thing than to tell man ‘if it feels right, do it’! Paul taught ‘if you can’t stop doing something that ‘feels right’ then you are sinning!’[if that which ‘feels right’ is making you miserable!] And the very fact that you can’t escape the guilt, proves that God exists and that his law is this unstoppable force that invades all human consciences. Paul knew the struggle, he testifies thru out scripture that he tried to become right with God over and over again, but the ‘law of sin’ [the sinful nature. Here ‘law’ is speaking of the ‘principle of sin’ and the fleshly nature] prevented him from keeping the ‘law of God’ [doing what’s right], he then found the ‘righteousness of God that comes thru faith in Christ’. Paul ends the chapter ‘O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death’? ‘I thank God thru Jesus Christ my Lord’. Paul found the answer, his name was Jesus.

Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Romans 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Romans 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

Romans 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Romans 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

Romans 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Romans 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Romans 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Romans 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

ROMANS 8-10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqIktzp8Xc

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2-24-15-romans-8-10.zip

 VIDEO- [I cover stuff on the videos that are not in the post- here are a few]

.Council of Trent- what did the Church say?

.Do we get the final say- at the Judgment?

.What are the Catholic virtues- did Paul teach them?

.Augustine, Calvin, Whitfield and Wesley.

.Infusion or Imputation? How bout both!

At the bottom I added some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic church- to show that the official teaching of the church DOES NOT TEACH SALVATION BY THE LAW- BUT BY CHRIST.

 . REMINDER- This is a commentary I wrote years ago- the videos are new.

.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’.

 (840)ROMANS 8:5-13 Paul will teach the impossibility of the ‘carnal minds’ ability to submit to Gods law. Those who are ‘in the flesh’ [the unregenerate nature- not simply ‘in the body’. We will get into these distinctions in a minute] can’t submit to God. Society spends so much time and effort trying to get the ‘lost man’ to do what’s right. The prohibition movement [outlawing liquor], the increase in the severity of punishment for crimes dealing with drugs. Making the child kidnappers crime punishable by death. While all these laws are necessary and good [though some debate the wisdom of the kidnapper one, they think the kidnapper might just go ahead and kill the victim if the same punishment applies to both crimes] they have little effect on getting ‘the carnal man to submit’. Paul also says ‘if the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead dwells in you, then he that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken [make alive] your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you’. Let’s do a little teaching here. Most commentators see this as speaking of the promise of the resurrection ‘your mortal bodies’. I see this more in line with the context of chapter 7. The discussion of ‘mortal bodies’ [your actual body, the flesh- which is different than ‘the fleshly nature’ which refers to the sinful nature] speaks of your actual life now ‘let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies’. Also in verse 13 of this chapter the same theme is seen ‘if ye thru the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live’. I believe Paul is primarily saying ‘if you are in the Spirit [born of God] the Spirit of life will make alive your physical life in such a way that you will glorify God in your body and spirit, which are Gods’ [Corinthians]. Chapter 12 says your bodies are living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. Now later on in this chapter [8] we do see the resurrection, which is called ‘the redemption of the body’ [verse 23] so these two concepts work together. The fact that the believer is ‘training his mortal body’ for God [thru obedience] is sort of a precursor to the resurrection! Now, some believers confuse the resurrection of the body and the work of regeneration in ‘making you alive’ [Ephesians 2]. The work of regeneration brings your dead spirit back to life [born again] when you believe [which is a Divine imputation of faith at the moment of conversion, a sovereign act]. This ‘coming alive’ is purely spiritual. This qualifies you for the future physical resurrection of the body [Ephesians calls this the ‘down payment’, the ‘earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession’. The word ‘earnest’ here is used in the same way as ‘earnest money’ in a real estate transaction. The fact that we have been ‘sealed’ with the Holy Spirit is our ‘guarantee of future bodily resurrection’]. Bishop N.T. Wright, the bishop of Durham [the church of England- Durham is the 3rd most influential post in the Church of England. Canterbury is at the top] has recently written on the truths of the resurrection of the body. He is an excellent scholar, way way above my league. He has been instrumental in ‘re introducing’ the reality of Christ’s resurrection as well as our future resurrection as a very real Christian belief [and historic truth as well]. I have read some of Wrights stuff and am a little surprised at some of the ideas on ‘soul sleep’ and the immortality of the soul. Bishop Wright seems to side with some of the ideas that certain restorationist groups [7th day Adventists] espouse, that the Catholic Church kind of corrupted the ideas of heaven and the soul by being overly influenced by Greek thought. While it is possible for Bishop Wright to have come to his understanding entirely thru scripture and history, yet I felt it a little strange to see him make these arguments. For the most part I like brother Wright and totally agree with his stance on the future ‘new heavens and new earth’ as the final place of rest [as opposed to dying and going to heaven now, which is a temporary place] but there is the biblical reality of a present ‘heaven’ and this doesn’t only come from Greek thought. I have often used the Christian doctrine of the new heavens and new earth while speaking with the Jehovah’s witnesses, I always agree on the reality of a future kingdom on earth. I simply steer the conversation back to ‘who qualifies for it’ and get straight to the gospel. Well anyway we have a promise of a future resurrection, and also a ‘quickening of the body now’ [God actually using our physical life to glorify him]. These are both great truths!

 (841)ROMANS 8: 14-18 ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God’. Many of us are familiar with this verse [I hope!]. We often see it as saying ‘Gods direction in our lives is proof that we are Christians’ true enough. But in context ‘being led by Gods Spirit’ means living the new life thru Christ. The putting to death of the old man and being ‘made alive’ thru Christ is what this is saying. Paul agrees with John [1st John] ‘those that do what is right [led by the Spirit] are of God’. Paul says ‘we have received the Spirit and a natural result of this is crying “Abba, Father”. I don’t want to do too much here, but Paul sees the ‘confession’ and heart cry of the believer as proof, a result of being ‘a habitation of the Spirit’. A sign, if you will, of being born of God is confessing/ praying to the Father. Paul quoted David in chapter 4 ‘for this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found’ [Psalms 32- actually Paul quotes a different section from the Psalm, but this theme is consistent with Paul’s view]. Paul knew the reality of ‘the godly calling upon God’ they have an inner cry of ‘Abba, father’. ‘We are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ’. For many years this has been a popular verse among many believers, often times it is used to say ‘God owns the cattle on a thousand hills’ [which he does] therefore if we are heirs ‘give me some cattle’! [stuff]. Here Paul uses this term in speaking of our identification with Christ’s sufferings. ‘If we suffer with him, we too shall share [joint heir!] in his glory’ [future glorification at the resurrection- we shall see him and be changed in a moment, at the twinkling of an eye. This mortal shall put on immortality]. It’s a symptom of modern American Christianity to view all these scriptures thru a materialistic lens, Paul held to the promise of a future reward [at the resurrection] that enabled him to go thru great difficulty and suffering in this present life. He counted the suffering as a privilege that he shared with Christ.

 (843)ROMANS 8: 19-25 ‘the sufferings of this present time [are you ‘presently’ suffering?] are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us’. Paul compares the difficulty to the reward. The reward here is the future resurrection. Paul did not see suffering as ‘from the devil’ or the reward as something material [monetary stuff! The resurrection body will be ‘material’ – real]. Paul teaches that the whole creation is waiting for this day. Not only will we get a ‘makeover’ but there will be a new heaven and a new earth! The creation itself longs for this [almost as much as Al Gore!] This resurrection is called ‘the redemption of our body’. The next verse says ‘we are saved by hope’. John also says [1st John] that the future reality of the resurrection ‘causes us to be pure in this life’ [every one that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure]. Why? Because we know God has a purpose for our bodies as well as our spirits! The ‘getting saved by hope’ simply means the future hope of the resurrection ‘encourages’ us to live clean now. Once again ‘saved’ is a neutral term. In can apply to all sorts of things. I always found it funny how when you read certain commentaries, that you see the difficulty Christians have when coming across these types of verses. There’s a verse that says ‘the woman will be saved thru childbearing’ geez, you wouldn’t believe the difficulty some writers have when they come across this stuff. Some teach ‘she will be ‘saved’ thru the birth of a child [Jesus]’ and all sorts of stuff. I think if we simply changed the word ‘saved’ for ‘delivered’ [which are basically the same thing] that maybe this would help. But thank God that we have a future resurrection to look forward to, let this truth ‘deliver’ you from the temptation to think ‘what’s all this suffering worth, why even go thru it?’ Because we have a great promise at the other end!

 (845)ROMANS 8:26-28 ‘Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities’ why does Paul say ‘likewise’? He is saying ‘not only does the future hope of the resurrection sustain us, but also Gods Spirit helps us’! He knows how to make intercession for us in ways that we cannot. I just finished an hour prayer time, not an ‘official’ intercession time [which I do a few times a week now]. But an ‘unofficial’ time where I try and hear what the Spirit is speaking. When you are ‘praying in the Spirit’ [which can include the charismatic expression of tongues] you are depending upon the Spirit to transcend your limited ability to articulate what needs to be said. ‘All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are ‘the called’ according to his purpose’. A very famous verse indeed. What does it mean? It means what it says! Over the years I have heard so many excuses for trying to get around difficult things. Why do the righteous suffer? Some taught it was because of their ignorance of scripture. Why did the things that happened to Job happen? Some said it was because he ‘feared’ that the things would happen [this group seems to miss the whole underlying reason for the book. Job’s friends are continually looking for a reason thru out the book. The point is, sometimes there is no reasonable explanation. I realize you can pick apart certain statements from Job and come up with ‘reasons’, but the meaning of the book is God is sovereign and we shouldn’t always think we can figure him out or ‘work the system’]. Here Paul says ‘whatever is happening to you right now [even very bad stuff!] will eventually work out for you benefit’. What about Hitler? Did he love God? I don’t believe so. This scripture says ‘to them that love God’. Your only responsibility thru the difficulty is to ‘love God’.

 (846)ROMANS 8:29-30 ‘for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: whom he justified, them he also glorified’. Let’s talk a little. When I first became a Christian I began a lifelong study of scripture, where I continually read a certain amount of scripture every day for many years. Over the years I have varied on how fast I should read [that is how many chapters per day and so forth]. But during the early stages I always took these verses to teach predestination in the classical sense. Simply put, that God ‘pre chose’ me [and all whom come to him] before we ‘chose him’. The Fundamental Baptist church I began to attend [a great church with great people!] taught that ‘classic Calvinism’ [predestination] was false doctrine, and they labeled it ‘Hyper Calvinism’. I simply accepted this as fact. But I never forgot the early understanding that I first gleaned thru my own study. I also was very limited in my other readings outside of the scripture. I did study the Great awakenings and Charles Finney. I read some biographies on John Wesley and other great men of God. These men were not Calvinistic in their doctrine [which is fine], as a matter of fact Wesley would eventually disassociate from George Whitefield over this issue. Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist! Over time I came to believe the doctrine again, simply as I focused on the scriptures that teach it. Eventually I picked up some books on church history and realized that Calvinism was [and is] a mainstream belief among many great believers. I personally believe that most of the great theologians in history have accepted this doctrine. Now, for those who reject it, they honestly struggle with these portions of scripture. Just like there are portions of scripture that Calvinists struggle with. To deny this is to be less than honest. The Arminians [Those who deny classic predestination- the term comes from Jacob Arminias, a Calvinist who was writing and studying on the ‘errors’ of ‘arminianism’ and came to embrace the doctrine of free will/choice] usually approach the verses that say ‘he predestined us’ by teaching that Gods predestination speaks only of his foreknowledge of those who would choose him. This is an honest effort to come to terms with the doctrine. To be ‘more honest’ I think this doesn’t adequately deal with the issue. In the above text, as well as many other places in scripture, the idea of ‘Gods foreknowledge and pre choosing’ speak specifically about Gods choice to save us, as opposed to him simply knowing that we would ‘choose right’. The texts that teach predestination teach it in this context. Now the passage above does say ‘those whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of Christ’ here this passage actually does say ‘God predestinated us to be like his Son’. If you left the ‘foreknowledge’ part out, you could read this passage in an Arminian way. But we do have the ‘foreknowledge’ part. So I believe Paul is saying ‘God chose us before we were born, he ‘knew’ ahead of time that he would bring us into his Kingdom. Those whom he foreknew he also predestinated to become like his Son.’ Why? So his Son would be the firstborn among many. God wanted a whole new race of ‘children of God’. Those he predestinated he ‘called’. He drew them to himself. Jesus said ‘all that the Father give to me will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no way cast out’. Those who ‘come’ are justified, those who are justified are [present tense] glorified. Gods design and sovereignty speak of it as a ‘finished task’ like it already happened. God lives outside of the dimension of time. I believe in the doctrine of predestination. Many others do as well. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to, but I believe scripture teaches it.

 (847)ROMANS 8: 31-39 ‘What shall we say then to these things? [what things? The fact that God predestined us and has guaranteed completion of the purpose he has designed us for!] If God be for us, who can be against us?’ Paul teaches that Christ is the only one with the ‘right’ or authority to pass judgment. If the only person in existence who can ‘officially’ condemn and pass legal judgment has actually died for us for the purpose of ‘freeing us from a state of condemnation’, then who ‘gives a rip’ about others opinions and views of us? Most of us struggle with how others view us. Paul did teach that Elders should have good character and a fine reputation in the community. But there is another type of ‘persona’ that preachers can fall into. A sort of ‘concern’ about what the critics are saying. In this context Paul says ‘If the opinion of the only person in existence whose opinion really matters, is one of “I accept you unconditionally, I declare you free from what others think, you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Ever since I have known you, you have been pleasing in my sight” [all true scriptures by the way] Then who cares what others think! Paul also teaches that nothing can separate us from Christ’s love ‘not tribulation or distress or famine or persecution’ IN all these things we are more than conquerors thru him who loved us. Most times we view this passage from a ‘Calvinistic’ lens. I want you to see the impact of this statement thru a different lens. In the American church we have taught people ‘would a good father not pay the bills of his kids? Would a good father allow his kids to suffer? If you were really partaking of the New Covenant you would have it made’. While I do realize that many well meaning ministers have taught these viewpoints with honest and sincere hearts, I also have seen how this mindset accuses the saints. It basically tells the struggling believer ‘what kind of father do you have? If he really loved you would you be going thru these things’? In essence we are saying ‘tribulation and distress and persecution’ are all signs that ‘you have been separated from Gods love’! Paul blows this false [materialistic] mindset out of the water. He says it is thru these things that we are more than conquerors. It is the ability to look into the face of Pontius Pilate and say ‘you have no power over me, my father has permitted these things to take place. I am here to lay my life down for his glory’. Paul said all these things we are suffering are opportunities to glorify our father. To look into the face of society and say ‘nay, we are more than conqueror’s thru him that loved us’. The early church set the world on fire when they were laying their lives down for the cause, refusing to deny their Lord even at the point of death. They were ‘more than conquerors’.

 ROMANS 9-

.PAUL- SPURGEON- AND DAVE HUNT- DID THEY BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION?

.HOW DOES PAUL DEFEND AGAINST THE SEEMING ‘UNFAIRNESS’ OF IT?

.WHAT DID THAT RUSSIAN ATHIEST SAY?

 (848)ROMANS 9: 1-8 Paul returns to an earlier theme ‘Christ came, as pertaining to the flesh, in response to the covenants that God made with Israel’ [my paraphrase!] Paul says that natural Israel played a very important role in the coming of Messiah. He was [is] the fulfillment of the prophecies that came as a result of Gods interaction with ‘the commonwealth of Israel’. Now Paul again says ‘they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, but “in Isaac shall thy seed be called’”. Understand something here, Paul is not teaching ‘another’ natural lineage to Christ. The mistake of the worldwide church of God [Herbert Armstrong] which teaches British Israelism, trying to trace the natural lineage of Europeans and saying ‘these are the lost tribes’. Paul is simply saying ‘those who are of the Law, the natural tribe of Israel [Jews] are not automatically counted as ‘the seed’ [children] but those who ‘are of promise’. Paul also uses this in Galatians 3 and 4. ‘Of promise’ is simply saying ‘those who have been born of Gods Spirit [Jew or Gentile] are the children that God promised to Abraham’ he is the father of ‘many nations’. All who would believe. These themes are building upon Paul’s earlier theology in this letter. This letter [Romans] has a little more ‘weight’ than say a pastoral epistle [Timothy, Titus]. Now, I am not saying it is ‘more inspired’ but I want you to see that even in the book of Acts you see Paul place special emphasis on ‘I must make it to Rome’! Paul fully realizes that this letter will be read among the believers and Jews at Rome. Rome is the capitol city of the Empire. He wants the early believers to understand the role and purpose of God for Israel. Paul’s efforts are being seen by some Jewish believers [Jerusalem] as antagonistic. Paul wants to make it clear that he was not trying to start some type of movement that rejected natural Israel. At the same time he wants natural Israel ‘my kinsman according to the flesh’ to receive their Messiah! So in this context Romans is a theological treatise saying ‘God wants to bring both Jew and Gentile together as one new man in Christ [Ephesians]’. When he argues ‘they that are the children of the flesh ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD[verse 8] but the children of the promise are counted for the seed’ he is simply saying ‘all people, both Jews and Gentiles [which includes all races that are ‘non Jews’ even Arabs!] can partake of this free gift by grace’. The promise is to all who ‘will believe’.

 (849)ROMANS 9:9-23 now we get into predestination. Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau [I spoke on this in the Genesis study, see chapter 25], he says God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. He also uses the story of Pharaoh and says God was the one who hardened his heart. Paul says these things show us that God’s mercy and choice are a sovereign act. He specifically says ‘God chose Jacob, not on the basis of any thing he did [or would do!] but because of his own sovereign choice’. Now, this is another one of those arguments where Paul says ‘you will then say to me, how can God find fault? If everyone is simply doing the things he preordained, fulfilling destiny, then how can God justly hold people accountable’? First, I want you to see that this statement, that Paul is putting into the mouths of his opponents, only makes sense from the classic position of predestination. Second, if predestination only spoke of Gods foreknowledge of the choices that people were going to make [like asking Jesus into their heart!] then the obvious response to the argument would be ‘Oh, God chose Jacob because he knew what a good boy he was going to be’. Not only would this be wrong, Jacob [the supplanter] was not a ‘good boy’, but Paul does not use this defense in arguing his case. He simply says ‘who are we to question God? Can the thing formed say to him that formed it “why have you made me like this”? It seems as if Paul’s understanding of predestination was in the Augustinian/Calvinistic Tradition. A few years back a popular author on the west coast, Dave Hunt, wrote a book called ‘what kind of love is this’? He took on the Reformed Faiths understanding of predestination. Dave was a little out of his league in the book. He seemed to not fully grasp the historic understanding of the doctrine. He quoted some stuff from Charles Spurgeon that made it sound like he was not a believer in predestination. Spurgeon did make strong statements against certain ideas that were [are] prevalent in classic Calvinism. Some taught that Christ’s Blood was shed only for the elect. This is called ‘particular redemption’ or from the famous ‘Tulip’ example ‘limited atonement’. Spurgeon did not embrace the idea that Christ’s Blood was not sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world. The problem with Hunt using this true example from Spurgeon, is that he overlooked the other obvious statements from Spurgeon that place him squarely in the Calvinistic camp. Some refer to this as ‘4 point Calvinism’. I myself agree with Spurgeon on this point. The reason I mention this whole thing is to show you that major Christian figures have dealt with these texts and have struggled with the obvious difficulties involved. I think Paul does a little ‘speculative theology’ himself in this chapter. He says ‘what if God willing to show his mercy and wrath permitted certain things’. He gives possible reasons for the seeming ‘unfairness’ of this doctrine. The point I want to stress is Paul never tries to defend it from the classic Arminian understanding, that says ‘God knew the way people were going to choose, and he simply ‘foreordained’ those who would choose right’. To be honest, this argument does answer the question in the minds of many believers, I simply don’t see it to be accurate.

