ready for another world , that does not sleep!!

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_c_odzPOZc&list=PL1E0DA7C95E913E2B&index=6,,, a world we dare not se and know but goes on unabated ....

origin of a kabbalah merging with platonic

 

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and the Dawn of Christian Kabbalah agree the question came getting back to truth the forms were sis-sir the kap  it’s a business today,,,,  the average person had no Greek knowledge  for a very long time so ignorance allowed a lot of assuming to go almost unabated  ,, the average guy could not own a bible so to speak for many hundreds of years so lot was left to the parrot cage stuff or the Hench men mass murdered  many times events they used to fear people,, somehow that got mopped under,,,  was common place in those centuries,,, today no but  it’ s severally platonic, still ,,, I think it is fair  to say ,,,it’s divided so the warnings were not heeded to this day, excused error is held to ,, thanks …

 

 

Although the Majorcan mystic Ramon Lull (1225–1315) is sometimes credited with being the first Christian to show an acquaintance with Kabbalah in his De auditu Kabbalistico, the work actually shows little familiarity with the Jewish tradition. Christian speculation about the Kabbalah first took root in the Florentine Renaissance. While Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) was busy translating and writing commentaries on the works of Plato, Plotinus, and Hermes Trismegistus, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) began studying kabbalistic works.

inside the southern Gaul one of the early homes of revival

 

what took place and where things came out of section ...by franz

 

yes indeed ,, beyond the platonic , hermetic systems of theology man creates !!!

 

1700 years out....

 Jacques Ellul questions the morality of human governmental structures, including government and politics of the church. Ellul self identifies as a Christian Anarchist, one who opposes authority without resorting to violence

In The Subversion of Christianity Ellul describes the hijacking of Christianity by politics and implicates the conversion of Roman Emperor Constantine and the anxiety over a growing church filled with non literate individuals, unschooled in Jewish history and tradition, as two factors that lead to the development of rules and the consolidation authority and power in the hands of a few elites. The Biblical story of God’s relationship to his people provides some evidence to support these ideas. 

The Bible is full of stories about human authority gone wrong and God’s attempts to fix it either by direct intervention (divine wrath, divine pleading, Jesus) or by intervention of his emissaries (AKA the Prophets, enemies, etc.).  It also appears that God may have tried to re-establish a direct relationship with his people when he called them out of  Egypt, one in which his presence walked with them as it had walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. But the people rejected the offer of God and asked for a human king. After centuries of kingship, exile, and priestly authority, Jesus brings the presence of God back to the people and walks with and amongst them and in opposition to the unjust authority of religion. When he leaves he puts the very presence of God in the hearts of human beings in the form of the Holy Spirit.

free to fly and go!!!by faith alone in christ alone

 Like Barth and Brunner before him, Jacques Ellul makes a distinction between the true faith and a institutionalized, world-encrusted religion. In "The Subversion of Christianity," Ellul condemns the Christian religion as a faith subverted by the world. He decries the triumph of philosophy. Theologians readily begin with the biblical witness or revelation but then quickly leave it behind. In a desire to reach the truth, they develop moral codes, philosophical systems, and metaphysical constructs. 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer questioned the relevance and morality of the Western form of Christianity in Letters and Papers from Prison.

Bonhoeffer wondered if religion in its present form was in the way of people experiencing and communing with God, whether religion took God out of the center of the community and placed him in a temple or in heaven, somewhere far away from humans. Bonhoeffer wanted to reverse the Exile of God and put him squarely back into the life of the people.

Peter Rollins calls his theological project Pyro-theology.  Pyro-theology calls us to bring ourselves and all that we love into the center of the “white-hot fire that burns up all we believe about ourselves, our gods and our universe” (http://peterrollins.net/?p=2390).  Rollins calls us to a life of questioning religious doctrines and the structure of the church steeped in a modernist worldview. 

He calls us to wrestle with God. Rollins has a parable in The Orthodox Heretic by the same name that is similar in theme to The Adjustment Bureau, God rewards the one who wrestles with him, the one who knows his character and the character of love, rather than the one who is merely obedient.

The work of Rollins, Bonhoeffer, and Ellul, challenges us to break through the prison walls of Western theological structures and to embrace the God at the center of our village.

had enough?? i have come!!Lord

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBHcvJhc6Pk enjoy  !!!

the differnces

 The "yoke of slavery" refers to being bound to the necessity to never fail. Because to fail is to bring condemnation and judgement. So we could say that Christ has set us free to fail. By His absolute substitution, He has actually taken our place under the wrath of God, and we have been given His place under the blessing of God. By absolute, I mean that there is no mixture of His performance and ours; no 60/40, 70/30, or even 99/1 split in responsibilities. 

In the final analysis, then, this means that we can fail and still enjoy freedom from the condemnation that holiness would typically demand of sin. That's not to say we should take a cavalier attitude toward our failure, but it is to say that we have to have this freedom before we can stand fast in the freedom of Christ.

Thus, being set free to fail by the redemption that is in Christ means that I cannot compromise His promise of eternal life by my failure. Thus, I am free. So, though I am free to fail, if I really believe that, I fail less, not more.

clearly stated

 

Monarchianism from Rome to Carthage.''

At Rome he had successfully won back the Bishop

From adherence to the New Prophecy of Montan-

ism,s of which feat Tertullian (himself then an ardent Montanist) scornfully remarked that he

Had done the devil a double service, "he had ,Driven out prophecy and brought in heresy, he

Put the Paraclete to flight, and crucified the Father." The specular type of "Monarchy" quote amazing statement..

egolost the grace !!!

 

another way of seeing

 

All you have to do is live for Him and you'll find yourself reproached, rejected, called evil: "Men shall hate you, and . . . shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake" (Luke 6:22).

 

 

"Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it" (Matthew 16:25).

In other words: "The only way you'll find meaning in life is by selling out your all for Me. Then you'll find true joy, peace and satisfaction."  True sir only in that  tension did I see real peace…

 

Wired in !!! bessie assumptions other wise

 

here ya go in case we were interested

 

simple as it gets

 

wonderful truth !!unsold ??

 

thanks goodness someone could think on their own !!

true ,,,

 

yep for sure!!

 

inside the rushing waters of spirit ledness !!!

 

here is  his quote....looking back at who they were, and what took place. may love abound in all of you.

“To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: ‘I know your works, and where you dwell... where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to my name, and did not deny my faith even in the days in which Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.'" Revelation 2:12

Today, all that's left of the city of Pergamum, now in modern-day Turkey, are ruins. But when the Apostle John wrote his letter to the church there, it was one of the most influential cities in the Roman Empire. 

