*Luke 22:36b / *Lk. 22:36b -
(Re: *Weapons)
Luke 22:36b means that every Christian should obtain the sword of God's Holy Spirit, which is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12). The "two swords" which are enough for all Christians (Luke 22:38) represent the two main parts of God's Word: the Old Testament and the New Testament. Luke 22:36b cannot mean that every Christian should obtain a physical weapon, for otherwise two physical weapons would not have been enough for all of the apostles (Luke 22:38). And Luke 22:36b cannot mean that any Christian should obtain a physical weapon to attack other people with, even in self-defense. For Christians are elsewhere commanded not to defend themselves when they are attacked, but to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). For those who take up a physical weapon to attack other people, even in self-defense, will perish by a weapon (Matthew 26:52).
Christians do not employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18). Instead, Jesus Christ at His first coming set the example for what Christians are to do when they are physically attacked by people (1 Peter 2:19-23). They are to go meekly like sheep to the slaughter (Romans 8:36, Psalms 44:6,22), just like Jesus did (Isaiah 53:7). Obedient Christians do not fear death (Hebrews 2:15), and do not love their lives unto death (Revelation 12:11b), but hate their lives in this world, so that they might retain eternal life (John 12:25, Mark 8:34-38). For obedient Christians know that being killed is no loss for them, but gain (Philippians 1:21), as it will bring their still-conscious souls into heaven to be with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:8), which is far better than remaining in this fallen world (Philippians 1:23).
During the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, Christians (not in hiding) will have to face martyrdom with patience and faith to the end (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), just as Christians have always had to spiritually overcome in the face of martyrdom (e.g. Revelation 2:10-11).
(See also Matthew 5:39 and Daniel 12:7b above)
~
(Re: What if Christians are in law enforcement? Is it against God's Word for them to carry weapons to protect the people?)
It is against God's Word for Christians to ever use those weapons against people. For Christians are not to employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18).
But God does allow civil authorities to employ weapons and violence against criminals (Romans 13:3-4). And Christians are to obey, and pay their taxes to support, civil authorities (Romans 13:1-6).
~
(Re: Does the Lord call us to just sit back and allow ourselves to be killed, when it is not the Lord's time to call us home?)
If it is not the Lord's time to call us home, then He will not allow murderers to come and kill us, or allow any other form of death to come to us (Psalms 91, Psalms 121). But if it is our time, then He could allow us to be murdered, and we should face that without any fear (Revelation 2:10) or complaint, but even with thankfulness (1 Thessalonians 5:18), that we can then enter heaven, which is far better than remaining in this fallen world (2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21,23).
Also, what gives us the right to kill someone who is attacking us, if it is not the Lord's time for that person to die? God might still want to save that person's soul and help him to change and be a nice person. And how can God do that if we kill that person while he is still an unrepentant non-Christian, so that when he dies his soul goes to hell? If Stephen the martyr in the book of Acts could ask God to forgive those who were stoning him to death (Acts 7:59-60), so that even they might be saved from hell, then we should also show mercy to everyone (Matthew 5:7, Matthew 6:15), even if they are about to kill us.
~
(Re: So if someone breaks into my house and is armed, I have no right to defend myself and my family?)
Are you referring to a robbery? If so, most robbers are not interested in harming anyone if they can simply get the goods that they want. So just give them what they want, taking "joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance" (Hebrews 10:34).
[Luke 12:15, Matthew 6:19-21]
~
(Re: What if a robber does want to kill us?)
If you are worried about being killed by an intruder, near to your bedroom build a "safe room", such as a walk-in closet which you can fit with a steel door which an intruder cannot kick open, or shoot bullets through. Then you can hide in there while an intruder is in your house. Or, build a "secret room" with a hidden door which an intruder will not even notice. The worst thing that you can do is to start a shoot-out in your house between you and an intruder, which could result in the unnecessary death of both you and your family, or the accidental death of an innocent person (such as a relative or friend who is making a surprise visit), or the tragic death of a harmless stranger (such as an unarmed, peaceful homeless man who entered the unlocked window of what he thought was an empty house, just to get some emergency shelter for a freezing night).
~
(Re: What if a rapist has come for my wife?)
Hide your wife from him in a "safe room", or a "secret room". And to prevent him from surprising you and your wife while you are asleep, get a burglar alarm with interior motion sensors, and/or get some little dogs which will bark you awake at the first, slightest sound or smell of an intruder. And if an intruder nonetheless somehow still manages to accost you before you and your wife can make it to your "safe room", or "secret room", do not try to shoot him or fight him, as that could make him get even more violent. Just give in to him to calm him down, as it is said that what rapists are really after is control. The sex part can be over quickly, and the person raped is not defiled in God's eyes, because of the basic principle of: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him" (Mark 7:15). It is only the rapist who is defiled, by his own lust (Mark 7:21-23), just as it is only the rapist who is the criminal.