 (851)ROMANS 9:24-29 Paul quotes Hosea and Isaiah to show that God has a purpose for both Jew and Gentile. He uses a few verses from Isaiah 10 and 13 to say ‘except the lord had left us a remnant, no one would be left’. Now, once again we come up against the mindset of always reading ‘saved’ as meaning ‘born again’. In context, God ‘saving’ a remnant simply means ‘he spared them from ruin and total destruction’. There is a verse in Revelation that says ‘the nations of them which are saved shall enjoy the new heavens and earth’. Some commentators will show you how some versions leave out ‘which are saved’ which would leave the text as saying ‘the nations [that are left, remain!] shall walk in it’. This is the context here. Paul is saying God always had a few from Israel that remained, he didn’t utterly wipe them out. Now, this of course fits in with ‘having sins forgiven’, being ‘saved’ or redeemed. There are prophets who say ‘the Lord will turn away ungodliness from Jacob’ [delivered from sin] and ‘the lord comes to those who have turned away from their sin’ speaking of Israel. So I want you to grasp the biblical concept of God saving [sparing] a remnant. The word ‘remnant’ actually speaks of the part of cloth/ material that is ‘left over’ from the whole piece. Jesus also said ‘unless those days were shortened, their would no flesh “be saved”’. Once again meaning ‘no human would survive unless God cut short his wrath’. Paul also uses this language here ‘the lord will do a quick work on the earth and cut it short [shortened!] in righteousness’.

 (853)ROMANS 9: 30-33 ‘What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after the law of righteousness have attained it, even by faith’.  Paul concludes the chapter by summing up his ‘righteousness by faith’ argument. Natural Israel, who sought to become righteous by law, who were always striving for perfection thru the keeping of the law. They did not attain that which they sought after. Why? Because they sought it ‘not by faith, but by law’. No law could ever make a man righteous. The Gentiles, which were not even looking! They got it. Why? Because they simply believed in the Messiah, it was the best message they ever heard. They were told their whole lives ‘you are separated from Gods promises. You are not included in the commonwealth of Israel’. They never dreamed that the Jewish Messiah would say ‘neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more’. They received Gods righteousness by faith. Israel ‘stumbled’ at the stumbling stone. Jesus is called a precious stone and also a rock of offence. To those who believe, he is great, precious. To those who don’t believe he is this tremendous obstacle. The unbelieving world doesn’t know what to do with him. I was watching Ravi Zacharias the other night. He is a good Christian apologist. He was telling the story of being in Russia and speaking to a large group of Atheists. During his talk they were really aggressive, making motions with their hands and all. He was told ahead of time to be prepared. At the question and answer time a Russian Atheist asked ‘what are you talking about when you say God? I have no idea what you mean by this false concept’. Ravi asked him ‘sir, are you an Atheist?’ He replied yes. ‘What is an Atheist’? Ravi asked. The man responded ‘someone who denies God’. Ravi said ‘what exactly is it that you are denying’? The unbeliever has come up against this ‘rock of offence’. He tries to get around it, to develop all types of systems and philosophies to deny it. The rock is there, you can either ‘fall on it’. That is admit he is who he claims to be. Submit and be ‘broken’. Or it will eventually ‘grind you to powder’. You will pass from the scene and the next crop of Atheists will rise and face the same dilemma. This rock ‘aint going away’.

 ROMANS 10 [On the video I give a broad overview of the doctrine ‘the salvation of the righteous’. I cover many verses not in the post].

.DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ‘A SINNERS PRAYER”?

.DOES THIS CHAPTER SAY ‘THOSE WHO CALLED/ASKED- DID NOT GET IT?

.IS THEIR A ‘RIGHTEOUS MAN’S PRAYER’ THAT BRINGS SALVATION?

. PLEASE- LETS STOP DIVIDING OVER SMALL STUFF-

 (854)ROMANS 10: 1-13 Many years ago I referenced all the back up scriptures for this chapter [and book!]. The study was intense because I saw a fundamental ‘fault line’ that ran thru many in the Evangelical church [the revivalist tradition]. The ‘fault line’ was reading this chapter as in if it were saying ‘ask Jesus into your heart, or you won’t be saved’. Now, I have no problem with those who trace their conversion to an experience like this. But I want to give you my understanding of this chapter, based on the exhaustive study I did years ago. Also, I will probably quote some verses and you will have to find them later [I forget where they all are]. Paul begins with his desire for ‘all Israel to be saved’. I taught in chapter one how come the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Because all who believe ‘become righteous’. After 9 chapters of Romans, we have seen that when Paul refers to ‘justification by faith’ this is synonymous with ‘believing with the heart unto righteousness’. Here Paul’s desire is for Israel to experience ‘all facets of salvation’ [present and future] to ‘be saved’. Now, he will say ‘Christ is the end of the law to all who believe’ Israel did not attain unto ‘righteousness’ because they sought after it by trying to keep the law. But it comes only by faith. Then Paul quotes a kind of obscure verse from Deuteronomy saying ‘Moses says the righteousness which is by faith’ [note- this whole description that follows is describing ‘the righteousness that comes by faith’] and says ‘the word is near thee, in thy mouth and heart’. Paul then says ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved, with the heart a man believes and becomes righteous [which according to Paul means ‘justified’] and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’. In this text, Paul once again is ‘dividing’ the common understanding of ‘salvation’ meaning ‘getting initially saved’- which is ‘believing and being justified’. And simply saying ‘believers will inevitably call and be saved’ [in a generic sense]. Why would he do this? In the context of his argument, he is simply showing the ‘righteousness which is from the law’ [the man under the law is described as ‘doing something’ continuing under the load and strain of law] versus the ‘righteousness which is by faith’ [described as a person who believes and speaks, as opposed to ‘does stuff’]. It is not inconsistent for Paul to use the term ‘confessing and being saved’ as speaking of something different than meaning ‘accepting Christ into your heart’. Paul is simply giving a description of those who believe ‘all who believe will call’. And yes, they will and do experience ‘salvation’. It’s just in this example Paul is not saying ‘they are saved initially upon confession, calling’. At least not ‘saved’ in the sense of ‘getting justified by faith’. Why? Because the rest of the chapter doesn’t make a whole lotta sense if he were saying this. ‘How can they call on him in whom they have not believed’? He already showed us that ‘believers are justified’. The very argument Paul makes distinguishes between ‘believing unto righteousness, and calling unto salvation’. You can see it like this, there is a verse I stumbled across years ago. It is in one of the prophets [Old Testament] and it says ‘Gods wrath will come upon all them WHO HAVE NOT CALLED UPON HIM’. In this context Paul can be saying ‘whoever calls upon God will never enter judgment/wrath’ [a description of a particular lifestyle, remember Paul said Gods Spirit makes us cry ‘Abba Father’] in this light Paul can be saying ‘all who call [both Jew and Gentile- simply making an argument for inclusion. God accepts ‘all who call’] will not come under future [or present!] wrath’. This would be in keeping with Peters scathing sermon in Act’s where he quotes the Prophet Joel and says ‘whosoever calls upon the Lord shall be saved’. If you go back and read Joel you will see that in context he is saying ‘at the future time of God’s revealed judgment, those who cry for deliverance will be spared’. Peter quotes it in this context as well. He shows Gods future time of judgment and ends with ‘all who call will be saved’. How do we know that Peter was not quoting Joel for some type of ‘sinner’s prayer’ thing? Because after the Jews say ‘what should we do’? He doesn’t lead them in a sinners Prayer! I don’t want to be picky, I simply want you to see context. Paul has already established multiple times thru out this letter how righteousness comes to those who believe. One of the descriptions of ‘those who believe’ are they ‘call upon God’. They even call upon God ‘to save them’. In this chapter the reason Paul uses ‘whosoever calls upon the lord will be saved’ is to simply show God will deliver both Jews and Gentiles. His promise of salvation is ‘to all’. When he uses ‘believing and being made righteous’ along with ‘calling and being saved’ he obviously can not be speaking about the same thing! He even states it this way in his argument. ‘How can they call unless they already believe’? He was simply giving a description of ‘those who believe’. This ‘calling for salvation’ that ‘all who believe’ partake of can speak both of a ‘present tense’ being saved, that is from any and all types of bad things, and a ‘future tense’ deliverance from wrath. Even when Paul quoted David in Roman’s 4, he is ‘describing the blessedness of the man unto whom God will not impute sin’ [Psalms 32] if you go back and read that psalm David says ‘for this shall EVERY ONE THAT IS GODLY PRAY UNTO THEE’. David uses this in the context of his confession of his sin. So the ‘everyone that is Godly’ describes ‘the righteous’ and they WILL CALL! Also in 2nd Corinthians Paul quotes Isaiah ‘now is the acceptable time, now is the day of salvation’ in the context of ‘God heard you and saved you’. Why would Paul use this in 2nd Corinthians? They need not be told ‘pray and get saved’. In context he used it to encourage them to return back into full communion and fellowship after their restoration and reproof he gave them in the first letter. He is saying ‘I rebuked you guys harshly, you repented and asked for forgiveness. God ‘heard you’ in his acceptable time, now get over it and ‘be restored’. Salvation to them came by ‘calling’ but it was not describing an initial conversion experience. Well, I didn’t realize I would go so long, but this is a good example of having a ‘holistic view’ of scripture. You try and take all the quotes the writers are using, put them in context of the broad themes of scripture. Add that to the immediate context of the letter [Romans] and then come to a deeper understanding of truth. I am not against those who see this chapter thru an evangelistic lens, I just think the way I taught it is more faithful to the text. [NOTE- Thru out this site I have taught the doctrine of ‘the salvation of the righteous’. I mentioned it earlier in Romans and have spoken on it before. If you can find these entries they will add some insight to this chapter. NOTE- verse 20 actually has Paul quoting Isaiah ‘I was found by them who did not ask for me’. This would sure seem strange to say in the same chapter that taught a concept of ‘all who ask for me will enter the kingdom’. It is quite possible to ask and pray and confess everything ‘just right’ and still not find him. And according to this verse, the ones who did ‘find him’ [Gentiles] did not ask! After years of coming to the above understanding I read a church council [Council of Orange?] and I was surprised to see how they actually dealt with the issue of believing versus ‘calling upon God’. They quoted some of these texts to show that before a person could call upon the Lord, he first needed faith. They used this example to show Gods sovereignty in salvation. I though it interesting that they came to the very same conclusions that I did. They even used the same examples! This shows you how the corporate mind of the church is manifestly expressed thru out the ages. I think the council was in the 8thor 9th century?

 (855)ROMANS 10:14-21 [Just a note for the previous entry. In the conversions recorded in scripture [Acts] do you know how many times there is a reference to ‘calling upon the Lord’ during the conversion? Surprisingly one time. The conversion of Saul [Paul]! During one of the ‘re-tellings’ of his own story he says ‘I was told to arise, and be baptized. Washing away my sins while calling upon the Lord’. Wow, could we have arguments over this one! Do you identify the ‘washing away of sins’ with baptism or the ‘prayer’? I actually previously taught [somewhere on this long blog!] how in the 1st century Jewish mindset ‘washing from uncleanness’ and water were related. I taught it in a way that did not teach ‘baptismal regeneration’ but more along the lines of ‘discipleship’ you might find the entry under ‘my statement of faith’. The point I want to make here is Paul spent 3 days after the Lord appeared to him before he actually got baptized and made an open confession of faith. Paul’s reputation was so bad [he killed Christians!] that his conversion and confession needed to have all the weight possible. Others needed to know that he now ‘confessed Christ’. Most commentators will look to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the Damascus road as his conversion. The point I want to make is in the book of Acts, the main ‘altar call’ was actually baptism. This was the normal means to identify with the believing community. We also see the fact that once people believed, they then were baptized. The same distinction can be made with ‘confessing’. Neither can take place until one believes. I would assume that Paul said something like this at his baptism ‘O Jesus, please forgive me for what I have done. I killed your people and have committed a terrible crime’. There obviously were some serious things he needed to confess! But the overall view of conversion in Acts does not show a ‘sinner’s prayer’ type conversion.] Paul indicts Israel ‘The word did come to you, you didn’t believe’. He also quotes Moses ‘God said he would provoke you to jealousy by a nation who were “no people”’. We are beginning a portion of Romans where Paul will try and explain the dynamic of Gods purpose for Israel, and his ‘use’ of the Gentile nations to ‘make them jealous’. When we studied the parables we saw this dynamic at work. Israel was offended that God [Messiah] was offering equal access to the promises of Israel thru Jesus. Israel was jealous of this free grace. Paul shows them that Moses prophesied that this day would come. You also see this in Stephens sermon in Acts chapter 7 ‘Moses said the Lord would raise up a prophet like me [Jesus!]’ and then Stephen shows how Israel also did not recognize that Moses was the intended deliverer of the people. So likewise 1stcentury Israel also did not recognize their Messiah [the first time around!]. God’s acceptance of the Gentiles was difficult for Israel to embrace. It took a divine vision for Peter, and he still ‘fell back’ into a caste system mentality. God is not finished with these dealings [Paul will say in the next few chapters] and he will make every effort to show both Jews and Gentiles that they are both important pieces to this ‘divine puzzle’. He will even warn the Gentiles ‘don’t get proud, if God cut off the true branches to graft you in, watch out! He might do the same with you.’ Paul is striving for both Jew and Gentile to live in harmony as much as possible, he did not want to come off as a defender of the Gentiles only. He was ‘defending the gospel’.

 (857)ROMANS- Let me overview a little. This entry goes along with the last one [#856- those of you reading this straight from the Romans study will need to find it under one of the ‘teaching’ sections]. Paul deals with the issue of ‘being provoked by/to jealousy’. Many times believers remain divided because of pride and jealousy. We often do not want to accept the fact that God actually is working thru other camps, groups of Christians who are ‘not like us’. It challenges our very identity at times! We feel like ‘well, my whole experience with God has been one of coming out of [name the group- for many it’s Catholicism] and I KNOW that I have found and experienced God by leaving mistaken concepts about God. Therefore any other ‘defender’ of Catholics is challenging my core experience’. I myself attribute my conversion to ‘leaving religious ideas’ and reading the bible for the first time. Though I had various believers witnessing to me, it was the actual reading of Johns gospel [and the whole New Testament] that clinched it for me. The reality of ‘whoever believes’ as opposed to religion. But my own experience should not limit [in my mind] the reality of others who also embraced the Cross without ‘leaving’ their former church. It is quite possible that other ‘Catholics’ arrived at a serious level of commitment to the Cross, while remaining faithful to their church. Now I realize this in itself can become an issue of contention, all I want to show you is we should not limit the power of the gospel to our own personal experience. During the recent controversy [2008] over certain Pentecostal expressions of ‘revival’ some old time churches simply made a case against all the Charisms [gifts] of the Spirit. The fact is most theologians accept the gifts of the Spirit as being for all ages of the church. Sure, there have been problems with them, even early on [the Montanists] but the fact is there has always been some type of Charismatic expression of Christianity thru out the church age. But the more Reformed brother’s sound [and are often!] more ‘biblical’ than some of the crazy stuff that happens under the banner of ‘Pentecostal/Charismatic’. So the divisions exist. In this chapter [Romans 11] Paul is dealing with a very real dynamic that says ‘I find my whole identity in the way God has worked with me for centuries [Judaism]. The fact that he began a new thing with other groups who I detest [Gentiles] has offended me to the point where I can’t even experience God any more’. Israel could not see past her own experience with God. The fact that God was ‘being experienced’ by other groups in ways that seemed highly ‘unorthodox’ did not mean that their former experience was illegitimate. It simply meant that Gods experience with them was always intended to ‘break out’ into the broader community of mankind. They lost this original intent and used their ‘orthodoxy’ as a means of self identification. An ‘elite’ religious class, if you will. I find many of these same dynamics being present in the modern church. We should stand strong for orthodoxy, we also need to expose and correct error when it gets to a point where many believers are being led astray. But we also need to be able to see God at work in other groups, we should not use our own experience with God [no matter how legitimate it is!] as the criterion of what’s right or wrong.

CATECHISM of the Catholic Church-

1963    According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God. (1610, 2542, 2515)

1964    The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. “The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come.”17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven. (122, 1828)

 1977    Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the justice of God.

1982    The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.

1983    The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us.

 I TALKED ABOUT THESE VIRTUES ON THE VIDEO-

I. The Human Virtues

1804    Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good. (2500, 1827)

The moral virtues are acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts; they dispose all the powers of the human being for communion with divine love.

The cardinal virtues

1805    Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called “cardinal”; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. “If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom’s] labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage.”64 These virtues are praised under other names in many passages of Scripture.

1806    Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.”65 “Keep sane and sober for your prayers.”66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid. (1788, 1780)

1807    Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”68 “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”69 (2095, 2401)

1808    Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life. The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause. “The Lord is my strength and my song.”70 “In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”71 (2848, 2473)

1809    Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: “Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart.”72Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: “Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites.”73 In the New Testament it is called “moderation” or “sobriety.” We ought “to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world.”74 (2341, 2517)

Down the road I hope to teach a bit more about the Catholic teaching of ‘the working of the work’- meaning the Church teaches that the Sacraments ‘work’ regardless of the holiness/faith of those administering them. It’s a controversy that dates back to the early centuries of the Church [the Donatist controversy]. The point I want to make here is the bible teaches that there are things we can train ourselves to do- acts of prayer- fasting- etc.- that over time will train the mind to think Godly thoughts [these practices of discipline work over time- regardless of the way you feel]. I think one of the drawbacks from the Protestant Reformation was the neglect of ‘works’- the role that good works play in the Christian life. Paul [in Romans] says ‘as you have yielded your parts as instruments of unrighteousness to sin- so now yield them as instruments of righteousness unto God’. I added this section about Virtues because I felt it covered this theme well.

Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

Proverbs 9:2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.

Proverbs 9:3 She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city,

Proverbs 9:4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

Proverbs 9:5 Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

Proverbs 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

    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

  END NOTES-

.What effect did the Renaissance have on the Reformation?

.How did Erasmus differ from Luther?

.Do Catholics exalt Tradition over Scripture?

.Renaissance artists.

.Do Catholics believe in Justification by Faith?

.Catholic teaching on Civil Authorities [Romans 13].

.What does ‘AdFontes’ mean- and how does it relate to the Renaissance/Reformation?

 Romans 11

.Was Paul a full time preacher- paid?

.Is he teaching universalism here?

.Elijah was not alone.

(861)Romans 11:13- ‘For I speak to you Gentiles, in as much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office’. Let me just make a few comments today. How is Paul ‘exercising’ his apostolic authority over the Gentiles in Rome? We know he hasn’t been there yet [since becoming a follower of Jesus]. He did not have some type of relationship with them where they contributed to him. He was holding no ‘church services’. He exercised it by speaking into their lives and caring for their welfare. He did this by WRITING THIS LETTER! Recently there has been some discussion on ‘Gods government’ and the apostles ‘bringing things into alignment’ [dealing with the mistakes at Lakeland]. Lots of talk that I am familiar with. What is Gods government? In the world we have 2 competing ‘world views’- systems or modes of operation. You have God’s kingdom, and then the worlds system. When the apostle John said ‘love not the world, neither the things that are in the world’ he was referring to this system of lies and pride and sin. In Gods kingdom you operate under his laws ‘love the Lord thy God with all thy heart… and your neighbor as yourself’. In this family [children of God] you have different types of ‘gifts’. Some are apostles, others prophets, etc. All these gifted ones are given for the singular purpose of building you up so you can have a mature faith grounded in Christ and be the ‘glorious temple’ of God in the earth. Paul was playing his part by communicating Jesus to these Roman Gentiles. He did not have some type of a corporate relationship with them where he said ‘commit to my authority over you. Either I will be your ‘covering’ or someone else!’ These are mans ideas. Now, we often say ‘Paul didn’t receive money from the Corinthians, but he did from the other churches’. I have said this myself. Paul did receive support from the Philippians, but that was support for his traveling ministry. To get him to the next place. If you read carefully you will see Paul telling the Thessalonians ‘when I was with you I did not eat, or take stuff for free. My hands ministered to both me and those that were with me’ I think he even said he worked night and day. When he spoke to the Ephesians elders in the book of Acts, he also said ‘I labored when I was with you, I did not take support from you when I was there. I did this to leave you ELDERS an example’. Now, the point I want to make is it seems as if Paul did not take money when he was actually living among the saints. It seems he took it only for traveling expenses [and of course for his ministry to the poor saints at Jerusalem]. Now, I believe and teach that it is scriptural to meet the needs, financially, of laboring elders. The reason I mention this is to show you that being an ‘apostle’ or any other gifted minister in the church simply means you bear extra responsibility to bring Gods people to maturity. It was not some type of office where you were a ‘professional minister’. When I hear all the talk of ‘Gods apostles are bringing Gods government back into alignment’ for the most part these are men’s ideas being applied to an American corporate 501c3 ministry. Gods ‘government’ operates along different lines. So in this example Paul said ‘I magnify my office’ he was simply imparting some truth to them for the purpose of their own edification. Paul did not see them coming under ‘his covering’.

 (862)ROMANS 11- let me make a note on the previous entry. Over the last few years, as well as many years of experience with ‘ministry/church’, I have seen how easy it is to fall into the well meaning mindset of ‘I am going into the ministry, this is my career choice. My responsibility is to do ‘Christian stuff’ and the people’s role is to support me’[ I am not taking a shot at well meaning Pastors, I am basically speaking of the many friends I have met over the years who seemed to think ministry was a way to get financial support]. In the previous entry I mentioned how Paul seemed to have a mode of operation that said ‘when I am residing with a community of believers, I refuse to allow them to support me. I will work with my own hands to give them an example, not only to the general saints, but also to the elders. I am showing you that leadership is not a means to get gain’. It does seem ‘strange’ for us to see this. Of course we know Paul also taught the churches that it was proper and right to support those who ‘labor among you’. I have taught all this in the past and I don’t want to ‘re-teach’ it all again. The point I want to make is we ‘in ministry’ really need to rethink what we do. How many web-sites have I gone to that actually have icons that say ‘pay me here’. The average person going to these sites must think ‘pay you for what’? Paul did not teach the mindset of ‘pay me here, now’. Also in this letter to the Romans we are reading Paul’s correspondence to the believers at Rome. He often used this mode of ‘authority’ [writing letters] to exercise his apostolic office. Of course he also traveled to these areas [Acts] and spent time with them. And as I just showed you he supported himself on purpose when he was with the saints. Basically Paul is carrying out the single most effective apostolic ministry of all time [except for Jesus] and he is doing it without all the modern techniques of getting paid. He actually is doing all this writing and laboring at his own expense. He told the Corinthians ‘the fathers [apostles] spend for the children, not the children for the fathers’. So in todays talk on ‘apostles’ being restored. God ‘bringing back into alignment apostolic government’ we need to tone down all the quoting of verses [even the things Paul said!] that seem to say to the average saint ‘how do you expect us to reach the world if you do not ‘bring all the tithes into the storehouse’! When we put this guilt trip on the people of God we are violating very fundamental principles of scripture. Now, let’s try and finish up chapter 11. Paul is basically telling Israel and the Gentiles that God’s dealings are beyond our understanding [last few verses]. God is using the ‘unbelief’ of Israel as an open door to the Gentiles. He is also using the mercy that he is showing to the Gentiles as an ‘open door’ to Israel! He will ‘provoke them to jealousy’. There are a few difficult verses that would be unfair for me to skip over. ‘All Israel shall be saved’. Paul uses this to show that God’s dealings with natural Israel as a nation are not finished. Who are ‘all Israel’? Some say ‘the Israel of God’ [the church]. I don’t think this fits the text. Some say ‘all Israel that will be alive at the second coming’ I think this is closer. To be honest I think this can simply mean ‘all Israel’ all those who are alive and also raised at the return of the Lord. Now, this would be a form of universalism [all people eventually being saved]. I am not a Universalist, but I don’t want any ‘preconceived’ mindset [even my own!] to taint the text. I think God has the ability to reveal himself to the whole nation of Israel in such a way that ‘they all will be saved’. If I were a Jewish person I wouldn’t wait for this to happen! Just like the Calvinists argument of ‘why witness’? Because God commands it. So even though you can make an argument here for a type of universal redemption at Christ’s revealing of himself to Israel at the second coming [which is in keeping with this chapter, as well as other areas in scripture; ‘they will look upon him whom they have pierced’ ‘God will pour out the spirit of mourning and supplication on Israel at his appearing’. Which by the way would fit in with ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved’ which I taught in chapter 10. This is a futurist text implying a time of future judgment and wrath’]. So God’s dealings with Israel are not finished. Paul also warns the Gentiles ‘don’t boast, if God cut out the true branches [Israel] to graft you in. He can just as quickly cut you out too’! It would be dishonest for me [a Calvinist] to simply not comment on this. You certainly can take this verse in an Arminian way. Or you can see Paul speaking in a ‘nationalistic sense’. Sort of like saying ‘if Germany walks away from the faith, they will be ‘cut out’. [France would have been a better example! Speaking of the so called ‘enlightenment’ and the French Revolution]. In essence ‘you Gentiles, don’t think “wow, look at us. God left Israel and we are now special!”’ Paul is saying ‘you Gentiles [as a whole group] stand by faith. God could just as quickly ‘cut you out’ and replace you with another group’. I also think the Arminians could use this type of argument for the previous predestination chapter [9]. But to be honest I needed to give you my view. One more thing, Paul quotes Elijah ‘lord, I am the only one left’. He uses this in context of God having a remnant from Israel who remained faithful to the true God. God told Elijah ‘there are 7 thousand that have not bowed the knee to baal’. Paul uses this to show that even in his day there were a remnant Of Jews [himself included] who received the Messiah. An interesting side note. The prophetic ministry [Elijah] seems to function at a ‘popular level’. Now, I don’t mean ‘fame’, but Elijah was giving voice to a large undercurrent that was running thru the nation. If you read the story of Elijah you would have never known that there were ‘7 thousand’ who never bowed the knee! Often times God will use prophetic people to ‘give voice’ or popularize a general truth that is presently existing in the ‘underground church’ at large. Sort of like if Elijah had a web site, the 7 thousand would have been secretly reading it and saying ‘right on brother, that’s exactly what we believe too’!

 ROMANS 12

.ARE SOME GIFTS BETTER THAN OTHERS?

.HOW SHOULD THEY FUNCTION IN THE ‘BODY’?

. HOW SHOUD WE GIVE OFFERINGS- DID PAUL TEAHC TITHING?

.HOT COALS ON THEIR HEADS- HUH?

 (864)ROMANS 12:1-8    ‘I beseech you by the mercies of God to present your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service [spiritual worship]’. Most times we see ‘by the mercies of God’ as a recap of all that Paul has taught from chapters 1 thru 12. This is true to a degree. I think Paul is honing in on the previous chapters that dealt with the purpose of God specifically seen in the resurrection of the body. As we read earlier ‘for we are saved by hope’ [the hope of the resurrection]. Basically I see Paul saying ‘because of what I showed you concerning Gods redemptive purpose for your body, therefore present your body now, in anticipation of it’s future glorious purpose, as a living sacrifice ‘holy and acceptable unto God’. Why? Because you are going to have that thing [body] forever! [in a new glorified state]  Paul exhorts us to be changed by the renewing of our mind, the way we think. I have mentioned in the past that this renewing is not some type of legalistic function of ‘memorizing, muttering the do’s and don’ts all day long’. But a reorganizing of our thoughts according to this new covenant of grace. Seeing things thru this ‘new world’ perspective. A kingdom view based upon grace and the resurrection of Jesus. This resurrection that is assured to us because we have the deposit of the Spirit which is our guarantee that God will complete the work that he has begun in us. And Paul will jump into one of his ‘Body of Christ’ analogies which he uses often to describe the people of God. Because we are all one body, we should think soberly about our different gifts and purposes. God gave some ‘better’ [or more noticeable] gifts for the overall edifying of the body. So don’t boast about it. All have varying gifts, freely given. Administrate them with much grace. Do it with humility and cheerfulness. We are simply children thru whom Gods Spirit manifests himself in different ways. Don’t boast that ‘Wow, daddy gave me a bike’. Or look, I got a more expensive Christmas present than you. Daddy distributes the gifts freely as he wills. They are for everyone’s benefit. Don’t use this grace gift as a means of self importance or prestige. It would be like ‘prostituting’ a gift for self-aggrandizement. People have done it, but it displeases the giver of the gift.

 (865)ROMANS 12: 13  Paul continues to give some basic guidelines on practical Christian living. Notice his teaching on financial giving ‘distribute to the necessity of the saints’. This basic Christian doctrine from Jesus teachings has become the premier act of giving for the New Testament saint. The reason I have stressed this teaching as opposed to the more popular view of tithing, is because the scriptures place such a high priority on Christian charity. As I have mentioned before, Jesus even uses this basic description to describe those who ‘are righteous’ or ‘unrighteous’. He teaches the final judgment will be based on this outward identifier of ‘what we did to the least of these’. If you read carefully the New Testament epistles you will see a picture of ‘local church’ as a caring community of people who show their love for one another thru these acts of kindness and compassion. None of the New Testament letters teach a  type of financial giving that focuses on ‘support the ministry/institution’ as being ‘the new testament church’ that replaced the ‘old testament temple’. For example a tithe system that supports the ‘pastor/priest’ in the same way the Levitical priests were supported under the law. It’s so vital for us to see and understand this. Because the average believer is taught thru out his life that his primary expression of giving is to ‘bring the tithe into the storehouse’ in such a way that it violates the actual primacy of giving as taught in the New Testament. Which is to regularly give to meet the needs of those around you. The fact that there were instances in the book of Acts or the letter to the Corinthians where believers gave an offering in a corporate way [the collection for the poor saints- 1st Cor. 15, or the laying of the money at the apostles feet in Acts] does not excuse the believer from the teaching that we should all regularly give to meet the needs of those around us. This is flatly taught as a regular part of the Christian experience. The other fact that Paul never once teaches the tithe as a function of giving for the Gentile churches should cause us all to take another look at the way we teach giving in the church today.

 (866)ROMANS 12:14-21 Notice how Paul puts such a high priority on the principles of Jesus. He exhorts the saints to live by the precepts of the great ‘sermon on the mount’. Often times believers try and make a division between Paul’s revelation of justification by faith and the ‘liberal moral teachings of Jesus’. I see no division here. Paul actually quotes Jesus ‘if you’re treated badly, respond in love. By not getting even you heap “coals of fire on your enemies head”’. Actually, I remember how a few years back, when everybody was coming up with their ‘new revelation knowledge’ ideas on scripture. Things like ‘the camel going thru the eye of the needle’. Some taught Jesus was not really rebuking wealth, he was simply talking about a ‘low gate’ thru the wall of the city that was called the ‘eye of the needle’ and the camels had to crouch a little to get thru, true silliness! This verse ‘coals on the head’ was taught as saying Jesus was simply saying you were helping your enemy on cold nights by ‘keeping his head warm’! Sad. Jesus said don’t avenge yourselves, God will avenge you. Doesn’t sound like the lord is talking about ‘head warmers’! Look at these verses carefully. Paul incorporates the teachings of Christ as having a very high priority for the believer. We are often inundated with modern concepts of ministry. How to raise funds [or amass wealth]. Paul ‘locates’ the important thing as being centered on Christ. He knew if the churches [believing communities] of the first few centuries would follow this idea, that they would truly turn their world upside down for the cause.

 ROMANS 13

.SHOULD WE OBEY WICKED RULERS?

.IS IT EVER RIGHT TO ‘NOT OBEY’ [Civil Disobedience].

.TAXES AND THE TITHE.

 (867)ROMANS 13:1-6 Paul teaches that believers should ‘be subject’ unto human government. He shows us that ‘the powers that be are ordained of God’. All human leaders are given their position of authority, ultimately, from God. What about Hitler? Or evil Pharaoh? Did God ‘put them there’? If God is sovereign [which he is!] then he permits all things to transpire, that actually transpire! He does not ‘ordain evil’ in the sense that he initiates unrighteous things. But because he has the power to prevent anything from happening, if ‘it happens’ that a wicked ruler is in authority, then he in that sense ‘ordained it’. Understand Paul is writing this at a time in Roman history where the leaders were quite wicked. They worshipped false gods, and even claimed to themselves the title of ‘a god’. For Paul to use this language in this chapter, he even says ‘they are the ministers [servants] of God to thee for good’ is strong. Paul is also not teaching that there is never a cause for civil disobedience, in the sense of ‘whatever the government says, we will do’. In the New Testament we have Peter resisting the order to ‘not teach or preach in Jesus name’ [Acts]. He even says ‘should we obey God or man’ in his defense. Of course today we have legalized abortion, and in the case of later term abortions, the practice is equal to infanticide. We should do all that is in our legal power to stop the murder of unborn children. This law violates Gods law, from whom all human government is derived.

 (868)ROMANS 13:7-14 ‘For this cause pay your taxes also, for they are Gods ministers’ I noted earlier how Paul taught ‘give to those around you that are in need’ [chapter 12] and here he teaches the importance of ‘paying taxes’. Where is the exhortation to ‘pay tithes’? In the ecclesiology of Paul, the ‘corporate community of people’ are the ‘new testament temple of God’. Therefore you see the need to ‘pay tribute’ to only two ‘institutions’. One being the ‘local church’ [as seen in simple giving to the needs of the community around you] and the other being ‘the government’. Paul sees no 3rd ‘institution’ that is called ‘the local church’ to which the tribute of the tithe belongs. To correctly apply the verse in Malachi [if you were going to use it at all. It is obvious that the prophet is directing the rebuke towards natural Israel] you would simply see the ‘bring all the tithes into the storehouse’ as ‘give to meet the needs of the community [Gods new testament storehouse] around you’. Now Paul teaches the primacy of the law of love for the believer. If we walk in Jesus command to love, we fulfill the law. And again Paul uses the language of ‘fluent soteriology’ [salvation]. He says ‘now is our salvation nearer than when we believed’. Paul comfortably jumps in and out of ‘being saved’ and ‘will be saved’. It is this free use of the term that we need to become familiar with. The New Testament clearly teaches a future salvation. And it is not as simple as ‘My spirit is saved, my mind [soul- which is really a very weak translation for soul. The soul is much more than the mind, emotions and intellect!] is ‘being saved’ and my body will be saved’. It is not this cut and dry. Your spirit is saved, your spirit will be saved and is being saved [he ever lives to make intercession to God for us- this ongoing intercession deals with all aspects of the humans salvation. Not just the body!]. All 3 modes of salvation [past, present and future] can apply to ‘all of you’ [spirit, soul and body]. Don’t think future salvation only deals with the ‘salvation of the body’.

  END NOTES- I’m adding portions of the Catechism at the bottom to show my Catholic [and Protestant] friends the official teaching of the church.

Some of my Catholic readers who are following along in this study- I want you to know that these doctrines are indeed in line with your faith.

 RENAISSANCE STUFF –

 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.

1989    The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”39 (1427)

1990    Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. (1446, 1733)

1991    Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us. (1812)

1992    Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40 (617, 1266, 294)

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41

1993    Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent: (2008, 2068)

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42

1994    Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that “the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth,” because “heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect… will not pass away.”43 He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy. (312, 412)

1995    The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the “inner man,”44 justification entails the sanctification of his whole being: (741)

Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification…. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.45

1. Grace

1996    Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46 (153)

1997    Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church. (375, 260)

1998    This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47 (1719)

I added these below for commentary on Romans 13- Civil authorities. In our world today- there are many governmental authorities- and some are changing ‘overnight’- with much instability in the world. So you have cases where one group- government- is in charge- to be ‘obeyed’- but yet- that group is ousted some times in a day. Then do you view the new government- and all the new courts- judges- etc. – as illegitimate? Because they did not submit to the former group?

I find lots of confusion among Christians about our right relationship to civil government- many do not seem to understand that when we in the U.S. rebelled against British/English rule- we too were not ‘obeying’ the authority. We formed a new government- with courts- judges- etc.

So- this portion below shows us that there are indeed times when government loses the authority to govern- given to them by God.

1902    Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22

1903    Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”23

  ROMANS  14-16

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/3-28-15-rom14-16.zip

 CHAPTER 14

.CAN WE WEAR SHORT, SHORTS?

