#the way the iliad starts with achilles anger and ends with Hector's death....

[heimonas]

who's gonna do the achilles / hector parallels research for me and tell me all about it bc I wanna know but can't be bothered rn

[pietrasgreeklitblog]

Week 2 Blog

This week, I read pages 53–83 of the book “Greek Gods, Human Lives” by Mary Lefkowitz.

The most important sentence can be found on page 55. “Without the gods, there would have been no Iliad and none of the suffering and death recorded in it. The gods are involved from the start.” Here’s why. The author begins the subject of the Iliad by mentioning the anger of Achilles; he was considered one of the mightiest warriors of all time, and the reason for his anger and destruction at the time was because of the gods. The book highlights a powerful demonstration of the gods' might and human vulnerability. Apollo, Zeus' son, becomes furious because Agamemnon, the Greek military leader, disrespects his priest Chryses. Chryseus offers a ransom for his daughter Chryseis, whom Agamemnon had taken as a captive. When Agamemnon refuses, Chryses calls upon Apollo, who descends from Mount Olympus with his bow and arrows, causing a devastating plague in the Greek army. The plague starts by affecting mules and dogs before claiming the lives of men, leading to constant funeral pyres. The message that Apollo sends becomes clear to everyone except Agamemnon (the message being how humans must honor the gods before considering their own desires). However, when he eventually figures out that his actions are what have caused the plague, Agamemnon agrees to release the priest's daughter but demands another war captive in return. When Achilles insists on waiting for more prisoners, Agamemnon takes Achilles' prize, Briseis, causing a rift between them. This disagreement leads to more Greek casualties as Achilles refuses to fight, resulting in the deaths of many Greek heroes, including his close friend Patroclus. The Trojans also suffer because they wrongly attribute their success to themselves rather than the gods, leading to overconfidence and the eventual demise of their leader, Hector. The Iliad concludes with Hector's funeral, foreshadowing the impending Greek conquest of Troy.

So far, I’ve been surprised with the amount of brutality the gods have had between themselves, which ends up impacting humans in some way, which in this case would be the Trojan War with the Greeks and the Trojans, which was itself a consequence of a dissension among the gods. Overall, each story this book has to offer has been able to broaden my perspective on Greek mythology and how insignificant mankind is considered to be. However, I have had some trouble attempting to remember all the different names of each god and what their purpose is.

[michael-drummey]

Achilles x Patroclus Explained: for anyone who needs it plainly mapped out for them one more time.

The Iliad:

-Most obviously there is a Special Relationship between Achilles x Patroclus

-Achilles and Patroclus share a Bed & Tent, Patroclus also does all the  “domestic” work for the 2 of them on top of being a soldier

-”But he had Briseis who he was going to marry”, despite only bragged about her because she was a war prize taken by Agamemnon thus taking his honor, he was “locker room talking for the boys” when in reality he had no sexual contact/dimension/relationship with her yet. He also knew the prophecy he wasn’t coming back from Troy so this is one of two reasons we can say that they have no plans together, (see bullet point one for second reason) and then later he wishes Artemis had killed her way back when they were raiding cities. It is also inferable that Patroclus had planted this seed of thought in her mind to put her at ease with Achilles as well as protect his honor because Patroclus is always there for Achilles (Achilles does take Briseis into his bed in Book 24 but again totally as a spoil of war... she is a conquest not a lover)

-Greeks know Achilles will only listen to Patroclus, Especially Nestor who goes to Patroclus to persuade Achilles to re-enter the fight

-When Achilles receives Patroclus’s body his first thought is to end himself with a sword because he does not want to live in a world without Patroclus

-Achilles’s rage at the death of Patroclus and wishing he had let all the Greeks die and they conquered Troy together

-Refusal to eat & sleep while weeping for days on end in bed with Patroclus’s body

-Andromache’s speech about Hector, forsaking all her other loved ones for her husband, aka her one true love and then Achilles giving the almost exact same speech right after about Patroclus his “beloved”

-Achilles kills Hector (Gods even fear his rage and that such emotion could cause war to end before prophesied) aka Achilles could change fate because he so “grieved” for Patroclus - totally homies right?!

-Achilles drags Hectors body from his chariot damaging and defiling the corpse for days; Angering the gods, to which he doesn’t care

-Thetis then comes to Achilles, to which he wants none of her comfort, during their conversation she also has to suggest AND specify for him to now have sex with a woman and maybe find a wife before his life is over (why does she have to specify “woman” & who/what was keeping him from getting a wife)

-Achilles tosses and turns sleeplessly (body of Patroclus is still kept in his bed) and he longs for Patroclus’s “μένος” (menos) which in ancient greek translates to “Might - Manhood - Vigor - Semen” plainly speaking “Spunk” (both kinds!)

-Achilles reaches to embrace the ghost of Patroclus when he appears before him - desiring to physically touch 

-Achilles plays the role of the woman and/or wife of the deceased when they burn Patroclus’s body on the funeral pyre and then collects the ashes himself and puts them in the golden urn. Achilles then charges the men to do the same to him when he dies putting his ashes in the same golden urn and burying them together so that they will physically be together for all eternity - which does happen

-LITERALLY ACHILLES x PATROCLUS

Most Ancient Greeks, Shakespeare, Artists & Intellectuals:

ACTUAL Greek Artwork from 500 BCE (currently resides on display in Germany)

-There is no reference to this moment in any record or story. In this depiction Achilles wraps Patroclus’s arm while he sits between his open legs, and Patroclus lets his dick hang out, while Achilles’s is visible as well, super intimate for “bros”

-Later greeks assumed or imagined their relationship as Pederastic (An older “erastes” lover & an “eromenos” younger beloved) because that was the norm of that period but no one could definitely decide who was the top and who was the bottom 

**SIDE NOTE They do not have an age gap to support the Pederastic Theory AND after the pederastic relationship ended the men involved married women which we know neither Achilles nor Patroclus had nor plans to do

-Plato totally thought Achilles was a Bottom in his “Symposium” 

-Aeschylus (the literal inventor of Greek Tragedy) portrayed Achilles & Patroclus as lovers in his lost play “The Myrmidons” which was based on The Iliad. Surviving lines from the play are of Achilles speaking of “Patroclus’s Reverent Company, his thighs, and being ungrateful for many kisses”

-345 BCE = Athenian politician, Aeschines states in a speech during his trial that Homer didn’t have to say what they were because 1. the Greeks were more sexually fluid then 2. there wasn’t a word for “Homosexual” 3. Homer was a storyteller and ANY educated man knew what they were, like its THAT obvious

-Alexander the Great and his lover Haphaestion (this is a whole other can of worms still being fought) liked to think of themselves, and referred to each other as “Achilles & Patroclus”

-Shakespeare features the two in his play “Troilus and Cressida” in which Patroclus is called “Achilles’s Brach” aka “Achilles’s Bitch”

-Renaissance Artists & those onward armed with their skill, knowledge, and obsession with all things ancient painted numerous depictions of the two, usually scenes of Achilles receiving Patroclus’s body, and for “buddies” they sure love painting them showing A LOT of skin

-By roughly the 1960′s & 70′s historians and scholars started talking about them openly again with the

“ARE WE READY TO STOP PLAYIN’ AND OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE THEM AS ‘YOU KNOW’”

  All joking aside we still have a select number of Historians, Scholars, and Hollywood still holding out:

-What about Briseis!? (see above) they both also do sleep with a woman each but sadly here they are seen more as conquest and war prizes than actual lovers - again there is a fluidity

-Achilles was a HERO! Best of the Greeks -He’s always shown as A MAN’S MAN! YET in a separate myth (see Achilleid) his mother Thetis was able to hide him among a group of girly girls on Skyros to which he was perfectly disguised and has a one night stand with the princess again showing their regard for sexual fluidity. ALSO Do not disrespect that he was a manly hero and a femboy! This also explains how his son comes to be - again this is a completely separate myth and origin

-Could they be cousins!? (NO)

-**Closing Eyes** Homo-erotic? WHERE? “Item Not Found”

-”Well all we can say, there is no source, Homer never explicitly stated that Achilles and Patroclus were a couple or had a sexual relationship that we can find in the source material so... I am choosing to ignore all context and blatant evidence, as well have no heterosexual explanation for them either...  you’re just reading into it too much”:

EVERYONE who has a brain and has read The Iliad:

As for myself having read the Iliad, studied this Art, History, and Culture, as well as having a BFA; when you know, YOU KNOW. Feel free to share, use this as inspiration to read “The Iliad” if you haven’t already, think critically, and study up on your own!

IN CONCLUSION = THEY GAY & THE OTP !!

(Highly Suggest “The Song of Achilles” as well)

[classicschronicles]

Hi lovelies,

Okay, so I’ve come to a conclusion, Marauders-era fanfic writers are obsessed with the Iliad. I literally can’t explain how many fics I’ve read in the last month that have started talking about Troy and Patrochilles and hamartia (although that might be because I seldom read anything other than angst). Anyways so I was reading an update on one of my favourite fics, ‘Staying Strangers’ by 3amAndCounting-which you should all read bc it’s so so funny and sweet, and Remus has a kitten called Antilochus who I would literally die for, and it has non-binary Sirius, AND AND AND it’s chat fic!!! I digress. During the fic, Remus and Lily started talking about the concept of a fatal flaw and hamartia. And so, today’s entry is about hamartia and more specifically Achilles hamartia.