“Pergamum had a unique status that was different than any other city because it was the political center, says Rick Renner, the author of A Light in the Darkness, a study of the seven assemblies  of Asia Minor. “It was from there that all the rulings were made that affected the whole of Asia Minor.”

The people of Pergamum were inventors and innovators. They perfected a parchment made out of calfskin and built the world's first psychiatric hospital.

Pergamum was also a well-known center for the arts. The city’s theater seated ten thousand people a night. The acoustics were so good that a whisper on stage could be heard all the way in the top row.

The city's acropolis rivaled Athens, and its library was the second largest in the ancient world. Its collection was so great that the Roman general Marc Antony presented it as a wedding gift to Cleopatra.

At the end of the first century, Pergamum  was a thriving city. So why does the book of Revelation call it the dwelling place of Satan? The answer lies in the ruins of the city's temples.

“On one side, it was a very beautiful city,” says Renner. “But on the flip side, it was one of the darkest, eeriest cities in the whole Roman Empire.”

The people of Pergamum were known as the "Temple-keepers of Asia." The city had three temples dedicated to the worship of the Roman emperor, another for the goddess Athena, and the Great Altar of Zeus, the king of the Greek gods. Many scholars believe this altar is the “Throne of Satan” mentioned in the book of Revelation.

“That word ‘throne’ was used in a personal private residence, and it was a chair for the lord of the house, the master of the house,” says Renner. “The very fact that Jesus would use this word means that Satan felt at home there. He sat on a throne there. It was his territory. He was the master of that house.”

The city also had a healing center called the Asklepion, built in honor of Asklepios, the Greek serpent-god. In the first century, this was a cross between a hospital and a health spa, where patients could get everything from a mud bath to a major surgery. Even the emperors came all the way from Rome to be treated here, but this was no ordinary doctor's visit.

“If you were a terminal patient, you were not allowed to go into the Asklepion,” says Renner. “These Asklepion priests didn’t want anyone hearing that someone had died in the Asklepion.  There was a huge sign just above the official entrance to the Asklepion that said, ‘Death is not permitted here.’ So the only way you were going to get in to begin with is if they knew you were going to live.”

Patients entered through an underground tunnel. Then they drank a sedative, and spent the night in the dormitories of the Asklepion, while non-poisonous snakes crawled around them all night. They were told that the serpent-god Asklepios would speak to them in their dreams and give them a diagnosis.

“It was believed that the snakes carried the healing power of Asklepios,” and if a snake slithered across you while you were sleeping at night, that was a divine sign that healing power was coming to you.”

The next morning, the patients told their "dreams" to the priests, who prescribed their treatments. Finally, the patients made clay sculptures of the body parts that needed healing and offered them to Asklepios.

The people of Pergamum worshipped a myriad of Greek and Roman gods, but when Christianity arrived with the belief in just one god, the city's pagan priests went on the attack and their most famous victim was a man named Antipas.

In the book of Revelation, Jesus called Antipas "my faithful martyr." He was the bishop of Pergamum, ordained by the Apostle John, and his faith got the attention of the priests of Asklepios.

“He had cast out so many devils that the demons had been complaining to pagans, saying, ‘You’ve got to do something about this Antipas’,” says Renner.

The pagan priests went to the Roman governor and complained that the prayers of Antipas were driving their spirits out of the city and hindering the worship of their gods.  As punishment, the governor ordered Antipas to offer a sacrifice of wine and incense to a statue of the Roman emperor and declare that the emperor was "lord and god."

Antipas refused.

“If you reject the divinity of the emperor, then that is the equivalent of rejecting the city of Rome,” says Renner, “and believers were killed for this.”

Antipas was sentenced to death on the Altar of Zeus. Most of that altar still survives today, and surrounding it are some of the world's most famous marble friezes. They depict the Gigantomachy, or the battle between the Greek gods and the giants. At the top of the altar was a hollow bronze bull, designed for human sacrifice.

Renner describes the method of execution suffered by Antipas.         

“They would take the victim, place him inside the bull, and they would tie him in such a way that his head would go into the head of the bull. Then they would light a huge fire under the bull, and as the fire heated the bronze, the person inside of the bull would slowly begin to roast to death. As the victim would begin to moan and to cry out in pain, his cries would echo through the pipes in the head of the bull so it seemed to make the bull come alive.”

Even in the midst of the flames, the elderly bishop Antipas died praying for his ecclesia. The year was AD 92.

A few years later, the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation, mentioning the death of Antipas in Pergamum. Today, all that's left there is the foundation; the Altar of Zeus is more than a thousand miles away.

In the 19th century, German engineers dismantled the altar and took it to Berlin. The so-called "Throne of Satan" went on display in the city's Pergamon Museum in 1930, just in time to inspire one of the most brutal dictators the world has ever seen.

 

your questions i agree ,,, on the age part as well , easily

 

here ya the crux comes mind in the last part of the statement !!!!

 

I was delighted he made that statement  lot of that is edited the new stuff today as thing got white washed  ..... love it !!! 

Historical back grounds terms and the forms mixed and matched section one

 This word along with the word "Christian", were instituted as replacements in the New Testament (Covenant) for Israel, as where in the Old Testament (Covenant), the word Church and Christian never existed. The words that were used in regards to the chosen people of the Most High, were the words "Congregation", and "Assembly". When you search the word of the Most High, you'll find the big difference in word usage, such as the word Church is mentioned 111 times in the New Testament (Covenant), and 0 Times in the Old Testament. Then upon further examination, you'll discover that Israel is mentioned 73 times in the New Testament (Covenant), but 2,220 times in the Old Testament (Covenant). Now if the "Church" as it is promoted in this society, was so important, how come the Most High never mentioned it to his people? Simply because its not of his fashion, so lets examine where this word "Church" comes from and what it really means.

The word "church" is from kuriakon or kyriakon in Greek, but it is known in Scotland as "kirk," in Germany as "Kirche," and in the Netherlands as "kerk." It means a building (the house of Kurios, or house of the Lord), in which in 1 Corinthians 8:5 it says that there are many lords, in which the custom of the Pagans was the worship of Sun Gods and reverence of them as being Lords. So refering to the church as the house of the Lord, is not denoting what Lord, because the meaning never did, so the people today have no idea they referring to an idol god. The word Kirche is similar to the Hebrew word (kikkar) Rkk, meaning a disk or cicle thus meaning Sun Worship. The Sun was worshipped as Baal or Lord by a full circle of pagans, which is why pagans worshipped on the first day of the week, Sun-day, as those claiming to be christians are doing today unaware that they are actually pagans.