.THE ATHEIST KNEW

NEW NOTES BELOW-

. ON EATING MEAT [I wrote this commentary years ago- so I added some recent notes below].

.DAVID KORESH- KING CYRUS?

[END NOTES-

.RETHINKING HOMELESS MINISTRY.

.TIMOTHY CHAPTER 6]

 (869)ROMANS 14:1-9 Paul discusses Christian convictions. Things that are personal habits of discipline where the scripture is silent on. Some believers abstain from certain types of food. Others see certain days as ‘more special’ than the others. It’s important to see that in this discussion Paul is not concerned with ‘who is right’. Though he will describe the legalistic believers as ‘weak in the faith’. And he himself will say he is convinced that ‘nothing is unclean in and of itself’. He is speaking about the convictions mentioned above. When I first became a believer I attended a good church. It was a Fundamental Baptist church that was a little legalistic in these areas. I remember a funny story, some of the brothers went on a canoe trip. We had a blast. One of the guys was wearing these old cut off shorts that looked like ‘blue jean hot pants’ [who wears short shorts, we wear short shorts!] the pants were old and the ‘fly’ kept unzipping. We told the brother ‘hey James, your gonna get us arrested or something if you can’t keep your shorts on!’. He got mad and called us a bunch of legalists! As you can see there are times where this accusation can simply be an excuse. But seriously the church was old fashioned [though well meaning]. I had another friend of mine that I led to the Lord and he asked ‘what’s wrong with the Christian rock, I like it’? He had heard some songs from the group Petra and he thought they were great. He also questioned why it was wrong for his boys to play mixed sports in public school. He was taught that the boys and girls wearing shorts in mixed company was wrong. So things like this are personal convictions that believers should not use to judge others. I want to stress that Paul does not condemn the more legalistic brothers, but he does make it clear that this is a sign of ‘weaker faith’. A faith that looks at the insignificant things and makes them significant. Many ‘Emergent’ church folk [of which I am one to a degree] seem to have had this type of background. Or at least are familiar with the classic evangelical message and preaching. Some have found a revolution in their thinking by re-organizing their lives around the actual lifestyle and teachings of Christ [which is a very good thing!]. But some seem to despise the older type churches and expressions of Christianity that they experienced while growing up. Some even cast away the good with the bad! Though many of the more legalistic churches practiced this type of Christianity, yet I commend them on spreading the gospel of Gods grace. Taking seriously their faith in the Lord. And being historic defenders of the faith at a time when the more liberal universities were throwing out the baby with the bathwater [the 20th century fundamentalist movement].

 (870)ROMANS 14: 10-23 ‘As I live…every knee shall bow and every tongue confess’. Paul teaches that we will all give an account of ourselves to God. He shows that one of the proofs that ‘he lives’ rides on this fact. How? The context of every one giving an account of his life is speaking of a future judgment day. But we also see the reality of Gods existence in the fact that most people [even atheists!] have at one time or another ‘spoken to God’. I was listening [or reading?] a testimony of a woman who was an atheist. Her child became critically ill and as the days went by in the hospital she had a conversation that went like this ‘I cant pray to God now. I would be a hypocrite. I have denied him my whole life’. The point is she actually knew that in time of need you should pray to God. This universal reality that most people on the planet have at one time or another ‘confessed to God’ is proof of his existence. Paul says because of this fact that we all will give an account to God, therefore don’t judge other people [motives] before the time. If you have the freedom to ‘eat meat’ [less legalistic] then by all means do so. But if this freedom causes another to stumble, then your first priority as a Christian is to live your life in an unselfish way for the benefit of others. So do not let your freedom become an offence to those who have ‘weaker faith’. Do all things with the benefit of others in mind. When Paul says ‘don’t judge your brother’ he is not saying there is never a time for correction and reproof. Paul used very harsh language when dealing with the Judaizers. These Jewish legalists did believe in Christ, they just mixed the law in with the gospel. Paul rebuked them harshly [just like Jesus and the religious leaders of his day]. But when dealing with new believers, those who are ‘weaker in the faith’ you don’t want to overload them with too much stuff. You want them to grow and mature in the proper time. If you used to be legalistic [not going to movies, not eating pork, all types of stuff] and now are more mature in your thinking [though some movies are bad and pork isn’t real good for you!] you should not despise those who still see the practice of their faith thru this lens. Paul said ‘he that eats, eats unto the Lord. He that abstains does it also to the lord’. In these less important restrictions that some believers abide by, most of the times their motives are pure. We shouldn’t demean them. We should try to live peaceably with all men as much as possible, we will all give an account some day.

NEW NOTES-

IS EATING MEAT OK?

The question of food and Holy Days are a subject that the Apostle Paul deals with more than one time in his letters to the churches.

For us today- it might not seem like a big issue- but for various reasons it was an issue for the 1st century church.

When he wrote the church at Corinth- their issue was whether or not it was ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

Corinth had a tradition [non-Christian that is] where the town folk would sacrifice animals to various ‘gods’.

Now- the priests who dealt in this trade- would take the leftover meat from the animal- and either eat it- or sell it to the local ‘butcher’.

These sacrifices were to false gods [also understood to be demon entities by the 1st century Jewish/Christian communities].

So- the question was- is it ok to eat the meat?

The apostle Paul tells them that we know there are no other gods but the true God- and meat in general is ok for us living under the New Covenant [he also says in the End Times some will command to not eat meat- and that God gave us all animals to be received with thanksgiving].

So- in general- the meat was fine.

But- if doing it offends a weaker brother- then don’t eat it.

Meat also played a big role in another sense- the Jewish converts to Christianity were indeed taught kosher rules for food/meat.

Were these converts not to obey their old religious rules about food?

We read of this type of debate all thru the New testament- not just about meat- but about the whole transition of the Jewish believers- and their relationship to the Old Law.

In Acts chapter 13- and 15 you can get a good feel of this debate.

There are Christians today who still struggle with the Old Law- and how we today should relate to it.

Paul says he is persuaded that there is nothing unclean in and of itself [here talking about food- not things like adultery- which some of my friends think is ok- I can’t stress enough that when the bible says ‘nothing is unclean in and of itself’- it is NEVER TALKING ABOUT BREAKING THE 10 COMMANDMENTS].

So- in the end- if in areas of what we call Christian convictions- it’s simply a matter of choice-

If the bible is silent on an issue- then lean towards grace-

But- if your freedom hurts your brother- because he thinks it’s a bad thing- then be willing to abstain from it- like eating the meat that was sacrificed to the idol- at least while their around.

Some see a contradiction in Paul’s teaching- at one point he says ‘meats ok- even if part of it was used as a sacrifice to idols’- yet he also says ‘don’t eat at THE TABLE with devils [demons]’.

Ok- one of the practices at the city of Corinth was you ate in a sort of ‘demonic’ Eucharist- those who worshiped false gods had a sort of meal like Christians celebrated- which we call Holy Communion.

These idol worshippers did sort of the same thing- they ate together at their own TABLE_ in a sort of celebration of their gods-

So- Paul did forbid this practice- he told the church at Corinth you cannot eat at the table of the Lord and the table of devils-

If you were actually participating at the Table- eating the meat there- in celebration of the false god- then it’s wrong.

But- if you simply bought some of the left over meat- at the local butcher- that was fine.

See?

No contradiction at all.

 KING CYRUS- DAVIVD KORESH?

Paul uses a quote from Isaiah 45 ‘every knee shall bow- tongue confess’ – talking about God using a pagan king- King Cyrus- to restore Israel to their land.

We read about him in the book of Ezra and Daniel-

He gave the famous decree for God’s people to return to their land [2nd Chronicles 36, Ezra 1].

Josephus the historian indicates that Cyrus was shown the prophecy about him [written by Isaiah about 150 years before].

It’s possible that Daniel himself showed this to Cyrus- being he held a high position in the Persian empire- at this time.

David Koresh- the infamous leader of the branch Davidians [a breakaway sect from the 7TH day Adventist church] took his name from Cyrus-

Koresh is the Persian name for Cyrus the Great.

 CHAPTER 15

.IS THIS ABOUT US GETTING STUFF?

.WHO ‘RAN’ THE CHURCH?

.WHAT WAS PAUL’S SERVICE TO THE CHURCH?

   (871)ROMANS 15:1-7 ‘we then that are strong [more mature] ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not please ourselves’. In Philippians we have the ‘KENOSIS’ the act of Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not something to be used for his own advantage. He did not see his purpose in the kingdom as one of ‘let’s find out our rights in the covenant and posses what’s rightfully ours’. A few years back it was common to hear ‘God told me his people don’t have a problem with giving [oh really?] but they need to learn how to receive’. While there might be a ‘speck’ of truth in this, the overall ethos of the kingdom [according to Jesus and Paul] is ‘we are not here to please ourselves, but give up our rights and blessings for the purpose of pleasing others’ [building them up, edifying them]. Paul makes this statement right after the chapter on Christian convictions. He shows us that even if we are right on a particular issue, it is ‘more right’ to not offend or put a stumbling block in our brother’s path. It is possible to ‘be right’ in a particular doctrine or truth, and yet ‘be wrong’ in that we might have used it in a way that destroyed the purpose of God in building others up. Many in the church [at large!] have unwittingly ‘tore down’ the poor and oppressed by seeking ‘their own pleasure’. Many overseas countries have been hurt by the amount of pleasure seeking doctrines that went into their countries. Many 3rd world Pastors gave sacrificially out of their extreme poverty to rich American ‘pleasure seekers’ and their poor people suffered greatly when they did not get a literal 100 fold return as was promised. Paul said ‘we that are strong ought to help the weak, and not please ourselves’.

 (872)ROMANS 15: 8-14 Paul freely quotes from Psalms and Isaiah [the 2 most quoted Old Testament books in the New Testament] and shows how God always had a future plan to include the Gentiles. In the first century mindset, ‘salvation’ was seen more in a nationalistic sense than an individual ‘me and Jesus’ type thing. The messianic promises were for the ‘commonwealth’ of Israel. As the gospel would expand into the Gentile nations, Peter would call us ‘a holy nation’. Still couching the purposes of God and his kingdom in a nationalistic way [not human ‘nations’ but Gods people]. So for Paul it is significant to show how King David [the greatest king Israel ever had] actually prophesied [Psalms] of the future inclusion of the Gentiles into the corporate ‘nation of God’. Also Paul says ‘you are able to admonish one another’. A theme in Paul’s writings is the ability of the ‘local believers/church’ to have within them a corporate ability for self edification. He teaches an idea that says ‘you are all able members of Christ’s Body, therefore build each other up’. Notice how Paul is not speaking into the modern day concept of ‘the Pastor’ who is usually seen as the main ‘builder’. In all of Paul’s letters he addresses the entire body to carry out the function of the church. He tells the Corinthians ‘when you are all gathered together, commit the unrepentant believer over to satan for the destruction of the flesh’. He gave this very heavy charge to the church. He did not see it as something that was to be carried out by a singular office [Bishop or Pastor]. So here we see Paul admonish the local believers to build each other up.

 (873)ROMANS 15: 15-20 Paul appeals to his apostolic authority as ‘the apostle to the Gentiles’ in defense of his strong letter. He also says ‘I dare not use any thing that Christ has not wrought by me to make the Gentiles obedient’. Was Paul saying he would not speak about his past testimony and struggles with sin? I don’t think so. He already spoke of these struggles in this letter [chapter 7]. If you keep reading he says ‘thru mighty signs and wonders, by the power of Gods Spirit’. If you read Galatians, Paul says ‘how did you receive the Spirit, by the works of the law or the hearing of faith’ [P.S. for those still stuck on chapter 10 of Romans, see here how Paul saw the passive hearing as the only outward sign of receiving the Spirit- not calling!] here Paul appeals to the Galatians and says they received the Spirit and God wrought miracles among them [mighty signs and wonders] thru faith. In Acts we saw how the primary purpose of the charismatic signs and wonders was for the proclaiming of the gospel. The signs testify of Jesus being the Messiah. So here in Romans I think Paul is simply saying ‘I will not resort to the preaching of the law’, the main tool used by the Judaizers to try and gain ‘obedience’ among the Gentiles in order to make the Gentiles obedient [these are the things that Christ has not wrought by him. They represented Paul’s past experience in Judaism]. But instead he will declare the gospel of God’s grace. He will lean on the Cross of Christ as the functional tool to ‘bring obedience to the Gentiles’.

 (874)ROMANS 15: 20-33 ‘Now I go to Jerusalem to minister to the saints’ ‘my service to them’. Paul tells the Romans that he is going to ‘minister’ and have ‘service’ towards the Jerusalem saints. How would you take it if I said ‘I am going to New York to minister, hold a ‘service’ in the church’. You would see me as saying I was going to preach in a building, do my best to encourage the people. And before I left I was going to receive an offering. Paul is saying nothing of the sort! His ‘ministry and service’ are speaking of his charitable work among the poor. He received gifts from the churches for the sole purpose of meeting the needs of the poor. He even says ‘if you Gentiles have been made partakers of their blessings, you should help them out financially’. We are familiar with this terminology when Paul uses it to speak of meeting the needs of Elders, but we very rarely apply it to the meeting of the needs of the poor. Paul had a ‘service’ for the saints, and he was not speaking in terms of going to some town and preaching a message and taking an offering. Service in the first century context was giving of your time and resources for the benefit of others. Doing things at your own expense, not always receiving a recompense yourself. I wonder where they got such an ‘unbiblical idea’. It reminds me of the time when Jesus put on a towel and washed the disciples feet. Another one of those strange passages that seem to teach that leadership is here to serve, not be served. These kingdom precepts do not fit in with the modern idea of ‘ministry/service’.

 CHAPTER 16

.HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE?

.DID THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVE THE RAPTURE?

.SHOULD WE ‘PREACH’ AT ALL?

 (875)ROMANS 16- Some debate the ‘canonicity’ of this chapter. They feel that all the personal greetings from Paul are too personal. Let’s talk a little about the Canon [inspiration of the scriptures]. First, I am a ‘bible believing Christian’ who holds to the historic doctrine of scripture. But you do have varying views on what the historic doctrine is. I hold to the idea that God never intended for the letters that were written in the first century, which have become our New Testament, to be writings that were pulled out of time. That is the writers had to have been writing with a contextual purpose in mind. The recipients of the letters had to have had some type of practical instructions that they could wrap their minds around. So for John to say something to the seven churches in Asia Minor [Revelation] it was just common sense that the actual recipients of the letters would expect something practical for their day. This of course does not mean there are no further applications or instructions for us today, but we need to have a more personal understanding of the give and take between the Apostles and the people they were writing to. So this is how I think we should view the personal stuff in the Canon. This also needs to be understood when interpreting scripture. I have made the argument before for the 1st century belief in Christ’s literal second coming. I have also taught how the early church had no concept of a Rapture that was separated from the return of Christ. The event spoken of by Paul in Thessalonians chapter 4 is a real thing that takes place at Christ’s return. We get ‘caught up to meet him in the air’. Now how confusing would it be for the first century readers of Paul’s letters, to have one letter that speaks of a second coming, and another that spoke of a rapture? It would be next to impossible to have any coherent view of scripture if they did stuff like this. You could then make an argument for any doctrine. There would be no coherent thinking if you were living in Thessalonica and read a letter from Paul that used the same terminology about the return of Christ as he used in a letter to the Corinthians. And if you relocated to Corinth and said ‘Oh, yes. Paul wrote to us about the resurrection and return of Jesus. But when he wrote to us he was speaking of the rapture, but when he wrote to you he was talking about a different event called the second coming’. This type of thinking would have been disastrous for the early church. They were all receiving letters from Paul that contained basic truth. The fact that these letters were not included in an entire collection [as we have today] leads us to believe that the basic message had to stay the same in all of these letters, or else you would have had havoc in the early church.

 (876)ROMANS 16- CONCLUSION  Okay, lets try and finish up Romans. We do see some good stuff in this last chapter. We see Paul addressing women as  functional ministers in the church. Phoebe is a deaconess, Junia an apostle! I still believe that Elders were only men, but women did function in the first century Ecclesia’s. Paul also says ‘mark those which cause divisions contrary to the doctrine you have learned and avoid them’. Now, I have heard the strict Baptists use this against the Pentecostals, and it did put the fear of God in you! But then I heard the Pentecostals use it against the strict Baptists, and it also put the fear of God in you! [maybe another fear?] The point being you could use this to defend any doctrine you ‘have been taught’ by well meaning men. Here Paul is warning against those who were early on departing from the faith [the basic elements of the gospel and Gods grace]. The apostle John addresses those who ‘went out from us, but were not of us’ ‘whoever rejects Christ as come in the flesh is anti christ’ [1st John]. You did have those who rejected the basic elements of the gospel and the incarnation of Jesus. Paul warned the Corinthians not to depart from the reality of Christ’s resurrection [1st Corinthians 15]. And of course Paul openly rebuked the Judiazers for trying to put the gentile believers under the restrictions of the Mosaic law. So even though these types of verses seem to fit in to our present day controversies and differences among various denominational groups, yet in context they refer to those who were rejecting the basic tenets of the faith. Paul also encourages ‘God will crush satan under our feet shortly’ ‘God is able to establish us thru the gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ’. Let me defend the concept of ‘old fashioned preaching’ a little. While I and many others have publicly taught a type of new testament ecclesiology that is absent the ‘weekly pulpit Pastoral office’. Yet there is biblical precedent for the preaching of the Word. Paul taught in chapter 10 ‘how can they hear without a preacher, and how can they preach unless they are sent’? God strengthens believers thru the preaching of Gods Word. While it is wrong for the average believer to depend solely on this preaching to become educated in the things of God, yet there is a strengthening that God gives to the believer when he comes under the pure preaching of Christ. As we end Romans, I want to re emphasize the major doctrine of justification by faith. The reformation of the 16th century did not happen in a vacuum. God restored a very vital truth back to the people of God. All Christians should be grounded and well versed in the reality of God freely accepting us based on simple faith in Jesus Christ. Now, I realize that many are returning to a more ‘sermon on the mount’ orientation of the Christian lifestyle. As I have taught before I think this is a good thing. A ‘re-focusing’ on the teachings and instruction of Jesus. But I think we also need to emphasize the many statements from Jesus himself on those who believe having everlasting life [John’s gospel]. Romans is a masterpiece letter from Paul, one of his main points was justification by faith. God wants believers to be grounded in this truth.

 MY SITES

Active sites-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com  [Main site]

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

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

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/

 Link sharing sites-

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

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

https://www.reddit.com/user/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 download my videos free of charge]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxWXKfaFDZrfNUzloSqg8Kg?view_as=subscriber beta

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYlLmUkKiB6VoWE9CB1UQew?view_as=subscriber ccoutreach87

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

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://d.tube/c/ccoutreach  

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QJ3MSF6ZqJpYS9Vzeg9ni5dP-yMcj3A7?usp=sharing

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]

 I no longer upload videos to this site- but there are many links to download here as well-

https://ccoutreach87.com/

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

[vnbbroderick-blog]

Europe.