Simply put, hamartia is an error in judgement or mistake made by a noble man, caused by an excess or mistake in behaviour and not because of a willful violation of the gods. So for example, Oedipus hamartia could arguably be his incessant curiosity, as even after being told to not investigate further, his desire to know all led to his inevitable downfall. Or Pentheus’ hamartia would be his ignorance, as his choice to be willfully ignorant of Dionysus led to his death.

The first record of the word hamartia being used was in Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’ (definitely worth a read) and originally referred to those only in theatrical tragedy. However, scholars now use the word hamartia to refer to characters overall (including epic heroes). It may be worth pointing out that hamartia is often closely linked with hubris (excessive pride).

In the fic, Remus points out that heroes have the greatest hamartia, and when asked what Achilles is, says that it may never have been his ankle, but rather his divinity. He argues that Achilles is constantly at war with the parts of himself that were divine and the mortal parts and that if this wasn’t the case then the whole Iliad would’ve ended differently. He says that if Achilles had not had the weight of divinity and fate resting on him he wouldn’t have viewed himself as so invaluable, and wouldn’t have massacred the Trojans or killed Hector- which ultimately sealed his fate. There is the argument that it was the death of Patroclus that set these events into motion, but I would argue that even this can be attributed to his divinity.

When talking (or should I say arguing) this over with my best friend she argued that Achilles’ hamartia was his hubris, as it was his hubris that set all the other events into motion. She argued that in book one Achilles’ desire for the greater geras (prize) was born from his own pride and so was his feud with Agamemnon and his withdrawal from the war. If he had not refused to fight then Patroclus wouldn’t have put on his armour and died. And so Achilles’ biggest error in judgment, leading to his own demise, was his pride.

We also argued over whether or not his anger was his hamartia. The Iliad literally starts with the line “Goddess sing me the anger of Achilles”, so it is fair to argue that it was his rage that caused all the events of the Iliad. Indeed, on many separate occasions, his anger can be seen to drive individual plot points (i.e. the feud in Iliad one, his fighting of the river, his massacre of the Trojans, his desecration of Hector etc…).

However, I think ultimately both of these arguable forms of hamartia stem from his divinity. One of the main characteristics of Homeric demigods is that they possess the ability to feel emotions in a capacity far more bone-deep than their human peers (basically they’re bloody dramatic). So when Achilles allows his pride to rule him, it is because he feels the emotion far stronger than he would if he was entirely human.

I think the same can be said especially concerning his anger. The way that Achilles feels anger is so all-consuming that it actually stops being ‘human wrath’ and becomes ‘cosmic wrath’ (as Remus so adequately puts it). In Greek, this phenomenon is referred to as ‘menis’. It is the idea that your anger becomes you and blinds you until everything you do is driven by this out-of-body, divine anger and, in a sense, you lose sight of who you are. I think in the case of Achilles this anger is also inextricably linked with his grief and causes him to literally lose touch with reality and refuse to eat until he kills Hector (which by the way is one of my favourite quotes in the whole Iliad “Not that I lack it. I lack him.” -it being food). This is the same anger that leads Achilles to lay next to the unburied body of Patroclus, the same anger that leads to him being called the ‘Dog Star’, the same anger that leads him to kill Hector, drag his body around the walls of Troy, and desecrate him even in death. It is this anger that leaves him resigned to his fate. But given that this anger is a side effect of divinity, it is his divinity that acts as his hamartia.

And so, when Remus argues that Achilles’ hamartia is his divinity it wasn’t something that I would have seen before, but I find myself resigned to the fact that he is absolutely right. Never doubt Remus Lupin. I hope you all enjoyed reading about Achilles’ hamartia and if you disagree and think it is something else please let me know what you think, I’d love to learn more about this topic! I hope you all enjoy the rest of your weekend :)

~Z

[queen-eevee]

achilles! and! patroclus!!!

[cracks knuckles] oh Tam you beautiful soul you have popped open the pandora’s box of Nicole interests. I have no idea where this rambling is going to go but we are in it for the long haul

(Spoilers for The Iliad? I guess? Under the cut)

Where do I even start with these two.......the myth of Achilles and Patroclus is the most important story in the world to me. I've been an Achilles apologist since high school when we had to read The Iliad in English class and I’ve only grown stronger and worse ever since. (Fun fact: My English teacher was the one to recommend The Song of Achilles to me and let me borrow her copy to read it. It was a truly wild experience. I miss her so much.)

At a surface level, the thing that gets me the most about their myth is, of course, the trope that I affectionately call Achillean rage: the unbridled, feral anger that Achilles experiences after he loses Patroclus. We (and by we, I mean me) like to make fun of him for becoming so engulfed in fury that he fought a literal river in addition to anything in his path that moved when he went on his rampage of vengeance, but honestly? Achilles was going to die fighting that river—he only survived because other gods got involved—but he was so blinded with anger that he was willing to take on anything that got in between him and Hector, anything that wasn’t on his side of the war. And besides that river god, he succeeded. It’s hard to forget Achilles’ prowess in war but it’s so easy to forget that Achilles is only half-mortal. Patroclus dies and something slips—he gives entirely into the half of himself that’s part-god. (Something something forgoing humanity something something telling Hector “Would that in any wise wrath and fury might bid me carve thy flesh and myself eat it raw” - Book 22 because cannibalism is a reserved act for the gods and the gods alone but that’s nothing that hasn’t been said before.) It just all makes me crazy. I think everyone has that much rage inside them, buried somewhere down deep, and I hope to god we never have to tap into it, but there is something so cathartic about envisioning it nonetheless.

But okay, even deeper than that, it’s about how all anger at its roots is just a defensive response to grief. It’s about Achilles refusing to get involved in a war he knew would deliver him to death’s hands until he had nothing left to live for, and manipulating that grief into something malleable and productive just long enough to kill Hector before he meets the business end of Paris’ god-guided arrow. Not to sit here and quote my own writing but there’s something to be said about latching onto anger because it’s blinding, because if you blind yourself with Ares’ red vision perhaps you can pretend that the tugging at your heart and the churning in your stomach is just your hunger for victory, and not the side effect that comes with forgetting everything you have to lose and everything you’ve already lost. Achilles loved Patroclus so much. So much. Becoming the hero and winning the war was always about glory but it was about glory with the assurance that the person he loved would live to see the legacy of it. That even if he was gone, the ghost he left behind would be loud enough to keep Patroclus company until he joined him in the afterlife. Or it was about going out together, side by side. Achilles would have never imagined Patroclus dying first. How could a man with a ticking timer above his head ever wrestle with the fact that he would still live long enough to bury the person he loved? 

(And of course, grief itself at it roots is all about love, but we already knew that.)

It’s about the unfairness of fate and the indifference of death (”Why should you whine in this way? Patroclus fell, and he was a better man than you are.” - Book 21); it’s about Achilles refusing to leave Patroclus’ side, even to achieve revenge, until his goddess of a mother promises to keep watch over it and ensure that it won’t rot; it’s about growing up and falling in love with the only person who sees you as something other than a weapon for war; it’s about growing up and falling in love with the only person who won’t let you define yourself by your past mistakes; it’s about Patroclus being as much of a sacrifice as Achilles and how deeply unfair that is, but of course, what can any of us do about Fate? 

(...Idk where this went. It’s 2 in the morning. If anyone ever wants more thoughts about Achilles and Patroclus or just Achilles in specific I have so many. I meant it when I said I’m an Achilles Apologist; I think I’m the only person in the world who doesn’t think he’s an entire asshole for abandoning the war effort and I have an entire argument lined up about it.)

Send me something to give my thoughts on!

[swaglexander-the-great]

Hey!!!! Dumb question but what exactly is the Iliad?

THE ILIAD: A SUMMARY

The Short Version: A yarn about blokes getting shitmixed in a war over Miss Hellenic Beauty Champion because some gods thought it would be a Lol.

The Long Version: A Homeric epic poem passed down through spoken word over generations that was penned down in about 800 BC. In the mythological timeline, it ends the Age of Heroes (by wasting them all). It covers the Greek seige of Troy, a whole lotta gods Messing With Shit, a Poseidon who needs anger management, a few hundred names and lots of General Epicness ft Diomedes and Patroklus. Sit back my buddy, let’s go through a quick summary of the books.

Book 1: Apollo ghettoblasts the Greeks with Pain because Agamemescunt kidnapped his priestess Chryseis. Being a douchebag, Agadouchebag Mr Steals Yo Girl from Achilles, which leads to in͟ten̛şȩ ͟śul͜ki͢n̶g͡ . Achilles’ divine Ma brokers a deal with the Zeus goose (not literally thank goodness, although it’s a definite possibility) so that the Greeks won’t win until they realize how fucked they are without Achilles and go crawling back to him for help.

Book 2: Zeus messes with Agafuckface by telling him to attack Troy. Agamemhoe messes with Zeus by telling his entire army to fuck off back to Greece. Odysseus, with Athena’s help, uses his wicked ol’ tongue to lick  Agaiceheart back into  shape (not literally, although very possible in Ancient Greece). There are 31 paragraphs of names about Greeks and 16 paragraphs of names about Trojans going to war. The epic story continues.

Book 3: The armies meet. Memealaus (sorry, Menelaus) and Paris decide to have a 1v1 to end this shindig. Paris is saved by Aphrodite and a cloud because he is a Weak Bitch, so we gear up for another 9 years and 11 months of war. Helen tells Aphrodite to go fuck Paris herself if she likes him so much, but Aphrodite threatens Godly Bitch Revenge is Helen ever talks back to her like that again.

Book 4: Menelaus gets grazed by an arrow. Like a football player with a stubbed toe, this means war. He also apparently had ‘shapely thighs and fair ankles’. Watch out for the Zeus eagle, boi. Fighting commences. Diomedes appears. He is awesome, as usual. We continue to the next chapter.

