He called them gods

34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '?

35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken ),

36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God '? (John 10)

the objective of Jesus

Jesus, in the gospel according to John, reiterated these words from Psalm 82 to the Jews who took offence at him. They were ready to stone him, as they said, not for doing a good work, but for blasphemy. This was the blasphemy, as the Jews saw it, for which they were ready to stone Jesus because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God. Jesus knew quite well why they wanted to stone him when he posed the question to them I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?

The dialog into which Jesus drew them was in order for them to articulate what they did not understand about the scriptures (and the scripture cannot be broken) but which they could see plainly with their own eyes. This is an understatement about the unbroken unity of the scripture as the revelation of the word of God. Here is a clip from my blog article:

Read More

Sisters in Christ: Fulfilling the Ministry of Teaching and Preaching

two reasons

There are two reasons, one really, often given for not only the suppression of sisters in Christ to fulfill their ministry in preaching and teaching. There is the outright denial for them do so, also. The first reason on which all other reasons behind this dogma are rooted is in the Genesis account. The reason, according to proponents of this teaching, centers on 1) the order of creation, and 2) the woman sinned first.

The second related reason for this suppression and denial is essentially the same as the first reason. It is found in I Timothy 2 and is directly associated with and related to the Genesis account by the apostle Paul. Again, the argument from the I Timothy passage, proponents argue, is that the passage is clear enough and requires no interpretation. The apostle Paul conveyed to Timothy who was in Ephesus that he did not permit a woman to teach. Paul then proceeded to give two clear, specific reasons as to why he forbade women to teach, 1) Adam was created first, and 2) it was Eve who was deceived. The similarity between I Timothy 2 and the Genesis account is undeniable. It seems quite clear, right?

a third reason

A third reason is actually the response to any plausible explanations and suggestions concerning Paul's instructions in the light of his and Timothy's ministry under the shadow of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus to dismiss these as nonsense, irrelevant and unnecessary. The reason these are dismissed, proponents argue, is because Paul never mentions Artemis. This is quite true. However, this response also reflects an utter oversight and neglect of the one who did mention Artemis, namely, Luke in Acts 19. Yahweh was to the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea what Artemis was to the Gentiles in Ephesus and Asia. See the testimony of Demetrius in Acts 19 concerning the widespread presence and influence of Artemis. (The content of this article is covered in this lengthier article.

what the saints learn

Yet, the saints in Christ mostly embrace and parrot what those who lead, teach and preach and declare as dogma. There is no need for any substantive exposition of the scriptures or understanding for the edification of the saints. The teaching to the saints concerning our sisters in Christ is rooted more on male dominance than servanthood. One clear indicator of this is how teaching and preaching are equated with and viewed as synonymous with leadership. Such notions of dominance are unknown to a servant. Those who teach and preach are foremost called to be servants, specifically in the ministry of the word of the Lord. Furthermore, the tokenism that sisters in Christ can indeed teach and preach _ to other sisters has the same, familiar shade and ring of another time when black brothers in Christ, to say nothing of our sisters under that male-dominant fellowship of the saints, lived under the dire spoken and unspoken message that they, too could indeed preach and teach _ to other blacks only. There are three responses as to why these reasons are an insufficient explanation to the words of Jesus and Paul. My response to these explanations is in the following order: the second reason, then the first reason and the third reason last.

First, lets look at the response to the explanation of Artemis to the second reason that Paul's instructions to Timothy to forbid women from teaching are clear and require no interpretation. If this were an example of the right handling of the scriptures it ought to hold equally true of other equally clear texts. Here is one of those texts: Matthew 5. When was the last time you knew or heard of  someone who put out the eye that offended them? When was the last time you knew or heard of someone who cut off the hand that offended them? Of course, the point is that these very clear words of Jesus are invariably presented and taught with an explanation. Why? Is there something about the text of these words of Jesus which is not clear? The indication concerning Paul's words to Timothy, at the very least, is that while they may be quite clear they, like those words of Jesus, require an interpretation and explanation. It is hardly responsible to stake a case with the argument that Paul never mentioned Artemis and here is why such irresponsibility is suspect.