The word Church is found in the Anglo Saxon root word 'Circe', a minor goddess of magic (or sometimes a nymph, witch, enchantress or sorceress) who was the daughter of the Sun God worshipped as "Christos Helios", from whom the name Christ is derived from who was a Roman Sun god. The proper Hebrew word is Aqhal (Ihq) which means Assembly, Company, Congregation, called out as an organized body. So as you can see by the etymology of the word "Church", it is clearly of Pagan origin, and has nothing to do with the Most High nor his people, but has everything to do with those who worship the Sun as god on Sun-day, in their Roman Pantheon known as a Church. See what most people in these religious institutions don't know is that, Roman Emperor Constantine The Great in 321 AD, legislated Sun-day as a day of rest dedicated to the Greek and Roman Sun-god, Helios.

Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun.

Church comes from the Anglo-Saxon root word "circe," and stems from the Greek name of the goddess "Circe," the daughter of "Helios," the Roman Sun-god adopted from Greek mythology. So today, these people in these religious institutions throughout the world, have been deceived into worshipping Helios in his daughter's name Church, and are really Pagans in every form shape and fashion. Most churches you see estaablished today, are State controlled 501-C (3) Corporations. A Church that is formed under the permission of the State and thereby accepts State offered benefits for doing so, is no longer under the "headship" of Messiah, but has instead placed it's self under the sole authority of the State. A 501-C (3) Church or any Church formed by State permission under any "Corporate form" will no longer be permitted to discuss the affairs that may counter or oppose the rules or laws established by the State, for they are at the complete mercy of the State in all matters.

Acts 5:29 states - Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. So if the Most High as he has done with everyone of his servants the prophets, and his Son, move on them to prophesy against the nation and governments of the earth, these religious sold out State flunkies, have to disobey the Most High and obey man who pays their salary, or else be dealt with by the State and then Jewish Elite who controls the American government. The Son of Man and his disciples went to the people to teach, they didn't have no church setup for the people to come and hear them to get knowledge, the Pharisees and the hypocrites had churches, aka temples and synagogues. The Son of Man and his disciples were in the streets were the sick and blind and lepers were, in the streets is where the word of the Most High is needed, not in some Pagan temple.

Question: When the Son of Man came to town, did he enter the church so that the sick could come in and be healed?

Mark 6:56 - And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.

The Son of Man dwelt amongst the people, he wasn't high minded and needed some building for the people to come see him at as if he was a Superstar.

He went unto the people, he entered into villages, and cities, and countries, where the people where at and needed him, because the people sought after him with a passion and his mission was to serve the people.

We know he didn't have a church setup where he taught in villages and cities and countries, because scripture says they sought him in the streets. True teachers of the Most High are not limited to a building, they are out amongst the people teaching daily as did the Son of Man and his followers and prophets did. What was the name of Moses church? What was the name of any of the prophets church? What was the name of the Son of Man church? Exactly, they didn't have one the hypocrites and Pagans had them.

Question: Where did the people seek Peter at, was it in a church?

Acts 5:15 - Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

Where in the precept did it say they brought them into the church, and laid them on the seats? Nowhere, he was in the streets like every true servant of the Most High would be doing as the Son of Man and prophets and disciples did, which was go unto the people.

Question: Where did the Son of Man tell his disciples to go and get people, was it the church?

Matthew 22:9 - Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

amazing

 The tragedy of the Galatian Christians was that they went sadly wrong after beginning so well.  “Foolish” means “spiritually dull and unwise”.  (See Luke 24:25 where the same Greek word “anoeetos” is used.)  Christians are deceived, says Paul in verse one, when they take their eyes off the Cross as the centre of their Christian life.  The cross of Christ was always central with Paul.

Some commentators see the question, “Who has bewitched you?” as a sarcastic rhetorical one and favour a figurative explanation. For example, F. F. Bruce paraphrases, “Who is it that has hypnotized you?” [59]  Others offer a more literal explanation involving witchcraft.  Either way, the influence of a cunning satanic power corrupted the faith of the Galatians and used legalism to do so.

The Greek “baskaino”, Strong’s #940, translated “bewitched” (KJV; NIV) or “ put a spell on?” (TEV; JB) occurs only here in the NT.  Thayer says it originally mean “to speak ill of one, to slander” [60].  Vine defines the word as “to slander anyone; to bring evil on a person by feigned praise, or mislead by an evil eye, and so to charm, or bewitch” (English, “fascinate” is connected); it is used figuratively in Galatians 3:1 of leading into evil doctrine.”

The UBS Handbook Series has “Who put a spell on you?” and adds this comment:

“The word “bewitched” suggests the use of magic, particularly the casting of a spell through the use of the evil eye.  The belief that one person could cast a spell over another is common in many parts of the world, but one must not deduce from this statement that Paul believed in magic.  He is more likely using “bewitched” in a metaphorical sense, and he probably means by it “to pervert,” “to lead astray,” or “to confuse the mind.” [61]

G. Delling offers a more literal interpretation of “baskaino”.  He says, “This is not an exaggerated metaphor, for behind magic stands the power of falsehood and this has been exercised to do harm to the Galatians.  The dangerous feature is that the Galatians have willingly yielded to these magicians and their influence without realising to what powers of falsehood they were surrendering.

spirit led yet !!!

 My grace is precious, and suffereth not itself to be mingled with strange things nor earthly consolations. 

Wherefore it behoveth thee to cast away impediments to grace, if thou wiliest to receive the inpouring there of. Ask for thyself a secret place, love to dwell alone with thyself, seek confabulation of none other . . . put the readiness for God before all other things, for thou canst not both take heed to Me and delight in things transitory.

digging deeper than gobbling ...

 

Robert Fludd was a Kentish Anglican alchemist, Paracelsist physician, mathematician, astronomer, cosmologist, Qabalist, Rosicrucian apologist, and alleged 16th Grand Master of the Prieuré de Sion. Fludd was considered by Crowley to be an Adeptus Exemptus. Fludd was a prolific writer, and many of his works on alchemy, Rosicrucianism, occult medicine, the “magnetic” philosophy and various scientific theories survive. The illustration of a “Design suitable for top of altar,” Plate 2(b) of Book IV, Part III, is from Fludd's Utriusque Cosmi Historia. Fludd was allegedly a member of the committee which drafted the “King James” translation of the bible in 1611. quote beyond  assume !!

inside the deeper truths ,,, freedom from the secret orders!!!!