~
(Re: What about the government surveilling us? If Big Brother is watching us, then who is watching Big Brother?)
God (Jeremiah 23:24), and His angels (Ecclesiastes 5:8): watchers (Daniel 4:13). Think of them as part of the DIA (not the Defense, but the Divine Intelligence Agency). They have an amazing advantage as intelligence operatives: invisibility. They can enter any place, even the most guarded, secret facility of the most undercover government agency. They can learn every secret, know everything that is going on, and everything that is planned (Isaiah 29:15). And they can invisibly wreak havoc with computer systems, surveillance systems, the very minds of men.
And so can the devil and his angels. Think of them as the SIA (Satanic Intelligence Agency). Humans are just pawns in the undercover war between the DIA and the SIA. Even the most intelligent, most cunning, most ruthless human intelligence operative is putty in the hands of Satan's angels. They can make him or her do almost anything, even the most cruel, to the destruction of his or her soul. And they can make him or her do even the most stupid thing, to the destruction of his or her cover and physical life.
Also, we should not let it get us down too much that Big Brother can now track everything that we do (through the internet, and through our cell phones, debit and credit cards, televisions, and government agents surveilling us in person, etc.). For is not God doing the same thing? Does not He track everything that we do, even everything that we think (Psalms 139:2, Matthew 9:4)?
The civil right to privacy relates to not being watched by other humans, not to any right not to be watched by God. For as our Creator, He can do with us whatever He wants, just as a potter can do with his pots whatever he wants (Romans 9:20-24).
~
(Re: But how do human snoopers justify to themselves their violating our civil right to privacy?)
They ask: "Why does it bother you, if you are not doing anything wrong?" But this shows a lack of understanding of what privacy is, in itself. For privacy per se has nothing to do with any fear of being caught doing something wrong, but is a basic human right, in itself, as enshrined, for example, in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
As an analogy, imagine that a man, his wife, and young son sat on their living room sofa to watch (again) a DVD of the movie "Frozen", and to eat popcorn together. A few minutes into the movie, a policeman lets himself into their house, walks over to the TV and just stands there next to it, watching them. The man jumps up from the sofa: "What are you doing? How dare you come into our house to watch us! Get out! Leave us alone!" To which the policeman could reply: "Why does it bother you, when you are not doing anything wrong?"
~
(Re: Could intelligence and law-enforcement agencies be overrun with voyeurs?)
Possibly, for voyeurism is a neurosis whereby people get really titillated by being able to watch other people without them knowing about it, such as by being a Peeping Tom. What we have today, sadly, is a Peeping T.I.A., which could be very titillating to some people in the Deep State, also called the Security State, in the sense of the lifetime-career agents of the federal government's intelligence and law enforcement agencies. They never have to answer to the People, because they were never elected, and never will be. And federal government-employee unions make it almost impossible to ever remove them from their positions.
Also, they never have to answer to the People in Congress because they can say that their activities are too secret to reveal even to the top members of Congress, even when these members ask for documents related to a specific, possibly-unlawful activity of the Security State which has become known to them. Most of the unlawful activities of the Security State never become known to anyone in Congress. For the Security State often operates in complete darkness. And this could give rise to rogue elements within U.S. intelligence who perform horrible, illegal acts without ever being held to account, even by their own agencies, who are not even aware of everything that their own agents are doing. Intelligence agencies are the most evil, dangerous things that have ever been invented, after nuclear weapons. JFK came to realize this, and was going to shut the CIA down, but it got to him first, at Dallas, through three secretly-hired hit men from Marseille. They triangulated on him; and the killing, brain-splattering shot came from the railroad bridge.
Also, the Security State, or Deep State, is "Deep" not only with regard to the depths of its secrecy and evil, but also in the sense that it never changes, but abides for decades, as presidential administration after administration passes away above it, and top Congressional leaders regularly change above it with the changes in the political-party control of Congress. So the Security State is ultimately untouchable, which makes it so extremely dangerous to the civil liberties of the People, and even to the lives of some individual citizens, including some in high office. The Security State stonewalls the People and tells them to just trust it. But democracy cannot be based on blind trust, but must be based on full accountability and transparency. That is, every part of a democratic government must be accountable to the People for every action that it takes. Otherwise, the People are under an unaccountable tyranny.
Also, sadly, the Security State could include many intelligence and law enforcement agents who have a neurotic paranoia. For only such people could continue to be suspicious of everyone and everything, no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. They could think that they are being "tough", and "hard", when in fact they are simply blind to their own mental imbalance, which could eventually lead them (legally) into the ditch (cf. Luke 6:39, Psalms 7:15). But there is still a ray of hope that it will not.