Just as it is true that the apostle Paul never mentioned Artemis in I Timothy and his other writings; Jesus never mentioned Rome in Matthew 24. This was the prophecy of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 AD. Those words of Jesus were just as much as the words of Paul a matter of salvation; the former concerning the physical salvation of the saints in Jerusalem, the latter concerning the spiritual salvation of the saints in Christ in Ephesus. Does the fact that Jesus did not mention Rome by name mean that the disciples were clueless as to what the words of Jesus might mean? How is that the saints are able to discern the political power in question, namely, Rome in Matthew 24, but seem so utterly clueless to discern the spiritual power in question, but clearly named by Luke in Acts 19 as Artemis in Ephesus? Now, with this very brief orientation on Artemis as a real factor in Paul's message and ministry and Ephesus in mind lets backtrack to the first of the two reasons on the order of creation and who sinned first.

Second, the explanation that Paul was reiterating a primer in I Timothy 1 on Jewish theology on the Genesis creation account for the Gentile saints in Christ may possibly have elicited a hearty amen from the Jews and a nice response from the Gentiles. However, Paul's mission was considerably more than eliciting hardy amens from his listeners. His mission was to debunk and dethrone the deception of Artemis before the Gentiles in Ephesus and throughout Asia and to that end what he wrote to Timothy would likely have resonated with the Gentiles as being in opposition to Artemis. They were familiar with and knew the claims of Artemis of being born first and then assisting her mother Leto give birth to her twin brother, Apollo. They were familiar with and knew the claims of Artemis as being the savior of women in childbirth. Contrast these claims of Artemis with Paul's words throughout his letters (five of six written to churches and individuals in Asia; six if Titus is included) concerning Jesus as the firstborn and the savior, not of women only, but of all mankind.

The following is an excerpt from my article, The belief of childbearing in I Timothy 2.

There are three elements Paul bears out concerning salvation and which focus exclusively on the woman: 1) the instruction (I do not permit a woman to teach), 2) the reason for the instruction ( FOR Adam was first formed . . . BUT the woman being deceived), and 3) the expected results from the instruction (BUT she will be saved through her childbearing). There is a another instance of an objective with a similar end result involving the salvation of a certain individual who became the focus of Paul's admonition in I Corinthians chapter five. Paul gave an instruction deliver such a one to Satan, (I Corinthians 5:5a) the reason for that instruction, for the destruction of his flesh, (I Corinthians 5:5b) and that his spirit may be saved. (I Corinthians 5:5c) The progression from point 1 to point 2 to point 3 in the I Timothy passage suggests these (instruction, reason for instruction and expected results from that instruction) are related and are inseparable. Any response to one part can not be done while disregarding or discarding the other two.

So, why did Paul, given the NT examples of obedience to the gospel message of salvation (a belief) through faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior state the expected results for points 1 & 2 in point 3 that the woman will be saved through her childbearing?

The apostle Paul's reference to the creation account would not be something with which his former pagan brethren would be familiar. What would definitely resonate with them was the references to firstborn and savior as these related to Artemis. They learned from Paul and Timothy that 1) not only were Adam and Eve NOT born, but they were CREATED, and 2) Jesus was FIRSTBORN, not from woman, but from the dead through the power of the RESURRECTION. (see Paul exposition on the Begotten from Psalm 2 in Acts 13)

conclusion

The instruction of Paul concerning the silence of our sisters and to not permit them to teach can not be appraised without acknowledging the presence and influence of Artemis in Paul's ministry and message. Those sisters, priestesses particularly, who had emerged out of the cult of Artemis and had become disciples of Jesus as Savior could easily be mistaken for teaching a message of Artemis. It was simply not expedient for them to be teaching at the time. The time would come for them to join with their brothers in the fulfillment of their ministry in teaching and preaching. The instruction to them to learn quietly and to forbid them to not teach was no different than when the apostle himself was earlier in his travels and on the way to Ephesus was, not once, but twice forbidden to preach in north Asia by the Holy Spirit . Just as we do not see or read, but rightly understand, that the prohibition on Paul by the Holy Spirit was removed it is neither a stretch nor implausible to understand that the same was true of our sisters in Ephesus. Admittedly, the idea of being present with a sister teaching or preaching is not in my comfort zone, but heeding and proclaiming the word of God is not about what makes us or keeps us comfortable.