The PM says it's her 'private goal' to set our damaged casing market'. Duterte mentioned laws would certainly defend public health and also simultaneously enable road suppliers to carry on with their resources. Our company have actually lived in both the nation and the metropolitan area, on and off for numerous years. In Twentieth-Century Property Products: Record and also Preservation, revised through Thomas C. Jester, 58-63. You start by constructing the penitentiary, then you choose your staff and protections. Materiality: Continuing of the International Symposium on the Maintenance of Modern Motion Architecture, Brno, 27-29 April 2006. Explore the National Affiliation of Realtor's internet site to secure even more relevant information on private areas, consisting of urban areas as well as towns as well as also discover a Realtor to help you in your investment quest. Open up concerns for the preservation of property- sign modern construction: The case history of Torre Velasca. BRE Digest, no 449 component 2. Garston, Watford, England: Property Analysis Facility. Feast your eyes on 511 Lexington Method if you like high area buildings along with Gothic-style building contacts. In Twentieth-Century Structure Materials: Record and Conservation, revised by Thomas C. Jester, 102-07. Environment-friendly followers reuse outdated outfits as well as slabs to create cleaning fabrics. It likewise performs certainly not need power to work, therefore giving tidy water at low cost.

Great deals of the first dwellers moved in because of their wellness ailment; those around 300 times of wonderful sunlight possibly had an excellent influence on all of them, as it still does. Lightning arrester: Looking for an upgrade, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill's historic high rise sparks a dispute concerning the conservation of Modern construction. In Protection of Historical Structures: PROHITECH 09: Process of the International Conference on Protection of Historical Structures, PROHITECH 09, Rome, fit-sport-hannahblog.info Italy, 21-24 June 2009, edited by Federico M. Mazzolani, 3-6. Investment in a public bike accessibility plan is one action the city has actually needed to cope with air contamination. Outdoorsy folks will definitely discover possibilities to go treking in the mountains (make an effort Mt. Lemmon) or the desert (inspection out Saguaro National forest). The first step, of course, was to build the video game setting and also a lot of pros in the history of the Work Party in the 1980s favorably produced a checklist of Work 'Intrigues' that would stand for most of the gamer groups. The organization additionally preserves the DOCOMOMO International Register chronicling signifi- cant examples of present day motion culture as well as a listing of jeopardized internet sites and struc- tures. Ensure to travel excursion to the stunning Drottningholm royal residence, an amazing waterside building merely past the area limits. Today cities still deal with midsection along with these sorts of sewer system but other kinds of refuse like the source that we throw in are creatures, is actually certainly managed in of rather different method. This Metropolitan area is famous for its dining establishments and also properties. Future Anterior: Publication of Historic Conservation History, Idea as well as Criticism 6 (2 ): 14-31. As well as like every day, I am actually hopping on a bus heading in the direction of a part or bairro of the city known as Pinheiros. I am actually excited to check out the other metropolitan areas especially Nyc. It alleviates urban conservation as well as buildings. I will propose receiving some great calling card with the name of your cleansing business on them. Saginaw partnered along with its own sister area, Tokushima, Japan, to enlist distinguished architect Tsutomu Takenaka to construct a standard tea house at Saginaw's Japanese Cultural Center.

Adhesives and Sealants in Building; a Study Relationship Meeting Performed by the Property Analysis Institute, December 4 as well as 5, 1957, at the Shoreham Lodging, Washington, D.C. National Investigation Authorities Magazine 577. What concerning Hogmanay in Edinburgh, certainly a greater event than a number of the metropolitan areas detailed, as well as it's in fact a social holiday, certainly not just a present day metropolitan area with rockets.

[lauramkaye]

On Research And Fanfiction

When you hear someone talking about research for their fanfic, what do you think of? A historical AU, maybe? Or an AU where the characters are part of a different, very technical profession? It’s true that it’s important to research for those kinds of stories, but I’d like to make a case that making research a part of your normal writing process will lead to better stories.

I’m trying to think if there is any story I’ve written, at least in the last several years, where I didn’t research at least something, and honestly even the very short ones had some element of research to it. For example, for Problem To The Answer, I looked up the original news story that inspired the fic, as well as travel times between New York and DC. In Storage War I looked up information about storage units, not because it was specifically going into the story, but to give me a better mental image of the setting. 

Now, when I say “research,” I’m not always talking about the kind of research you’d do for school; a lot of times it’s as simple as a quick Google to check on something. For example, I’m currently working on a story that is set in May 2009. I wanted to include a throwaway line where a character makes a joke about the show Jersey Shore. So I looked it up, but discovered that Jersey Shore started airing in December 2009. So out the line went.

That’s not to say that everything has to be accurate; I change things for artistic reasons all the time. But I only do it on purpose, when I choose to, for things that are important to the fic.

For a longer example, I will take the story I finished most recently, my C/C Exchange fic, A Guy Like You Should Wear A Warning. On the face of it, you wouldn’t think that story would need that much research, right? It’s a soulmate story set on a cruise ship! It’s full of absurdity!

It’s also full of research. I researched the HELL out of that story. How, you ask? (Note: the following list will spoil some plot elements if you haven’t read the story yet). Behind the cut, a description of the stuff I researched while writing it:

Historical setting: whether I like to admit it or not, 2004 was 13 years ago and things were different then. I looked up things like fashion trends, makeup trends, hit songs, and most notably, the state of cell phones. 2004 was the year that the Motorola RAZR was the hot new phone, and smartphones just weren’t a thing yet. Some of this went into the story (for instance, Tyler’s clothing choices, Melinda’s pink lipgloss, that they all have flip or candy bar phones) and some were just to get the setting clear in my head while I wrote. I also consulted calendars for 1992 and 2004 to make sure I got dates and days of the week correct for the sections of the story set then. 

Story setting: The story action largely happens on the David Hasselhoff fan cruise. While the actual DH fan cruise occurred in November 2017, I relied extensively on the information available online about it when writing the story. Specifically, I moved it from early November 2017 to early November 2004. I also moved the meet and greet event from an afternoon event to a brunch for plot reasons. Everything else about the trip is accurate: the way that they would have traveled to the cruise from New York (I looked up flights), the way they would have gotten to Rome, the cruise schedule and stops. I also looked up maps and photographs of the cruise ship and referred to them extensively; I spent a lot of time on cruise vacationer forums while writing this story.

Phil’s studies: I looked up various colleges with good reputations in Phil’s field, and the sorts of classes he would take; I looked up actual classes at UMW; I looked up actual cryptography and cipher information. This is all current rather than historical, but I figure it’s close enough for these purposes. The point of the research isn’t to be completely 100% accurate in every respect, but more to make sure that nothing is obviously, jarringly wrong for most readers.

Events on shore: In the part of the story where Phil goes ashore in Rome, he goes to shops that really exist on the road that the story says he is on, and he goes to them in more or less geographic order, according to Google Maps. I also looked up actual products from those stores to describe. Now, these items are current (2017) rather than historical (since it wasn’t easy to find 2004 stuff online), but I still think it helps give these parts of the story verisimilitude. I also looked up the kinds of agriculture done in Catalonia for the big showdown at the end, and the actual area of Catalonia (so that when Phil says “this farm is fifty acres, I doubt that’s even one percent of Catalonia,” he is actually verifiably correct.)

Russian stuff: Since Clint’s soulmark is in Russian and Russian language is key to the story, I spent a lot of time working on the Russian parts of this story. For Clint’s soulmark, I posted a question on an online forum for Russian speakers to help me figure out something that would be appropriate. My first thought was to ask the translation for “Are you fucking kidding me?”, but as I engaged with the Russian speakers, I learned that it just wasn’t that simple. Profanity in Russian is very different than it is in English, and so much depends on the context and relationship between the speakers. The phrase we finally settled on, Еще чего не хватало, is literally translated something like “this is just the last thing I need,” but has a negative and somewhat sarcastic connotation, so that a good idiomatic equivalent in English is “I need this like I need a hole in the head.” For the other Russian, I depended on a really cool website that isn’t a dictionary but a translation search engine called Reverso Context. The great thing about this tool is that, unlike dictionaries, you can search entire sentences and phrases, and get an assortment of translated passages that match, so you can see the various ways the phrase might get used. It means you’ll get a better result than just typing something into Google Translate would give you. I use Reverso Context in combination with dictionaries and Google Translate in order to get the best idea possible of what I’m saying. It doesn’t substitute for a native speaker beta, but it’s a good fallback position. I also did a lot of research into Russian nomenclature and diminutive names, and into Russian profanity (which is SO INTERESTING, look up mat sometimes and read about it.)

David Hasselhoff: I looked up his albums released up to and including 2004. I listened to clips of his music (it is so bad you guys) and watched videos of his concert performances (OMG the LED jacket is really a thing). All the songs and medleys and such that I describe him doing are real things he’s really done. I also looked up his online merch (Melinda’s bedazzled Don’t Hassle The Hoff shirt is real) and watched the video he made promoting the cruise, to get an idea of his speech patterns for the few places when he speaks in the story.

There are a lot of other little miscellaneous things I looked up - how far ahead of getting married in NYC you need to get the license; a real place in South America that had a munitions depot explosion; grain silo explosions and how they happen; the average temperatures on the Mediterranean Sea in November; how much a suit costs at Brioni; the organizational structure of the FBI, etc. Even Barney Barton being in the FBI is rooted in canon - that’s something that Barney really has done in the comics.

This probably all sounds like WAY TOO MUCH WORK, but most of these things didn’t take a huge amount of time - it was more like “oh, wait, they didn’t have smartphones in 04, did they?” and then a quick Google, or scan of a wiki page. I spent my writing time with a lot of open tabs of maps, cruise ship layouts, etc., that I would refer to when I was trying to figure out where the characters were going. Because I have research baked in to my process, it happens mainly when I am outlining, with occasional quick Googles to double-check stuff I throw in when I’m writing.

Would the story be worse if I hadn’t done all this? I think it would. I think the research makes the story feel true, rooted in the real world, and that gives me a lot more latitude to go nuts with things like soulmates and Russian mob bros and throwing David Hasselhoff’s mimosa in someone’s face. Also, hopefully, if I have a reader who happens to know a lot about Russian, or Rome, or majoring in political science, or David Hasselhoff, that reader won’t be thrown out of the story by something obviously wrong. (also, open invitation: if you are reading a fic of mine and see something obviously wrong, I WELCOME THAT KNOWLEDGE and will fix it if I can without having to rewrite major bits of the story.)

I don’t expect everyone to be QUITE as intense about research as I am--I admit I’m pretty darn intense about research. But I would like to encourage other writers to make at least some research part of their process! It leads to better stories all around, and sometimes the things you find out help you make your stories better in cool new directions.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

LET THE SEGWAY

This doesn't just affect what they claim to like; they actually make themselves like things they're supposed to, they'll be thought uncultured. That's the only rational explanation for focusing on getting the right valuations, instead of what he did. And while governments might be able to do what they want to do when they're 12, and just glide along as if they enjoyed their work was presumably the upper-middle class convention that you're supposed to work on things that will make the world better.1 The immediate cause of death in a startup is that you have to rewrite it to do more than find good projects.2 Always produce will discover your life's work the way water, with the aid of gravity, finds the hole in your roof.3 You have to imagine being two people.4 Art is man-made. But I've been kicking ideas around long enough to know what they want to do real work.5 At one extreme is the day job, where you go looking for problems without knowing what you're looking for companies that are going to be good. If you write in an unclear way about big ideas, you produce something that seems tantalizingly attractive to inexperienced but intellectually ambitious students.

If you don't seem like you have the destination in sight you'll be more likely to take 2 weeks than 2 months.6 Math would happen without math departments, but it does at least make you keep an open mind. You never do your best work in a few. Let's look at Silicon Valley the way you'd say it to a friend. It's also true that there are quite a few marketplaces out there that serve this same market. Once you start talking about audiences, you don't have to worry much. Like a company whose only purpose is patent litigation.7 If I had a design philosophy.8 Once both parties realize it's a waste of time to nominate uncharismatic candidates, they'll tend to nominate only the most charismatic ones.9 The core of the Democrats' ideology seems to be a property of objects after all. The games played by intellectuals are leaking into the real world, wealth is except for a few vestigial domestic tasks.10

When you write something telling people to be good at it; you have to be doing something else; and though businesses, their founders often know nothing about business. No one after reading Aristotle's Metaphysics does anything differently as a result. So the point of this essay is not to say naivete about them that suggests some of the qualities of the founders.11 Why do good hackers have bad business ideas? I have to risk destroying your country to get a multiple of 10 6—one million x. Twenty-six years later, pundits said the country had lurched to the right.12 Not any more. So the point of this essay is not to compile a complete list, just to show that there's some solid ground here.

In fact, what makes the preceding paragraph true is that most readers won't believe it—at least to the extent that income varies simply according to how much wealth people create, the distribution may be unequal, but it's not part of any specific science; it's literally meta-physics in our sense of meta.13 You grow big by being mean. The power of this technique extends beyond startups and programming languages and essays.14 The trouble is, you may not want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, the way to get wealth is by stealing it. More often people who do great things seem to be so far. You usually start collecting money from the most committed investors and work your way out toward the ambivalent ones, whose interest increases as the round fills up. But if capital gains rates vary, you move assets, not yourself, so changes are reflected at market speeds.

When you manipulate a program in one's head: to see when two ideas don't fully cover the space of possibilities, or when one idea is the same as intelligence. It's hard to follow, especially when you're young. From either direction we get to the point here, vice versa. In US presidential elections, the more admirable it is.15 Next year you'll have to deal with internationalization from the beginning. If you do anything well enough, you'll make it prestigious. If you know you can love work, you're in the home stretch, and if you try to raise money. Programs often have to work on a particular problem is that big projects tend to grow out of small ones. Singapore would face a similar problem.16 What are the most important advantage of being good is that it makes it easier for Twitter to spread.

And if you start the kind of startup where users come back each day, you've basically built yourself a giant tamagotchi. That, I think, is that it acts as a compass.17 Perhaps not everyone can do work they love—that someone has to do it is to get the process rolling is get those first few startups successfully launched. If you go to see them at work.18 They'd face some challenges if they wanted to do things that super-angels would quibble about valuations. As Joe McGinnis recounts in his famous book The Selling of the President 1968, Nixon knew he had less charisma than Humphrey, and thus might vary in the course of a study. I chose computers. Some tricks are quite subtle. To start with, Silicon Valley is not even a nationalistic one. It's also what causes smart people to be competent, you can't bully customers, so you can say things you wouldn't say in conversation. Write rereadable code.

Notes

I didn't need to learn to acknowledge as well. If you seem evasive than if you do if your school sucks, where there were, they'd be called acting Japanese. It also set off an extensive and often useful discussion on the proceeds of the next round is high as well. In that case the money is in the services, companies building lightweight clients have usually tried to preserve their wealth by forbidding the export of gold or silver.

They would have gotten where they are like sheep, but for different reasons. A web site is different from deciding to move forward. Another advantage of having employers pay for stuff online, if you threatened a company has ever been. Now many tech companies don't advertise this.

A rolling close doesn't mean easy, of course, Feynman and Diogenes were from adjacent traditions, but I wouldn't bet against it either.

94 says a 1952 study of rhetoric was inherited directly from Rome, where many of the previous two years after 1914 a nightmare than to call those before a consortium of investors started offering investment automatically to every startup we had high hopes for doesn't do well, but it's always better to be able to buy your kids' way into top colleges by sending them to keep the next three years, it was cooked up by the leading scholars in the biggest company of all. They're motivated by examples of other people in the 1990s, except in the Neolithic period.

It also set off an extensive biography, and no one who's had the discipline to pull ahead in the production of high school. This technique wouldn't work for us!

There are two ways to help you along by promising to invest more.

In principle you might be? I don't know who invented something the telephone, the computer world, but I think it might even be conscious of this talk, so we should work like casual conversation.

Yes, there are those that have to be vigorously enforced. You have to do others chose Marx or Cardinal Newman, and an haughty spirit before a consortium of investors. The dictator in the mid 1980s.

65 million. The philistines have now missed the video boat entirely.

Few consciously realize that in the construction industry. Josh Wilson came in to pick up a solution. A deal flow, then used a TV for a lot of the leading scholars in the early adopters. Historically, scarce-resource arguments have been fooled by the financial controls of World War II had disappeared.

The only people who should quit their day job. At first I didn't realize it till I started doing research for this type are also startlingly popular on pre-Google search engines are so much worse than Japanese car companies, but that wasn't a partnership.

Price of Inequality. When I was living in cities. We react like children, we're going to visit 20 different communities regularly.

That's one of the aircraft is. 92.

Adults care just as European politics then had no natural immunity to messianic figures, just as big as any adult's. For example, the television, the Nasdaq index was. Ii.

Most of the whole.

But if so, even though you don't have the concept of the political pressure against Airbnb than hotel companies. So instead of uebfgbsb. This is a major cause of poverty.

Foster, Richard, Life of Isaac Newton, p. Some of the iPhone SDK.

I'd almost say to the writing teachers were transformed in situ into English professors.

[davidkaplanrussianbusinessman]

FUBER helps people stay safe and healthy as well as save our planet

Everyone around the world is aware of Coronavirus. People were forced to self-isolate. As of today the Covid-19 cases are not decreasing, but are increasing. Despite the fact, that most people try to avoid crowded areas, they prefer also non-contact food delivery to their homes, they do not dine in cafes, restaurants, and instead, cook at home. 

Cook at home 

The transition to work and study from home in the time of Covid-19, many people were laid off and their family budget reduced, there is also the constant presence of all family members in one household, the desire of protecting themselves and loved ones from the threat of infection; all of that influenced people, who need to purchase more products delivered to their homes is leading to disinfecting everything, and cooking at home on their own in Moscow, Paris, New York or London. 

By doing so, you have to cook for many people at the same time, and also make sure its enough for everyone. People are divided into two categories. Some people are forced to cook, doing it without much pleasure. They choose simple dishes and strive to do it as quickly as possible, easily and without unnecessary troubles. Another category tries to versatile home menus and cooks something new, as well as healthy, using all the time they have in their hands. They enjoy the fact that they got time to try something out of ordinary and they look for inspiration, new dish recipes. Some of them subscribe to culinary video bloggers, some look for recipes on Google, and some download a selection from the series of “top best dishes for ...” at once from different supermarkets in Moscow, Rome, or Barcelona. 

According to research, during the Covid-19 quarantine time, there has been a demand for cooking applications and services, as well as new devices; and it has increased significantly. It is difficult to find the services that are both applicable for beginners as well as those that are more advanced. 