But while they continue to look for needles in a haystack, that is, to look for individual terrorists and spies within a vast populace, they are also continuing to watch some pieces of hay to see if they turn into needles. But only mentally imbalanced people would continue to watch pieces of hay, that is, continue to watch U.S. citizens who are completely innocent legally, especially when these citizens have a Constitutional right not to be continually surveilled by the government.
The standard of the Founders for the violation of one's privacy is probable cause, not possible cause. The latter standard was that of the Stasi, and of George III. It needs to end. It is not appropriate in a free country.
Also, mentally imbalanced people in the Security State who are now pushing most forcefully for the continuance and expansion of T.I.A. need to be fired from their jobs. For they will not quit until they have turned the U.S. into a total police state, vitiating the whole purpose for the American Revolution.
Also, they think that they are protecting "national security", but what they have done is set everything up for the future Antichrist's total surveillance and subjugation of everyone (Revelation 13:4-18).
~
(Re: Regarding T.I.A, what about the "third-party doctrine"?)
The "third-party doctrine" established in Smith v. Maryland by the Supreme Court is a mistaken doctrine, just as, for example, the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson by the Supreme Court was a mistaken doctrine. For the Supreme Court can make mistakes. For it consists only of fallible human beings.
Also, the "third-party doctrine" is fundamentally wrong because it ends up vitiating the whole purpose for the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is to protect the privacy of the People from government intrusion, apart from a warrant based upon probable cause.
For the "third-party doctrine" is found nowhere in the letter or the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, but was invented out of whole cloth in Smith v. Maryland solely to support a government overreach which had already occurred. That is, the government had obtained from a phone company all of the phone numbers which had been called by a criminal suspect. And these phone numbers had been obtained without a warrant based upon probable cause.
In this case, as in all others, the "third-party doctrine" is wrong because the suspect had to provide the phone company with those phone numbers in order for the company to complete his calls. The suspect was in no way intending for his calls to be made public. Indeed, that is why companies today go out of their way to provide their customers with "Privacy Policies", which indicate that the customer information which they obtain will not be made public without the permission of the customers.
But the government wants to obtain all information without any permission from such customers. The government wants to utterly violate their right to privacy, enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.
Imagine that what you have said to a "third party" such as your lawyer, your priest, your doctor, your psychiatrist, your banker, your very spouse, were to be made fair game for any government snooper to listen to, or to read, without your permission, and without any warrant based upon probable cause. Your sacred right to privacy would be utterly obliterated. This is what the awful, "third-party doctrine" established in Smith v. Maryland by the Supreme Court has now made "legal".
It must be overturned, or the Constitution is dead.
Smith v. Maryland represents a failure of one of government's core functions -- the protection of fundamental rights.
~
(Re: Regarding T.I.A., why cannot the government track your movements and activities which you do publicly?)
It can, if it has a judicial warrant based upon probable cause that a crime has been committed, but not on mere "possible cause" that a crime has or "could" be committed. For that would be no different than the crime of stalking.
As an analogy, imagine that a male stalker of a female celebrity was arrested and brought to trial.
During the trial, he testified: "Your honor. I am not a stalker. For I only followed and watched her in public places, and in public forums on the internet, where she had no expectation of privacy".
The judge answered: "I'm sorry, sir, but that is irrelevant. For otherwise you would be here under the charge of trespassing on private property, or under the charge of the crime of hacking. The crime of stalking refers to public places".
"But I did her no harm, your honor."
"You did her the harm of the invasion of her life, so that she could not post anything on the public internet, or go to any public restaurant, or have any guests park on the public street in front of her house, without you being there breathing down her neck, knowing everything that she did publicly. She had to stop eating in restaurants to avoid you and your friends sitting at tables next to her, and surveilling everything that she did and said. You ruined her life. And now you must go to prison, and pay a million dollars in damages to your poor victim, whose life you struck with your obsessive stalking."
~
(Re: What about *FISC warrants?)
Sadly, FISC is like a FIST (a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Travesty) in the eye of the U.S. Constitution. For unlike a normal court, FISC does not have competing pleaders. And so there is no due process for the violation of a U.S. citizen's Fourth Amendment right to privacy, just as there is no due process for the violation of a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right to a "public trial". Instead FISC hearings are utterly secret.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Instead, FISC relies solely on government-friendly judges. If judges are deemed skeptical of the government, they are never picked for FISC in the first place. Or, if judges are picked, but then later are found to be rejecting too many warrant requests, they are simply "promoted" from FISC to some other court, and replaced with judges who are compliant.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" against him. Instead, he does not even know that there is any accusation against him.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him". Instead, the witnesses testify against him in secret, without him even knowing about it. Truly, this rises to Stasi-level tyranny.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor". Instead, the FISC judges are only allowed to hear witnesses against him. Truly, the Founders are turning in their graves.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". Instead, he is left utterly defenseless. Truly, this is a crime against justice.