Read More

Image and Power

It is hard to look anywhere and not see it. It is seen from both the rich and the poor as well as from the school dropout and school graduate. It is a flexing, an exhibition, a taunting, a display, a flaunting. It may be through speech, actions or behavior. The sole purpose is to impress and shock through displays of image and power. It may be loud. It may be crass. It may be subtle. It may be manipulative. It may be forceful. It may be humorous. It may be violent. Image and power may even be, in this cyber age, virtual.

These two, image and power, as seen by the witting and the unwitting, the impressed and the shocked are not necessarily true, typically. These are not necessarily actual or substantive. These, whether or not it is intended, merely convey the desired effect on others what is the individual's desire and notion of image and power. These two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and even though I have presented these two separate from each other they are very much intertwined. If these appear as negatively cast in this article it is not because image and power are wrong or evil. Rather, it is because this is the reality of what has become corrupt. These facades of image and power are represented and assumed as though these were real.

the image of attire and body

What are some ways by which image is conveyed? Here are two of those ways. The image of abundance, of affluence or simply having a little more than just barely enough on which to live, may be displayed through the clothes one wears. It may be the expensive brand which speaks for itself or how the clothes are worn. Clothes may be worn to reveal, (such as underwear; more on that later) to form-fit the body so as to accent the physical shape or to reveal as much flesh as the wearer wishes to expose and to elicit arrest for indecency. Image, such as through clothes, is not necessarily what one wears, but how one wears what he or she wears.

The image of rebellion such as against parents or society may be conveyed, for example, through leather, metal spikes, chains, tattoos and more. However, rebellion can and is conveyed just as well through nothing more than an attitude, speech and behavior. Additions to one's attire such as these are intended to project the desired image of being bad, a hard case, a bad-ass, or the neutral non-commitment of indifference and apathy. After all, what could be cooler in the eyes of the witting and unwitting than to project the image that, I don't care? Isn't this the shallow, empty image message of sagging pants? The exposing of one's underwear is to simultaneously reveal to the witting and unwitting the individual's great, abysmal facade and farce of an image of power. So, unlike affluence and abundance, or their seeming presence in the person's life, the image of rebellion, by its very nature, is not likely to be closely associated with clothes as much as it is behavior.

the need for image and image change

America is a consumer-driven society. Don't like your image? We'll find one for you. We'll get you one. We'll make one for you. It is not in society's interest, and quite understandably, it is not the business of society, to redirect the new-image shopper back to square one. So, why do you need an image?

What if image didn't involve succumbing to peer pressure, seasonal, annual refurbishing or reinvention? How about if it were detached, removed and free of all association with gender and the clothes you wear? Does this sound like a ridiculous and preposterous notion in our consumer-driven society? Yet, image as a reality and a discussion point appears in the dialog of the Bible in the book of Genesis, that is, the book of beginnings. It is there that after the narrative relates how God created man it also notes that God created man, that is, mankind, man and woman, and MADE them in the image of God.

This image of God in the man and woman had nothing to do with gender.

The reason it had nothing to do with gender is because whatever the image of God might be, for the moment and for later discussion, it is definitely not related to the physical features which define the male and female body. In other words, any view of the image of God which fails to account for the differences in the human male and female body is less than true to the image of God. What does this say about image?

It says that image is as embedded and is as permanent and non-removable as is our human DNA code.

The deception of image to which Eve succumbed unwittingly was not unlike women, and men, today. She desired what was 1) pleasant to the eyes (it looked good), 2) it was good to eat (it was filling), and 3) it would make her wise, or proud (something to boast about).

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6, also I John 2:16)

The reason why anyone would feel they do not have an image, that they need an image or that they need to upgrade their image like something from the American tech mall is because they either 1) never knew they were born with an image, 2) they forgot they were born with an image, or 3) they rejected the truth of the image with which they were born. Knowledge nor acknowledgment of God is not a prerequisite for anyone to ponder this reality.