 

in depth moving beyond twisting !!1

 The two most important words in Galatians 5:4 are καταργέω (severed) and ἐκπίπτω (fallen). The word καταργέω does not require the “harsh” implications that come with “sever” in the English language, though it should not be taken lightly. In light of Paul’s words in Galatians 5:2 and how Paul uses the term in verses such as Romans 3:3, 4:14, and 1 Corinthians 1:28, a good way of understanding the term καταργέω is “nullify” or “done away with.” While the word ἐκπίπτω can undoubtedly mean to fall away from a previously held position, as those who deny the eternal security of true believers assert, in the context of this verse and how it is used in passages such as Acts 27, a good understanding of the phrase in Galatians 5:4 is that of “estranged” or “separated from.”

getting rid of the self sarxisms ,,,

 Wuest explains that "The Judaizers in preaching a message of law obedience to the Galatian Christians, caused these latter to abandon the position of grace and put themselves in the sphere of law, both that of the Judaizers’ system of legalism, and that of the Old Testament economy. Because there was no provision in the Mosaic economy for an indwelling Spirit Who would sanctify the believer as that believer trusted Him for that work, the Galatians were turning away from the teaching and the reality of the ministry of the Spirit in the life of the believer in this dispensation of grace, and were starting to depend upon self effort in an attempt to obey an outward legalistic system of works. Thus these Christians who had begun their Christian lives in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, now were depending upon self effort to continue in them the work of sanctification which the Holy Spirit had begun. 

The present tense of the verb ("now being perfected") here indicates that the Galatians had already begun this attempt. Paul says in effect, “How foolish to think that you can bring yourselves to a state of spiritual maturity in your Christian lives. That is the work of the Spirit. Only He can do that for you.”  (Galatians Commentary)

exposing's the truths

 Are you so foolish? - "Are you so irrational." Barclay = "Are you so senseless?" Wuest = "Are you so unreflecting?" GWN = "Are you that stupid?" Paul used the Greek anoetos  to convey the idea of those who could think but who had failed to use their power of perception. "The principles Paul referred to are things the Galatians knew, things they had been taught. The knowledge and understanding were there, but they were not using them." (Guzik)

THOUGHT - I am a bit convicted here -- it is one thing to possess spiritual knowledge but is a problem if we don't allow the knowledge to "possess us!" Woe!

I would not work my soul to save,
For this my Lord has done;
But I work like any slave,
For love of God’s dear Son.
(source unknown)

 Guzik on this foolishness - This deception was cultivated by Satan to set our Christian life off-track. If he cannot stop us from being saved by faith, then he will attempt to hinder our blessing and growth and maturity by faith.  (Galatians 3 Commentary)

Foolish (453) see preceding discussion on anoetos used in Gal 3:1. 

Anoetos speaks of someone who is lacking in discernment. The Galatians had been taught the truth of the Gospel and Jesus, but they failed to examine the teachings of the Judaizers in the light of this truth with the result that the Judaizers led them out of truth and the lie that they needed to perform works in order to grow spiritually. 

Bartlett - Sanctification, no less than regeneration, is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT,  conditioned by faith on the part of the Christians. This is a further reason why all forms of legalism should be cast out root and branch. Is it reasonable, Paul asks in effect that you can by conforming to rites and ceremonies bring to fruition that which the HOLY SPIRIT alone could initiate in your souls? Merely to ask such a question is to answer it in the negative. What has been in-planted by the SPIRIT must be un-folded in the SPIRIT. What He begins He will complete (Php 1:6+) (Galatians 3:1-22 - Doctrinal Exposition

truths being told,,,,

 These were men crying for reformation. The word reformation implies that the church to be reformed was deformed or malformed. What was in need of reformation? What was wrong? Some things seemed obvious, but average people had no way of proving or disproving their suspicions. If they did speak up their lives would be endangered by the very institution that claimed to speak for the God of love. The terror that plagued the hearts and minds at the very mention of the word heretic kept them silent, for the end of everyone who was given the title was the same--burning at the stake.

There was one that would not keep silent. His keen mind had been honed in the finest schools of 15th century England. William Tyndale was a graduate of Oxford and Cambridge, a Greek scholar. He was a man moved by compassion for the plight of the people of England. He despised the tyranny of the papal Church, showing his contempt by referring to its priesthood as scribes and Pharisees.

"Moreover, because the kingdom of heaven, which is the scripture and word of God, may be so locked up, that he which readeth or heareth it, cannot understand it: as Christ testifieth how the Scribes and the Pharisees had so shut it up (Matt 23) and had taken away the key of knowledge (Luke 11) that their Jews which thought themselves within, were yet so locked out, and are to this day that they can understand no sentence of the scripture unto salvation, though they can rehearse the texts everywhere and dispute thereof as subtly as the popish doctors of dunce's dark learning, which with their sophistry, served us, as the Pharisees did the Jews…" (Tyndale's New Testament, Preface 1534)

Furthermore, he accused them of altering the scriptures to suit their own purpose.

"I thought it my duty (most dear reader) to warn thee before and to show thee the right way in, and to give thee the true key to open it withal, and to arm thee against false prophets and malicious hypocrites whose perpetual study is to leavn the scripture with glosses, and there to lock it up where it should save thy soul, and to make us shoot at a wrong mark, to put our trust in those things that profit their bellies only and slay our souls." (Ibid, Preface)

Later John Foxe wrote:

"Master Tyndale considered this only, or most chiefly, to be the cause of all mischief in the Church, that the Scriptures of God were hidden from the people's eyes; for so long the abominable doings and idolatries maintained by the pharisaical clergy could not be espied; and therefore all their labor was with might and main to keep it down, so that either it should not be read at all, or if it were, they would darken the right sense with the mist of their sophistry, and so entangle those who rebuked or despised their abominations; wresting the Scripture unto their own purpose, contrary unto the meaning of the text, they would so delude the unlearned lay people, that though thou felt in thy heart, and wert sure that all were false that they said, yet couldst thou not solve their subtle riddles." (Foxe's Book of Martyrs, Chapter 12).

Tyndale's assessment of the problem was that the scriptures were hidden from the eyes of the people. As a result, the people could not solve the priest’s subtle riddles. The clergy covered up their abominations and idolatries by hiding the scriptures from the people's eyes and darkening the right sense of the scriptures by their fallacious arguments. This went well beyond mere verbal deceit to tampering with the scriptural text.

Tyndale set himself to solve this problem by producing the world’s first English New Testament, translated from the original Greek into the common vernacular of the people. In doing so, he exposed what we call the great ecclesiastical conspiracy that was at the heart of all the abuses. The church had something to protect and protect it they did, and in their usual manner they began to plot the death of the heretic.

Michael Scheifler tells of the general sense of ill will toward Tyndale by those of the papal church, and why.