Russian businessman David Kaplan has assembled the collection of original recipes and knows how to optimize the process of purchasing groceries and cooking. His author's project FUBER is an ideal gastronomic service that is aimed to diversify the family menu and open new experiments with new dishes. 

David Kaplan, Russian- Israeli businessman, traveler, and gastronomic hedonist lands the family budget 

Russian businessman David Kaplan, born in USSR, has graduated from the University with a degree in Mathematics, Systems Programmer, and Game Theory. For a long time, he worked in Moscow, Russia and led large-scale business projects. David Kaplan, the businessman from Moscow(Russia) travels a lot around the world. He traveled to almost all cities around the globe by visiting 65 countries. A visitor to a huge number of restaurants personally acquainted himself with the new cuisines in every favorite city. Russian businessman David became a real gourmet of Italian, Russian, Japanese cuisine and personally is suggesting to go to Belgium and try their cuisine. It should be noted that David Kaplan not only likes to eat delicious food but he, himself, is perfectly prepared and able to surprise the delights of haute cuisine of famous gourmets. 

David Kaplan combined the most affordable recipes that he tried in different parts of the world, and hence the gastronomic project was born. Its ideological inspiration was a chef and gastronomic hedonist, who cultivates a healthy and varied diet, safety and environmental care, a reasonable approach to budget and consumption, as the price is very low and there is minimalistic waste from the produce. 

FUBER is a unique food aggregator whose task is to assemble a family cookbook and start cooking at home with pleasure. FUBER significantly saves time, money, ecology, and, at the same time, helps to pamper relatives and friends with a varied menu. The FUBER project promotes the rational use of food, which eliminates spontaneous and unplanned purchases, which is the most common amount of household waste, and as a result, is aimed to protect our planet. Also, energy and water costs are reduced. The family budget for food is reduced at the same time in half. 

FUBER allows you to try the cuisine around the world and taste the dishes of those countries, from Moscow, Russia to Japan, Tokyo, where you might have never been to before. The range of FUBER cuisine is very wide. Today it is tens of thousands of authentic and unique recipes from 179 countries of the world. These were the classic recipes of the different nations of the world, time-tested and personally picked by David Kaplan. The Russian businessman David Kaplan spent a lifetime to discover them as a true gourmet. 

FUBER is an entire program created for a modern person, for those who value their time and are not ready to spend around the clock at the stove and in stores. These are proven recipes, a list of necessary ingredients, an affordable step-by-step description of cooking, video broadcasts, online ordering assistance, as well as the service of prompt and safe delivery of all necessary quality products and ingredients directly to your kitchen. The developed functionality of the FUBER portal from Russian programmers allows you to adapt the menu complex to the requests and budget of each user. You choose what you want to cook at home online, pay for your order, and get fast delivery to the door of the freshest and highest-quality products and detailed instructions for cooking by yourself, as well as selecting a budget you have set per meal. In today's environment of Covid-19 FUBER is a 100% guarantee of product safety eliminating unnecessary contacts and the risk. and to reduce your budget. 

Today, FUBER is fully available in Moscow and Europe - each resident of these countries can not only watch a particular recipe with a detailed description and video support of the entire cooking process but also order home delivery of the necessary sets of fresh, high-quality products. In many countries, fans of the food blog of David Kaplan are waiting for video blogs and live streams of online recipes. Do you want to cook at home safely and quickly, tasty and varied, and most importantly, with pleasure; and at the same time take care of our planet? Join FUBER! 

#DavidKaplanFuber, #KaplanDavidFuber.#KaplanDavid, #DavidKaplan, #KaplanDavidTraveler, #DavidKaplanTraveler, #DavidkaplanJew, #KaplanDavidJew, #DavidkaplanJewish, #KaplanDavidJewish, #DavidkaplanIsrael, #KaplanDavidIsrael, #DavidKaplanZionist, #KaplanDavidZionist, #DavidKapkanAuthor, #KaplanDavidAuthor, #DavidKaplanWriter, #KaplanDavidWriter,  #DavidKaplanFuber, #KaplanDavidFuber, #KaplanDavidRecipes, #DavidKaplanRecipes.

[nyfacurrent]

Event | Online Doctor’s Hours for Visual & Multidisciplinary Artists

Monday, June 29 Doctor’s Hours event will offer remote one-on-one consultations with art professionals.

New York Foundation for the Arts (NYFA) will host the next edition of its popular Doctor’s Hours program, which is designed to provide practical and professional advice from industry professionals, online on Monday, June 29. 

This event will serve Visual and Multidisciplinary artists working in Drawing, Painting, Printmaking, Sculpture, Video, Film, Photography, New Media, Multidisciplinary, Performance Art, Socially-Engaged Practices, Folk, and Traditional Art.

Starting Tuesday, June 9 at 11:00 AM EDT, you can register for 25-minute, remote one-on-one appointments with up to three arts professionals to ask questions and receive actionable tips for advancing your arts career.

How Online Doctor's Hours works:

To adopt the online model, each consultant meets six artists over the course of three hours.

Each consultation session is 25 minutes. There will be a three appointment limit per artist.

The Online Doctor's Hours sessions take place through the Zoom platform. Please download the Zoom app before the event date to participate.

Title: Online Doctor’s Hours for Visual and Multidisciplinary Artists Program Date and Time: Monday, June 29, 2020, 5:00 PM - 8:00 PM EDT, unless otherwise noted below Location: Online through Zoom*  Cost: $25 per 25-minute appointment; three appointment limit per artist Register: The event is fully booked, please click here to sign up for the waiting list to be informed of any cancellations.

Can’t join us? You can book a one-on-one remote consultation with arts professionals via NYFA Coaching.

To make the most of your “Online Doctor’s Hours” appointment, please read the entire confirmation email you receive after completing your registration; it includes all the details you need for your session.

*We are able to offer this support via phone if you are unable to access reliable internet service.

For questions, email learning@nyfa.org.

Consultants

Ylinka Barotto, Associate Curator, Moody Center for the Arts, Rice University As Associate Curator, Barotto is responsible for developing, organizing, and executing visual art exhibitions that support Moody's mission of fostering interdisciplinary conversation. Barotto is also involved in the expansion of Rice Public Art through commissions of site-specific work and is responsible for conceptualizing and coordinating the “Platform” and “Off the Wall” series. Before joining the Moody, Barotto served as Assistant Curator at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum where she worked on major modern and postwar retrospectives and contemporary exhibitions. She helped shape the Guggenheim’s permanent collection through acquisitions of emerging artists through the Young Collectors Council and hosted and moderated conversations between contemporary artists, activists, and journalists on topics such as feminism, activism, identity, and representation for the Guggenheim Public Program. Barotto received a MA degree in curatorial studies at Accademia delle Belle Arti di Brera in Milan, Italy.

Alaina Claire Feldman, Director, Sidney Mishkin Gallery at CUNY’s Baruch College* Feldman is the new Director and Curator of the Mishkin Gallery at Baruch College (CUNY), where she also teaches in the MA Arts Administration program. Recent exhibitions include The Aesthetics of Learning, Minerva Cuevas: Disidencia, and Lamin Fofana: BLUES.

*Please note appointment times for this consultant will be between 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM on Monday, June 29.

Gabriel de Guzman, Curator & Director of Exhibitions, Smack Mellon Gallery At Smack Mellon, de Guzman organizes group and solo exhibitions that feature emerging and under-recognized mid-career artists whose work often explores critical, socially relevant issues. Before joining Smack Mellon’s staff in 2017, de Guzman was the Curator of Visual Arts at Wave Hill, organizing solo projects for emerging artists as well as thematic group exhibitions. As a guest curator, he has presented shows at BronxArtSpace, Dorsky Gallery Curatorial Programs, Dyckman Farmhouse Museum, Rush Arts Gallery, En Foco at Andrew Freedman Home, the Affordable Art Fair New York, Northern Manhattan Arts Alliance, and the Bronx Museum's 2013 AIM Biennial. Prior to Wave Hill, he was a curatorial assistant at The Jewish Museum. His essays have been published in Nueva Luz: Photographic Journal and in catalogues for the Arsenal Gallery at Central Park, Kenise Barnes Fine Art, and the art institutions mentioned above. He earned a MA degree in art history from Hunter College and a BA degree in art history from the University of Virginia.

DJ Hellerman, Curator of Art & Programs, Everson Museum of Art A few of Hellerman’s recent curatorial productions include solo exhibitions Yoko Ono: Remembering the Future, Edie Fake: Structures Shift, and Jeff Donaldson: Dig. Recent theme-based group exhibitions include: Civic Virtue: all over the floor; Seen & Heard; Of Land & Local, an annual place-based exhibition about art and the environment; and Taking Pictures, an exhibition exploring how artists associated with the Pictures Generation anticipated and recently turned their critical attention to digital networks used in the dissemination and consumption of images. Hellerman has spoken at conferences across the country, and has written extensively on American Art, popular culture, and the post-war American City. Prior to his position in Syracuse, Hellerman served as Curator and Director of Exhibitions at Burlington City Arts. A native of Ohio, Hellerman began curating and educating people about art while helping Progressive Insurance build a collection of contemporary art designed to encourage innovation and change. He received his MA degree in Art History from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH and his BA degree in English and Philosophy from Lake Erie College in Painesville, OH. He loves live music and literature as much as he enjoys visual art.

Lilly Hern-Fondation, Programs Manager, CUE Art Foundation Hern-Fondation is a Brooklyn-based artist and writer and the Programs Manager at CUE Art Foundation, a nonprofit art space located in Manhattan that is dedicated to exhibitions, arts education, art criticism, and public programming. Prior to CUE, she served as Assistant Director of Freight+Volume on the Lower East Side, as co-founder and co-director of Nightwood Exhibits in Chicago, and as Curatorial Fellow at SAIC. Originally from Los Angeles, Hern-Fondation studied literature and photography at the University of Washington, Seattle and received her MFA degree from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Eileen Jeng Lynch, Curator, Wave Hill At Wave Hill, Jeng Lynch organizes the Sunroom Project Space for emerging artists, co-curates exhibitions in Glyndor Gallery, and is involved in all aspects of visual arts programming including publications and the annual Winter Workspace program. Recent exhibitions at Wave Hill include Figuring the Floral, Emily Oliveira: Mundo Irrealis (Wish You Were Here), Duy Hoàng: Interarboreal, Bahar Behbahani: All water has a perfect memory, and Ngoc Minh Ngo: Wave Hill Florilegium. Jeng Lynch is also the Founder of Neumeraki, which collaborates with artists, organizations, and galleries on curatorial, consulting, writing, and editing projects. Independent curatorial projects include exhibitions at The Yard: City Hall Park, Trestle Gallery, LMAKbooks+design, Sperone Westwater, Lesley Heller Workspace, Dorsky Gallery Curatorial Programs, Garis & Hahn, and Radiator Gallery, among others. In 2017, Jeng Lynch initiated the ongoing Give Voice Postcard Project. She has contributed to Two Coats of Paint and On-Verge. Previously, Jeng Lynch worked at RxArt, Sperone Westwater, and the Art Institute of Chicago in the Department of Contemporary Art. She earned her MA degree in Arts Administration and Policy from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and BA degree in Art History and Advertising from Syracuse University.

Larry Ossei-Mensah, Independent Curator and Cultural Critic, Co-founder of ARTNOIR* Ossei-Mensah uses contemporary art as a vehicle to redefine how we see ourselves and the world around us. The Ghanaian-American curator and cultural critic has organized exhibitions and programs at commercial and nonprofit spaces around the globe from New York City to Rome featuring artists such as Firelei Baez, Allison Janae Hamilton, Brendan Fernades, Ebony G. Patterson, Glenn Kaino, and Stanley Whitney to name a few. Moreover, Ossei-Mensah has actively documented cultural happenings featuring the most dynamic visual artists working today such as Derrick Adams, Mickalene Thomas, Njideka Akunyili Crosby, Federico Solmi, and Kehinde Wiley.

Ossei-Mensah is also the co-founder of ARTNOIR, a 501c3 and global collective of culturalists who design multimodal experiences aimed to engage this generation’s dynamic and diverse creative class. Ossei-Mensah is a contributor to the first ever Ghanaian Pavilion for the 2019 Venice Biennial, with an essay on the work of visual artist Lynette Yiadom-Boakye. Ossei-Mensah is the former Susanne Feld Hilberry Senior Curator at MOCAD in Detroit. He recently co-curated with Dexter Wimberly the critically-acclaimed exhibition at MOAD in San Francisco Coffee, Rhum, Sugar, Gold: A Postcolonial Paradox in 2019. Ossei-Mensah currently serves as guest curator at Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Rudin Family Gallery. He also will be co-curating with Omsk Social Club the 7th Athens Biennale in Athens, Greece. Ossei-Mensah has had recent profiles in such publications including The New York Times, Artsy, and Cultured Magazine, which named him one of seven curators to watch in 2019. Follow him on Instagram/Twitter at @youngglobal or www.larryosseimensah.com.

*Please note appointment times for this consultant will be between 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM on Monday, June 29.

Alice Russotti, Curator, Lower Manhattan Cultural Council (LMCC) As Curator at LMCC, Russotti is focused on programming at the Arts Center at Governors Island and public art partnerships with LMCC’s downtown supporters. Originally from London, Russotti graduated from high school in Costa Rica and has since lived in New York City, London, and Singapore. She started her career in the arts on the commercial side, first at Christie’s, New York, and then with Sotheby’s, London, in the Post-War & Contemporary department. Finding the secondary market’s lack of interaction with artists and their process frustrating, she started working at The Vinyl Factory, London, curating and producing multimedia, cross-disciplinary installations in the Brewer Street Car Park that were free and open to the public. Russotti holds a BA degree from Brown University in Art History and a MA degree from the Sotheby’s Institute in Contemporary Art and Theory.

This program is presented by NYFA Learning. Sign up here to receive NYFA News, a bi-weekly organizational email for upcoming awards, resources & professional development. NYFA Learning also offers the monthly free Con Edison Immigrant Artist Program (IAP) Newsletter, if you are interested in opportunities, professional development, events, tips and advice specific to immigrant artists. 

Image Detail: Mark Ferguson (Fellow in Printmaking/Drawing/Book Arts ’17); NYFA Artist's Statement; 2017; graphite, crayon, tape on synthetic paper

[tak4hir0]