Book 5: Pretty much an entire chapter about Diomedes being a son of a gun and killing fucking everything thanks to Athena. A dude called Sthenelus gets a rock hard boner watching all of this. Aeneas thinks it’s a good idea to take on Diomedes. Mistake. Big Mama Aphrodite has to save him, also with a cloud. Diomedes hasn’t quite reached Critical Awesome yet, so he stabs Ares and Aphrodite as well. Hera calls Ares a little bitch and we carry on.

Book 6: Just a lot of death really. Diomedes was going to kill a bloke, but they realize they are family friends, so just do a little swapsie of armour. Hector gives Paris a spray for being a cowardly little bitch, Paris agrees, and they set off for battle.

Book 7: Hector decides to 1v1 and get this over with. Menelaus tries to accept, but his wingmen Restrain Him. Ajax gets picked out of a hat to fight, but after a bit of a tussle it gets dark, so the fighting pair give each other presents and go home for the night. The next day, they all take a holiday from fighting and the Greeks build a wall. Poseidon is triggered. (reason here.)

Book 8: Due to Poseidon being triggered, Zeus forbids any godly interference on both sides of the war. Hera and Poseidon bitch about Zeus as the Greeks get casually wreckt by the Trojans, but decide not to act on it. Lucky for the Greeks, the Trojans decide sleeping is better than winning, so leave off for the night.

Book 9: The Greeks hit Fuck It and decide to grovel to Achilles for help. Before they do, Diomedes gives Agasaggytitnon a spray for being a douchebag, and everyone agrees that he is indeed a douchebag. Sthenelus probably pops another boner. Back in the tent with the power pair, Achilles and Patroklus, Patroklus tries to be the polite bf to the pleading Greeks, but Achilles is still thinks Agamoomoo called him a ‘vile tramp’ so refuses to help. The drama continues.

Book 10: Odysseus and BAMF Diomedes go on a sneak mission and  heroically stab the Trojans in their sleep. They also heroically steal some horses. The epic heroism continues.

Book 11: Hector takes a leaf out of Diomedes’ book and decides to shitmix the Greeks. He successfully shitmixes the Greeks, giving Agamugface a well-deserved arm wound. Paris shoots Diomedes in the foot, but Diomedes literally does not give a shit. Some random dude gives Odysseus a bit of a stab, Ajax gets Confused By Zeus but survives, but things still look Grim. Sweetheart Patroklus sees the Grimness and decides to try and use his wiles to break Achilles out of his Uber Sulk.

Book 12: The Trojans continue to roadhaul the Greeks, which will come back to bite Hector, but we do meet a dude called Thootes. He doesn’t do shit, but his name is great. There is graphic violence, and the Trojans go to chuck a Greek ship on the barbie. 

Book 13: Poseidon rises from the sea, back being a buddy to the Greeks now the his great enemy The Triggering Greek Wall has been overcome.There is a shit ton of fighting wherein the Greeks do well and Poseidon is happy because he’s getting vengeance for his other traumatic wall experience.

Book 14: Hera sees Poseidon disobeying Zeus and getting sweet wall vengeance and while probably thinking she married the wrong brother, decides to use Titty Distraction so that the Greeks don’t get chucked on the Trojan barbie. Titty Distraction predictably works A+ and the Trojans get slightly shat on with gratuitous eyeball violence. Hector gets hit by a rock and almost has the most anticlimactic death since Amycus, who suffered death by Elbow Punch.

Book 15: Zeus wakes, calls Hera a scurvy knave and tells Poseidon to Fight Him. Poseidon does not want to Fight Him, so melts back into the ocean and stops helping the Greeks. Apollo resurrects Hector from his rock to the face and the Trojans joyously return to their mission to barbeque the Greek ships.

Book 16: Honeyboo Patroklus (still on his way to Achilles since Book 11) sees Apollo and his Brojans on the warpath and breaks Achilles’ heart with Man Tears. While Achilles and Patbroklus have a very, very long, heartfelt conversation, the Trojans start to toast the Greek ships. Achilles gives (yes gives) Patroklus his armour and tells him to fuck shit up, but not to win without him. Fighting commences, we discover the word hurly-burly, Sarpedon dies in a shower of Zeus-induced blood rain and Patroklus becomes Diomedes 2.0 until he is gang bashed by Hector, Apollo, a literal god, and some awkward random called Euphorbus. Sasstroklus delivers a final fuck you, pulls the finger at all three of his killers and blazes it down to Hades.

Book 17: Hector takes Achilles’ armour off Patroklus, marking him as target #1 for the Sulk King. The Trojans and the Greeks spend an entire chapter having a tug of war with Patroklus’ body. Ajax and Menelaus comment mildly on how Zeus is helping out the Trojans, and the god shines a bit of sunlight in chagrin for being called out. The Greeks win the tug of war thanks to Double Ajax Tactics.

Book 18: In which Achilles goes nuts. Everybody has a cry because Patroklus was a Swell Guy (seriously,as swell as a Hawaiian surf that guy). Achilles goes and therapy-screams at the Trojans, who see the mad bloke and back the fuck off -  rightfully so, as Achilles is planning some good old human sacrifice to his dead ‘rider’ Patroklus. Meanwhile, Hephaestus quick-smelts some smashing new armour for Achilles with his household robots.

Book 19: Achilles gets dolled up for battle. Agadickbutt and Odysseus try to placate the madman with gifts, including Briseis, the dame Agamemnope stole from Achilles, but Achilles’ quota of fucks has run out indefinitely. He saddles up and gets ready to fuck up his bae killer.

Book 20: Zeus R͡ELE҉ASE͜S̵ ͝T̀H͜E͡ ́ǴO̷D͞S͝ and lets them play for whichever team they like, so long as Achilles doesn’t sack Troy just quite yet. It’s probably a friendly game similar to football in god terms. Athena invents the spear boomerang, Hera and Poseidon do some casual sunbathing, while Achilles paints the town red rather literally. 

Book 21: Achilles finds men too weak and decides to take on a literal river (Scamander). Achilles realizes this was A̴ B̸ad ̶I͜de͟a͡and decides he’ll stick to men. We’re not sure whether Diomedes would have backed off from a river, but I guess we’ll never know. Apollo saves a dude called Agenor from Achilles molestation and in doing so also saves the Brojans. The epic story continues.

Book 22: Apollo says surprise Achilles, tricked ya into chasing me boi, I’m immortal. Achilles stares him dead in the eye for a full minute then says ‘fuck you’ and rides off back to Troy. Hector decides it’s time for another 1v1, but at the last minute considers that this idea was insane and fuckin legs it. Achilles chases Hector around the wall of Troy three times presumably to this soundtrack. Hector finally stops to fight, and thanks to the Athena Spear Boomerangᵀᴹ, Achilles avenges his Patroklus. Hector performs the minor miracle of talking whilst having a spear sticking out of his throat before he dies, then Troy’s hero gets roadhauled and everyone is Sad. 

Book 23: Ghost Patroklus pays Achilles a visit, like a sexy Obi wan Kenobi and tells Achilles to bury him already. Patghostklus also beseeches that their bones be laid (ha) together when Achilles inevitably gets fucked on by Fate. Achilles says of course bby I was gonna do that anyway, and tries to make out with a ghost, but this isn’t a Whoopi Goldberg type deal, so Patroghost gets sent back down under. They put the fun in funeral by having games and giving out toasters and such as prizes.

Book 24 (The End): After ‘yearning after the might and manfulness of Patroklus’, Achilles continues to roadhaul Hector until Apollo gives his fam a spray about the dishonour of it. Hera says he’s only mortal scum so who gives a fuck and Zeus says chill wife and commands Achilles to RE̵L͘E̡A̷S͢E ̴T́HȨ H̀ȨC̕T̵O̷R͡ (sorry I can’t help it). With Hermes as a bodyguard, Priam (Hector’s dad) goes to get the body back. Achilles and Priam have a man-cry bonding moment over Dead Loved Ones, Hector is whisked off to be buried and there ends the Iliad! There’s none of the ankle-shooting, wooden-horse-building shenanigans in there, they all come in later texts such as the Aeneid and Ovid, although I still can’t find the exact text where Achilles gets shot. If y’all know, send me the link ;)  I fucking found it nvm

Anyhoo, that was…Jeez, that was The Iliad (aka the longest post in existence). Well, my retold, abridged more slightly less serious version.It’s definitely worth a read, if you can get past all the names!

Check out more Greek Stories here :D

[johnchiarello]

kings 16

KINGS 16

 Kings 16

https://youtu.be/sPH-fvrad94

https://vimeo.com/248864066

 ON VIDEO-

.Review

.Great courses

.Higher criticism?

.Why was revelation written in a lower form/style of Greek?

.We see consistency in the DOCTIRNE of John’s writings- all of them

.Social media- how is it affecting our children? [adults as well]

.Jehu the prophet speaks

.Joshua spoke too

.Ahab- Jezebel and Elijah coming next

.The discipline of writing/documenting in the history of the church

.Septuagint

.Renaissance

.Gutenberg printing press

.They preached the Word- Jesus Christ

  Other Videos- [Every night I upload/share videos on my various sites- I’ll try and just link those to upcoming posts from now on- that’s what you see here]

Acts 11- http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/111046772

Paintings of the atheist- https://flic.kr/p/Dec9ug

The seed http://dai.ly/x6c85uk

God of the living https://youtu.be/fC4aEuHMrMw

Fathers day- https://vimeo.com/248814180

Matt- Jimmy- Steve https://flic.kr/p/21RPoXq

Sunday sermon http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/111115803

Apologetics- Philosophy- Prophets http://dai.ly/x6cbdav

 NEW- I made the video- Kings 16- ‘off the cuff’- in the middle of a busy week- but wanted to keep doing the Kings study.

