Legalism (roots of the gospel)

 

I have heard it said over and over again, Legalism is bad and that Legalism is not of Christ. That free will and knowledge of one’s self identity and relationship to God is what is required in the church. Let’s look at what legalism is, because for myself alone I really want to know since I have heard it used to vilify many denominations including the Catholic Church. People who have limited understanding of what legalism is or have a slanted view of legalism, really don’t offer a fair perspective upon which people can make a sound decision on the matter.

Legailsm - Legalism preached “rule” by law, not the moral suasion of Confucianism or the antiauthoritarianism of Daoism. It was concerned with how to make the state prosper and continue expanding until the realm was unified. It was a mixture of extreme rationalism, antihumanitarianism, and totalitarianism. Some Legalists stressed administrative bureaucracy, others strict laws.

*rationalism is the approach to reasonably validate any and all perspectives in an analytical or logical approach. (everything must be validated)

* Antihumanitarianism – the practice of implementing laws and rules with the objective to demean, disgrace, de-humanize people. (create unneeded suffering for a cause) “molech”

*Totalitarianism – The practice of imposing absolute obedience to authority. Absolute ruler, prohibits cultural expression and opposing viewpoints.  (church law, apostolic succession)

In all this we can sum this up in the terminology of the church as “Nicolaitane” churches.

Nico-lait-anes = conquer (laity) people (anyone who dominates,manipulates, intimidates others;seeking control over one's spiritual life)  (false prophets)Now does this mean that one cannot say that there is only one way to god and all others are ill-advised and the rewards are of death? Think back to the apostles, and their doctrine.

Does it not state that there is One lord one faith and one baptism? (Ephesians 4:5)

If the apostles stated there was only:

“One faith” how then is it reasoned that by a man’s faith and each mans belief in the lord reconciles him to Christ for it is counted unto him as righteousness.  (pelagianism-, semi-pelagianism, adopted by the ecumenical churches)

“One lord” how then is it reasoned that there are three in heaven that bear witness, and that these three are one God?  (trinitarian renderings – adopted by both ecumenical and catholic churches)

The practice of bearing witness was of three bringing up charges unto death and incarceration, and one stepping forward to either take the place of the other or contradict the three in true witness thus removing the subject from sentance. In trinitarianism the father the word and the spirit bear witness of mans transgressions, the one resolves the transgressions, therefore God resolves the transgressions made known by creation, the laws of God and the power of God.

“ONE baptism” how then is it reasoned that there is a baptism acceptable and practiced within the church that is contrary to any baptism performed within the bible by the apostles themselves? (trinity- adopted by both ecumenical and catholic churches)

If at any time the originators of the gospel practiced any one of these things, yet we have accepted the nicolaitane doctrine of stating, believe as I do or you have no part in salvation in the mannerism of the catholic church’s adaptation and the Trinitarian following churches. Even though not one Apostle, deacon or bishop established by an Apostle ever taught that particular doctrine at all.

The argument is that the revelation did not present itself until as such time we were ready for it. My statement is that We recieve glory by extreme grace, not by inheritance. We are not owed salvation because we are mankind. So then through grace we have an inkling of righteousness. What came by the manner of christ unto the first men must be maintained throughout unto the final ones. With that said, any revelation considered new MUST be in concert with what was old and even what was ancient.

But I digress. That must be saved for a different writing where history must reconcile to the church.

Back to legalism, we see the church does not practice legalism in its inception. God does require certain methods to be performed in order to obtain salvation or redemption. The Old Testament had the "LAW" given to Moses, which we are all familiar with. These outlined everything that followers of God were to do, even unto a daily regimented level anywhere from how to prepare food, when to have sex, everything so as you can tell these laws were considered very “legalistic” and burdensome as far as obtaining salvation went. If you failed at any part you didn’t receive redemption and had sinned.

Yet now it’s different, or is it? We have the holy-ghost which leads us correct? But many don’t, they have the bible and they’re salvation is relative to strict adherence to the interpreted perspective contained within it.

(*Notice I said “interpreted perspectives”. If we all had the same perspective there would not be splintered denominations, thus validating my analysis)

As we hold these perspectives we also adhere to what we consider acceptable and discard what we hold as unacceptable based upon our experiences in life. There are no churches that practice legalism today. Why can I say that? Because at no time is a person dominated within the church so much so that they cannot leave the church. There are however legalisms in mystery churches (cults, FLDS).

I would say, the practice of following the doctrines of false prophets can be legalistic in the sense that the false prophet demands that his/her perspective is the only perspective that provides salvation or that he can provide you salvation in place of Christ. (Islam, Buddhism, tribal beliefs, Hellenism, paganism, radical Christians) and If we use hatred of legaism in its correct terms then I believe we could state that we as members of the church are in concert with God himself, when we say we hate the doctrine of blasphemers who practice Nicolaitane-Legalism.

 That’s a lot to state in one mouthful, but it’s a way of looking at it using the terminology complimentary with people who like to theorize high mindedly.For us simple folk however, we can simply say, “I don’t listen to false prophets”.

The Sanctity of Marriage?

Well, the moment I figured would come eventually has finally arrived. I had began a writing of “Homosexuality and the church” a while ago but I was stopped during that writing. It was covering the issue that the Anglican churches in Europe and American had regards homosexual marriages being performed in the church. As you can see, there is no huge Curse coming towards the Anglican church in America because they have adopted the practice. Main reason, they’re not of the kingdom of god anyway, so no issue. Yet the reason God came upon the people of Babel has once again surfaced in proof that mankind will achieve whatever it sets its mind to achieve and thus without thinking of the damage it will do to itself. Gay and lesbian marriage is legal in the state that the entire country, not only the entire country but the entire world eventually follows suit, California.

I often believed that people, when they put their minds to something can achieve great things both for good or evil. This is something that was inevitable as even the proponents against the legalization for gay and lesbian marriage had to know deep down inside that they couldn’t stop it, but they could delay it until such time more people would accept it in our Judeo-Christian society.