But the Security State feels that the current setup must abide. For it has allowed the Security State to become a Power unto itself. It is now an Anti-Constitutional, Fourth Branch of government, with no accountability whatsoever to the People.
May God help us.
~
(Re: I thought that Obama ensured warrantless searches and indefinite detention without access to counsel when he signed into law the *NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act)
That is chilling. For the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that no searches shall be conducted without a Warrant, and "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".
Also, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that every accused person "shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury".
Also, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that every accused person shall "have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence".
The Founders indicated these requirements precisely to counter the tyranny of George III of England, who thought that he could do whatever he wanted with his citizens in the name of Britain's national security. And he thought that he could get away with doing his will often secretly. For tyranny loves secrecy. Indeed, "indefinite detention without access to counsel" assures secrecy, as well as no Supreme Court review. For without counsel, someone locked up indefinitely for "national security" reasons can never challenge the NDAA in federal court. And the law requires someone with "standing", i.e. someone who has actually had his civil rights denied through the NDAA, to bring a suit in federal court for Constitutional review of the NDAA statute.
If the NDAA indeed countervails the Constitution in these ways, then the Constitution means NADA, and we are back under a gross tyranny. The Founders are turning in their graves. And what was the point of the American Revolution?
To establish the tyranny of a Security State.
~
(Re: Could the Security State purposely allow another 9/11-type event, so that it can increase its powers over the People?)
Possibly. And there are some worrying signs of this.
For example, there was recently a nationwide test in which everyone's cell phone was taken over by an emergency message from the government, as if in preparation for a huge, national emergency. (Also, note that such a taking-over of everyone's cell phone could point to the possibility of the government having the ability to one day permanently disable every cell phone, such as to thwart a rebellion against it.)
Also, some hedge funds are now liquidating, as if they want to pocket their cash away before disaster strikes and they lose everything in the stock market and an economy-wide crash, like happened in 2008's Great Recession.
Hedge funds are for extremely-rich people. And they have access to top leaders in the government, who could have warned them to stash their dough away before another, impending 9/11-type event occurs in our near-future.
And so, like in 2008, the People will be left holding the bag.
And, like after 9/11 and the so-called "Patriot Act", the People's civil rights, and so their power, will be obliterated in the name of "national security".
And then the Security State will rule over all, turning the country into a police state.
(There may be some people whose mouths water at the very thought of this.)
--
*Luke 22:42 / *Lk. 22:42 -
See section 2 of 1 John 2:2 below.
--
*Luke 23:2 / *Lk. 23:2 -
The original Greek word (diastrepho: G1294) translated as "perverting" can mean "corrupting", or "turning away" (Acts 13:8).
--
*Luke 23:23 / *Lk. 23:23 -
The original Greek word (epikeimai: G1945) translated as "were instant" can mean "insisted".
--
*Luke 23:26 / *Lk. 23:26 -
"Cyrenian" (G2956) means an inhabitant of Cyrene, a city in Libya which is now called Tripoli.
--
*Luke 23:30 / *Lk. 23:30 -
See "Luke 23:30" under Isaiah 2:12 above.
--
*Luke 23:34 / *Lk. 23:34 -
Here, "them" refers only to the "they" in Luke 23:33,34b, the soldiers who crucified Jesus Christ, and cast lots for His clothes. Likewise, in Luke 23:34, "do" refers only to the act of the soldiers nailing Jesus to the Cross in Luke 23:33. These soldiers were elect individuals, for subsequently they all came into faith in Jesus as the Son of God (and so became saved: John 3:36), after watching Him on the Cross, and seeing the miraculous earthquake which occurred at the moment that He died (Matthew 27:54). God offers no forgiveness to nonelect individuals (Romans 9:11-22, Luke 12:49; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). He grants His miraculous gift of faith only to elect individuals (Acts 13:48b, Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65).
(See also Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Luke 23:43 / *Lk. 23:43 -
(Re: Does the *thief on the cross mean that baptism is not necessary?)