I’ll add my past teaching below and do a few points here.

 We see Jehu the prophet ‘pronounce’ certain things [judgment]-

1Kings 16:1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying,

1Kings 16:2 Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee prince over my people Israel; and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger with their sins;

1Kings 16:3 Behold, I will take away the posterity of Baasha, and the posterity of his house; and will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

1Kings 16:4 Him that dieth of Baasha in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth of his in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat.

And sure enough- these words come to pass-

1Kings 16:10 And Zimri went in and smote him, and killed him, in the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his stead.

1Kings 16:11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

1Kings 16:12 Thus did Zimri destroy all the house of Baasha, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake against Baasha by Jehu the prophet.

Even though wicked men carry them out- yet they happened by the word of the Lord.

We also see the introduction of Ahab- and his famous wife Jezebel- in this chapter.

 Which means we will see Elijah the prophet over the next few weeks [or months?]-

Which makes the next few chapters a bit more interesting.

 At the end of the chapter we see what might seem to be an obscure detail-

A man decides to rebuild the famous city of Jericho- destroyed many years earlier under the rule of Joshua [you remember- the walls come tumbling down].

But during the conquest of the promised land- Joshua placed a curse on the man who would build it some day-

Joshua 6:26 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.

 And sure enough- these many years later- the curse came to pass-

1Kings 16:34 In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.

I also taught a little bit of history- and mentioned the writings of the apostle John- and his theme of the logos- the Word of God.

Actually- in a way it fit with the Chapter- we see the events of history as being framed by the word of God.

 Jehu spoke the word of the Lord- and those words did indeed come to pass.

Joshua spoke by the anointing of God- and his words came to pass years later.

The Word of God- spoken by the people of God- carries great authority.

 God spoke his Word- he sent his Son as the incarnate Word- the Word made flesh.

And it is thru this act- which we just happen to be celebrating at this season- that all men can find peace and hope.

 Yes- the words spoken by Jehu- and Joshua- did bring judgment.

But the Word that God speaks today is life- hope- healing- yes- as many at this season say- peace on Earth and good will towards men.

 Because the redeemer has come- and his name is called- THE WORD OF GOD-

 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Rev. 19

 PAST POSTS- [Past teaching I did that fits with today’s post- Kings 16]

KINGS-

https://ccoutreach87.com/1st-2nd-kings/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/03/29/kings-2/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/04/12/kings-3/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/04/27/kings-4/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/05/04/kings-5/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/05/25/kings-6/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/06/17/kings-7/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/07/05/kings-8/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/07/18/kings-9/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/08/01/kings-10/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/08/22/kings-11/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/09/15/kings-12-3/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/10/19/kings-13-2/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/11/09/kings-14/

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/12/06/kings-15/

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

https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/12/25/sunday-sermon-20/

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

 I mentioned Oral tradition on today’s video- Kings 16- below are my past teachings where I brought it up-

The Iliad and Odyssey [Homer]

I want to cover some of the classics of Western Literature- when I do the philosophy and science stuff- the purpose is to show how God- and ‘religion’ are an inescapable thread that we see all thru out history- and in fact- the rise of what we call ‘intellectualism’ did indeed come from the Judaic/Christian tradition [for instance- the modern day university system did come from the Church].

 Ok- lets start with what most believe to be the greatest work from antiquity- outside of the bible.

 These are 2 poems by Homer- the Iliad and Odyssey.

 These poems were written in the 8th century BCE- and cover the Trojan war- which most believe was a real war- that took place in the 12th-13th century BCE.

 In Homers works we read about this epic battle.

 The war starts with- once again- a ‘woman’ issue.

 Prince Paris of Troy steals Helen of Greece- from her husband King Menelaus [king of Sparta].

 The Greeks- led by Achilles- lay siege to Troy.

 In Homers telling of the event- the Greeks are actually defending the honor of marriage- and are carrying out a just retribution against an unjust act.

Sort of the same themes we read in scripture- when the sons of Jacob defended the honor of their sister Dinah- when she was treated unjustly by the pagan nation that took her- forcefully- to be the wife of a kings son.

 The brothers meted out justice- by tricking these pagans to get circumcised- then- while recovering ‘from surgery’- the sons went in and wiped out the city- to their fathers dismay!

 In the story- Achilles is a warrior- who displays extreme violence- and also the human traits of a man who acts out of selfish motives.

 At one point in the war- he removes himself from battle- because he feels his honor was betrayed.

 The only thing that brings him back is the killing of his close friend Patroclus- by Hector.

Achilles leads the Greeks to victory- and reflects the struggle between living a long life- or dying young- yet dying for a just cause.

One of the more famous quotes form Homer’s Poems- attributed to Achilles- is ‘I carry 2 sorts of destiny to the day of my death. Either, if I stay here and fight beside the city of the Trojans, my return home is gone, but my glory shall be everlasting; but if I return home to the beloved land of my fathers, the excellence of my glory is gone, but there will be a long life- left for me, and my end in death will not come to me quickly.’

 There has been some debate over the historicity of the war itself.

 Some scholars believe it was Myth [I’ll get to this in a moment].

That is- they believe the war itself was not true- but a sort of Oral Tradition- that encompasses the reality of the human condition- and that Homers Poems are simply mythological ways to reveal the true condition of man.

 Yet- much like the debate that took place in the 19th century German universities- over the ‘Myth’ of the bible- later on- the rise of what we now call Archaeology [because of the Industrial revolution- a new field arose- men started digging up the ground- for the primary purpose of extracting materials from the earth- and at this time we also discovered ‘lost worlds’- that is we could actually trace cities and lands that were once deemed fake].

 So- as with Homers Troy- and bible lands- these archaeologists did indeed find Cities that matched the stories.

 In 1870 the German Archaeologist Schliemann discovered remains that seemed to find the city of Troy- the area is known today as modern day Turkey.

 This same thing happened with the bible- we did indeed find historical evidence that seemed to back up the historicity of the stories we find in the bible.

 As a matter of fact- a famous doubter of the bible embarked on a search- to prove the bible was ‘myth’ yet- after researching carefully the historical names and places we read about in the book of Acts- he came to believe that the book of Acts- written by both an historian and doctor [Luke] was the most historically accurate writing that came from the first century [Acts has lots of names of political figures- court proceedings- stuff like that- and when doing research like this- it is quite easy to debunk the historical reality of a fake work- but- when these names and places were researched- from actual historical records dating back to the first century- it was amazing how the pieces fit].

 The Trojan War is found in many works of Greek literature- and art.

 But the most comprehensive account comes from Homer’s 2 poems.

 Now- in Homer’s poems there are obvious references to Mythology- Goddesses- Golden apples- the Greek gods intervening in the affairs of men.

 So yeah- we see that there are obvious mythological aspects to the work.

Yet- the ancient Geeks did indeed believe the war itself was a real war that took place at around the 12th century BCE.

 Some believe that Homer never actually wrote the poems- but that he told the stories- like Oral Tradition- and they were later written down by others.

 Sort of like the classic- Paradise Lost- by John Milton. Milton was blind- and told the story to his daughters [oral tradition] and the actual work was penned by those who heard it.

 Jesus himself used this method- he never wrote a book- or letter in the New Testament- yet the gospels were compiled by his men after his death.

 We read about this when Luke [who I mentioned above] gives the reason for his documenting stuff in the book of Acts [read Acts chapter one].

 Luke also wrote his gospel a few years after the death and resurrection of Christ.

 So- some believe the same thing happened with Homer- those who heard him tell the story multiple times- simply put it together later on.

 Most scholars believe that Homer did indeed write the poems- and that the famous Trojan War was a real historical event. See the rest here- https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1-12-17-acts-1.zip

  Last year- when in North Bergen- my atheist friend Daniel said he watched a PBS show- and he said ‘even a priest said the bible was Myth’.

 I explained to Daniel that when the more liberal scholars use this term [like in the writings of Bultman] that they do not mean ‘fake’- like Greek Mythology.

 But they mean that some of the stories in the gospels might be a compilation of the many Oral teachings of Jesus- and they were put together as one story [some think the Sermon on the Mount was actually multiple teachings Jesus did- and they were compiled into one event].

 Now- when I explained this to Daniel- he said ‘see- even you believe it was Myth’.

 I told Daniel that no- I do not hold to this theory [not 100%] but that I was simply telling him that even those who use the term Myth- when talking about Theology- they do not mean Myth- as in fake.

 So- I find it interesting that both the New testament- and Homers poems- got the same scrutiny.

 In these poems we do indeed see the condition of man- which Homer depicts as one of constant war- not peace.

 The letter of James in the New Testament says- James 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

James 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it

[parts]

MY VIDEOS

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/10-18-15-nietzsches-twilight-of-the-idols.zip

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/10-28-15-jean-paul-sartre.zip

 Talked about Renaissance- below are past posts on it-

[1770] TREASURY OF MERIT

 Let’s pick up where we left off 2 posts back. We were talking about Martin Luther and the events that led up to the Protestant Reformation.

 In order to understand the key act that caused the protest- we will have to teach some Catholic history/doctrine.

 In the 16th century Pope Julius began the effort to build St. Peters basilica in Rome. He got as far as laying the foundation and died. Pope Leo the 10th would pick up after him.