The impudence of blatant consumerism! The business of image has gone, in the vernacular of technology, from the hardware upgrades of attire to the software alterations of gender image in complete oblivion as to the ramifications. The desire for mistaken notions of image by women and men today is no different than Eve's complete oblivion to the ramifications of her disobedience. The embrace and allowable peddling of image by therapists and surgeons is akin to accepting without question the salesman's pitch for a new computer when a simple removal of temporary files would have improved speed and performance.

made in the image of God

What is it about the image of God which can not be found, will not be found and can not be made in the American tech mall? How could a believer who once knew the image of God forget it? Why would he or she reject the image of God? The salient point of the human response to these questions is as understandable as it is undeniable. For example, a Ford does not cease to be a Ford with a new paint job. swapping an icon or by calling it a Chevrolet. These things do not change the fact that it is a Ford which has been altered to look like a Chevrolet. It would not take much for even a casual observer to discern that despite all efforts and appearances the car is, in fact, a Ford. Amazingly enough, what holds true of a metal and plastic car holds equally true of a flesh and bones human being.

It is not as though altering one's image hurts anyone else, as is so often heard, but what is it and how is it then, that image can be obscured and overlooked in favor of an American mall-purchased image? How is it that the image of God, that is, love, in which God made the man and the woman and which is certainly not available or found in the shopping mall, has come to be obscured and overlooked? Simply but truthfully stated it is a matter of looking of acceptance and love in all the wrong places.

This love is not to be mistaken for being loving which God is that, too. What the scriptures reveal is that it was the will and purpose of God to make the man and woman with this same love. It was his will to imbue the man and the woman with his love. It was this love which it pleased God to see in the physical love affection between the man and woman; the husband and wife. It is the love of God and towards God which becomes a far greater reality between the man and the woman when they reclaim the image of God for themselves and towards all mankind through faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Love, not gender, is the image of God. Love is divine and not natural.

Love is greater than what is natural, that is, what is earthly. Love is not easy because it is not the mere appearance of image or a facade. It is, on the other hand, easier to alter and call something love than to submit to love itself. Love is two different persons, two different personalities, two different genders working diligently  over a lifetime together to go past their differences and to make and display the love and unity that is the God who is one. This is the mystery and marvel; that two different human beings strive to be one like God and with God. It is the mystery and marvel seen in the human interaction and relationship of marriage. The failure and shortfall of image is that it is a facade of what has been altered. There is no glory in deceiving or being deceived by an image of what is false. There is no lasting joy in facades.

the will of power and death

The flesh, Jesus said, is weak. The reason the flesh appears to exert its power over the spirit is not because the flesh is strong. It is not because the spirit is weak. It is because the spirit calls and waits for those who hear its call to come in obedience and submission without manipulation, compulsion or coercion. This is not the way of the flesh.

Power is, even more so than image, flexed and flaunted to create the desired effect; that is, to impress and shock the witting and unwitting. It is a visual, carnal spectacle. The visual nature of power and how it reveals itself in the flesh exposes, for example, the hunger of bankers, performers, athletes and others for power. The carnal desire for power is not unlike the carnal desire for image: Eve desired what was 1) pleasant to the eyes (it looked good), 2) good to eat (it was filling), and 3) would make her wise, or proud (something to boast about).

Carnal, as in, carnival. Originally, carnival, literally, a farewell to meat, was the celebration and joy of meat and drink before the beginning of the days of fasting from meat and drink. Carnal is used in the scriptures in the representative, or symbolic sense, for what is opposed to the spirit, the Holy Spirit or a mind set on the things of this world.

This power is no more real or substantive than the image much desired and pursued by some. It is loud. It is the brash, crass, crude, rude, vulgar and a bravado of defiance in the song playing, in the workplace exchange, and even as is often displayed, between the bond of husband and wife. Children in such families are often nothing more than insignificant collateral casualties to obscenities and vulgarities. Crassness and vulgarities which were at one time indicators that the power of physical aggression was soon to follow are the stuff of casual exchanges as much between friends as between lovers. Some of the devices of power, in addition to words, of those who seek power include weapons to hurt,  maim or kill stranger, friend or family alike.