CUSTOM GAME ENGINES: A Small Study A couple of weeks ago I played (and finished) A Plague Tale, a game by Asobo Studio. I was really captivated by the game, not only by the beautiful graphics but also by the story and the locations in the game. I decided to investigate a bit about the game tech and I was surprised to see it was developed with a custom engine by a relatively small studio. I know there are some companies using custom engines but it's very difficult to find a detailed market study with that kind of information curated and updated. So this article. Nowadays lots of companies choose engines like Unreal or Unity for their games (or that's what lot of people think) because developing a custom AAA-level engine requires lots of resources, so, I decided to list here some of the most popular custom engines with the team-sizes and notable titles released with those engines. Most of the engines listed here have been developed along the years with multiple iterations and multiple videogames, those engines have gone through several versions or even complete (or semi-complete) rewrites from scratch, with a consequent engine name change. Also, important to note, most of those engines use numerous middleware for specific functionalities (Platform, Physics, Network, Vegetation, UI, Rendering, Audio...). *NOTE: I tried to be as much accurate as possible with the information about the employees count (I checked the companies websites, Wikipedia or company LinkedIn) but take it with a grain of salt (some employees numbers could not be up to date). The BIG Companies *From left to right: Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Final Fantasy XV, Red Dead Redemption 2 Below list is for very big corporations, sometimes with complex corporate structures with several divisions (not only focused on videogames) and various studios/subsidiaries developing games. Some of them work with multiple engines, not only custom ones but also licensed ones. Company Employees Studios Engine(s) Notable Games Activision/Blizzard ~9200 ~9 custom engine(s) Call of Duty series, Overwatch, Starcraft II Electronic Arts ~9300 ~36 Frostbite 3 Star Wars Battlefront II, Anthem, Battlefield 1/V, FIFA 20, Need for Speed series Ubisoft ~16000 ~54 AnvilNext 2.0 Assassin's Creed series Disrupt engine Watch Dogs series UbiArt Framework Rayman Legends, Child of Light, Valiant Hearts Snowdrop Tom Clancy's The Division 2, The Settlers Dunia (CryEngine-based) FarCry series Silex (Anvil-based) Ghost Recon Wildlands LEAD engine Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell series Dunia-based The Crew Capcom +2800 ~15 MT Framework Monster Hunter: World RE Engine Resident Evil 7, Devil May Cry 5, RE2:Remake, RE3:Remake Konami +10000 ~30 Fox Engine Pro Evolution Soccer series, Metal Gear Solid V Square Enix +4600 ~18 Luminous Studio Final Fantasy XV Nintendo +6100 ~8 custom engine(s) Zelda: BOTW, Mario Odyssey Riot Games ~2500 ~3 custom engine League of Legends Rockstar +2000 ~9 RAGE engine GTA V, Red Dead Redemption 2 CD Projekt +1100 ~4 REDEngine 3 The Witcher 3 Epic +1000 ~11 Unreal Engine 4 Fortnite Usually those companies invest in custom engines to have full control over the technology and also avoid the revenue cut imposed by the licensed engines. Despite that fact, there are some big companies that in the latest years have chosen Unreal Engine for their productions, the most notable cases are: Capcom is using Unreal for the new Street Fighter IV/V titles. Bandai Namco latest big hits are using Unreal: Jump Force, Dragon Ball Fighter Z, Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot, Tales of Arise. Square Enix also moved to Unreal for several new titles: Dragon Quest XI, Kingdom Hearts III, Final Fantasy VII Remake It's interesting to see that those big three are Japanesse companies, I wonder if that's maybe a market trend for Japan. Also to note, the chinesse holding Tencent owns 40% of Epic Games, I bet it has some influence in the Asian market. Middle-size Studios *From left to right: Rise of the Tomb Raider, Uncharted 4, A Plague Tale Here we have the medium-small companies that decided to create their custom technology for their titles. The number of employees could be a nice reference to consider because a custom game engine is usually developed in-house (I mean, not outsourced) but note that some of those companies could have a big number of people due to in-house artist/audio teams, while other companies out-source those parts of the development. It would be really nice to know how many engineers are working on the engine division for each company, I'm sure there would be some big surprises, probably by the low number of engineers working in the engine and tools! Also interesting to know more info about the tooling included with those engines, it's really difficult to have access to that kind of information. Engines tooling is usually a hidden-secret (beside some GDC presentations or some quick showcase videos). *From left to right: Horizon Zero Dawn, God of War, Death Stranding Company Employees Engine Notable Games Creative Assembly +650 Warscape Engine Total War series Bungie ~600 Tiger Engine Destiny series Infinity Ward +500 IW 7.0 Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare Eidos-Montréal ~500 Dawn Engine (Glacier2-based) Deus Ex: Mankind Divided Paradox Interactive +400 Clausewitz Engine Imperator: Rome Bethesda ~400 Creation Engine Skyrim, Fallout 4, Fallout 76 Valve Corp. ~360 Source 2 Dota 2, Half-Life: Alyx Crystal Dynamics ~350 Foundation Engine Rise/Shadow of the Tomb Raider Avalanche Studios ~320 Apex engine Just Cause series, Renegade Ops, Mad Max, RAGE 2 Naughty Dog +300 Naughty Dog Game Engine Uncharted series, Last of Us Rebellion Developments ~300 Asura engine Alien vs. Predator series, Sniper Elite series Techland ~300 Chrome Engine 6 Dying Light Crytek ~290 CryEngine V The Climb, Hunt:Showdown From Software +280 Dark Souls engine Bloodborne, Dark Souls III, Sekiro Remedy +250 Northlight Engine Quantum Break, Control Guerrilla Games +250 Decima Killzone Shadow Fall, Until Dawn, Horizon Zero Dawn Platinum Games ~250 Platinum Engine NieR Automata, Bayonetta, Vanquish Santa Monica Studio +200 custom engine God Of War series id Software +200 idTech 6/7 Doom, Doom Eternal, Wolfenstein series Sucker Punch +200 custom engine Infamous Second Son, Ghost of Tsushima? Insomniac Games ~180 Insomniac Engine Rachet&Clank series, Marvel's Spider-Man Quantic Dreams ~180 custom engine Detroit: Become Human IO Interactive ~170 Glacier2 Hitman series Asobo Studio +140 Zouna A Plague Tale Ready At Dawn ~120 custom engine The Order: 1886, Lone Echo Mercury Steam ~110 custom engine Spacelords, Castlevania:Lords of Shadow series Monolith Productions +100 LithTech F.E.A.R. series, Condemned series, Shadow of Mordor/War 11 Bit Studios ~100 Liquid Engine Frostpunk Frozenbyte ~100 Storm3D Trine series, Shadowgrounds Kylotonn ~100 KtEngine WRC series, TT Isle of Man series, V-Rally 4 TaleWorlds Entertainment ~100 custom engine Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Daedalic Entertainment ~90 Visionaire Studio The Whispered World, Deponia series Media Molecule ~80 Bubblebath Engine Dreams Deck13 ~70 Fledge Lords of the Fallen, The Surge, The Surge 2 Nihon Falcom ~60 Yamaneko Engine Ys VII, Ys VIII, Ys IX Croteam +40 Serious Engine The Talos Principle, Serious Sam series Some observations from this list: Rise of the Tomb Raider lists only 10 programmers working on Foundation engine in the credits, probably a good reference number to get an idea of the people working on the core engine. Kojima Productions use Decima engine, developed by Guerrilla Games, for Death Stranding, previously they used Fox Engine for Metal Gear Solid V. Media Molecule latest game/engine (Dreams) seems to have been developed by only ~15 coders, amazing! Companies targeting one single platform, usually have less restrictions and can push the limits of that platform. Unfortunately, that's a luxury that most companies can not afford. Asobo Studio, the company that originated this market study is not that small... but, like other companies, they seem to work in multiple titles in parallel. Very nice to see that some of the engines have entries in the Wikipedia with some details and titles released, it should be a must. Small-size Studios (Indie Studios) *From left to right: The Witness, No Man's Sky, X-Morph Defense Here we have some really small studios that also choose to develop a custom engine for their games. Note that most of those engines rely on other libraries/frameworks for certain parts of the game, the common choices we find are SDL (cross-platform graphics/input), OGRE (rendering engine), MonoGame (cross-platform game framework, also relyes on SDL, SharpDX, OpenTK, OpenAL-Soft...). One question many people could ask is, what parts of the engine are actually coded by the developers? Well, it depends, but usually coders take care of the screen-manager, entities-manager and content-manager as well as the wrappers/interfaces to the external libraries. Second question, what parts of the engine usually rely on external libraries/middleware? It also depends on the company resources but usually audio-system, physics, rendering, networking, ui-system, terrain-system, vegetation-system and some other pieces. *From left to right: Factorio, Thimbleweed Park, Owlboy On the following list (and the next one below) I added the publishing date (only +2012) and the link to Steam for all the games... there are not many games with custom engine from small studios out there and I think they deserve to be recognized and supported. Company Employees Engine Notable Games Shiro Games ~30 Heaps.io Northgard (2018), Evoland (2013), Evoland II (2015) Hello Games ~25 No Man's Sky Engine No Man's Sky (2016) Frictional Games ~25 HPL engine SOMA (2015), Amnesia series DrinkBox Studios ~25 custom engine Guacamelee (2013), Guacamelee! 2 (2018), Severed (2016) Supergiant Games ~20 MonoGame-based Hades (2019), Pyre (2017), Transistor (2014) Wube Software ~20 Allegro/SDL-based Factorio (2019) Chucklefish ~20 Halley Engine Wargroove (2019), Starbound (2016) Ronimo Games ~17 RoniTech Engine (SDL) Awesomenauts (2017) Runic Games ~17 OGRE-based Hob (2017), Tochlight II (2012) Lab Zero Games ~17 Z-Engine Indivisible (2019), Skullgirls (2013) Introversion Software ~14 SystemIV (SDL) Prison Architect (2015) Exor Studios ~14 OGRE-based Schmetterling The Riftbreaker (2020), X-Morph: Defense (2017) Tribute Games ~11 MonoGame-based Flinthook (2017), Mercenary Kings (2014) Thekla Inc. (Jonathan Blow) ~10 custom engine The Witness (2016) Terrible Toybox (Ron Gilbert) 9 custom engine (SDL) Thimbleweed Park (2017) Matt Makes Games (Matt Thorson) ~7 MonoGame-based Celeste (2018), TowerFall Ascension (2014) Coilworks ~7 custom engine Super Cloudbuilt (2017), Cloudbuilt (2014) Lo-fi Games (Chris Hunt) 6 OGRE-based Kenshi (2018) D-Pad Studio 6 MonoGame-based Owlboy (2016) BitKid, Inc. 6 MonoGame-based CHASM (2020) Double Damage Games 5 OGRE-based Rebel Galaxy Outlaw (2019), Rebel Galaxy (2015) Almost Human Games 4 custom engine Legend of Grimrock (2012), Legend of Grimrock 2 (2014) Wolfire Games 4 Phoenix Engine Overgrowth (2017) Some observations from this list: Nicolas Cannasse, co-founder of Shiro Games, is the the developer of Haxe programming language and Heaps engine, used by Motion Twin for Dead Cells (2017). Hello Games is a very small studio considering the size of No Man's Sky and that they use a custom engine. Really impressive! Runic Games was dissolved in November 2017, the founders created Double Damage, now they are working on Echtra Games on Torchlight III. Rodrigo Braz Monteiro, Chucklefish CTO, is the person in charge of Halley engine, actually the engine is open-source! In most of those studios the people in charge of creating the game engine it's only 1-3 persons! Lo-fi Games was a one-man team (Chris Hunt) for more than 6 years! Some of the games in this list took +5 years of development! Not many games... a couple of hits per year... One-man custom engines *From left to right: Stardew Valley, ScourgeBringer, Eagle Island Finally, the list of the heroes. Games developed by 1-2 people with custom game engines, engines mostly coded by one person! Respect. Creating an engine and a game from scratch to the point of publishing it is an extraordinary accomplishment, not many people in the world is ready for that. Almost all of them are 2D games, usually with very small budgets and developed along multiple years. Congratulations to the developers! *From left to right: Axiom Verge, Ghost 1.0, Remnants of Naezith Some observations from this list: Some of those teams are formed by 1-2 people but probably grew at some point and/or outsourced some parts of the development (art, audio...). Usually the publisher also helps with some resources (localization, marketing...). Omar Cornut from Lizardcube is the main programmer for Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap engine and also the developer of Dear ImGui, a free and open-source immediate-mode gui library used by lots of AAA custom engines. Ben Fiquet from Lizardcube is also the main artist for Streets of Rage 4, the custom engine of Guard Crush Games is written by Cyrille Lagarigue. Marc Flury programmed Thumper game engine rejecting the OOP paradigm in favor of a procedural programming approach. Christian Whitehead is the creator of Star Engine used in Sonic Mania but Headcannon (Simon Thomley) and PagodaWest Games (Jared Kasl and Tom Fry) were also involved in the development of the game. Some of the games in this list took +5 years of development! Not many games... a couple of hits per year... There are some other remarkable games using custom engines (usually XNA/MonoGame) that worth mentioning: Minecraft (2011), Braid (2009), Super Meat Boy (2010), Terraria (2011), Dustforce (2012), Sword and Sorcery EP (2012), FEZ (2013), Dust: An Elysian Tail (2013), Rogue Legacy (2013), Dyad (2012), SpaceChem (2013). Conclusions I'll start saying I'm biased, I'm really passionate about videogames-making technologies and I admire custom engines and game-making tools. I also contributed to custom engines ecosystem with my grain of salt: raylib and several game-making tools. I prefer a custom engine over a licensed one, I consider that the extra amount of effort put into the product usually translates into some specific great mechanic or some amazing in-game details. Said that, I must admit that creating a custom engine is a big endeavour and not many people are ready for that. I recognize Unity (and Unreal to less extend) have really democratized videogames development, lots of small-medium size companies can use Unity today to develop games quicly and put them on the market, sometimes with very low budgets... But, still, lots of big companies prefer to rely on their own custom technologies. From my gamedev-teacher perspective, I think students must learn how engines work internally with as much detail as possible. Relying only on engines like Unity/Unreal for education to allow students develop eye-candy project in short-time is not the way to go. At the end of the day, someone has to write the engine and the tools! NOTE: Feedback and improvements are welcome! :)

[kgoldtemporarygallery]

On The Breadline | Elena Bellantoni

Η K-Gold Temporary Gallery παρουσιάζει το πρώτο της πρόγραμμα φιλοξενίας καλλιτεχνών με την Ιταλίδα Elena Bellantoni τον Μάιο–Ιούνιο 2019 στην Αθήνα. Η καλλιτέχνης θα πραγματοποιήσει το ελληνικό μέρος της έρευνας και παραγωγής του έργου “On The Breadline” σε συνεργασία με τον επιμελητή Νικόλα Βαμβουκλή.

To έργο “On The Breadline” είναι βραβευμένο με την τέταρτη έκδοση του Italian Council (2018), ενός διαγωνισμού σχεδιασμένου από τη Γενική Διεύθυνση Σύγχρονης Τέχνης, Αρχιτεκτονικής και Αστικών Περιφερειών (DGAAP), ένας οργανισμός του Ιταλικού Υπουργείου Πολιτιστικής Κληρονομιάς και Δραστηριοτήτων για την προώθηση της Ιταλικής σύγχρονης τέχνης στον κόσμο.

Το έργο της Elena Bellantoni αποτελεί ένα νομαδικό πρότζεκτ διάρκειας ενός έτους που ακολουθεί τη “γραμμή του ψωμιού” σε τέσσερις χώρες: τη Σερβία, την Ελλάδα, τη Τουρκία και την Ιταλία. Το πρότζεκτ, σε επιμέλεια της Benedetta Carpi De Resmini, διοργανώνεται από τον πολιτιστικό οργανισμό Wunderbar Cultural Projects.

Η “γραμμή του ψωμιού” που θα ακολουθήσει η Bellantoni επισημαίνει ένα μονοπάτι από ιστορίες και αφηγήσεις σε αυτές τις χώρες σημαδεμένες από “εξεγέρσεις για το ψωμί”. Το ψωμί δεν αποτελεί μόνο κοινό σημείο συνάντησης αλλά συνδέεται με λαϊκά κινήματα και διαμαρτυρίες που ένωσαν τους ανθρώπους στο όνομα της δικαιοσύνης και της κοινωνικής ισότητας.

Το Βελιγράδι, η Αθήνα, η Κωνσταντινούπολη και το Παλέρμο είναι οι στάσεις του ταξιδιού της Elena Bellantoni. Η καλλιτέχνης θα συνεργαστεί με τα τοπικά Ιταλικά Μορφωτικά Ινστιτούτα καθώς και με ένα δίκτυο πολιτιστικών οργανισμών και επιμελητών τέχνης: το Beo Project (Βελιγράδι), τη K-Gold Temporary Gallery (Αθήνα), το Ίδρυμα Buttitta και το Ecomuseo Urbano Mare Memoria Viva (Παλέρμο).

Σε κάθε πόλη, η καλλιτέχνης θα δημιουργήσει μαζί με μια τοπική γυναικεία χορωδία μια περφόρμανς του τραγουδιού Bread and Roses στη γλώσσα της χώρας. Ο στίχος “ψωμί και τριαντάφυλλα” προέρχεται από την ιστορική ομιλία της φεμινίστριας και σοσιαλίστριας Rose Schneiderman κατά τη διάρκεια μιας σημαντικής απεργίας γυναικών εργαζομένων (ΗΠΑ, 1912). Το τραγούδι είναι σε διασκευή που δημιουργήθηκε ειδικά από την Sandra Cotronei, διευθύντρια του εργαστηρίου αγωνιστικού τραγουδιού της Μουσικής Σχολής Testaccio. 

Στην Αθήνα η Εlena Bellantoni θα συνεργαστεί με την γυναικεία χορωδία “Καλλιτεχνήματα” υπό τη διεύθυνση της Μαρίας Μιχαλοπούλου. Το στοιχείο της χορωδίας, όπως και το ψωμί, μας επιτρέπει να εξετάσουμε, μέσα από λέξεις, ήχους και εικόνες, τις κοινωνικές και πολιτικές εξελίξεις της κάθε περιοχής που ιστορικά και γεωγραφικά συνδέεται με τη Μεσόγειο. 

Το τελικό έργο θα πάρει τη μορφή μιας τετρακάναλης βιντεοεγκατάστασης που θα αποτελέσει μέρος της συλλογής του Εθνικού Ινστιτούτου Γραφικών Τεχνών (Ρώμη) και θα παρουσιαστεί σε μια ατομική έκθεση το 2020. Τέλος, θα εκδοθεί ένας κατάλογος (Quodlibet) που θα συγκεντρώνει υλικό από το ταξίδι μέσα από την ματιά της καλλιτέχνιδος, της επιμελήτριας και των ιστορικών τέχνης Stefano Chiodi και Riccardo Venturi.

H Elena Bellantoni αναφέρει: Είναι αλήθεια ότι ο άνθρωπος δεν μπορεί να ζήσει μόνο με ψωμί. Θα προσπαθήσω να ακολουθήσω αυτή το μονοπάτι, δίνοντας του φωνή και σχήμα. Το δικό μου τραγούδι θα έχει το ρυθμό μιας παλιάς γραφομηχανής, όπου θα γράφω καθημερινά. Οι σημειώσεις μου θα αντηχούν τις νότες που θα τραγουδήσουν οι χορωδίες σε τέσσερις διαφορετικές γλώσσες. Για μένα, η καλλιτεχνική δουλειά προκύπτει μέσα από τις συναντήσεις: στην περίπτωση αυτή με την τοπική κοινότητα -της οποίας θα ακολουθήσω τα σημάδια και τα ίχνη- και με μια γυναικεία χορωδία. Επέλεξα να εστιάσω στο θηλυκό στοιχείο, διότι πιστεύω ότι σήμερα, περισσότερο από ποτέ, πρέπει να πάρουμε θέση και να έχουμε φωνή. Νομίζω ότι αυτή η "ποιητική χειρονομία" είναι απαραίτητη για να δούμε το μακρύ παρελθόν των αγώνων μας και να διαμαρτυρηθούμε για το παρόν μας.

Η Elena Bellantoni ζει και εργάζεται μεταξύ του Βερολίνου και της Ιταλίας. Αφού έλαβε πτυχίο σύγχρονης τέχνης από το Πανεπιστήμιο Sapienza της Ρώμης, σπούδασε στο Παρίσι και στο Λονδίνο, όπου έλαβε μεταπτυχιακό τίτλο στις Οπτικές Τέχνες από το WCA University of the Arts London το 2007. Στη συνέχεια παρακολούθησε εργαστήρια παραστατικών τεχνών στην Ιταλία και στο εξωτερικό. Το 2007 ίδρυσε το Platform Translation Group και το 2008 ήταν συνιδρύτρια του μη κερδοσκοπικού χώρου τέχνης 91mQ στο Βερολίνο. Το 2014 το έργο της The Fox and the Wolf: Struggle for Power έγινε μέρος της συλλογής Farnesina του Ιταλικού Υπουργείου Εξωτερικών. Η πρακτική της (βίντεο, φωτογραφία, performance και εγκαταστάσεις) επικεντρώνεται στις έννοιες της ταυτότητας και της διαφορετικότητας, χρησιμοποιώντας τη γλώσσα και το σώμα ως εργαλεία αλληλεπίδρασης.

Περισσότερες Πληροφορίες www.onthebreadline.it

On The Breadline | Elena Bellantoni

K-Gold Temporary Gallery presents its first artist residency program with Italian Elena Bellantoni on May – June 2019 in Athens. The artist will develop the Greek part of research and production for her project “On The Breadline” in collaboration with curator Nicolas Vamvouklis.

“On The Breadline” is the winner of the IV edition of Italian Council (2018), a competition conceived by the Directorate-General for Contemporary Art and Architecture and Urban Peripheries (DGAAP), an institution of the Italian Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities that promotes Italian contemporary art in the world.

The traveling project by Elena Bellantoni has a duration of one year and follows the “breadline” in four countries: Serbia, Greece, Turkey and Italy. It is curated by Benedetta Carpi De Resmini and promoted by Wunderbar Cultural Projects.

The breadline followed by the artist highlights a path of histories and narratives in these countries marked by “bread revolts”. Bread becomes in this way not only a communal moment but it also connects to collective movements and protests that have united people in the name of justice and social equality.

Belgrade, Athens, Istanbul and Palermo are the stops of Bellantoni’s journey. She will collaborate locally with the Italian Cultural Institutes and a network of art institutions and curators: Beo Project (Belgrade), K-Gold Temporary Gallery (Athens), Buttitta Foundation and Ecomuseo Urbano Mare Memoria Viva (Palermo).

In each city, the artist will develop a performance of the “Bread and Roses” song with a female choir. The song derives from a 1912 speech by feminist and socialist leader Rose Schneiderman during an important female workers’ strike in the United States. The song will be translated in all four languages following a new music score created by Sandra Cotronei, director of the Political Song Laboratory of the Popular Music School of Testaccio.

In Athens, Elena Bellantoni will collaborate with the women’s choir “Kallitexnimata” directed by Maria Michalopoulou. The element of the choir, like bread, allows us to explore -through words, sounds and images- the social and political evolution in these places, which are historically and geographically connected to the Mediterranean.