"Sir Thomas More, had this to say about Tyndale- he calls him 'a beast', as one of the 'hell-hounds that the devil hath in his kennel', discharging a 'filthy foam of blasphemies out of his brutish beastly mouth'...

"So what had Tyndale done in his translation that was so heretical? According to David Daniell, Tyndale had translated the Greek word for 'elder' as 'elder' instead of 'priest', he had translated the Greek word for 'congregation' as 'congregation' instead of 'church', the Greek word for 'repentance' as 'repentance' instead of 'penance' etc. Why were such differences important to the church? The Roman Church has priests, not elders. A congregation implies a locally autonomous group of believers guided by the Holy Spirit and not a hierarchical unified church subject to a Pope. The Roman Church is built on penance and indulgences to the priest and Church, not repentance to, and forgiveness from God. In trying to faithfully render the Greek into English, Tyndale's translation exposed the errors of the church to the people which quickly brought the wrath of the church down on him." (Michael Scheifler, William Tyndale - Heretical Blasphemer?)

Even the casual reader of history will discover that there was in fact an attempt by the Church of Rome to adulterate the scriptures. An attempt to replace the Greek and Hebrew text with Latin to keep the true meaning of the scriptures from the people, concealing them in a dead language that only scholars knew. It was a conspiracy conceived in hell.

Let us digress for a moment.

By 600 AD Latin was the only language allowed for scripture. The scriptures were thus subject to Papal interpretation and were most certainly altered to suit the church’s ecclesiastical paradigm. This explains the hatred for the Hebrew and Greek texts, since the original texts exposed their façade.

Albert Gilmore explains,

"The languages of the early Bibles, Hebrew and Greek, were no longer of interest. So marked did this lack of interest become that when, after the Renaissance, Cardinal Ximenes published his Polyglot edition with the Latin Vulgate between the Greek and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, he stated in his preface that it was 'like Jesus between two thieves" (Gilmore, The Bible: Beacon Light of History, Boston: Associated Authors, 1935, p. 170).

Tyndale was right. They were wresting the scriptures unto their own purposes. How far had the church fallen from its original norm? Suffice it to say that it was nothing like its founder (Jesus) intended. Amazingly enough, the Bible itself was the primary tool for deception. By the adulteration and misrepresentation of the scriptures, ambitious men justified their jobs in a system ruled by despotic pontiff kings and their hireling bishops. This is no less than a conspiracy that continues to this very day.

The following questions may help us see the depth of this conspiracy.

How did the Greek word Ekklesia, meaning a called out assembly, come to be translated church, a word that is neither Greek or English but is of doubtful Latin or perhaps Scottish origin and implies temple worship? Some believe it to be of pagan origin. Regardless, what is a word that is neither Greek nor English doing in a Greek to English translation?

Why did the Greek words presbytery (the elderly), apostle (envoy or sent one), and deacon (servant) remain untranslated into their Anglicized form? Why was the Greek word presbuteros (older or elderly) translated priest? Why indeed! There is little doubt that these words remained untranslated so the clergy could redefine them, interpreting them with the strongest institutional and hierarchical connotations. Was this mere ignorance, or a means of creating a ruling class of super saints? It is clear to us that down through the years the scriptures have been subjected to papal tampering. There even remains evidence that some of the early manuscripts were altered.

"But almost all authorities on the text agree that they preserve a better text than the standardized 5th century one, which shows clear signs of having been edited." (Erdmans Handbook to the Bible, pp. 73)

It is also clear that this tampering was to promote and justify a system of church government ordered after the government of "the kings of the Gentiles," which Christ had strictly prohibited, saying, "But you shall not be so." (See Luke 22:25-26). Whatever happened to the servanthood that Jesus and the early Church modeled? How did these servants of the first century give way to the pontiff kings of the fourth and fifth centuries? Had Christ’s declaration, "But you shall not be so," been forgotten?

The early believers followed the Lord's example and instructions on this all-important matter, and they viewed servanthood as the highest vocation. But by the close of the first century, the subtle signs of the rise of the bishops began, ever so cunningly, to corrupt the simplicity of the faith and to defile the example of the lowly Christ. As absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely, so the corruption began. Like a dead corpse rotting away, in time the Church bore only a vague resemblance to what was once living and vibrant.

In the third century, the wound worsened by the full marriage of this apostate church to paganism. This new "Christianity" became the imperial religion of the Roman Empire. It was there at Constantinople that the very first Christian temples were constructed. They were merely christianized pagan temples. The priesthood was fashioned after a mixture of the Old Testament and pagan priesthoods. Finally, Rome had done it. If they could not add Christ to the pantheon, they would bring the pantheon to Christianity. The Romans had long since tried to further unite their empire by uniting all its gods in one temple, the pantheon. There the worship of the Son was mixed with the worship of the sun, so much so that a third century mosaic from a tomb found under Saint Peter’s in Rome depicted Christ as the sun god in his chariot. It was not until the fifth century that the worshipers in Rome stopped bowing to the sun before entering Saint Peter's basilica.

"Pope Leo 1, in the middle of the fifth century, rebuked worshippers who turned around to bow to the sun before entering St Peters basilica." (Erdmans’ Handbook to the History of Christianity, pg. 131)

The deception reigned unchecked for 925 years, until William Tyndale challenged this religious institution with the light of the truth. He revealed part of the conspiracy that had enslaved the family of God in this twisted, abnormal thing, which the pharisaical clergy called the church.

Although he revealed some of the conspiracy, changing history forever, it none the less remains. The light sent it scurrying into the shadows only to return in a more subtle, congenial form, an anglicized form. It now smiled as it placed the dagger between the forth and the fifth rib. A tame beast is still a beast, and though defanged and declawed, it can still cripple and maim.

After Tyndale was martyred for his efforts, and all but two of his Bibles destroyed, several important events occurred. First, Henry VIII evicted the Catholic Church from England because the Pope refused to annul his marriage with Catherine of Aragon and sanction his illicit relationship with Anne Boleyn. The break with Rome came in 1534, when Parliament passed the Supremacy Act, making Henry head of the Church of England. Henry was somewhat sympathetic to Luther's views, which opened England as never before to Protestant influences, including translating, printing and importing Protestant Bibles. Some men, such as Coverdale, were inspired to continue in the spirit of Tyndale's work. There was also the Geneva Bible, which effected great changes throughout Europe. In the tradition of Tyndale, these Bibles no longer promoted the divine right of kings and ruling bishops, but instead recognized the priesthood of all believers. To kings and bishops who exercised absolute authority over the masses, this was intolerable. More than anything else, this set the stage for the translation of a new Bible. The king's new Bible was translated to solidify the station of both king and bishops, preserving and advancing a system of Church government that stood in antithesis to Christ's example and teachings and continues to do so until this very day.