 The church needed to raise money for the project- and the German prince- Albert- would play a major role.

 It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that the Popes of the day were pretty corrupt. They came from what we call the Medici line of Popes.

 If you remember last month I wrote a post on the Renaissance- I talked about the Medici family and how they played a major role in supporting the Renaissance that took place in the 13th century in Florence Italy that would spread to the region.

 Well this very influential family also played a big role in who would get top positions in the church.

 At the time of Luther and prince Albert- if you had the right connections and the money- you could literally buy a position in the church.

 Albert already held 2 Bishop seats- and there was an opening for an Archbishops seat in Mainz [Germany] and he wanted that one too.

 It should be noted that official Canon law [church law] said you could only hold one seat at a time- Albert was bidding on his 3rd one! And he was too young for all of them.

 So even the Pope and the officials held little respect for what the church actually taught at the time.

 So Albert opens up negotiations with Leo- and the bidding starts AT 12,000 Duckets [money] Albert counters with 7,000- and they agree on 10,000. How did they justify the numbers? 12- The number of Apostles. 7- The 7 deadly sins. 10- The 10 commandments.

 Yes- the church was pretty corrupt at the time.

 So Albert works out a plan with Leo- he will borrow the money from the German banks- and pay the banks off by the Pope giving Albert the right to sell Indulgences.

 What’s an Indulgence?

 Okay- this is where it gets tricky.

 The ancient church taught a system called The Treasury of Merit. This was a sort of spiritual bank account that ‘stored up’ the good deeds of others over the years.

 You had the good deeds of Jesus at the top- but you also had Mary and Joseph- the 12 Apostles- and other various saints thru out time.

 The way the ‘bank’ worked was you could tap into the account by getting a Papal indulgence- a sort of I.O.U. that had the Popes guarantee that it would get so much time out of Purgatory for a loved one.

 The actual sacrament that accesses the account is called Penance [confession].

 When a penitent does penance- he confesses his sin to the priest- and he is absolved by the authority of the church that the priest has. The priest usually tells the person ‘say so many Hail Mary’s- Our Father’s’ and that’s a form of penance.

 One of the other things the church practiced was called Alms Deeds. This term is found in the bible and it means giving your money to the poor- it is a noble act that Jesus himself taught.

 In theory- part of the sacrament of penance was tied into Alms Deeds- you can access the account thru the practice of giving to the poor- which also meant giving to the church that helps the poor- and in the hands of the Medici line of Popes- meant outright giving money to the Pope.

 So now you see how the abuse worked its way into the pockets of the faithful.

 Albert now had the permission from Leo to sell these indulgences in Germany- and he would pick a certain corrupt priest to sell them in a place called Saxony- the region where Luther operated out of.

 It should be noted that the Catholic Church never taught the crass act of ‘buying your way out of Purgatory’. The practice of including giving money as a part of the sacrament of penance was tied into the biblical principle of giving to the poor- a good thing.

 But Tetzel and others abused the official meaning of the indulgence- and did make it sound like you could by your way out of Purgatory [in theory- a loved one might be in Purgatory for so many years- and through the indulgence you are actually getting time off for them- because the good deeds of others are now applied to the account].

 The money Albert would raise- half would go to Rome for the building of St. peters- and half would go to pay off the banks in Germany- it was a sad system- and a sad time for the church as a whole.

 It would be wrong to judge the entire church at the time as being corrupt- you did have many sincere Priests and Catholic men and women who saw the abuses and did not take part in them.

 But there was corruption at the top- and this would eventually lead to the breakup of the church- and the launching of what we now call the Protestant Movement.

 As a side note- it should be said that many Catholics and Protestants are not aware of the whole treasury of merit system- and the church never officially changed her position on the doctrine.

 There were 3 Church councils since the time [Trent- 1500’s, Vatican 1- 1800’s and Vatican 2- 1962-65]. The Treasury of Merit never came up for change.

 Obviously Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory- and it’s not my purpose in these posts to change Catholics into Protestants or vice versa- but to give all sides a clear view of the issues that divided us- and to try and be honest- and respectful during the process.

 Does the bible teach anything like a Treasury of Merit? Well actually it does. The bible teaches that the righteousness of Christ is the treasury that people can access- by faith- and become righteous in the sight if God.

 The idea- applied to Christ- is good.

 But in the hands of the Medici Popes- and the ambitious prince of Germany- it would lead to disaster.

     www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Note- 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. Thanks- John

 (1327) GALATIANS; INTRO- Okay, finally made it, been wanting to teach this letter for a while. Let me overview some church history that I feel would be helpful in understanding the book. During the 16th century Reformation you had an explosion take place within Christianity, though the official ‘schism’ dates back to the year 1054 between the western [Catholic] and eastern [Orthodox] expressions of the church, yet in reality it was the 16th century upheaval that really split the church. A few centuries before [14-15th century] you had rumblings within the church that had well taught Catholic men challenging many of the institutional concepts of the church; men like John Huss, Wycliffe and others. These men were extremely influential and had an effect on the church. Then in the 16th century you had Catholic writers who remained within the Catholic Church, but they too challenged the status quoi. Men like Erasmus of Rotterdam, these intellectuals would call for the idea of going back to the original sources of study [Greek New Testament and also other renaissance ideas] and this too would lead to the historic Reformation. But without a doubt Martin Luther [the Catholic monk out of Wittenberg, Germany] would be the firebrand of the movement. Martin was a well trained Augustinian monk who struggled with the guilt of sin for many years. Not normal guilt, but extreme. A fellow Catholic leader would encourage Luther to trust in the grace of God for his forgiveness. While reading the book of Romans [whose themes relate strongly to Galatians] he would come along the famous passage ‘the just shall live by faith’ and in Luther’s mind this was a total release from the bondage of trying to appease God thru all the religious works that he was going thru. In essence Luther discovered the historic gospel of grace thru the reading of Romans and was set free. Now Luther had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church, but as a very influential teacher/scholar out of the university city in Germany, he had lots of influence. The Catholic church at the time was worldwide and you had differing views of the church in various states. Many saw the state of the church in Rome as having given in to materialism and become too worldly. Rome was at the time trying to raise money for the restoring of the religious buildings at Rome and one of the priests going around selling indulgences was named Tetzel. The abuse of selling these ‘get out of purgatory early’ things was offensive to many Catholics, and Luther had ‘no small stir’ when Tetzel reached his area. These things would lead to the famous nailing of the 95 questions on the door of Catholic academia and would be the beginnings of the historic split. While it would take way too much time to go into all the theological differences between the Protestants and the Catholics, one of the main issues deals with how we as Christians view ‘being saved’. The historic Protestant position is called ‘justification by faith alone’ [Sola Fide] the Catholics counter with ‘the only time ‘faith alone’ is mentioned is in the book of James, where it says a man is not saved/justified by ‘faith alone’. Ouch! The main point I want to make is this letter deals with the early church’s belief that man is accepted with God based on the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Paul will challenge the ‘Judaisers’ [those who believed you needed to keep the law in order to be saved] and will argue that the law itself [Old Testament books] teaches that men are justified/accepted with God based on believing in the free gift of God thru Christ. Make no mistake about it, the New Testament clearly teaches this doctrine. Catholic and Protestant theologians BOTH agree that man is freely saved by the grace of God in Christ. But at the time of Luther’s day these glorious truths were lost in the morass of religious tradition and works. As we read thru this letter in the next few days, I want all of our readers to see the argument Paul is making from this basic theological view point. Is man saved by works [keeping Gods law] or grace? The bible teaches grace. Now I don’t have the time to also introduce the modern controversy between the ‘new view’ of Paul between Protestants [called new perspective]. There is an ongoing debate over whether or not the historic Reformation view of Paul is correct [men like N.T. Wright and John Piper are hashing it out] and I do think there are some merits to this discussion, but before we can delve into that aspect, we first need to see the historic question of works versus faith, and this letter is one of the best to deal with the issue.

 In the last Philosophy post I hit on the 10th-14th century development of modern thought- today I want to jump into the 16th-18th centuries. Like I said in a previous post- after the Renaissance and the Reformation and the great scientific revolution- you had the world in somewhat of a tailspin.

  What I mean is for hundreds of years people trusted in the old institutions [like the Catholic Church] to tell them what was true or false- then with the development of all these modern movements people began questioning stuff.

 Was it good to question things? Sure. But some challenged the very foundations of thought and knowing [called Epistemology] and went a bit too far.

 Some thinkers went  back to the thought of Plato [400 years BC] and said that the mind is the main source of all knowledge- these were the 17th century Rationalists.

 Rationalism- as a philosophy- was an outgrowth of all the great strides that man was making in all these other areas of life. The Scientific Revolution totally challenged the age old beliefs of many in the church.

 Math became a sort of new ‘god’. How so? As science invented the Microscope and Telescope- man was able for the first time to peer deeply into the heavens- and to see deeply into the microscopic world.

 As the great minds [Copernicus] showed us that the Universe was different than what we thought [Heliocentric versus Geocentric] man was able to do mathematical calculations and to say that a specific planet or star [or Comet] would show up at an exact date- or spot- and Walla- it would happen [you could look thru the Telescope and sure enough the math was right- the object that was calculated to be there- was.]

 These calculations were mathematical formulas- so math began to be seen as the new religion in many ways.

 There are even some thinkers in the modern day that still say the only ‘real truth’ that exists is mathematical formulas. Yeah- one guy wrote an entire book on the subject- the problem? Well- his book was not written in math- but words.