 Still, as we move on with our daily lives we recognize that God  really hasn’t come out and stated that he was against it, only that those in the church based upon teachings felt, or convinced themselves that God is against this activity.

If we as “saints” are aware of the situations we could have called this with Braille, So why the uproar? If you know the actions of a certain individual would invoke a certain reaction on your part, why be upset when it occurs? You knew it was coming. The main problem is “incorrect understanding regarding the areas of church authority.

I’m not saying to embrace it, but what I am saying is to let the world do what the world will do. You can’t stop it, we were not called to halt all the sin of the world, but to call people out of it. Therefore let me approach the marriage questions with this mind. There is no loss in this battle because it is not a battle that God is undertaking because it is his to put together and his to tear asunder.  Regardless most people are not brought together by him anyway either in the church or out of it for that matter, so what’s the difference. If you get married on your own merit, you take the risks associated with that choice of union. The divorce rate is so high not because God put the wrong two people together, but because people put themselves with the wrong person for the wrong reasons.

                        Moral compass

So the question now becomes, is it “morally correct”. Biblically speaking there is no statute in all honesty in the messianic laws or rabbinical laws nor Christian apostolic successive rights that outlaw gay marriage, because it never occurred. There were homosexual relationships since homosexual relationships were just as normal an activity as any heterosexual relationship. In many cases they were synonymous with the expectation of marriage.  Yet the apostles and Judaism had an entirely different perspective on the matter. The pursuit of “strange flesh” was condemned by God in his judgment upon the cities of “Sodom & Gomorrah”. (Jude 1:7)

When we look at Homosexuality we must take into account the churches exposure to the core lifestyles from the beginning that encompassed homosexual activity in it’s arguments to the apostles.

1.       The Epicureanism – Neutrality of Gods, that gods do not interfere in the lives of humans (soft atheism). That man is materialistic in nature and that this is justifiably acceptable. Thus the pursuit of pleasure of the body and mind, without the aversion to violence or suppression of others freedoms is the ultimate sense of moral stability and happiness.

2.       Stoicism – Cosmic determinism and human freedom. Virtues reside in the will of each human, either Good or bad depends only upon a man himself. The poor can be just as virtuous as any rich man and hardships can be endured in happiness and in harmony with nature. In death he can die nobly and with honor, and such every man has perfect freedom, as long as he cuts himself off from mundane desires of the flesh. Self control and fortitude.

In Athens the apostle Paul is said to have disputed with these philosophers on these and other matters of the origin of life and since these men were simply consumed with the philosophical ideal of humanism, the doctrine of Paul intrigued them so that they heard him in deeper relativity.

How does this flow into Homosexuality?

Well, the main theory behind Epicureanism is thus- defined justice as an agreement "neither to harm nor be harmed." The point of living in a society with laws and punishments is to be protected from harm so that one is free to pursue happiness. Because of this, laws that do not contribute to promoting human happiness are not just.

So from this we see that Gay/lesbian activist promote this position continuously throughout their fight. That laws which prohibit the pursuit of happiness are not justifiable laws and should be revoked.

Simply because Christians do not like homosexuality does not mean that those non-Christian should endure the principles of those who are. That is domination.

Stoiks  - teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos). A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual’s ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature."This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy", and to accept even slaves as "equals of other men, because all alike are sons of God.

How many times has this been used to justify homosexuals as simple people equal to heterosexuals who just choose to engage in relationships with other men. At one time the fear was that homosexual men force themselves on heterosexual men thus converting them into homosexual men. In my understanding of the events, many heterosexual men who have engaged in relations with women are not accepting of any relationship with homosexuality even if thrust upon them and so do not change unless willing to do so.

Yet children can be influenced to accept the activity as normal if the life experience forces the choice upon them too young. Generations are influenced into homosexuality if acceptable levels of the practice reach acceptable terms. Yet without these levels of acceptance I can’t see where homosexuality can flourish to unacceptable levels.

But like I have stated before, the heart of man is wicked beyond his means. The fears that people have concerning this particular sin is warranted, mainly because man knows man simply because man will without a doubt “push the envelope” of acceptable levels. Yet we cannot determine things based upon justifiable fears, only on substantial truths of the matter and this is that Homosexual humans have every right to the pursuits of happiness that heterosexual people do based upon our laws as a nation.

Marriage?

 What of the marriage question? The position is that marriage is an “institution of god” and thus is sacred. Yet the truth is that people were being joined in marriage prior to the Christian churches influence into the matter. Gnostic priests, pagan priests, priestesses and others were marrying people before the Christian church, during the inception of Christianity, and even afterwards. Yet now we have standardized the arrangement of marriage for human beings under the rites of the church for us civilized peoples.

So now people arrogantly state that marriage is an institution of Gods making validated through the church alone. Yes it is of gods making, but it is in regards to mans first law….”be fruitful and multiply”. That’s it. There is no law that says that the carrying out of marriage vows must be done within the church. This we acknowledge with the resident “justice of the peace” district judge, the captain of vessels upon the high seas all legally able to perform legitimate marriages even though they are not ordained pastors or priests.

In each regards to Homosexuals however they are excluded in the church regarding the ordaining of marriage. This is perfectly acceptable, as the church is an entity that ministers it’s self unto the statues of its tenants. If a homosexual wishes to be married, a church should not be “forced”, “induced” nor convinced into agreements. The church has its own manner of disposition on the matter so as sinners frolic so let them.

The concern is that the government forces churches to accept or recognize homosexual marriage as an institute acceptable by God and the church. This is where a state or local government agency will cross the line into slapping god in his face and this is where the Christian fight can be justified. Yet Short of this activity being performed, the church has no moral leg on which to stand. It is all hoopla that should not be used to justify ones commitment to God.