We believe in the inspiration and accuracy of the koine Greek texts of the New Testament. However the translations that have followed are not as reliable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is ecclesiastical ambition. Historically, this love letter from God that we call the Bible was shaped into a scepter of power in the hands of popes, kings and would-be kings to further consolidate their power over the masses. Undoubtedly this very ambition has tainted the translations from Jerome onward. This reached new heights at a time when bishops sought the approval of kings to authorize translations that had been purposefully skewed toward their ecclesiastical paradigm.

It is ludicrous to many that the Protestant Church could be guilty of carrying on any of the traditions of the Catholic Church that it so loudly objected to. To some, the idea of an ongoing conspiracy is even more unbelievable, because they already possess the unadulterated truth. They hold it in their hands, professing that it is the ultimate authority, the only true Bible, the authorized Bible, the King James Bible. Authorized by whom? No less than King James himself! King James did his part in preserving the conspiracy.

An understanding of the political climate of the early 16th century is crucial if we are to comprehend the motives and logic behind the king's new translation. King James was a staunch advocate of the divine right of kings, as facilitated by puppet bishops. This was the Anglican answer to papal succession, in which active resistance to pope or king was considered a sin worthy of eternal damnation. In his Basilicon Doron, in the second sonnet entitled "The Argument of the Book" (written to his son), we catch a glimpse of James' exaggerated appraisal of kingship.

"GOD gives not Kings the style of Gods in vain,
For on his throne his Scepter do they sway:
And as their subjects out [sic] them to obey,
So Kings should fear and serve their god again."

Using similar language, in his first address to the Parliament, James defended his doctrine of the divine right of kings. He did not mince words regarding his intention to be an absolute monarch over England. He presented the following logic as grounds for his supremacy.

"The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth and set upon God’s throne, but even by God himself they are called gods."

True to his words, James dissolved Parliament and for ten years thereafter he ruled England without it.

Considering James' overstated view of kingship and his disregard for the parliamentarian style of leadership, it is understandable that he would also have apprehensions regarding Presbyterianism. This style of church government was developed by Calvin in Geneva, and had no place for kings or bishops.

In his excellent book entitled In the Beginning, Alister McGrath tells of a particular event that took place in Scotland, which shaped James' views on this matter.

"His views on this matter were shaped to no small extent by some unpleasant experiences with Scottish presbyteries, particularly under Andrew Melville, a Scottish Presbyterian who had taught at Geneva Academy, and formed a close personal relationship with Calvin's protégé, Theodore Beza. At a heated encounter between the king and senior churchmen at Falkland Place in October 1596, Melville had physically taken hold of James and accused him of being "God's silly vassal." Melville pointedly declared that while they would support James as king in public, in private they all knew perfectly well that Christ was the true king of Scotland, and his kingdom was the Kirk - a kingdom in which James was a mere member, not a lord or head. James was shaken by this physical and verbal assault, not the least because it suggested that Melville and his allies posed a significant threat to the Scottish throne." (In The Beginning - pg. 140)

James also developed a dislike for the Geneva Bible, which was widely read and promoted by the Puritans. At that time it was in fact the most popular Bible in England. James' disdain for the Geneva Bible was not so much due to the translation itself but primarily because of its marginal notes that promoted the notion that all believers comprised the New Testament priesthood and that they, not the king, were God's anointed.

The Geneva Bible notes on Psalms 105:14-15 read,

Psalm 105:14 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reprove kings for their sakes;
(g) That is, the king of Egypt and the king of Gerar, (Ge 12:17,20:3)
Psalm 105:15 [Saying], Touch not mine anointed (h), and do my prophets (i) no harm.
(h) Those whom I have sanctified to be my people.
(i) Meaning, the old fathers, to whom God showed himself plainly, and who set forth his word.

The anointed that should not be touched were not kings. In fact, God reproved kings for their sake. The anointed consists of all those whom God has sanctified to be His people, not a king or a special breed of ruling ministers. The Geneva Bible notes on Luke 22:24 reads,

Luke 22:24 8 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

(8) The pastors are not called to rule but to serve.

Gary DeMar comments further.

"In 1620 the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth with their Bibles and a conviction derived from those Bibles of establishing a new nation. The Bible was not the King James Version. When James I became king of England in 1603, there were two translations of the Bible in use; the Geneva Bible was the most popular, and the Bishops' Bible was used for reading in churches.

"King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious marginal notes on key political texts. A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idol. The King James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a political threat to his kingdom.

"At a conference at Hampton Court in 1604 with bishops and theologians, the king listened to a suggestion by the Puritan scholar John Reynolds that a new translation of the Bible was needed. Because of his distaste for the Geneva Bible, James was eager for a new translation. 'I profess,' he said, 'I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst.'" (Gary DeMar, The Geneva Bible: The Forgotten Translation)

This helps us to better understand why the Geneva Bible was so despised by King James. It is not an overstatement to say that much of James' conduct as king of England was reactionary, done to counter an unacceptable turn toward egalitarianism. There is little doubt in our minds but that a clandestine scheme lay at the heart of James' decision to translate his new Bible.

After James came to England and was crowned king, a bishop by the name of Richard Bancroft, soon to become archbishop, sought to save the church and the nation of England from the puritan "false prophets." Bancroft was aware of James' exalted view of kingship and used that knowledge to promote his own agenda. In presenting the Puritans as a threat to the crown, Bancroft solicited the king's help in suppressing this greatest threat to his position and power and in so doing made himself the highest authority in the Church of England, second only to the King himself. There can be little doubt but that the true motive behind Bancroft's intrigue was a desire to preserve the power of the unbiblical bishoprick.

Alister McGrath explains Bancroft's strategy.

"Bancroft's strategy for coping with James was simple. He would persuade James that the monarchy was dependent upon the episcopacy. Without bishops there was no future for the monarchy in England." (In The Beginning - page 152)

This political cunning played a significant role in the decision to translate a new Bible, an Authorized Version that would make all other versions unauthorized. From all appearances, the new translation was a calculated initial step toward ridding England of the despised Geneva Bible and its marginal notes. This new Bible would preserve and promote the divine right of kings and bishops to rule. Bishop Bancroft was placed in charge of the translation. This move was akin to a CEO entrusting the company finances to a known embezzler! There is little doubt that Bancroft stacked the translation panel with a goodly number of translators who shared his views.