The quest for power is as old as the quest for image. The irony and the travesty of the events in the Garden of Eden is that by forgetting, neglecting and dismissing for one brief moment the image in which they were made, Eve and Adam corrupted their image. While they were obedient there was nothing to fear. There was no power over them. Yet, in the aftermath of their disobedience the immediate result was, as God himself stated, that the man and the woman had become like God knowing good and evil. However, the price they paid was heavy. The price was they acquired the association of power, but it was not to serve them. It was to lord it over them. The power was death.

Those who believe they are powerful because they have power never realize and never ask themselves what is that vague, remote sense of awareness in their minds: What is the fear from which this false notion of power delivers them? What is the ultimate power from which this false power can deliver them? The lust and hunger for image and power in the unwitting Eve and Adam was that their confidence before the Lord was lost. They covered their nakedness as a result.

the power of God

The truth is the power of the flesh with all its bravado, violence, trash talk, weapons and devices may fend off momentarily the assault, but death will have the last word over those who crave and thought they had power in those false images of power. What is the purpose of an image which alters or conceals one's true identity? Why does one have a need to conceal their true identity? What is the purpose of power which is exerted over others? Is it not because they lack the power and confidence to face and confront what they fear?

Death is the great equalizer. It is the sobering agent for those who are drunk with mistaken notions of image and power. The power of death is, not unlike the image in which God made man and woman, as undeniable and non-removable. What is one to do when they come to the realization of the deceptive futility of image and power? This is the beginning, the genesis, where one examines closely the claims and fulfillment of the message of Jesus concerning his own death, burial and resurrection.

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 

15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. (Hebrews 2:14, 15)

The message (note the reference to power and the past tense of death) of this love of God, the apostle Paul wrote, is the power of God. More specifically and literally, the apostle Paul stated that the message of the gospel is the dynamite, (δύναμις, dunamis) , the power of God. The gospel has the explosive potential to transform the fearful and powerless into the image of God through the power of the gospel and the promise of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer. Be of good cheer.

Read More

Gifts, Ministries and Effects

Some observations and thoughts came to mind from today’s daily reading of the scriptures in the New Testament section of I Corinthians 12.

The saints in Christ often think and talk about those things which they would like to live out in their daily lives. They want to do so in the knowledge and confidence that they do so in the Spirit who indwells them. One thing which is common in the apostle Paul’s teaching is that each individual is a part of a greater whole; the body of believers. What’s more Paul may sometimes be difficult to understand, as the apostle Peter himself noted, (I Peter 3:15,16) but he is never vague or superficial.

He wrote to the church in Corinth as to what the “same Spirit” “same Lord” and “same God” had done, but he also specified what they each one had done. Quite likely, some might infer from that reference to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but that is not what I take away from the passage. Rather, it is another instance of Paul’s seemingly vague or superficial (not Paul by any means) reference on which he elaborates.

One thing with which Paul’s messages always resound is the unity from diversity. In this instance, it is the gifts, -by the same Spirit, -the ministries, by the same Lord, and -the effects, by the same God. Each one of these, gift, ministry and effect, reflects a move from the lesser to the greater; the individual to the group. Is a gift less than an effect? It is if that which one has received from the Spirit remains ineffectual in him or her as though they had not received anything or something too small and of little significance from the Holy Spirit.

What Paul notes about these is that they are for the common good, (verse 7) not a personal exaltation by the individual Then, in true form, Paul specifies how that common good of my gift in our ministry shows its effect among others. It is in that the members may have the same care for one another. (verse 25) This should be no surprise for the saints in Christ because love for one another as Jesus commanded is ultimately to care for one another.

Read More

What Difference Does It Make?

purpose, action and acclaim

a generational thing

Every generation throughout human history has faced changes. The scope of these changes may or may not have been spectacular or good or evil necessarily. Suffice it to say that individuals were aware that some things had changed in the natural physical environment, human interaction and their own response to those changes especially as these changes affected them directly.