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matthew 22:21

                                    The Laws and their applications

 

Good day, I am engaging in a difficult and most peculiar subject. By no means am I to find documentation to support the overall concept of what I am delving into, so the grace of the lord shall need to define what is to be thought upon and what is to be delved into. I was in the process of researching other writings on heresies and this topic came to mind.

The laws of spiritual attributes concerning gifts and denizens, has been a mystery to many people for quite some time. For some time people have tried to develop a way of identifying ghosts and other phenomena as either real, superstitious hoax, ignorance, charlatans, Hysterical or some other intuitive undercover activity that causes people to believe in things they cannot see.

Short of becoming one of those purveyors of false belief’s in something that has little or no merit I am attempting to simply begin identifying what Laws are.

As we begin I don’t ask anyone for an open mind, keep it closed or open it, as you see fit, but prove what I write on your own merit, I will try to cover both pro and con, and not attempt to sway opinion to my findings. Simply accept what it is you wish to accept and accept what god provides your eyes to see.

Let us begin

What is a LAW?

We as a society live by a certain rule, do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is a general code, not perfect as the human mind can become desperately wicked, the golden rule. It is based on the thought that no one likes to be treated poorly, so don’t treat another poorly. Sort of an, “Karma” type of retribution is that if you do something to someone bad then bad will come to you. Now why am I mentioning this? Laws are accepted and rejected based upon this type of a premise in the land of men. But in Gods kingdom, bad things occur as well as good things. God is not biased, so both good and evil and the ability to perform both are in his power to determine and use as he sees fit.  So you will find both acceptable laws and unacceptable laws in the study of God. Anything in the MIND of god is not a law, because it is not a created thing. Everything that is created is created not out of the mind of god, but in Gods “speaking it into existence”. Thus every animal, plant, insect, element is spoken into existence and placed in its place and determined what to do by God. This “speaking” brings us into the laws of creation. The Law is our pendulum for salvation, There is both obedience and disobedience thus both life and death in the law.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Law of creation

Now regarding everything that is created there is a law that keeps this created thing from being and doing something that we don’t find natural as we see it today? Why doesn’t a poppie flower hunt down and kill and eat an antelope, or why doesn’t an elephant bubble up from beneath the earth and spew and become the formation of land? Why doesn’t the wind simply one day just stop moving across the planet and simply hurl itself into the ocean. It is not enough to be created. But the thing that is created must have a design to it’s creation. It must have a reason for it’s creation.

(Psalms 33:1-9)

 Everything that comes from god comes with a law of what it is to do and how it is to interact with it’s environment.

(genesis 1 – God said, then at the end God Saw)

Piranha are fish that swim in the water and eat flesh, they keep the waters cleaned and remove decay.  Lions kill and eat prey keeping the destruction of herbivores down on the land sustaining both predator and prey. Even though gods initial law in creation to the animals of the planet were for them only to eat the “green herb. I submit:

Genesis 1:30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so

 These things we as human observers call “nature” or natural instinct, but why doesn’t a lion eat grass? Well it must eat meat, because it’s body is designed to kill and eat. The garden of Eden was a beautiful place, God is said to have placed both animals, plants and insect including mankind in one location and they existed together. It never stated that lions or wolves a something else killed something and ate it in order to survive. We just pretty much assumed that the rich cluster of herbs and game was ideal for each animal on the planet at the time to sustain them.

That’s just the earths/gardens environment since it seems that God created everything on the planet as we see it now demonstrated in nature. Not true, God populated the planet with animals then God moved mankind into a certain place and gave both man and animals the same law to eat the herb. So when did this law change? After the fall, when god had to “kill” the two animals in order to cover mans sinful presentation. When mankind died in the garden after eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, what kind of death was it? The serpent told them they wouldn’t “surely” die but since he didn’t tell them what would die in them, he committed a great sin and in honesty killed off mankind from the law he was created with. Not only did he enable the breaking of mankind’s law but he destroyed the law given to the beasts and fowl and fish in the sea as well. It opens them up to be used and to perform activities not in their original design.

I will state once again that everything created has a law, because of gods speaking that thing into existence. Mankind was created with a law spoken by god to be fruitful and multiply and to have dominion upon the earth.  We have a basic fundamental law in our creation bestowed upon Adam .

(Genesis 1:28)

This law was passed down through the generations of eve in the command”….be fruitful and multiply”. Thus any law given to Adam from creation was our law as well. In speaking Adam into existence the law given to Adam was in place in Adam. He instinctively knew how to interact in the manner of the law of creation upon the physical form of mankind’s creation. The animals all ate the herbs and so did man.

Through the Creation of man we are indwelled with our law. Man was to have dominion over the earth, tend to the needs and desires and to care for everything upon the earth, and man was to multiply upon the earth so that as the earth’s denizens grew greater in number man would be able to compensate.

 

The laws apply to the denizens of the lords hosts as well. As these laws determine the overall functionality of Gods kingdom, the sons of God are created with the expressed intent that they will willingly perform the will of god in their creation.

Strong angels can hold the other angels in check while the others perform the desires of god as he intends. No angel operates outside the will of God by their own desire to do so.  God has never forced even those created with the expressed intent to operate within the guidelines of their created laws. They all have the ability to do that which is not desired of god. They must reap the rewards of their actions however. Thus taking us to what happens when they break that simple law of creation. We all die when the law of god is broken. The form of death varies however.

Laws of perspectives

What is meant by the laws of perspectives? The perspective is that which is defined by the one performing the viewing of an action, also the relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole. If one man see’s an event he interprets that event in his mind as one thing or another. He may apply many different possibilities but once the dust settles, he generally chooses one road or the other. He establishes his belief of the situation based upon what he sees as the most valid position on the matter. Two men viewing an event may come to the same conclusion on the matter or two completely different conclusions altogether, or two similar positions but expressed differently. The ability to determine for ourselves the best course of action in any given scenario is the law of choice, or the law of perspectives. Everything created has a choice in its life and that choice comes with ramifications of one type or another, it is the pendulum. A lion was created by God to eat an herb. Now we see lions eating other animals, thus the lion changes position in perspective and begins to slay and eat other animals. This goes against the initial intention, because it is against what god told the beasts of the earth to do. So what does god do? Does he slay all animals? YES

Remember the story of Noah, his vengeance covered both man and beast and he did save every beast on the planet, he probably didn’t even kill every animal on the planet, but what he did do was exact vengeance upon creation and then gave the surviving creation new laws.