The final artwork will be a four-channel video installation that will be part of the permanent collection of the Istituto Centrale per la Grafica (Rome), and will be presented in a solo show in 2020. Finally, the project will be accompanied by a catalog published by Quodlibet, featuring contributions by the artist, the curator and art historians Stefano Chiodi and Riccardo Venturi.

As Elena Bellantoni states: While it’s true that man shall not live on bread alone, I will try to follow this “breadline” and give it voice and shape. My personal song will take on the rhythm of an old typewriter, where I’ll be writing every day. My notes will echo the notes sung by the choirs in four different languages. For me, the artistic work comes out of the encounters: in this case with the local community and with a women’s choir. I chose to focus on the female because I believe that today, more than ever, we need to take position and speak up. I believe this “poetic gesture” is essential so we can explore our long past of struggle and protest for our present.

Elena Bellantoni lives and works between Berlin and Italy. After receiving a degree in Contemporary Art at Sapienza University of Rome, she studied in Paris and London, where she received an MA in Visual Arts at the WCA University of Arts London in 2007; In 2007, she established the Platform Translation Group and in 2008 she co-founded 91mQ project space in Berlin. In 2014, her video project “The Fox and the Wolf: Struggle for Power” was included in the Farnesina Collection of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Her work (video, photography, performance and installations) addresses themes of identity and otherness by using language and the body as tools for interaction.

More Information

www.onthebreadline.it

[udemy-gift-coupon-blog]

Make an Easy Promo Video in 1 Hour: iMovie Spotlight ##elearning ##udemycourses #Easy #Hour #iMovie #Promo #Spotlight #Video Make an Easy Promo Video in 1 Hour: iMovie Spotlight Are you ready to create a quick and easy yet effective promotional video for your course, book, or project in just under an hour?This course is for those interested in making quick & painless promo videos even if you have little time, money, or video skills. This step-by-step, clear, and easy to follow course will show you how to use a little old humble iMovie trailer template to create a quick and dirty, yet emotional and persuasive promo video to spark interest and excitement in whatever it is you are selling. We'll talk about how to best plan and write your video so it works hard for you while you are off doing other things, so it can effectively promote you, your work, and your brand. I created this course while I myself was creating a promotional video for my new "Give Your Website Wordpress Website a Makeover: Divi Theme Spotlight" course. You'll see the exact process I used to plan, create, and launch my promo video as an actual case study. This course is for complete beginners who have no special video or technical skills as well as for people who DO have video skills but find themselves pressed for time and would like a simple way to get a decent promo movie up online in a pinch. (*iMovie versions 2011-2016 are covered with additional text tutorials for the iMovie app.) ---------- What Students Are Saying: "Absolutely brilliant! This is a high quality tutor and a high quality course. Quick and dirty is exactly what it is, took me very little time to go through the whole course, get a really clear understanding of how to make my promos, and today I've made 3 so far. This course is absolutely worth the price!!" -Val Thomas ----------- I'm a tenured Associate Professor of Digital Media and the Program Director of Film & Digital Media at The American University of Rome and a practicing award-winning multimedia artist. I have over 16 years of experience teaching students all over the world using my tried and true custom approach (turning complex information into something simple, memorable, easy-to-understand in as short amount of time as possible) to ensure that you get the most important, relevant, and useful information that can be applied immediately to your art, work, and everyday life. New bonus lectures and resources will continue to be added and timely design advice will be provided in the discussion forum. I love to help and always respond to inquiries and discussions ASAP. Please Note: All students who enroll in this course also will receive periodic free and discounted access to my other top-rated current and upcoming courses. You have a 30-day, 100% money-back guarantee with no questions asked so you have nothing to lose. I make myself available so you will have access to me if you have questions or need specific feedback along the way. Empower yourself now by enrolling in this easy to follow course and join our growing learning community! Click the "Take This Course" button in the upper right corner and let's get started creating your beautiful promo video that will pack an emotional punch today. Who this course is for: This course is great for online instructors, authors, and others who need a persuasive promotional video that requires little time, technical skill, and budget to create Perfectionists and video connoisseurs who would be insulted using a mere plug and play template should probably NOT take this course. This class is about making something decent when you are insanely busy and don't have the time or money to fuss over a video production that could take hours, days, weeks, or longer to craft. 👉 Activate Udemy Coupon 👈 Free Tutorials Udemy Review Real Discount Udemy Free Courses Udemy Coupon Udemy Francais Coupon Udemy gratuit Coursera and Edx ELearningFree Course Free Online Training Udemy Udemy Free Coupons Udemy Free Discount Coupons Udemy Online Course Udemy Online Training 100% FREE Udemy Discount Coupons https://www.couponudemy.com/blog/make-an-easy-promo-video-in-1-hour-imovie-spotlight/

[rhiannonwrites]

6.6.17 “Let’s Get Down to Business” (97/100 days of productivity)

I quoted Mulan as the title because that’s what Theresa is singing right now while we do our homework. 

Today has been pretty laid back. We woke up this morning and went to the gym as usual. One thing I notice is that whenever I do upper body workouts I don’t sweat and I don’t really feel like I’m exerting myself. I’ve been trying to vary my lifting moves, and I did get a little sore last week. I watched a Whitney Simmons arm workout video and she talked about how women don’t like working their upper body as much, but it’s still very important. I know that my upper body muscles aren’t as developed as my lower body, but I want to push myself just the same. For me, there’s a certain burn that I feel during lifting that makes me feel like I accomplished what I needed from the workout and that feeling also lets me know that I’ll be sore the next day. I’m open to any upper body inspiration or advice anyone has for ways to improve my workout!

For some reason, when I looked up my campus library online it said that it closes at 12:00pm every day. At the time, it was after 12 and I didn’t really want to go walk all the way there to check it out, only for it to be closed. So, after we finished our workout Theresa and I rushed through showers and headed to the library at 11:00am, just in case online was right. I had to find a book and scan a chapter for our research discussion group, and we had to go on a trip and hunt to find it. Turns out it was on the bookshelf at our backs (meaning we were literally facing the wrong shelf when we started our search) lol. But we also found out that the library is open until 10:00pm, which makes much more sense. And I saw how empty it was today, considering that it’s summertime, and I think Theresa and I might start studying there from time to time. 

Oh, this is the summer following my second year at Pitt and today is the first time I checked a book out of our campus library, the first time I checked a book out of a library in over a decade. It was quite momentous.

I had my Roman History class at 12:00. I didn’t really know what to expect on the exam that we had last week. I ended up getting a B+, which isn’t bad. I’m just upset because the way that the professor constructs his questions is distracting. The answer to one of the questions was, I kid you not, “Because, fuck Rome, that’s why.” I got quite a few questions wrong in the multiple choice and that’s why my grade suffered. However, I got a full score on the essay portion, and I’m actually really proud. I walked away from that section feeling pretty good because I was thorough and included every detail I could remember from the narratives we studied on the different Roman figures. I’m glad it paid off. Now I know that for the next exam I have to be prepared for his unconventional wording.

Right now, Theresa is writing a paper and I’m about to type up my homework assignment due in my night class. Hopefully we will have time to make dinner before we leave! 

[ramrodd]

Everybody Says Mark Was the First Gospel, But Was It? (With Dr. David Al...

COMMENTARY:

I was going to post a point by point commentary on this interview and the essential flaw in Dr. Black's hypothesis that Matthew was the first Gospel when I realized I had already written one when this video was first posted and it pretty well hits all the points I would make if I started from scratch, so I've reposted it, below. The one thing I want to emphasize is that Dr. Black is absolutely correct about Matthew being a manifesto, of sorts, although I prefer to think of it as a polemic in support of the Judaizers who oppose Paul's mission to the gentiles, and was probably written after Galatians, to support Peter (for example, Matthew is the only Gospel that includes Peter walking, briefly, on the water, which can be seen as a device to elevate Peter's position above Paul's vision on the road to Damascus. If there is anything that is false in Matthew, that pericope gets my vote: Peter doesn't mention it in Mark, for example, and Peter was always insecure about his position as top dog in the original Apostles, which is a source of the tension between him and Paul). To sum up my premise, The Gospel According to Mark was written as a Roman military intelligence abstract of the material contained in the Quelle archives that the Romans began to assemble when Jesus appeared above the Roman military horizon as a potential insurgent when He was baptized. John Mark became the publisher of this Roman military abstract in Alexandria (Dan Wallace points out that 90% of the manuscripts we have that were produced before the 4th century came out of Alexandria) and he wrote the Gospel of John, as Dr. Black asserts, as a supplement specifically to the Gospel According to Mark. For example, the festival in John 5:1 is  Tabernacle and John Marks birthday is around that time when he turns 14.  He is 15 when Jesus is crucified, strong and fast enough to escape naked but not seen as a threat to the Roman guard mount in charge of Jesus's execution. COMMENTARY: 4 April 2020 And, finally, the codex is a Roman innovation because Quelle was recorded on loose-leaf papyrus as individual spy reports came in and the autograph for the Gospel According to Mark was conveyed to the Praetorian Guards, the headquarters of the Roman spy masters Pilate and Cornelius reported to, as loose-leaf papyrus bound at the spine in the manner of the codex. Again according to Dan Wallace, there are no scrolls of the Gospels: everything has come down as codex. Well, for reasons that you will have to come to grok in fullness, Dr. Black has all the pieces, but he's jammed them into his premise because he is old enough to have been elgible for the draft his first year of college in 1971, the year I got back from Vietnam, The consequene is he has a blind spot about all things military because he was scared shitless of going to Vietnam. And he's pretty typcial of Pro-Life Evangelical Spiritual Warriors. It's like Donald John Trump* calling himself a "War President"; or smarter about pandemics than the White House pandemic reponse team he disbanded in 2018 for the same reason the Republicans in Florida sabotaged the mechanisms for receiving unemployment: dumb ass Joe McCarthy Conservative politics. I went to Vietnam because I was a Christian Soldier and my commission was the Liberation Gospel of the Gospel According to Mark. I went. locked and loaded, to Vietnam and I earned my spurs. I have a Combat Infantryman's Badge and a couple or three scaples. I went to Vietnam to kill a Kong for Christas and I stand here and declare "Mission Accomplished". Then I came back to the World and have spent the last 49 years dealing with white, male Spiritual Warriors like you and Dr. Clark and Donald John Trump*. Which is why the suicide rate among combat veterans is 22 vets a day. You know how you like to poo-poo numerology and numerics in the Bible? Well, could make the case that the Holy Spirit has somehow suppressed the suicide rate in veterns like me to JUST 22 a day just so I can point it out to you at this very instant for the very first time anywhere on the internet of Christendom. Those who have eyes, see. The axis between Q and the Letter to the Hebrews is a case study in a generic intellince assessment process being employed in Langley, today. It's the way the etimoloigists that Donald John Trump* fired from the White House in 2018 would have gone about making a risk assesssment for the Coronavirius long before China would have permitted the word of the pandemic from getting out. You can see why the godless commie cocksuckers in Beijing would have wanted to keep the pandemic secret from the world given that America just pulled an aircraft carrier off the line to protect the crew: during the battle of Stalingrad, a little pandemic would have just added a subject to sing about to the festivities. The Gospel According to Mark is not the first intelligence report to be sent to Rome about the resurrection of Jesus. Here's where Dr. Black and I are joined at the hip: my intent is to establish the historicity of the Gospel of Mark in such a way that any rational, intellectually honest and morally anchore human being can drop kick asshole anti-theists like Richard Carrier and Richard Dawkins in their ideologically puffed up balls and through the goal posts of their own asshole pretzel logic. Dr. Black has all the same peices I do, but, because he was scared shitless of going to Vietnam and then the military gunned down the 4 students at Kent State scared all the white anti-war draft dodgers shitless after the celebration of the end of was at Woodstock which turned into rage, hie has a blind spot about the Romans because,. One, they've always been the bad guys lurking behind the scene and, two, the Romans in the first century until the Milvian Bridge in the 4rh century went to a great deal of trouble keep their existence in the Praetorian Guard and the Legions a secret, or hiding it in plain sight with the Cult of Murtha and the associated Caesar Worship, with it's baptism in blood. The Roman military had absolutely no expectation of anything like the Resurrection. None. I mean, there were all sorts of stories floating around in their mythos about “the gods” in pretty much the same way the stories about Batman and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, but a story about a god who is born of woman, creates the structures of an army composed of Gideons poise to crush the Romans in Galilee, like they did the 12th Legion of Cestius Gallus in 68, but has the more important mission of being truly crucified, USDA Caesar Tiberius Guaranteed, stuck a fork into Him to make sure he was dead, and buried behind a stone requiring 17 men, a centurion and a corporal's guard of 2 squads of 16 men to roll into place. And up from the grave He arose! This just wasn't in the Roman field manuals, anywhere, so they began to study it. It so happens, they had already collected a great deal of data about Jesus as a routine surveillance detail when He popped up over the Roman military horizon as a potential insurgent aligned with John the Baptist. Sometime around 27, before John is arrested and they continued this surveillance with decreasing interest until He is remanded to Pilate by a Jewish lynch mob composed of all the A-List citizens of Jerusalem demanding his execution. All that spy product is the initial material contained in Q and Cornelius, the centurion in Acts 10, is Pilate's administrative chief of staff and the curator for Q from it's implementation as a subject of force protection by the Roman intelligence services in Palestine. Go back the 19 minute time stamp when Dr. Black is describing the stenographic nature of the prose style of the Gospel: the presence of the historic present is the transcribed report of a spy from the field, the raw intelligence of intelligence spy craft arranged along a meticulous and rigorous timeline exactly like the log of a ship or the book of a police desk sergeant. This is scientifically based observation for evaluation somewhere up the chain of command to squeeze out the military/political implications of all things under their purview. As Luke observes in Acts 24:22, Felix knew all about The Way long before Paul washed up from Jerusalem at his feet. And it began with Cornelius and Q. Theophilus is the spy master in the Praetorian Guard both Pilate and Cornelius report to regarding military intelligence. Theophilus has the same organizational role in the Praetorian Guard that George Smiley has in MI6: he's not M, but he M is his first report, and M speaks to the Emperor. In particular, Tiberius. Until 31, Sejanus is M in the Praetorian Guard, so it's not clear if Sejanus would have choked off the initial intelligence report that compelled Tiberius to propose to the Senate that Jesus be elevated to the status of a legal deity or not, but the timing is such that, if Jesus had died on the Passover in 31, the news of His Resurrection could have moved, unfettered, to Tiberius as early as that year. For numerological reasons, I like 33 better but only by a hair over 31 CE as the year it all got started. But the important thing is, Tiberius made his Jesus proposal after, or during, the purge of Sejanus and, as a consequence, the Senate was forever after hostile to all things Tiberius, especially Christians, which is why they went underground. If you notice, the only connection Cornelius makes with Jesus is by naming Jairus, who was president of the Capernaum synagogue. Cornelius knew Jesus, personally, and was justified by faith in Matthew 8:10. And Cornelius was in the room with Pilate during the interrogation of Jesus. Why didn't Cornelius intercede, then, you may ask. It has to do with Romans 13:1 – 7 and the spirit that fulfills the letter of the law. It has to do with the dramatic tension of “A Man for All Seasons”. It has to do with why Mitt Romney voted to convict and Socrates took the cup and Jesus died on the cross. It's why I went to Vietnam and why I left the army. The rule of law, duty and the sworn oath. That's the basis of the absolution of Luke 23:34. The letter to the Hebrews is an intelligence finding, to return to the theme of a case study in generic intelligence risk assessment. Q stayed in Caesarea and was possibly destroyed during the Jewish Wars, but Theophilus assembled a mirror, and complimentary, portfolio in Rome to study just what it all meant. Paul's role was to defend the ethic of Jesus in Rome to Theophilus and his committee/church, which he, Paul, does successfully. Unlike Athens, where he was preaching to philosophers. Paul is preaching to students of philosophy in the Roman equestrian class: their whole success was as early adopters and they already believed in Romans 13: 1 – 7, but the missing link was Melchizedek and the offering of bread and wine and that closes the loop of Moses with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Everything in the Gospels begins moving to Rome when Jesus is remanded to Pilate. Dr. Black is almost right about the relationship between Mark and the Gospel of John. John Mark is the publisher, editor, character and probable translator of the original Latin of the autograph to the coine Greek of the final version and John Mark is also the author of the Gospel of John. John Mark is the “beloved disciple” of the Gospel of John is probably 14 years old when he is witness to the Roman coup-de-grace on the cross. He is something of a mascot, a Junior Disciple, who first meets Jesus at the wedding in Cana something after Jesus is baptized, and travels around with Jesus and his crew from about that time until after the feeding of the 5000, which occurs just before the Passover the year before Easter and sometime just after John the Baptist is beheaded in 29. John Mark's chronology is not entirely reliable, but the narratives of Mark and John converge in both Gospels in Chapter 6 and diverge until they converge in Chapter 11. The Triumphal Entry  into Jerusalem happens in the morning of Palm Sunday and Lazarus is raised from the dead in the late afternoon in Bethany. John Mark was in Bethany for both the Triumphal Entry and the Scourging of the Temple. The Gospel of John is a complimentary reader to Mark and originates from the perspective of someone for whom Passover was like Christmas while the Synoptic Gospels treat Passover as an annual issue of crowd control. The anointing of Jesus is a coronation in Mark but a particularly erotic celebration in John of the Bridegroom that is an allusion to Ruth at the feet of Boaz, her redeemer. This is the best case to be made that Jesus had a wife, but He died a virgin. Matthew is undoubtedly written by Matthew Levi and is the outlier to the other Gospels in that, as Dr. Black observes, is a polemic for the Judaizers who opposed Paul's missionary to the Gentiles. Luke is making an obvious reference to Matthew's Gospel in the preamble to Luke where the transliteration is that he. Luke, is correcting what Matthew fucked up. Luke probably started Acts as an amicus brief for Paul's defense of Romans, but Theophilus commissioned him to expand his study after he, Luke, is introduced to Cornelius and given access to Q. It is obvious that both Mark and Matthew are available to Luke when he follows Paul to Caesarea and, based on an observation in David Sloan's “What if the Gospel according to Hebrews is Q”, Luke had Mark to begin with (he notices that Luke 3:1 introduces John the Baptist like the beginning of Mark  after introducing him as the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth in Luke 1). That's not all, but here's a little more numerology for you to consider: the 13 Epistles of Paul being with the longest and narrows to the shortest like an arrow pointing at Hebrews, which has 13 chapters, which were added in the 16th century, as you have pointed out in another video. Dr. Black has all the pieces and, if you add Richard Bauchman's eyewitness in the Gospels to the mix, and rearrange the pieces around his fear of going to Vietnam, it all leads to the nature of the canon and removes most of the mystery to fully reveal the historicity of the Mystery of the Resurrection in the eyes of the Romans back in the day.