 Yes- even the extreme deniers of Objective truth do make mistakes.

 Now- what’s wrong with rationalism? Of course being rational is okay- but the philosophy itself denied real Objective truth. Truth that corresponds to some other ‘outside’ reality.

 This form of thinking [rejecting outside reality] is called Relativism/Subjectivism. While there is some truth to all the various fields of thought- yet extreme Relativism denies ‘reality’ as most of us understand the term.  There was a strong resistance to the 17th century rationalists- we call this Philosophy Empiricism.

 The main thinker in this field was John Locke. Locke lived most of his life in the 17th century- but his thought laid the foundation for the 18th century Empiricist.

 This philosophy says that the mind does indeed play a major role in the knowledge of things- but this knowledge does not originate in the mind [Plato] but in the ‘thing’ itself [Aristotle- remember when we covered these men? Plato was an idealist- Ideas were more real than matter. Aristotle was a Realist- closer to the thought of Locke].

 Locke developed a theory called the Correspondence theory- that truth that the Mind discovers corresponds to real things that actually exist apart from the mind.

 Locke was a practicing doctor- and most of the other thinkers of the day had room to speculate about reality in a way that Locke could not.

 He lived in a real world with real patients who had real symptoms- in a nutshell Locke had to diagnose his patients based on his findings- he could not deny that there was a real problem- he had to have his ‘feet on the ground’ [based in reality] while engaging with his head up high.

 Okay- I think we’ll end with this. Maybe you can go back and read some of my previous posts on this subject- just to become a little more familiar with it.

 As Christians- we are not ‘required’ to know Philosophy- or current events- or science- but it helps us engage the culture when we do educate ourselves in these areas.

 Go slow in learning [not too slow!] and try and see how the Christian Worldview agrees with- or rejects certain aspects of these different felids of thought.

 Most Christians would reject Rationalism as a Philosophy- because it denies real objective truth- it says truth is relative- whatever the mind can conceive- or think- can be defined as truth [Unicorns?]

 Biblical truth is based on real historic events- 1st Corinthians chapter 15 says that if we deny the physical  resurrection of Christ- a real event- then our faith is in vain.

 Christians base their faith on a real historic event- not simply on a belief system.

 [parts]

 And here’s some past teaching where I mentioned the Septuagint-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The apostle Paul says in his letter to the Romans;

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

 See?

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

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

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

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

.ROMANS 11

.ROMANS 12

.ROMANS 13

[parts]

St. Thomas and Augustine.

 I mean these are 2 of my favorite Catholic scholars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 So why mention it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ‘It’s an insult to think this’.

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

in Yemen.

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

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

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

 And 99 % of the public took it this way.

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

 Then it does make the public wonder about everything else.

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

[parts]

AN UNJUST LAW

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/4-20-16-an-unjust-law-is-no-law-at-all.zip

https://youtu.be/oQMmaWERTYk  An unjust law is no law at all

 [parts]

ACTS 17- Paul heads to Thessalonica and preaches 3 Sabbath days in the synagogue. Once again the unbelieving Jews follow him and stir up trouble. Paul heads to Berea and speaks the word. The Bereans are said to be more noble because they heard Paul out and then searched the scriptures to see if he were telling the truth. The message he preached is that Jesus is the Messiah that the Old Testament prophets spoke of. In 1st John, John says ‘whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’ Paul was showing them that Jesus was the Christ. Again trouble arises and Paul sails off to Athens and sends for Timothy and Silas later on. Now, Paul spent 3 weeks at Thessalonica. No huge budget, no message on ‘how can we reach Thessalonica without lots of money’ [I have heard it taught that you cant even begin to think about planting a church unless you have $250,000 dollars!] Paul believed in the power of the gospel. It took 3 weeks of simply sharing the gospel to plant this church! He will write them a few letters and give them some instruction, but the simple truth is every believer has the ability to ‘plant churches’ [speaking the gospel to people groups and those people believing and becoming ‘the church’]. At Athens Paul is troubled by all the ‘superstition’ [religion]. He runs into the philosophers. It said the people there spent all their time in either telling or hearing some new thing. An ancient form of ‘the view’ [the television show where the ladies talk about nothing all day long!] So Paul disputes with them and uses their own altar to ‘the unknown God’ and declares Christ unto them. Recently a Catholic priest made headlines because he advocated for Christians to use the name Allah instead of God. He felt the name was referring to the same God. Does Paul’s use of the ‘unknown God altar’ fall into this category? No. When any religion names their god and defines him, then this god is a false god [unless your speaking of the true God]. So in this case Paul was simply saying ‘this altar to the God you don’t know, I will show you how to come to know him’. Now, why were these philosophers in Athens? A few centuries before Christ you had the rule of Alexander the great. The Old Testament prophet Daniel speaks in detail of his rule. Alexander ruled one of the greatest empires known to man. He established the greatest library of the ancient world. He made Greek the common language. This is why the New Testament was written in Greek. Though Rome was the ruling empire of Jesus day, the culture was still Greek to a degree. This is called ‘Hellenization’. The Greeks even translated the Old Testament into Greek before the days of Christ. This translation is called the Septuagint, which means 70. This comes from the supposed number of scholars who worked on the translation. This period just prior to Christ was the time of the great philosophers. Plato, Aristotle and others. These Philosophers laid down a foundation of sorts for morality and the cultures that would develop down the road. The church fathers disagreed somewhat to the degree of mixing Christian faith with the thought of the pre Christian philosophers. Origen thought these men were Christian to the degree that God used them to instill types of thought and belief in the immortality of the soul and other concepts as a precursor to Christ. Others thought they were competing worldviews for the religion of Christianity and should be rejected. Paul himself will write the Colossians and warn them of the philosophies of men. Many thinkers were affected by the ‘new age’ concepts that came from these groups. Augustine, the great 4th-5th century Bishop from North Africa was into Manichaeism prior to his conversion to Christianity. He eventually would sit under the sound teaching of Ambrose and leave his former ideas. These groups had strange beliefs and concepts that would sound like the scientology adherents of our day. Others were not as drastic but would still be seen as on the verge of Christian truth. Marcion was sort of in this class. The point is Paul will take advantage of the philosopher’s willingness to delve into all types of ideas, and use this as an open door to preach Christ. Some breakaway groups from the more Orthodox churches will claim that the Catholic churches belief in the immortality of the soul is not scriptural. These groups teach that the ancient church picked these beliefs up from the philosophers of the day [some of the seventh day brothers say this]. You also find some Protestant brothers challenge the authenticity of various bible translations based on the Septuagint translation from ancient Greece. The church father Jerome will use the Septuagint in his popular translation of the Latin Vulgate. Some Protestants see Jerome’s version as less than pure. This is also why the Catholic bibles have the Apocrypha in them [The books between Malachi and Matthew that the Protestant bibles don’t have]. When Jerome translated his vulgate, he brought these books over from the Septuagint version. Jerome did put an asterisk next to the apocryphal books, he noted they were included from the Septuagint, but were not seen as authoritative. Simply added for historical content]. So we see the tremendous influence that Greek culture and philosophy played in the early stages of the church. Paul knew their thought, but his gospel was founded on more than some new belief system. Paul claimed that Jesus had been raised from the dead!

 And below are past teachings where I talked about the Gutenberg printing press- also mentioned on today’s post- Kings 16-

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

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

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

ON VIDEO

.Muslim encounter at Kingsville Fire Dept.

.What makes Christianity unique?

.Muslims shared some of the same concerns as many Protestants

.Iconoclast controversy

.Expressions of the Trinity

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

.The ‘pre’ renaissance that took place within Islam

.Aquinas responds to Islamic apologists [13the century]

.Ad Fontes

.Florence Italy- the Medici’s

.Gnosticism

.I bought him a Persian bible

.Erasmus- Luther

.Protestant Reformation

.My Muslim friend [at Timons]

.Who gave Bobby a ride?

.Wycliffe- Huss- Coverdale

.Gutenberg came just in time

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

.They indeed were correct

.I quote from the Quran at the end

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

https://ccoutreach87.com/islam/

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

JOHN 6

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

https://youtu.be/--3fJK_dqiU  John 6

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

GALATIANS [Links]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ON VIDEO-

.See the quads

.it was a test

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

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

.Don’t  leave the crumbs behind

.Nungesser’s bowling alley

.The acid trip

.Manna a sign

.A little Greek stuff

.Zwingli

.Lake Geneva

.Renaissance

.Florence- Italy

.Medici family

.Aquinas

Aristotle

.Greek lexicon

.Proof texting a no no

.Hocus Pocus?

.Fundamentalism

.Aldous Huxley

MY LINKS [verses below]

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

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

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

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

MY LINKS ON JOHN

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

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

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

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

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

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

[parts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 RENAISSANCE ARTISTS-

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

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

It took him 4 years to complete.

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

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

But it meant something different back then.

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s my study on The Reformation-

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

And my past teaching on the Western intellectual tradition-

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

 VERSES-

Isaiah 42:19

Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blindas the Lord's servant?

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

2 Corinthians 5:7 [Full Chapter]

(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it

 [parts]

 GW BRIDGE- https://youtu.be/70CVdZxFIMg  GW bridge

ON VIDEO-

.Foundation stones

.Why Bishops?

.Gnostics and Docetism

.Dads boat

.GOV Christie and hot dogs

.Restore the paths

.Isaiah and John

.Memories of a kid- train tunnel

.Robert Moses to blame?

.Mayor LaGuardia

.The argument for Rome

.Church fathers

.Mystics

.Suicide signs

.Apostolic succession

.What church is the ‘true church’?