Whether you allow a belief of the flood in “Gilgamesh’s version or in the Moses biblical account, the fact remains that in relation to God, The world went through a “cleansing. Through that flood, thus it is important to note that the perspective of the indented laws to mankind and beast was altered.

The laws of eating herbs was closed, they could now eat meat, the laws of multiply upon the earth was closed and thus the ability to choose not to have children was available “so to speak” the law of eating of the tree of knowledge was closed and thus men could seek knowledge on their own behalf.  These things were commenced through the flood.

One of the things about baptism is that it is an “emulation” of the flood. The flood itself represented a commencement of LAW, In other words all that was given the law, and had broken the law died in the flood, as far as god was concerned. Since Noah and his sons were redeemed through their obeying the law, they were spared the judgment of the law. Yet because they were products of creation they were still subject to sin, and could therefore break any law given there after. What laws were given to moses?

Genesis 8

1. I will not again curse the ground anymore because(for mans sake) of man. Why-because the imagination of mans heart is evil from “HIS” youth. (reference to the curse upon Adam as being revoked here)
2. Neither will God smite (kill) every living thing again. (he will not cleanse the earth by killing everyone again)
3. As long as the earth exists God will tend to it.

*People there will be no nuclear holocaust on the scale of the devastation to the entire planet.  

 Genesis 9

1. And the fear and the dread of man will be upon every beast and every fowl of the air and all that moves upon the earth and upon the fishes of the sea and into the hand of man are they delivered. (The beasts of the earth are ours to eat)
2. He told Noah and his sons to be fruitful and multiply as his seed will be blessed. (this is different than the law given to mankind)
3. Every living moving thing shall be meat for man, as well as the green herb.
4. The flesh of men we are not to eat and if you do kill and eat man, then every beast and every man can be used to kill that man that does this thing. (cannibalism is unacceptable) My guess is that prior to the flood this must have been occurring to some unacceptable scale. Historical evidence suggests that many early peoples practiced cannibalism. Perhaps certain groups were given titles and names, which is a consistent documented event in the bible (genesis 6:4), associating them with these practices and many mythological stories grew out of peoples interaction and migration of these tribes. This gives rise to the belief of “devourers of souls” structure in demons on earth.   Just a thought mind you.
5. Whoever murders a man, his life is forfeit, because God made man to live.
6. And “YOU” now be fruitful and multiply. (this is to mankind when he used “you” he is stating “everything that you are” so to speak.)
7. And the covenant was established with Noah his sons and their seed (meaning mankind, and all beasts that existed afterwards,
8. That the Bow would be the token covenant that signified God will no longer kill all things in a  flood again.

These are the laws and covenant upon the flesh of every man that exists today, be they believers or non-believers they are the basic laws upon mankind, these are life. They are not much different in overall structure from the laws given to the “children of Israel”, but there are definitely fewer.  

He also gave Laws to Abraham after he was called out.

Genesis 17

1 Walk before me and be thou perfect (now looking into this a little more is a whole sermon that may take like two days of intensive listening, but I will be brief…he was to be perfect because the instructions god was giving him were perfect. So if he “obeyed god” we would not err.

 

2. Covenant, He would multiply the seed of Abraham

a. Father of many nations…. (source of the believers of god in both Judaism and Christianity)

3. Covenant – there will be a continuation of the covenant with the seed of Abraham, and it won’t stop with his initial children but commence with his children’s children.

4. Covenant – All the land of canaan will be the inheritance of the children of the seed of Abraham in which to dwell.

5. Token that the covenant is remembered by God will be that every man child will be circumcised.

Now I won’t go into all the laws given to Moses, because they are too numerous to mention, But you get the gist of where I’m coming from. Laws are established by god in the basic of format for mankind through Noah, then to the children of Israel through Abraham then to the nation of Israel through the LAW Messianic.

  

So what of Christ?

As I’m speaking of laws and such, what about the Christians, what laws are we given?

Well we all as being mankind are subject to the laws given to mankind through Noah. That is that God expects those laws to be followed by mankind. If we sin it is because we as humans have broken one of those laws.  Now looking at the laws given to Moses, one would ask where have I broken a law unto God to be called a Sinner?

I state the following which has made us all sinners, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Now, one would say OK, but you never mentioned there was a law that covered this. I say to this, yes I did, I just didn’t mention it directly. The bible states that, God will no longer curse the ground because of man’s evil thoughts. In other words, because mankind will break any law given him by God, then God considers all mankind evil and sinners from their youth.

This seems a bit of a stretch for those who are looking at it, because it seems that I am saying “because you are going to do evil, god considers you evil”. Gnostics believed in this manner which was why it was easy for them to come up with the Valentinism and the Marcionite doctrines.

What I am stating is that the flaw exposed (nice way of putting it) of mankind in the garden and the laws given thereafter are still in effect not because of what God placed on man, but of what Man has come to be because of the knowledge he has acquired. Is this to say that Knowledge is the root of all evil, NO, but the pursuit of knowledge, leads one down the road of evil intentions.

 What knowledge? Gnosticism is the pursuit of knowledge. Now am I stating that God wants us “ignorant” of things in this life? NO, the knowledge we are to seek is in God himself. Through our pursuit of God we are to approach his word as children ready to be taught by the spirit he has imparted unto us through Jesus Christ. There is what man can glean of god, and what God can teach of himself. These are two separate paths of obtaining knowledge, not the same knowledge however. Two separate ones.