Mr. McGrath explains,

"A further point that helped win Bancroft over to the new translation was that he was able to secure for himself a leading personal role in selecting the translators, and then in limiting their freedom. Bancroft had realized that it was better to create a new official translation that he could influence than to have to contend with the authorization of the Geneva Bible. It was decidedly the lesser of two evils. He was in a position to exercise considerable influence over the new bible, by laying rules of translation that would insure that it would be sympathetic to the position and sensitivities of the established church of England. And finally he would be in a position to review the final text of the translation, in case it needed any judicious changes before publication…" (In The Beginning - page 164)

Determined to ensure that the translation process was prudently guided, Bancroft limited the freedom of the translators by drafting fifteen rules of translation, which were approved by King James.

Two of these rules are of special importance.

1.) "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, was to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit."
3.) "The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, vis. The word Church not to be translated Congregation &c."

The Bishops Bible was a revision of the Great Bible, which was expressly translated in hopes of replacing the Geneva Bible. Archbishop Matthew Parker commissioned this revision. A company of bishops did the translating - thus the name "The Bishops Bible." Archbishop Parker faced considerable opposition from the Puritans for his insistence upon the use of robes and his writings that held to the old line.

Ironically the Bishops Bible, which until that time had been ineffective in accomplishing its original purpose of replacing the Geneva Bible, would now, in the hands of another ambitious bishop, be used to that very end. In order to preserve their precious power base, King James and Bishop Bancroft took a giant step backwards in order to negate the Tyndale, Coverdale, and Geneva Bibles.

Rule number three was clearly designed to insure that Tyndale’s translation of the Greek word ekklesia as congregation instead of church would not be used in the King’s new Bible. Tyndale had translated the Greek word ekklesia as congregation, and revealed his contempt for the word Church by using the word churches in Acts 19:37 to refer to heathen temples. Could he have been trying to tell us something?

Clearly, an accurate translation was not the objective of Bancroft and his team. As if that were not enough, when the translation was complete, Bancroft took the final draft into his home and further altered it before giving it over to the king to be published.

Alister McGrath explains:

"Having completed their recommendations for revision (of the work of the translators of the king's new Bible), the text was passed on to Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson, who were charged with the adding of the finishing touches. It is not clear whether their role was to review the overall text of the translation, or simply to comment on the specific changes proposed by the editorial committee that had met at Stationers' Hall. Then, in an apparently unscripted development, Richard Bancroft reviewed what had been hitherto regarded as the final version of the text. It would be one of his final acts; Bancroft died on November 2, 1610, and never lived to see the translation over which he had held so much sway (by order of the king). Smith complained loudly to anyone who would listen that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation. Yet we remain unclear to what those alleged changes might have been." (In The Beginning - page 188)

This is only a sample of the kind of political jockeying that was going on behind the scenes and the ambition that sponsored the translating, editing and publication of the king's new Bible, which could not escape being tainted by such ambition.

King James prohibited his translators from removing the old ecclesiastical words that had taken generations to weave into the text. He had to make a special emphasis in order to keep them, since any honest translator would have translated them out. Bancroft and King James intended to keep them no matter what the translators discovered.

"I am convinced that the King James Translators, laboring under an 'institutional church' mentality, selected the strongest words possible which conveyed the idea that the people must submit to the authority of the clergy. In this way King James could control the people through the Church, of which he was Supreme Ruler."

free get free !!!

 Night is as day to You,

Darkness as light.

I am afraid to touch

Things that involve so much;

My trembling hand may shake,

My skilless hand may break;

Yours can make no mistake.”

Being in doubt I say,

“Lord, make it plain;

Which is the true, safe way?

Which would be gain?

I am not wise to know,

Nor sure of foot to go;

What is so clear to Thee,

Lord, make it clear to me!”

It is such a comfort to drop the entanglements and perplexities

of life into God’s hands and leave them there.

your question ,, answered early on,,,, the temporal things as divine which are not , your the temple now

 

thanks true , this is why slanting is such serious game !!

 The ancient Greeks in their literature talked about men being aware of the danger of the hypnotic power of Circe and of the Sirens of the Sea. But sometimes the Greek sailors thought they were immune to the danger. This unwillingness to recognize the danger of being brought under a spell from something alluring is like the Strong Delusion that Paul warns about:

“…God shall send them Strong Delusion, that they should believe a lie… (II Thessalonians 2:11).

lets look at how things got changed ,,,

 Lets go back to the translation of ekklesia in Matthew 16: 18.

And I saye also vnto the that thou arte Peter: and apon this rocke I wyll bylde my congregacion. And the gates of hell shall not prevayle ageynst it. (Tyndale, 1526)

The King James Version for Matthew 16: 18 says "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

For Acts 14: 13 Tyndale (in modern English spelling) has: "Then Jupiters Priest which dwelt before their city brought ox and garlands into the churche porch and would have done sacrifice with the people."

Tyndale's spelling of "churche" is not corrected here to put it into Modern English spelling. "Churche" is apparently a variation on the spelling "chirche," from circe, the enchantress of Greek myth. well maybe ? see it ???? 

BRIAN FOG BUSTERS SECTION

 GALATIANS 5 /3-6 

1 CORINTHIANS 2 KJ3 THE YOUNGS LITERAL  FORM /THE RECEIVED TEXTS ALTERNIVE TO  FREE FROM  SLANTING THE FLOORS, CEILINGS , STAIR CASES,  OR CREATING THE OBSCURE WORLD OF ASSUMPTION  AND PHIL0SOPHY . REFUSING THE ALCHMEICA'S PHILOSPHY  AND INTO  CHRIST ALONE !

THE DIFFERNCE The distinction between "Evangelical Humanism" and Christianity must be made. Christianity is Christ; the spiritual dynamic of the Lord Jesus Christ functioning in man. The Christian life is the behavioral expression of Christians deriving all from Him by faith, our receptivity of His activity. Christ functions as Life in us, to live out His Life. Christ functions as the Righteous One in us, to live out His Righteousness. Christ functions as God in us, to live out His godliness. Christ functions as Savior in us, to effect salvation in us making us safe from misused and dysfunctional humanity and restoring us to the functional humanity that God intends.

    We must repudiate the fallacy of human independence, the lie of the independent self, of deified humanity. Man is a spiritually and behaviorally dependent creature. This is not mechanistic determinism that posits man as merely a stimulus-response mechanism. God created us with the capability of personal receptivity, a real choice of spiritual dependency. Our behavioral expressions are derived from one spiritual source or the other, either God or Satan. The behavioral fruit must always be traced to its spiritual root. Righteous behavior can only be the result of the Righteous One, Jesus Christ, living out His character of righteousness in us. Unrighteousness is always a result of the Evil One, Satan, living out his character of evil, unrighteousness, ungodliness, sinfulness and selfishness in us, causing us to "act like the devil."