The thief on the cross could have been baptized before Luke 23:42-43 happened, but then backslid and committed theft. Also, baptism is only a New Testament/New Covenant requirement for ultimate salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-11, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12). And the New Covenant was not put into legal effect until Jesus Christ died (Hebrews 9:16-17, Matthew 26:28). But Luke 23:42-43 happened before Jesus died; and so baptism was not yet a requirement for ultimate salvation. But now that Jesus' death is past, Christians have to obey all of His New Covenant commandments (John 14:21-24) if they want to obtain ultimate salvation (Hebrews 5:9, Romans 2:6-8), including His commandment that every Christian get baptized (Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38), and by immersion/"burial" in the water of baptism (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:37). Also, a Christian can ultimately lose his salvation if he wrongly employs his free will to commit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46), which includes unrepentant sins of omission (James 4:17), which would include refusing without repentance to get baptized, and by immersion.
(See also Mark 16:16 above)
~
(Re: Deathbed, battlefield, and prison conversions)
Regarding prison conversions, people can get baptized in prison. Regarding those who become Christians on their deathbed or on a battlefield, Jesus Christ will give them enough time to get baptized, just as, for example, if Christians commit a sin, He will give them enough time to repent (Revelation 2:21). Even if someone who becomes a Christian on their deathbed or on a battlefield is paralyzed or gravely wounded, he can still be baptized by people helping him (cf. Mark 2:3-5) by lifting him off of his bed or stretcher and immersing him in a tub of water or in a natural body of water. And if his doctors or medics warn that such a maneuver will only hasten his death, Jesus could surely see to it that it does not. And even if it does, what would it matter to give up a little more time of this mortal life in this fallen world in order to attain ultimate salvation (Mark 8:35, John 12:25), and to get to go and be with Jesus in heaven at the moment of death (2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21,23)?
--
*Luke 23:45 / Lk. 23:45 -
(Veil)
See Matthew 27:51 above.
--
*Luke 23:46 / *Lk. 23:46 -
Jesus Christ's soul did not go down into hell when He died, but up into heaven, into the hands of God the Father (Luke 23:46). The same day that He died, Jesus' soul went into paradise (Luke 23:43), which is in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2-4), and which is where the tree of life is (Revelation 2:7), in the literal city of New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:2) in heaven (Hebrews 12:22).
~
The original Greek word (paratithemi: G3908) translated as "commend" can mean "commit" (1 Peter 4:19).
--
*Luke 23:51 / *Lk. 23:51 -
"Arimathaea" (G0707) could refer to a city called "Ramah" (H7414).
--
*Luke 24:27 / *Lk. 24:27 -
(Re: Means that all of the Old Testament is part of the Gospel?)
The key words in Luke 24:27 are the parts of the Old Testament "concerning himself", just as later in the chapter (Luke 24:44-47).
(See paragraph 3 of section 6 of John 1:1 below)
--
*Luke 24:31b / *Lk. 24:31b -
(Re: Means that Jesus is no longer bound to the flesh?)
See John 20:26b below.
--
*Luke 24:39 / *Lk. 24:39 -
(Re: *Gnosticism)
(See also the "Gnosticism" sections of Matthew 4:4 above and 1 John 4:3 below)
Christians need to be careful not to be deceived by the Gnostic/antichrist lie that Christ is not in the flesh (2 John 1:7), and that Christians will not forever be in the flesh. For the Bible shows that on the third day after His death (Luke 24:46; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4), Jesus Christ was not resurrected as a disembodied spirit, but in his human, flesh and bones body (Luke 24:39, Hebrews 2:17). That is why His tomb is empty (Matthew 28:6), and why He still has the wounds of the crucifixion on His resurrection body (John 20:25-29). And Luke 24:39 did not stop being true once Jesus ascended into heaven. For He will remain forever the human mediator/high priest of Christians (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:24-26), in human flesh, just like they are in human flesh (Hebrews 2:17). And when He returns, He will still have the wounds of the crucifixion on His resurrection body (Zechariah 13:6, Zechariah 12:10-14).
Gnosticism mistakenly thinks that flesh is evil in itself, and that only pure spirit can be good. But Jesus Christ proves that flesh is not evil in itself, for He has been made flesh (John 1:1,14, Romans 1:3, Luke 24:39) and remains without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Genesis also proves that flesh is not evil in itself, but was created by God as something very good (Genesis 1:31). Adam and Eve were flesh, for they were the progenitors of the human race alive today. And they were immortal before they fell into sin, for it was only their falling into sin which made them become mortal (Genesis 2:17). So Adam and Eve started out as immortal flesh. And so the future resurrection (if dead) or changing (if alive) of Christians into immortal flesh bodies like Jesus has (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53, Philippians 3:21, Luke 24:39, Romans 8:23-25) will be God allowing them to partake of the original, immortal-flesh condition of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before their fall into sin.