.Most amazing intellectual discourse ever? Only if you don’t hear [have to watch to get it- sorry]

.Bedrock

.I am homeless- can you spare a 5?

VERSES-

Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

[parts]

ACTS 9- Paul gets permission from the high priest to go to Damascus and arrest the believers. On his way the Lord appears to him and Paul is told to go to Damascus and wait for instructions. He is blind for 3 days. God gives a vision to Ananias and tells him to go to Paul in Judas house, because he too had a vision of a man coming to him and laying hands on him. Ananias is afraid but does it at the Lords insistence. I want you to see the role of visions and divine guidance in this event. The purpose of the visions and supernatural events has nothing to do with the canon of scripture. Some teach that the only reason you had supernatural guidance in the early days was because the canon was not complete. But after its completion you no longer had these types of things. First, no where is this doctrine taught in scripture. Second, you did not have total agreement on ‘the canon’ [all the books that make up our bibles] until the 4th century! Now you did have a basic group of letters and writings that were accepted as authoritative, but there was not total agreement. Many early believers had the epistles of Barnabas and a few other letters that were accepted. Some did not include Revelation at all. Others questioned Hebrews and James. You also did not have a workable, readable ‘bible’ in actual book form until the 12th-13th century! That's right, the actual form of our modern books was not invented until that late date. Plus the availability of books on a mass scale did not appear until the Gutenberg printing press of the 16th century. Just in time for Luther’s Reformation! The first book printed on his press was the Gutenberg bible. So the point is, the idea that somehow right after the early Apostles died off you had all believers going to ‘their bibles for direction’ as opposed to having dreams or visions or other divine guidance, really isn’t a workable solution. In this chapter God needed to get orders to his people, he gave them visions! Now Paul immediately preaches Christ as the Son of God and Messiah. He stirs up the waters and they sneak him out of town and send him to Jerusalem. The church at Jerusalem are leery of him, Barnabas vouches for him and he is received. He starts preaching there and once again they want to kill him. He eventually is sent back to his area of Tarsus. Now Peter is still on the road preaching Christ. He heals a man at Lydda and many come to the Lord. A woman named Tabitha dies at Joppa, a town close to Lydda. They call for Peter to come and he does and raises her from the dead. What are we seeing here? An early church [community of believers] preaching the gospel and doing miracles and affecting large regions without lots of money. Without hardly any organization. Without setting up ‘local churches’ in the sense that each area has separate ‘places’ they see as ‘local churches’ with salaried pastors running the ‘churches’. You are seeing a radical movement of Christ followers who are sacrificially giving there lives away for the gospel. No prayer meetings on ‘how in the world are we going to reach the region for the Lord. We need tons of cash’! They believed the simple instructions Jesus gave to them on going into all the world and preaching the gospel. Sure there will be times where support is sent to help them make it to the next location. But the whole concept of needing tons of cash and to build huge ‘church buildings/organizations’ and to set up salaried ministers is not seen in this story. I do not think the development of these things over the centuries means ‘all the churches are deceived’ type of a thing. All ‘the churches’ [groups of believers who are presently identifying themselves this way] are great people of God. They are doing the works of Jesus and functioning to a degree in the paradigm that they were given [either thru their upbringing or training]. But today we are seeing a rethinking of the ‘wineskin’ [that which contains the new wine] on a mass scale. As we read this story in Acts I want to challenge your mindset. Don’t fit the story into your present understanding of ‘local church’. But let your understanding of ‘Local Church’ be formed thru scripture. This chapter said ‘the churches had rest and were edified and were walking in the fear of the Lord’. The ‘churches’ are defined as all the communities of believers living in these various locations!

 Let’s cover a little more doctrinal stuff- and if I get a chance I’ll do some practical stuff too. Okay- in the last post I covered some historical stuff about the bible- I mentioned how Catholics have 15 more books in their bibles than Protestants.

 Why did this happen- or how? Okay- this might get a little technical, but those of you who have been reading my posts this past month will remember that I covered some ‘Intertestamental’ history- which means the years between the last book of the Protestant bible [Malachi] and the first New Testament book- Matthew.

 These years are actually covered historically in the Apocrypha- during this time we also had a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. Remember how I spoke about Hellenization- which was the attempt by Alexander the Great to introduce one Greek language and culture into all the conquered territories.

 Well one of the things the Greeks did was had the Jewish bible [our Old Testament] translated from Hebrew into Greek. This version is called the Septuagint- which gets its name from the so called number of scholars who translated it- it means 70.

 Okay- this version was also popular in the early church- why? The early believers did read Greek- Greek was the common language of the first few centuries- when the church was born. [thus our New Testament is in Greek- originally]

 Now- the early Christians had sort of a common consensus on what made up ‘the bible’. They accepted the Old Testament books- because these books were recognized by the Jews as being Canonical [which means inspired by God]. But what about the N.T.?

 Like I said in the last post- the early church had a collection of writings that they used/understood to be ‘from God’. That is they had the acceptance- generally- from the Christian community. But they did not have ‘a bible’ like we have today- that is everyone walking around with a bible in book form [called codex in those days- an early book] they all did not own copies of the bible.

 Remember- publishing as we know it today- didn’t arrive on the scene until right around the turn of the 16th century with the Gutenberg printing press. So any copies of books- or any efforts to put a bible together- well it would make sense to maybe include some history books along with it.

 And this is also why some of the early letters seem to have ‘copied’ parts of other letters in them [Jude and 2nd Peter] not because they were plagiarized- but because books were not easily purchased- and it was acceptable- for standards of the day- to include some material from another writers pen [with his permission] in your own letter.

 Okay- now when the early believers decided it was time to actually say ‘these books are in- these are not’. They had general agreement on what was in- with a few exceptions. Some early believers had the Letter of Barnabus in their bibles- others did not have Revelation. Some believers haggled over 2nd Peter [because of what I mentioned above] and others wanted a few more books in.

 But the basic corpus of our N.T. was accepted by the church at large.

 Now- after a few centuries the church felt it important to put her stamp of approval on the books. And the early church had a council or 2 and finally agreed on what we have today.

 One of the early Popes asked a church father- named Jerome- to make a Latin translation of the bible. Jerome included the Old Testament and the N.T. - and he also included the 15 books of the Apocrypha. Why?

 Jerome’s bible- called the Vulgate- was translated from the early Greek Old Testament- the Septuagint. Now- the Septuagint is/was a good scholarly work- but the original Old Testament was in Hebrew- not Greek. The Septuagint did have the Apocrypha in it.

 And the inclusion of the Apocrypha was a utilitarian thing to do- if you could get these historical books in the bible- then good- you don’t have to have early believers trying to get hold of a separate history book that would fill in the blanks- remember- books were hard to come by.

 Okay- Catholics and Protestants have argued over whether these extra books should be in. Protestants [and some Catholics] argue that the Old Testament books are called ‘the Law and the Prophets’ these books are quoted hundreds of times in the N.T. - even by Jesus. Yet there are no quotes from the Apocrypha.

 This side argues that the Jewish people did not believe these books to be inspired- and that the N.T. itself does not put the same weight on these books as they do with the Old Testament.

 The Catholic scholars argue that there are a few allusions to the Apocrypha in the N.T. [there are a couple- can go either way in my view] and they do make the point that all the bibles did have these books in them right up until the Protestant Reformation [remember- the Latin Vulgate did have the Apocrypha- though Jerome did say in the notes that the Jewish people did not recognize them on an equal plain with the ‘Law and the Prophets’- the Old Testament].

 Okay- then during the 16th century Protestant Reformation- at one point in the debates the Catholic scholars argued with Luther- and they did quote from the Apocrypha to prove some doctrinal points.

 Luther and the other Reformers challenged the canonicity of the books- and with the plethora of English versions of the bible being printed for the first time in centuries- the Protestants did not include these books in their versions.

 The Catholics stuck with the books.

 Okay- do debates like this mean we can’t agree on the actual message of Christ? No. There is really no problem in reading the Apocrypha- even if you’re a Protestant. We [Protestants] don’t accept them as ‘canon’ yet as readers of history- we should be able to read them.

 And even if our Catholic brothers and sisters do accept them- there are really no major doctrinal departures from the rest of the bible. To be honest- there are a few references that Protestants do have problems with- but overall they don’t undermine the main message of the N.T.

 And just a point of interest- the first 2 books [1st, 2nd Esdras] have been challenged- even by Catholic scholars- as not being part of the bible. Yet in 2nd Esdras we find a reference to Christ that does seem to be prophetic. It speaks of a king entering Jerusalem and he is standing in the middle of the people- handing out Palms.

 This depicts the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem- which is in the gospels [Palm Sunday]. So it is interesting that this reference might actually be prophetic in nature.

 Okay- got into the weeds somewhat- but wanted to show you guys that all Christians agree on the main points- and just because there are things we disagree on- yet the message of the Cross doesn’t change.

 Bishop Fulton Sheen used to say ‘we might not all be able to sit in the same pew- but we  can all meet on our knees under the shadow of the foot of the Cross’ Amen.

    www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

      [1708] OVERVIEW OF THE BIBLE

 Let’s cover some biblical history- that is the making of the bible itself. A few days ago I did a post on Jesus as the fulfillment of the promises of God made to natural Israel. The post showed how the early Jewish people saw Jesus as their Messiah- the promised one that they were always looking for.

 The earliest mention of the promise goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. God tells Eve that her child shall bruise the serpent’s head- and the serpent [actually the ‘seed’ or child] will bruise his heel. There have been works of art [statues/paintings] depicting this scene for centuries. It was fulfilled at the Cross.