    Major W. Ian Thomas states in his book, The Mystery of Godliness, "As godliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of God's activity, and God's capacity to reproduce Himself in you, so all ungodliness is the direct and exclusive consequence of satan's activity, and of his capacity to reproduce the devil in you."

    Apparently the theologians of the Evangelical movement considered themselves too "enlightened" by humanistic psychological concepts to be so categorical, to attribute man's spiritual condition and behavior either to God or to Satan. So they accommodated humanistic premises to explain both unregeneracy and carnality.

    Evangelical Humanism predominates in Western churches today. The message is: "We can do it. It is up to us. Do your best, give it your all. Be involved, committed, dedicated and active." The tragedy is that those in evangelical churches are susceptible as easy prey to the New Age philosophy of cosmic humanism. When we do not make the clear-cut distinction of "Either/Or" of spiritual origin and derivation, it is easy to slide into the monistic fusion of good and evil, and to accept the narcissistic selfism of New Age thought. Evangelical Humanism has already accepted the basic thesis of cosmic humanism ­ the inherent ability of an alleged independent man to be his own center of reference and the cause of his own effects.

    It is imperative that Christians proclaim the only "good news" available to mankind, that Christ having taken our death for us desires to give His Life to us and live His Life through us to the glory of God. Functional humanity is restored when by spiritual and behavioral dependency upon Christ, by the receptivity of His activity in faith, we become man as God intended man to be, the Creator functioning within the creature. CHRIST IN YOU.ORG 

Removing fog , living by new site faith pleases God ,,,, no free fall gets back and get going!!!

 

1. Therefore stand firm in the freedom with which Christ made us free and do not be held again with a yoke of slavery.

2. Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

3. And I testify again to every man being circumcised, that he is a debtor to do all the Law,

4. you, whoever are justified by Law, you were severed from the Christ, you fell from grace.

5. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness out of faith.6. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but faith working through love.7. You were running well; who beat you back that you do not obey the truth?

8. The persuasion is not from Him calling you.9. A little leaven leavens all the lump.

10. I trust as to you in the Lord that you will think nothing else, but that the one troubling you shall bear the judgment, whoever he may be.

13. For, brothers, you were called to freedom. Only do not use the freedom for an opening to the flesh. But through love be slaves to one another.14. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Lev. 19:18

15. But if you bite and devour one another, be careful that you are not consumed by one another.

16. But I say, Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

17. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another; that not whatever you may will, but these things you do.((War for the mind rages  day by day)))  for all even those who think they right  by adding of taking  to what no one is consistent in of their own accord or effort … thanks  But by faith through grace are we able to  advance in faith to live for Christ seeing only his lead shunning the other  whether it be man-made  religion with it’s pagan   philosophy added into it ,,,,or direct demonic assaults  or unions there of ,,, or temptation’s  etc etc the focus is on the walk in the spirit not the things  tangible to man’s imagination … assumption …learn to hear   help one another to  be in faith !!!

s- so simple it;s so hard to know what faith is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

“since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.” Later in his epistle to the Romans (Rom. 3:20)

(Ps. 143:2). No “flesh,” no human being from among finite humanity, is capable of generating or effecting righteousness, which is the character of God alone (Ps. 11:7; 119:137,142; I Jn. 2:29; 3:7). No performance of man will make one righteous either objectively or subjectively, forensically or vitally. Paul had tried his hardest to keep the Law in order to be righteous (Phil. 3:4-6), and had to agree with Isaiah (Isa. 64:6) that all such self-effort attempts were futile. The Law (whether in its general Judaic form, or in its more restricted Judaizing form) is “weak through the flesh” (Rom. 8:3), providing no dynamic of grace. It is proposition with no provision, regulation with no resource, document with no dynamic, letter with no life, expression with no energizing – incapable of being the basis of the behavioral expression of God’s righteousness; capable only of exposing man’s inability and his need to discover such in Jesus Christ. arrogance  of self is t aside fully in  grace by faith in Christ alone 

 

Chapter 4

What Went Wrong?

Living Organism to Lifeless Institution

 

Christ imparted to His followers, by word and deed, that in His kingdom there will be no hierarchy, neither power-plays nor titles. Instead, we are among sisters and brothers where sacrificial love and mutual foot-washing prevails.

 

Jesus demonstrated that He is building His ekklesia on earth. Christ told the disciples that when His resurrected body went back to the Father, He would continue His body life all over the earth. His reign increases in His kingdom in which all are brothers and sisters, and no one is “over” others.

 

But the annals of history reveal that something went wrong, dreadfully wrong! Before we get into some of the details, here’s a snapshot of a few key moments that give us insight as to how and when the way of Jesus was flagrantly cast aside.

 

**Around AD 150 Clement made a distinction between “priest” and “laity.” This set in motion the unbiblical divide of “clergy” and “laity,” the “ordained” and the non-ordained parishioners. Those “ordained” are “officially” invested with the priestly functions by titled offices. This was a new, human-based type of church order and authority.

 

**Around AD 250 the practice of “one-bishop rule” took root, and each bishop’s rule was defined territorially (see Judy Schindler, Part 2, Chapter 2).

 

**Around AD 325 the emperor Constantine created a new religion mixed with paganism, called it “Christianity,” and made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. From this point on, the civil rulers would have a heavy presence in what occurred in the visible church.

 

Thus, what was birthed as Christ our life, the Spirit-led wind of the ekklesias, morphed into a power-based, hierarchy-fed institution.

 

The expression of Christ through the Spirit functioned in a beautiful way in the early church. There was no "institution" in the beginning. The "institution" started taking shape from AD 150 onwards. As this institutional system unfolded, the Spirit of Christ became unnecessary, for the "institution" saw itself as the dispenser of grace. This is not to say there was no Spirit life anywhere, but it is to say that as the "institution" became more and more powerful, the Holy Spirit became less and less a part of the mix.

 

The Striking Features of the First Century Ekklesia

 

First century pagan religions and Judaism all had these basic characteristics: (1) specific experts who led the religious practices; (2) specific places (temples) where the people came to practice the religion; and (3) specific religious rituals that were carried out in designated ways and times.

 

It is precisely these three marks that were absent from the early church. They functioned with no “clergy” (all of the saints were “clergy,” the Lord’s “inheritance”), no religious buildings (they met “home to home”), and no set rituals (“each one of you has a song, a teaching, etc.”).

 

However, as was mentioned above, this simplicity was compromised in the Second and Third Centuries with the introduction of the leader/common people distinction, and the increasing focus on the “bishop” as the one to whom submission must be given.....