Also, beware the more-general Gnostic lie that even the entire physical universe is evil in itself and that only a purely-spiritual heaven can be good. For this lie is employed by Gnosticism to wrongly revile the Creator God YHWH as an evil, tyrant, lesser god, whom Gnosticism says created the physical universe to be the foul prison house of human spirits, whom Gnosticism says by mistake fell from bliss in a purely-spiritual heaven down into the physical universe and became trapped in suffering, fleshly bodies. No doubt the future Antichrist will employ this lie as part of his utter reviling of YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36). But Genesis shows that our physical world was created by YHWH as something very good (Genesis 1:31).
And the Bible shows that the whole plan of Creation was not that humans, who are both flesh and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23, Luke 24:39), would become purely-spiritual ghosts and float forever on clouds in a purely-spiritual heaven with God, but that God would become both flesh and spirit like man (John 1:1,14), and that God would ultimately come down from heaven to live with man on a future, New Earth (Revelation 21:1-4), as in a new surface for the earth, just as God had walked on the earth in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:8). Also, on the New Earth, Christians will be allowed to eat from the literal tree of life (Revelation 2:7, Revelation 22:2,14), just as Adam and Eve had not been forbidden to eat from it in their unfallen state (Genesis 2:9,16-17). So, with regard to Christians, God will completely undo the effect of the fall of Adam and Eve. Christians will be able to live in an earthly, physical paradise forever with God (Revelation 2:7), just as Adam and Eve and their descendants might have done had not Adam and Eve fallen into sin.
So beware the Gnostic lie. Beware the Antichrist.
(See also Revelation 2:7 below)
~
(A spirit hath not flesh and bones)
Luke 24:39 is referring to the disembodied spirit of a dead person, which Jesus Christ was not when he spoke Luke 24:39 in his immortal, resurrected, physical body, which also has a spirit, just as we have both a body and a spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Also, obedient Christians can be called "spiritual" even while they are in their mortal physical bodies (Galatians 6:1).
--
*Luke 24:44 / *Lk. 24:44 -
This does not say that Jesus Christ fulfilled at His first coming everything prophesied in the Old Testament regarding Him, but that everything prophesied in the Old Testament regarding Him must be fulfilled. For Jesus did not fulfill, for example, Zechariah 14 at His first coming. But because it must be fulfilled, He will fulfill it at His future, Second Coming, along with all of the other Old Testament prophecies which He did not fulfill at His first coming (e.g. Micah 4:1-4, Isaiah 19:18-25).
So Acts 13:29 must refer only to all that was written in the Old Testament regarding Jesus Christ's suffering and dying for our sins (e.g. Isaiah 53, Psalms 22). Indeed, Acts 13:29 was even before Jesus had resurrected on the third day after His death, which resurrection was also written of Him in the Old Testament (e.g. Acts 26:22-23, Psalms 16:10, Hosea 6:2).
--
*Luke 24:45-48 / *Lk. 24:45 -
While the understanding of the Old Testament prophecies regarding Jesus Christ's suffering and death for our sins (Isaiah 53; 1 Corinthians 15:3) on the Cross (Psalms 22), and His rising physically from the dead (Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:31) on the third day (Hoses 6:2; 1 Corinthians 15:4, Colossians 2:12), was not given to the apostles of Jesus until after they had witnessed the fulfillment of these prophecies (Luke 24:45-48), this does not contradict that other prophecies can be understood before they are fulfilled (e.g. Matthew 2:4-6).
Luke 24:45-48 happened before the Pentecost in Acts 2, and was made possible by the apostles of Jesus Christ receiving God's Holy Spirit in some measure before that Pentecost (John 20:22). Non-Christians often cannot understand the Spirit's teachings, including Biblical prophecy, because they have not received the Spirit like Christians have (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). But even Christians retain their free will, and so can wrongly employ it to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19) within them and reject what He is trying to tell them (either directly or through other Christians) regarding how to understand Biblical prophecies. It is possible for Christians to become united in what they believe (1 Corinthians 1:10) if they will submit their will to the Spirit and to what He teaches in the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4).
--
*Luke 24:49 / *Lk. 24:49 -
(Re: Do not most scholars, even Pentecostal ones, reject the idea of Holy Spirit baptism being an empowering event subsequent to salvation?) / (*Power)
Note that Holy Spirit baptism is an empowering event subsequent to salvation. For:
[Luke 24:49]
A parallel passage refers to this enduing with power as Holy Spirit baptism:
[Acts 1:4-5, Acts 1:8]
This was first fulfilled at the Pentecost in Acts 2, just as the empowering of other Christians through Holy Spirit baptism occurred at subsequent times (Acts 19:6, Acts 10:44-46), down until this day.