 So we have the 4 gospel accounts- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John- and these accounts give us the history of Jesus- his miracles and teachings- and they show us the fulfillment of God’s promise- made centuries before- that he would send them their Messiah.

 Out of the 4 gospels- only one- John- has a different outline. The first 3- we call them Synoptic gospels. They follow the same basic structure- Johns stands alone.

 John’s gospel contains no teachings about the end times- like the others. John doesn’t mention the parables- or the Sermon on the Mount. John’s gospel focuses more on the last week of the life of Christ- while the others cover the 3 years of Jesus earthly ministry [none cover the early years of Jesus- except for the account of Jesus being left behind at the temple when he was 12 years old].

 The whole bible [Old and New testaments] have 66 books- 39 Old- 27 new. Only 3 original apostles actually wrote parts of the N.T. Matthew, John and Peter. Out of these 3- John wrote the most. He has his gospel- the three epistles [1st,2nd and 3rd John] and the book of Revelation.

 The majority of the N.T. is made up of the collection of the apostle Paul’s letters. Paul is without a doubt the most influential person in the N.T.- besides Christ.

 We also have the historical account of the early church- called The Acts of the Apostles- written by the same Luke that wrote the gospel. Luke was a doctor- and an historian. Then you have what’s called the General epistles- the kind of stand alone letters- Peters 2 letters, Jude, a few more like that.

 And the New Testament closes with the apocalyptic book [prophecy] of Revelation- written by John [most think the apostle- some think another John- called ‘John of Patmos’]

 Okay- one of the major themes of the N.T. is what we hit on the other day- a teaching called Justification by Faith. This is the main thrust of Paul’s doctrinal epistles [Romans, Galatians] and becomes a point of contention in the early church. The teaching is simple- it means the N.T. is a covenant- made by God with man [and with Jesus] that says God will give eternal life to all those who accept the death and resurrection of Jesus. That Jesus died for the sins of man- and because you believe in this free gift- your are/will be saved.

 Now- the bible obviously says a lot more than this- but this doctrine becomes one of the main ones because this is the controversy that the apostle Paul dealt with for most of his ministry years.

 I mentioned this the other day in a previous post.

 Paul also has 3 epistles [letters] that are called The Pastoral epistles- these are 1st, 2nd Timothy and Titus. These are called Pastorals because these young men were protégés of Paul- he trained them up as local leaders who he could recommend to the early believers as trustworthy leaders- after he would leave a community.

 These men did not function like what we usually call Pastors in our day- that is sort of a speaker  preaching every Sunday at the ‘Main church’ building- but they were spiritual overseers- they led the flock in a way that if problems arose- these men could be looked to as honest guides.

 Remember- in the 1st century- you did not have means of communication like we have today- so if Paul left a community [which is what the word church means in the bible- Greek- Ecclesia]. And if a problem rose up- like those who were coming in and saying the Gentiles had to become circumcised and keep the law- then the believers could look to the men Paul left his stamp of approval on.

 Paul would of course correspond with these early communities- thus the letters- but until the letters arrived- the ‘Timothy’s’ would do.

 Okay- the last book of the bible- Revelation- has gotten a lot of use- often too much- in the sense that we- especially lone wolf Protestant groups- have really done loops with the book.

 Overall- the theme is about Christ [Lamb of God] being the central focus of this new kingdom of Priests and Kings [us] and even though there will be tough times [lots of the images of tests and trials] yet at the end of the day- we are ‘married’ to this Lamb [Jesus is called the groom in scripture- and the church is called the bride. God restores in the last book of the bible- what was lost in the first book- relationship- pictured as marriage] and we all live in a new heaven and new earth- and the story ends well.

 Okay- just a few more points. The main message of the bible is that God made man [Genesis] he wanted man to be in communion [friendship] with him. Man sinned and this began the long process of God making promises to man [through/to the nation of Israel- and eventually it would extend to all men- thus the apostle Paul working with the Gentiles] that he would save man thru the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 All people who simply accept this benefit- they will be children of God. The focus should not be on anti Christ- or when the end of the world will happen- or on any other of a host of teachings that the church likes to dwell on- but the focus is God loving man so much- that he sent his Son to die for man- and we can be saved thru him.

 Over the coming weeks I hope to do a little more on the development of the bible- why do protestants have 66 books- and Catholics have an extra 15? I’ll cover it fairly- giving the Catholic view as well as the Protestant one- and promise not to push only one view. But things like this are real questions that honest people have- and I want to help people get a better hold on the thing.

 Okay- try and read some of the N.T. these next few days- overview some of the letters I mentioned- maybe read John’s gospel- Romans. I would wait on Revelation for now- I hope to give some hints that will make it easier to understand- so after I cover that a little more- then that would be a good one to read too.

 And as you read Johns gospel- notice how many times the word Believe appears- being connected with those who believe have eternal life. That’s one of the strongest promises in the bible- and its Jesus doing the talking! So maybe memorize a few of them- like the famous John 3:16 verse- those types of verses last a lifetime- and longer.

    www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

      VERSES-

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

2 Timothy 3:16 [Full Chapter]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 1Kings 16:1 Then the word of the LORD came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying,

1Kings 16:2 Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust, and made thee prince over my people Israel; and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger with their sins;

1Kings 16:3 Behold, I will take away the posterity of Baasha, and the posterity of his house; and will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

1Kings 16:4 Him that dieth of Baasha in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth of his in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat.

1Kings 16:5 Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1Kings 16:6 So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead.

1Kings 16:7 And also by the hand of the prophet Jehu the son of Hanani came the word of the LORD against Baasha, and against his house, even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the LORD, in provoking him to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the house of Jeroboam; and because he killed him.

1Kings 16:8 In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in Tirzah, two years.

1Kings 16:9 And his servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him, as he was in Tirzah, drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza steward of his house in Tirzah.

1Kings 16:10 And Zimri went in and smote him, and killed him, in the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his stead.

1Kings 16:11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

1Kings 16:12 Thus did Zimri destroy all the house of Baasha, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake against Baasha by Jehu the prophet.

1Kings 16:13 For all the sins of Baasha, and the sins of Elah his son, by which they sinned, and by which they made Israel to sin, in provoking the LORD God of Israel to anger with their vanities.

1Kings 16:14 Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1Kings 16:15 In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign seven days in Tirzah. And the people were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines.

1Kings 16:16 And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp.

1Kings 16:17 And Omri went up from Gibbethon, and all Israel with him, and they besieged Tirzah.

1Kings 16:18 And it came to pass, when Zimri saw that the city was taken, that he went into the palace of the king's house, and burnt the king's house over him with fire, and died.

1Kings 16:19 For his sins which he sinned in doing evil in the sight of the LORD, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin.

1Kings 16:20 Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1Kings 16:21 Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri.

1Kings 16:22 But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath: so Tibni died, and Omri reigned.

1Kings 16:23 In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah.

1Kings 16:24 And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria.

1Kings 16:25 But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the LORD, and did worse than all that were before him.

1Kings 16:26 For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin, to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger with their vanities.

1Kings 16:27 Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he shewed, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

1Kings 16:28 So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead.

1Kings 16:29 And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years.

1Kings 16:30 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD above all that were before him.

1Kings 16:31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him.

1Kings 16:32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria.

1Kings 16:33 And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.

1Kings 16:34 In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.

Joshua 6:1 Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in.

Joshua 6:2 And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.

Joshua 6:3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.

Joshua 6:4 And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets.

Joshua 6:5 And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram's horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.

Joshua 6:6 And Joshua the son of Nun called the priests, and said unto them, Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the LORD.

Joshua 6:7 And he said unto the people, Pass on, and compass the city, and let him that is armed pass on before the ark of the LORD.

Joshua 6:8 And it came to pass, when Joshua had spoken unto the people, that the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams' horns passed on before the LORD, and blew with the trumpets: and the ark of the covenant of the LORD followed them.

Joshua 6:9 And the armed men went before the priests that blew with the trumpets, and the rereward came after the ark, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.

Joshua 6:10 And Joshua had commanded the people, saying, Ye shall not shout, nor make any noise with your voice, neither shall any word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I bid you shout; then shall ye shout.

Joshua 6:Joshua 11: So the ark of the LORD compassed the city, going about it once: and they came into the camp, and lodged in the camp.

Joshua 6:12 And Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of the LORD.

Joshua 6:13 And seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the LORD went on continually, and blew with the trumpets: and the armed men went before them; but the rereward came after the ark of the LORD, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.

Joshua 6:14 And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the camp: so they did six days.

Joshua 6:15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times: only on that day they compassed the city seven times.

Joshua 6:16 And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the LORD hath given you the city.

Joshua 6:17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.

Joshua 6:18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it.

Joshua 6:19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.

Joshua 6:20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 6:22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her.

Joshua 6:23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.

Joshua 6:24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

Joshua 6:25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Joshua 6:26 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.

Joshua 6:27 So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.

MY SITES

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com  [Main site]

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

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

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

https://vimeo.com/user37400385

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

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

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

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

https://www.reddit.com/user/ccoutreach87

https://ccoutreach.yolasite.com/

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

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

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

http://ccoutreach87.webs.com/

https://ccoutreach87.site123.me/

http://ccoutreach87.wixsite.com/mysite

https://corpusoutreach.weebly.com/

http://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/p/one-link_18.html

http://www.dailymotion.com/ccoutreach87

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

https://www.ustream.tv/channel/WPxcs6kMdjN

     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 [Wordpress- Vimeo] 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-

Thanks- John.