Wide is the path of the unrighteous, but straight and narrow if the path of the redeemed. Why? Is it because more people are evil? No, Its because righteousness is defined by the validation of the holy ghost in logical reasoning. While non-validated conclusions based upon self validated points are the stuff of unrighteousness, or non-validation.

If a man is righteous, he is righteous because of what? Because the law outlines is actions as such? No, because the spirit of God agrees with the actions taken.

You say, but we have teachers, preachers, deacons, ministers that bring the word of the lord unto us, Do we not need a church in this case?

We are instructed by the apostles to adhere to the ministry of the church, for it profits us well in our understanding of the kingdom of God, nevertheless we are also encouraged in learning of the very same holy spirit imparted unto us by our king. Knowledge of another is that mans knowledge, your knowledge must be sound and founded, it must be validated by the holy-ghost, Not your own logical conclusions.

The under-Shepard job is to assist the Shepard. The flock belongs not to the assistant but to the owner of the flock. We do not lend such title of nobility in the kingdom to anyone other than the shepard. Too many people get caught up with the under-shepard rather than with Christ, yet they relegate within themselves that they have a relationship with Christ.

If you can’t distinguish between the voice of the law-presenter and the law-maker, then you have a serious problem. The emissary is not greater than the king who sent him.

The Art of Healing and Prosperity messages

 

Let us look into the healing and prosperity messages of the day by first looking at the same messages of the past, and the first thing you will notice is that the number one trend of these message occur during great historical times of woe or perilous moments or era’s in history. This leads many skeptics to believe that the advocating of these messages have a direct influence on the state of peoples welfare rather than actual belief in the gospel’s teachings on the matter.

 

The bible teaches that the prosperity of the lord is greater than the riches of the world and that we as saints are to understand that the glory we receive in Christ supersedes the earthly riches here on earth. Christians are also likewise counseled on the wiles of profit and gain of treasures here on earth rather than in heaven.

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul…. Mark 8:36

 Yet we bask in a time where pastors of flocks shout out…ask god for your blessing and believe on it and that thing shall come to past.  Walk as though you have received that which you ask and it shall be yours for this is the greater faith.

And so many people’s measure of faith in God is that believing as such that God will provide them the requests of their heart and that constant prayer and supplication is required for those who don’t believe having shown proof of their unbelief in the fact of the request not coming into fruition.

Do not tempt the lord thy god.

Often we find ourselves requesting God’s favor on our behalf for something that God has decided not to give favor upon. This Balaam activity….what You don’t know what balaam activity is? Neither did I, so let’s look at it.

In a nutshell, the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and as they traveled they conquered many tribes with the assistance of God. They came to rest in the valley of Moab as they sojourned on. Now Balaam was a prophet of sort’s of God unto the children of Moab. Their king of Moab, Balak, sent word to Balaam and requested him to curse the children of Israel as they ventured into Moab and asked to pass through peacefully. Balaam set out to do just that, and he prepared to ask God to curse the people of Israel, but instead of a curse God told balaam to bless them for they were blessed. (Numbers 22:12)

Then Balak, after hearing that Balaam would not curse them because God told him not to, sent word to balaam and told him to come see him and after receiving counsel from God giving him permission to go speak with balak, Balaam agrees to go with the second contingent of men sent, but to only say what God told him. Now for some reason, God gets angry with Balaam and places an angel in his pathway while he was riding his donkey.  It is not known what caused god to get angry with Balaam, so it is speculated that Balaam decided that, to save his own neck he would say something different than what God told him to say.

According to the angel, Balaam had devised in his heart a means to please both the king of what he wanted and his view of what god wanted. Evidenced in Numbers 22:32

If we read Numbers 22:32 we can see a very interesting scenario, It seems that a very important vision has revealed itself. Because it states this:

Num 22:32

And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because [thy] way is perverse before me:

 Now remember prior to this in Numbers 22:12 and 22:20 God told Balaam what he wanted Balaam what to say, so why the anger if balaam followed his orders from god directly? He didn’t he came up with some other plan and god stopped him and told him he was angry.

What is the point on this story? Obey God at all times, also do not pray for the changing things god has already established.   Now am I saying that we should not pray for anything? No, what I am saying is that as Balaam found out, that God has his way about doing things and carrying things out, that is contrary to our flesh, desire and understanding on matters. It is the holy spirit that we use to send petition before the lord. But if the lord is not in agreement with our petition then what do we do? Repetition? How often? Are we to change the mind of god on a matter? No it is impossible to change gods mind. Only he can. God doesn’t change his mind, he simply stops what he had already started in motion before damages can be done on many stages.

The only time God has ever changed his mind about something is……..never. He may have stopped, but he did not change his mind.

Requesting Prosperity

This can be summed up in, Can we then pray and request of god the desires of our heart. Is it not written that we who are of the kingdom. One of the passages of scripture used to justify the prosperity messages are such.

Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

The message is tied to giving, But giving of what? Tithes? Offerings? What of the tithe. Is it to be given unto God for Gods sake or for the temple or church? Does it assist in the furthering of Gods kingdom or the destruction of the gospel?

Matthew 7:6-17 tells us to give not to an tithe, but to those in need. For this is the spirit of god. I am not saying that we should not give the tithe, but we are required to give to the needs of those who ask. If you see a need, fill a need.  This is the message of prosperity that must go out. Not to ask of God for the richness of the earth. For what profit is there in that?

True prosperity is marked by the king of the kingdom, not by the quantity of the person’s worth. While I don’t begrudge any man the bounty of his brow, for this is pleasing unto God. But let’s be real, you don’t bring into the church a man associated with monetary growth, to fill the people of your flock with mannerisms to obtain wealth, and then sit down to pray for God’s blessing upon the people to adhere to the message.

Keep the things of Ceaser unto Caeser and the things of God unto God.   This is more prosperous than any message telling you to follow some plan that is supposed to unleash monetary blessings.

Healing I shall begin with stating thus..

Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Isaiah 33:22-24 the lord is our Judge, our lawgiver and our king, and the inhabintants of the kingdom of god shall not say they are sick for they are forgiven of their sins.

Not in so few words, but you get the gist of what it says in this manner of speaking. The inhabitants of the kingdom are forgiven they’re sins. Being sick or contracting diseases are a normal part of Mankind, of  the things that Jesus stated before healing someone and as evidenced in the writings concerning Jesus and healings performed, was that he always forgave their sins. Occasionally he forgave their sins and did not heal their bodies of the infirmities they brought before him.

One of the most powerful undeniable statements concerning healing is when Jesus spoke with his followers prior to his ascension unto heaven that….

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

I commented in red the things that in our language we understand these passages to mean. The one that I want to speak of now is regarding “they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover”

As this is an attribute of receiving the holy-ghost and being known as a believer of Christ, the healing of the sick part seems to be the only real point of contention. If a person is sick of cancer, and they come to a believer, is the person going to leave “cancer free”? No

Is it then because one of either party has some hidden or unknown level of unbelief? Not really

-you see every human has a law to his or her existence. Jesus healed the sick immediately because he was God himself. The apostles healed the sick sometimes immediately sometimes not, because they performed the will of the “holy-Ghost” in all things, and it pleased god because it was in his plan to build a solid foundation to the church. We as saints, are indwelled with the same power that our establisher of the church held. Why then in this day and age does God not seem to heal immediately or not yet decisively ?

One reason can be because of a lack of faith on both parties, the other could be that it’s not in gods plan to heal the people being presented, and in this case are the words in the scripture null and void?

Remember God performs his will as he wishes, So then do we pray for healing and if nothing is healed do we then state God is not going to heal the person or that the core beleif of the person doing the praying false?

My take on the statement in Mark 16:18 is not that God will heal sickness in the flesh, but rather that the believers shall present the gospel to sinners and they shall accept the gospel. You see men seek after signs, miracles and convincing arguments to the existence of God, and when none comes the faith is invalidated and the beleif is foolishness. God does not work to prove he is god to those who by sheer grace are entered into the kingdom. He's already proved his power, you either beleive he did or dont. No skin off his nose. Yet in the forgiveness of sins, in which the heart becomes the eye, God does amazing thing in front of our own eyes.

Now it seems like I’m doing what other cult or Gnostics do and that is mess with the words of the scripture or doing a play on words using definitions of terms to bolster my position. Neither one is occurring I assure you all. What  I’m doing is applying what I know of the old testament to the new.

In the Old testament, When the prophets laid hands on something it was upon the sacrifice, or upon that thing which was to be executed upon by the law, whether it be a bull, goat or man who sinned.

 

Next

As well as

 

And finally

 

In all these references we see that the priesthood would lay their hands upon one that was to be sacrificed as a sin offering before the lord. Now of course a man who sinned is not an acceptable sacrifice but the example is just to show that the reference of laying on of hands was used to grasp something for the purpose of exacting the law of God upon. So let’s apply this practice to the Gospel.

They shall lay their hands upon the sick…..They shall present the man who is sick as a sacrifice to the lord……they shall bring the sinner before god…..they shall bring the representative for Christ before God

And he shall be restored?

The Old Testament uses the term “restore” to mean “give back or gave back that which was removed”

He shall be brought back unto his place of origin. If our place of origin is in the kingdom, or the garden, then our state of existence is to be “Redeemed” is it not.

I don’t think people actually even looked at the scriptures before they used them to justify holy healings and such.

Believers are given the power and authority to present unbelievers to God for restoration. This is performed through witnessing, and prayer and presentation or in other words they can “baptize”. Does this then mean that “every” person a saint brings before God will be restored? Yes' because they are presenting the sacrifice to God for acceptance. "If that sacrifice is acceptable", in other words it has obeyed the lord and is acceptable to Christ, then the lord shall accept it and that sacrifice shall be taken, accepted and redeemed or restored. Just because people want others to be acceptable does not mean that God is bound to accept it.

The sacrifice is sold out, it’s understanding and control over it’s destiny is relinquished. It has said in itself, I know my soul resides in the belief with the ones performing the sacrifice, and thus I submit.

The only sacrifice unacceptable is a sacrifice that God does not wish to be performed.

 I wrote a paper a while ago outlining the process of redemption, and in it I stated that Baptism was synonymous with “presenting” the sacrifice before God.  All of the things in Mark is equal to the things written in Matthew and Luke and John concerning our lord Jesus.

 

Son of God

What is a “Son of God” and who are they?

This is a question that some have found closure to but for others it brings up a challenge to the very core of Christianity. If Jesus was the Son of God, then was he the “offspring” of a God-human relationship? Or was he adopted by god as his son based upon his miraculous birth?

Some state that God was Jesus in the flesh, others state that Jesus was the firstborn, first created entity of god and still others that sons of god are angels. How are these points proven in scripture? Each one has theyre thought of origin in biblical references in regards to what Jesus stated who he was.

 

Trinitarian of both Ontological and Economic classifications defend the belief that a son of god is a separate entity, either resolved to the father or separate from the father, it is a separate manifestation all together in either thought.

Jehovah’s wtiness, LDS(latter-day saints),  mormons  believe that Jesus was an entity created sometime in the beginning by god for gods purpose of assisting mankind in it’s development before the foundations of the world even.

The Pentecostal belief of sabellianism is that God was Jesus, and so a son of god is the created flesh of jesus Christ by god.

 

The position I’vetaken on this mystery as part of my journey is that a “son of god” is a title just as a “son of man” is a title given to a man. I will try to explain. First lets look at the reference of son of man.

Through out the bible the term “son of man” is consistently used to define a prophet. He is someone God selects to speak to his people about a particular event. As he obeys, he obeys and God recognizes him as a mouthpiece to his people. This person is a son of man. In Ezekiel, God references the son of man when refering in his directions to him and in Daniel we see in his vision that the “son of man” receives power and the inheritance of god’s power and kingdom. This means that a person God was to establish on earth as the receiver of his power will be the one designated to speak on his behalf to the entire world. Thus Jesus is the “son of man” unto the world.