(See also paragraphs 2-3 of Mark 16:16 above. And see Luke 6:19 above)
--
*Luke 24:53 / *Lk. 24:53 -
At the time of Luke 24:53, Christians had received God's Holy Spirit in some measure (John 20:22), thereby making their bodies temples of God (1 Corinthians 3:16). Also, even after the Pentecost in Acts 2, Christians continued to worship God in the second Jewish temple building in Jerusalem (Acts 2:46-47, Acts 22:17).
--
*John / *Jn. -
(Re: Can you describe in detail what Jesus is like?)
The Gospel of John does that for us wonderfully. Read it over and over, from start to finish, and Jesus Christ's long discourses there will give you a deep sense of what He is like.
--
*John 1:1,14 / *Jn. 1:1 -
(Re: The *Trinity)
Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6, Matthew 1:23). And He is uncreated God, just as God the Father is uncreated God. For everything created was created by Jesus (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Because Jesus is uncreated, there was never a time when He was not. He has always existed. He is YHWH the Holy One, from everlasting (Habakkuk 1:12a, Acts 3:14, Micah 5:2c). He is YHWH the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Titus 2:13), YHWH the good shepherd (Psalms 23:1, John 10:11, Mark 10:18), YHWH who will set His feet on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem at His return (Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12), YHWH the first and last (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 2:8), YHWH the great I AM (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), the great God (Titus 2:13), the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6), one God with God the Father (John 10:30, John 20:28), equal in divinity with God the Father (Philippians 2:6).
Just as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) is the three distinct, coexisting Persons (Mark 1:9-11) of God the Father (Galatians 1:3), God the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and God the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19-20; Acts 5:3-4), so the Trinity is YHWH the Father, YHWH the Son, and YHWH the Holy Spirit. For YHWH is the only God (Isaiah 45:5-6). He has always been and forever will be the only God (Isaiah 43:10b).
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 6, 2018
(Re: *Weapons)
Luke 22:36b means that every Christian should obtain the sword of God's Holy Spirit, which is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12). The "two swords" which are enough for all Christians (Luke 22:38) represent the two main parts of God's Word: the Old Testament and the New Testament. Luke 22:36b cannot mean that every Christian should obtain a physical weapon, for otherwise two physical weapons would not have been enough for all of the apostles (Luke 22:38). And Luke 22:36b cannot mean that any Christian should obtain a physical weapon to attack other people with, even in self-defense. For Christians are elsewhere commanded not to defend themselves when they are attacked, but to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). For those who take up a physical weapon to attack other people, even in self-defense, will perish by a weapon (Matthew 26:52).
Christians do not employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18). Instead, Jesus Christ at His first coming set the example for what Christians are to do when they are physically attacked by people (1 Peter 2:19-23). They are to go meekly like sheep to the slaughter (Romans 8:36, Psalms 44:6,22), just like Jesus did (Isaiah 53:7). Obedient Christians do not fear death (Hebrews 2:15), and do not love their lives unto death (Revelation 12:11b), but hate their lives in this world, so that they might retain eternal life (John 12:25, Mark 8:34-38). For obedient Christians know that being killed is no loss for them, but gain (Philippians 1:21), as it will bring their still-conscious souls into heaven to be with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:8), which is far better than remaining in this fallen world (Philippians 1:23).
During the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, Christians (not in hiding) will have to face martyrdom with patience and faith to the end (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), just as Christians have always had to spiritually overcome in the face of martyrdom (e.g. Revelation 2:10-11).
(See also Matthew 5:39 and Daniel 12:7b above)
~
(Re: What if Christians are in law enforcement? Is it against God's Word for them to carry weapons to protect the people?)
It is against God's Word for Christians to ever use those weapons against people. For Christians are not to employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18).
But God does allow civil authorities to employ weapons and violence against criminals (Romans 13:3-4). And Christians are to obey, and pay their taxes to support, civil authorities (Romans 13:1-6).
~
(Re: Does the Lord call us to just sit back and allow ourselves to be killed, when it is not the Lord's time to call us home?)
If it is not the Lord's time to call us home, then He will not allow murderers to come and kill us, or allow any other form of death to come to us (Psalms 91, Psalms 121). But if it is our time, then He could allow us to be murdered, and we should face that without any fear (Revelation 2:10) or complaint, but even with thankfulness (1 Thessalonians 5:18), that we can then enter heaven, which is far better than remaining in this fallen world (2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21,23).
Also, what gives us the right to kill someone who is attacking us, if it is not the Lord's time for that person to die? God might still want to save that person's soul and help him to change and be a nice person. And how can God do that if we kill that person while he is still an unrepentant non-Christian, so that when he dies his soul goes to hell? If Stephen the martyr in the book of Acts could ask God to forgive those who were stoning him to death (Acts 7:59-60), so that even they might be saved from hell, then we should also show mercy to everyone (Matthew 5:7, Matthew 6:15), even if they are about to kill us.