In this respect, life in America, our society and the world is no different. The Internet has made it possible for anyone with web access through a computer or other device to go, virtually, anywhere in the world to check things for themselves. They can get some idea about the natural physical environment as it flourishes or is ravaged in another part of the world. They can examine for themselves and gain some insight about what makes the human interaction hostile or peaceful between peoples with different beliefs. They can also determine how these things can or will affect them emotionally, psychologically, economically, politically; personally. Often this is the point where these changes become something overwhelming for some people to the point of anxiety, despair or depression. I maintain it is not necessarily that there is more evil, as is often the point of focus, in the world as much as the individual can now far exceed his/her intake of world news beyond what the evening newscast delivers to his/her living room or coffee house. Yet, what difference does it make or why should we care if we are aware of these changes?

change in our world

Why? What change has evolved in our present world which, although people who may not live in an environment in which changes such as these are manifested, can be so affected? Furthermore, every individual can look at himself/herself and see for themselves that they create and produce changes in their lives which affect other people around them, because it is as the English poet noted, no man is an island. Every individual fosters a thought in their mind. Subsequently, they  took what had come into their mind and they acted on it. This was true regardless whether it was good or evil. Then, to the degree of their soundness of mind and the worthiness of what they had done it became a matter of acclaim or shame for them or about them. Of course, let’s state the obvious: change is not good or bad, but it bears worth noting that is not always necessary.

It is bad enough when people stumble and perish by the actions of their own doing, but it is far worse when those who profess to know, are purported to know or are expected to know are themselves at a loss to understand and speak to the whirlwind of change.

Make no mistake about it. These who are expected to know and understand include those who lead, teach and preach either from the pulpit to the gathering of the saints in Christ or from the seat of government to the American electorate.

Here are just a few examples of responses from the pulpit and the seat of government to these changes when these same changes have broken the relative, short-term peace since the last break. Some are sound bites or rants, others are familiar quotations.

What difference, at this point, does it make?

We have given them space to destroy.

It doesn’t matter whether you are a boy or a girl, a man or a woman.

Repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act.

the difference it makes

I anticipate the aversion and knee-jerk reaction to want to take one of the above and run with its corresponding political banner and the rhetoric that drives and inflames but which does little or nothing towards helping the saints and the electorate understand what they are being told. What do these four messages share in common? They all began with a purpose; intentionality. All of these purposes were acted upon. All these actions were/are accurately or inaccurately acclaimed. Again, lest anyone fixate on a political or religious message the point here is that these are reflective of what is true in all things. If either the purpose, action or acclamation behind these things are at odds with any of the others it becomes, to understate it, suspect and deservedly subject to scrutiny.

The difference it makes in knowing and understanding what has changed is that with the loss of knowledge and understanding the saints in Christ and the American electorate do not know how, are unable and are unwilling to make decisions and judgments. The loss of is covered under the deception and guise of being loving, free and politically correct. Hence, for example, a call to repeal a health care measure is pushed and driven with never a comprehensive alternative to replace it. A boy lacks the foundation, universal confidence for understanding and accepting his natural masculine gender and responds with an embrace of what he believes is the safe alternative; be a girl. The same is true of a girl concerning her natural feminine gender. The truth is boys as well as girls and men as well as women, often can not bear the pressure of this change whose message is that it is wrong to acknowledge and accept who you are, but you will be accepted (and loved) if you 1) reject your natural gender, and 2) accept your new life as a bi-sexual, transgender or homosexual because anyway . . . what difference does it make?

What difference does it make in the political life of America? The saints in Christ and the American electorate are told to ignore and dismiss the law of the Constitution of the United States in favor of love and acceptance without judgment. This message itself ignores and dismisses completely the differences in some people’s attitude towards the Constitution. The church for her part following those who lead, teach and preach is more and more led to similarly ignore and dismiss the authority of the scriptures all in the name of love and acceptance. This response by the saints in Christ, that is, the church reflects a complete ignorance or disregard for the lessons by the apostle Paul concerning how the church is to respond to immorality in her midst. (see I Corinthians 5)

This same lame, anemic inability to make judgments is see in politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, whose idea of a tactical solution is to re-name actions, events or individuals in such way as to attempt to diminish the gravity of the matter.

all things come to light

The natural thing to do when one can not see something is to bring it into the light or shine some light on it. Things are often subjected to scrutiny for their legal or illegal standing or their moral or immoral standing by church and state alike. Someone may refuse to subject something to the light but that no more declares it right or wrong, moral or immoral any more than such refusal invalidates the universal physical and moral laws and nature of light to expose what darkness and ignorance conceal. Wrong can be made right, but until it is acknowledged, renounced and rejected it remains a piecemeal, patchwork solution to a real problem.