 

inject the mannerism of his birth, since it was miraculous in its fruition, to Jesus meaning that he was born of flesh. This is not the case, he was MAN in his birth, he was “son of man” in his birth and calling”, so he was "son of god" when?

A son of god is what?

Please look at the first reference the bible has regarding a son of god….

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Now throughout my early childhood, I was taught to think of these “sons of god” to be angelic beings. It was my sister that clarified the point to me, that these were not giant men nor angelic creatures but they were actual men, established to do gods work, and they took wives of men that did not believe as they did. So the writing is that the Sons of god took of the daughters of men for wives.

In gods perspective, man and “son of man” are separate titles. Man is less than a "son of man" because he is not selected by god for his purpose. A “son of God” is a little bit greater thing than a “son of man” why? Because a “son of god” does not just speak the words of god he is obligated to perform them himself a son of god is given power to carry out god’s word and desires based upon his own desire to please God. You see a "son of man" does need to agree with what he is proposing to the people. (I.E Jonah) but a son of God does, yet a son of God can repent of performing the will and maintain connectivity to god, while a son of man cannot disobey and remain in continuity to his leader.

So in the passages of Genesis 6:1-6

Genesis

As we see, God has a difference between regular men and chosen men. Angeles cannot mate with mankind. God never gave that ability amongst the two, in the garden the women of man were the helpmates of adam, out of adam or “wo-man” thus angels cannot impregnate that which law for procreation was not given. So this means then that the “sons of god, had to be regular men. But what kind of men were they? They were simply the ones that put into effect, as god gave them the power to do so, executed the desire and work god gave them. He told them to procreate, they did this, thus God considered them the “sons of god”. Remember what Jesus said in john 10:30

 

John

 

Jesus told the Pharisees that the one that has been given the power and authority to do the works of god is called the “son of god” but the one that does the work and is given the power to do evil is the son of perdition “so to speak”. So based also upon the scripture above, is jesus saying that only because God gave him the authority and the power to do the work of God is he the son of god? This could play into the belief that jesus was born a simple man, became the spokesman to man as being given the title “ son of man” then given power in his baptism and promoted to “son of god”.

Traditionally in the work of god, the “son of god” does not perform the work of the “son of man” there is  no place in the bible’s old testament that it is noted of a Son of man that was given the power to be a “son of god”. There are visions of the son of man doing so, but not actual applications of such work being done. There were no christs in the old testament, Moses was a Son of man unto the people of Israel, he was not a son of god, because all his power came upon appeals to god. God did the work himself.  All the prophets spoke unto god to do the work. Jesus did the work without requesting god to do the work. He was not a just a son of man, but he was given to authority to do the work himself.

Remember I said that a Son of god is given the power to do the work of god unto his desire or plan. Thus as noted once again in the times before Noah, in the passages that the sons of god came unto the daughters of man…. The only law given to man at the time was that they “multiply and they don’t eat of the tree of good and evil.

Another example of the sons of god that defines how God see them is in Job, lets look.

Job

We need to look at this verse in the correct light… The distinction is the same as the one for what god considers a Son of man, let me show this as well.

Jeremiah

49:18 As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour [cities] thereof, saith the LORD, no man shall abide there, neither shall a son of man dwell in it.

God makes a distinction always between man and a Son of xxxx, so in Job there is a distinction between a “Son of god” and Satan. Why were they brought before god? To give a report, present theyre work, themselves, theyre law, their following of the laws they were given to god himself.

The apostles were also given the power to call upon Jesus to do work, thus they are not the Christ. The Anti-Christ is one that denies the Christ, but how? Does he say that Christ was not? NO, he says that the power in Christ is in himself, thus denying Christ.  We are cautioned in saying the power of Christ is in us, because it is only if you have the holy ghost, because the power of god that is in Jesus that  we are obliged to expel is given to us in the name of Jesus and it is within us as we are “sons of god”. 

 This is why we baptize in the name of Jesus, as the baptism in the name of the father, son and holy-ghost, we confuse and mute the power. Even if the belief is that the father holds the power the son makes the power available and the spirit brings the power to us, this is all wrapped into the power of the “son of god” who was Jesus.  So by resolving the understanding in yourself is not the same as simply pronouncing the name in the process.

Again back to the study.

Those of us who are indwelled with the holy ghost are the “sons of god” why?

Sons of god display the power of god of our own volition. We are not directed to do anything of our own accord on the matters at hand. We simply walk in the power given us by the Holy ghost. The reality factor is that we are powerful because he is powerful, and we are sinless because the power he gave us is sinless, we are in the kingdom because the power he was given was the kingdom.  Now all this sounds good, and like normal holy banter, but there is an unmistakable truth.

Jesus Christ or for another way of putting it, Jesus the son of god, performed the work of god independently of gods influence in his operation, he did not have to receive counsel from god in-order to heal someone, nor ask permission in any name in order to pull the dead from it’s station. He simply commanded it to be so and it was.

Mark

  

Jesus here is letting them know distinctly that the “one sent from god” (son of man) has also the power of god as “son of god” or one given power to do the will of god.

At no span in time did the apostles perform a miracle and not state that it was the power of that performed the work. Jesus did not state that GOD is the one that healed, he just simply did it.

 

Clarifying our position as “sons of god”

Let’s look at where we are, A son of god is simply a being that is given the power to perform the will and desire of God. We are asked to believe in the “son of God”, what does that mean? Do we believe that Jesus Christ lived? ….ok does that make one saved? In some churches it does, but that’s not what the statement is saying, you see if you believe that the son of god existed, that’s a matter of fact, not faith.

Do we believe that Jesus Christ was God? …Ok so then we say that Jesus Christ was the flesh god gave power to in order to carry out his perfect plan. Does this make us saved? …No for if you simply believe that Jesus is the son of god, and that he had power, what power is there for you?

Do we then say the power in Jesus, that he possessed, is the power of God, and that power is given unto mankind, the question then becomes “HOW is it given to man”? The answer:

Mark 16:15-19 is a consistant mannerism of what a beleiver will be, this was not just for the moment in time, bt it reverberated throughout the ages.

16:15	And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16	He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
16:17	And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
16:18	They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
16:19	So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Now look 16:16 starts off by telling us clearly that anyone that beleives or is called a beleiver will do the following.....baptism shall lead you to salvation, NOT baptism is salvation, he said "Shall be" not "IS".

and the signs to look for in beleivers are such, They shall cast out devils.....are they to be excorcists? NO, they can repent of thier former devils and remove them from thier lives, They can remove the influence upon others while in the beleivers presence.  

THEY SHALL SPEAK WITH NEW TONGUES. now the crux. must we speak in tongues to be a beleiver? I'm not even going to try and prove this point...It must be done inorder to be within the criteria mentioned in the gospels. Listen any church that says you dont need to do a particular portion of that churches beleif is a false church of that particular beleif. In islam you cant tell people they dont need to face mecca and pray. You must. In christianity you must in order to be considered a beleiver yield unto the spirit to recieve the spirit. This means you must speak with new tongues.  The actual writing is utterences, makes it a little more realistic versus people thinking that i'm talking about going out to learn a second language or talking of things that are "inspirational". You won't beleive how many people think that is speaking in tongues.

1. Through belief that Jesus was and presents the power to us. This is the first step in accepting the holy-ghost, believing that Jesus brought it to you.

2. Baptism…was the baptism of John of man or of God?  The Pharisees were afraid to answer this, but I am no Pharisee, it was acceptable of God because god accepted the heart that participated in it. It was not sufficient because it was not complete.

3. Receiving the holy-ghost, There is only one mannerism amongst mankind that was ever shown to be the confirmation of the reception of the holy-ghost. Not in works or deed but in Shekinah. That was it. It is God’s presence in mankind. This is the acceptance of one’s heart for all time, not just for a season, but from point A to point Z, beginning to end. He does not leave you after this. The power that God gives comes upon us only after we receive the holy-ghost.  I am not saying that you cannot walk away from the gift given. Sure you can, but wherever you go, you will be taking God withyou, becuase he said so.  I am not a proponent of the once saved always saved crowd, but I am not of the persepective that "you" have the power to throw away the holy ghost.  You can walk away from it , and thus the saying become relevant in truth "as a tree falleth so shall it lie" ecclesiates 11:3 (praphrased)

You are then and only then adopted into the kingdom and are both “Son of man” because you inherit and speak the law in Shekinah, and “Son of God”, because you receive the ability to perform the will of god and the law which you spoke.

The argument,

The house of cornelius received the holy ghost before they were baptized in Jesus name as this is so, the belief that one must be baptized in Jesus name before they receive the holy-ghost does not fly well.

-          The resolution, The house of cornelius were aware of the mystery religions. the commonly held beleif was that they were devout worshipers of god even though they had not been presented with the message of the apostles. How can I stand on this? Look at the scriptures.

The italian band mentioned in acts 10:1 were a group of soldiers that originated from italy. Each member of the italian band would have been very aware of the mortality of theyre situation in the roman army, that death was around the corner in each upcoming battle, and thus the adherence to any such beleif that offered life after death would be acceptable, and reverence in that soldiers houshold. Cornelius selected the worship of the mandean, since that was one which was the most prevelant in the area of which the italian troops originated. Many members of the early church came out of dionysis into christianity because of the familiarity between the two and the power witnessed by the followers of the apostles and the apostles themselves. these cults also had a familiarity with the new testament practice of speaking in tongues or in utterances. in the following:

Acts

Why did he fall down to worship peter? He believed that peter was an agent an elevated being worthy of veneration. It was peter who straightened that out. Remember I said they were aware of the mystery religions. In the mystery religions speaking in tongues was common place as well as baptisms and the Mandean mannerism of baptism existed in caesarian religious culture.

Cornelius however must not have been aware of what he was asking for yet made repentance in his prayer, and God according to the rendering saw that his repentance was acceptable.These things are what God defines as acceptable and righteous. whatever cornelius beleived in leading up to this point was irrelevant why? because in ignorance there is wisdom, if vanity lies foolishness.

Cornelius presented a contrite heart and a heart with concern of mankind. not just his acceptable mankind, but all mankind. noted in the giving of alms and prayings. We pray as a manner of offering repentance.  

  The apostles taught that without faith it is impossible to please god, But faith in who, God or Jesus? Which facet of faith must I exhibit, Faith in the son of god or faith in God himself?

This position caused a big division, for some followed after God while others after the man of God Jesus.

The "Son of God" is a title that denotes one given power to do the will of god. Jesus was given power from his birth to do the will of God. This is not a predestinated choice however.  He chose to follow the ordained purpose of God as God. God was given the ability to forsake his own law. That’s called repenting of his initial intention.

some will state that what I present isn’t biblical to a point or that I got off base, but if you actually look at my position it Is solid. Jesus had the ability to repent of the course of actions did he not?

Remember the garden of Gethsemane?

Matthew 26:38-42

Mark 14:34-38

Luke 22:42-45

John chapter 17

In these verses, Jesus begins by asking to repent of the work he was to perform by saying, let this cup pass before me, he states. In other words in my view he knew this was going to occur, in mark he says “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

Christ means what?

I have written that the son of god reference is a title, but Jesus had the title given to him by the apostles as Christ, which means the anointed, an anointed person is one called out to perform an action specific to duty of the lord or leader.  If Jesus was anointed, could this also mean that he was selected out of the field of something? We must be careful not to contradict. An anointed person in Gods eyes is a king of the people of god’s selection. Each king of Israel was anointed by the high priest. Jesus was