God: what cannot be concealed

No matter what a person’s political or apolitical, religious or irreligious worldview the processes by which he/she lives concerning purpose, action and acclaim can not be concealed. Yes, these processes can and are suppressed by some, but, again, that does not change the universal laws of physics or morality. Similarly, no matter what a person’s political or apolitical, religious or irreligious worldview either to deny or suppress these processes; purpose, action and acclaim, they are what the scriptures reveal concerning 1) the nature of God, 2) Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and 3) the relationship of God towards man as written by the apostle Paul in his letter to the church in the Asian city of Ephesus. What he wrote is a testimony to what cannot be concealed, though it may be denied or suppressed, that is, that the universal axiom of purpose, action and acclaim which as it is true of human beings so too it should also be true of their Creator. The wording may be different, but he reader is able to judge for themselves if these things are not so as they read the passage of chapter one.

What the apostle Paul revealed is that it was not a nondescript intentionality or an impersonal entity but the Father who defined the purpose his will towards man before the foundation of the world. It was not a vague philosophical notion, but the living Son of God, Jesus, who redeemed (action) those who believed in Him according to the Father’s good pleasure. Lastly, it was the Holy Spirit who sealed (acclaimed, affirmed) those who put their faith and trust in Jesus.

There is nothing vague or ambiguous about these things. These things cannot be concealed. They are as natural as the universal laws of physics and morality and as much a part of every human being’s life whether or not they are aware and know about it; whether or not they accept it. The difference it makes as to whether we know this things is whether we purpose, act and acclaim with confidence who are are and what we do, whether as the saints in Christ or the American electorate. peace, amigos.

Read More

God is one: On a Unitarian and Trinitarian debate

The Indwelling of Deity in the Believer by Gilbert Torres

(Checkout the amiable and great dialog in the comment section with Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal. The article was my response to his article Christianity Unmasked. Some of his congregants contributed their thoughts too. gt)
Debate: Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism

This article is not about debates. It is not a refutation of a debate. It is an address of a single aspect of the discussion concerning deity. Debates are a great platform for grandstanding. I do not care to attend debates. I have never participated in one and I have no desire to do so. They can do little or nothing to enlighten the saints who are of the faith that is in Christ Jesus. Worse still, too often the saints are treated to a carnal spectacle between the presenters. The tactics of single word isolation in the original Hebrew and Greek languages are flashed before the audience; each presenter positing alternately what the word means and what it could otherwise possibly mean also. Of course, there is an abundance of verses, which like their word components, are isolated and listed for what they do not say as much as for what they do not say about God.

Read More

The Image of Racism

the image of racism

Racists, despite their false bravado, live a lie which grovels in fear. Note that I refer to racists as individuals or groups and not in the formless, disembodied barroom, coffeehouse, sports field or classroom topic label of racism. It is the image touted by some who themselves are not given to talk much less think about those things they boast arrogantly. I am compelled to speak, as much as I am embarrassed and ashamed to admit it, on racism because of the act of racism which resulted in the murder of the saints in Christ in Charleston South Carolina. I do not speak because they are my brothers and sisters in Christ who were murdered. Rather, this is what I, to say nothing about anyone else, ought to do anytime I am truly moved in my heart by such acts. Even more than waiting for the next and latest act of racial violence I ought to be able to respond in the affirmative to the question which comes up at times such as in Charleston: Do we Americans engage in talk about racism? Even more, I as a Christian, need to initiate and engage in the discussion in the times in between those abominable acts of racial violence. Do not think you have acted or spoken against racism simply by keeping quiet and thereby think that everyone can and should assume that you are not racist.

Read More