~
(Re: So if someone breaks into my house and is armed, I have no right to defend myself and my family?)
Are you referring to a robbery? If so, most robbers are not interested in harming anyone if they can simply get the goods that they want. So just give them what they want, taking "joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance" (Hebrews 10:34).
[Luke 12:15, Matthew 6:19-21]
~
(Re: What if a robber does want to kill us?)
If you are worried about being killed by an intruder, near to your bedroom build a "safe room", such as a walk-in closet which you can fit with a steel door which an intruder cannot kick open, or shoot bullets through. Then you can hide in there while an intruder is in your house. Or, build a "secret room" with a hidden door which an intruder will not even notice. The worst thing that you can do is to start a shoot-out in your house between you and an intruder, which could result in the unnecessary death of both you and your family, or the accidental death of an innocent person (such as a relative or friend who is making a surprise visit), or the tragic death of a harmless stranger (such as an unarmed, peaceful homeless man who entered the unlocked window of what he thought was an empty house, just to get some emergency shelter for a freezing night).
~
(Re: What if a rapist has come for my wife?)
Hide your wife from him in a "safe room", or a "secret room". And to prevent him from surprising you and your wife while you are asleep, get a burglar alarm with interior motion sensors, and/or get some little dogs which will bark you awake at the first, slightest sound or smell of an intruder. And if an intruder nonetheless somehow still manages to accost you before you and your wife can make it to your "safe room", or "secret room", do not try to shoot him or fight him, as that could make him get even more violent. Just give in to him to calm him down, as it is said that what rapists are really after is control. The sex part can be over quickly, and the person raped is not defiled in God's eyes, because of the basic principle of: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him" (Mark 7:15). It is only the rapist who is defiled, by his own lust (Mark 7:21-23), just as it is only the rapist who is the criminal.
~
(Re: What about the government surveilling us? If Big Brother is watching us, then who is watching Big Brother?)
God (Jeremiah 23:24), and His angels (Ecclesiastes 5:8): watchers (Daniel 4:13). Think of them as part of the DIA (not the Defense, but the Divine Intelligence Agency). They have an amazing advantage as intelligence operatives: invisibility. They can enter any place, even the most guarded, secret facility of the most undercover government agency. They can learn every secret, know everything that is going on, and everything that is planned (Isaiah 29:15). And they can invisibly wreak havoc with computer systems, surveillance systems, the very minds of men.
And so can the devil and his angels. Think of them as the SIA (Satanic Intelligence Agency). Humans are just pawns in the undercover war between the DIA and the SIA. Even the most intelligent, most cunning, most ruthless human intelligence operative is putty in the hands of Satan's angels. They can make him or her do almost anything, even the most cruel, to the destruction of his or her soul. And they can make him or her do even the most stupid thing, to the destruction of his or her cover and physical life.
Also, we should not let it get us down too much that Big Brother can now track everything that we do (through the internet, and through our cell phones, debit and credit cards, televisions, and government agents surveilling us in person, etc.). For is not God doing the same thing? Does not He track everything that we do, even everything that we think (Psalms 139:2, Matthew 9:4)?
The civil right to privacy relates to not being watched by other humans, not to any right not to be watched by God. For as our Creator, He can do with us whatever He wants, just as a potter can do with his pots whatever he wants (Romans 9:20-24).
~
(Re: But how do human snoopers justify to themselves their violating our civil right to privacy?)
They ask: "Why does it bother you, if you are not doing anything wrong?" But this shows a lack of understanding of what privacy is, in itself. For privacy per se has nothing to do with any fear of being caught doing something wrong, but is a basic human right, in itself, as enshrined, for example, in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
As an analogy, imagine that a man, his wife, and young son sat on their living room sofa to watch (again) a DVD of the movie "Frozen", and to eat popcorn together. A few minutes into the movie, a policeman lets himself into their house, walks over to the TV and just stands there next to it, watching them. The man jumps up from the sofa: "What are you doing? How dare you come into our house to watch us! Get out! Leave us alone!" To which the policeman could reply: "Why does it bother you, when you are not doing anything wrong?"
~
(Re: Could intelligence and law-enforcement agencies be overrun with voyeurs?)
Possibly, for voyeurism is a neurosis whereby people get really titillated by being able to watch other people without them knowing about it, such as by being a Peeping Tom. What we have today, sadly, is a Peeping T.I.A., which could be very titillating to some people in the Deep State, also called the Security State, in the sense of the lifetime-career agents of the federal government's intelligence and law enforcement agencies. They never have to answer to the People, because they were never elected, and never will be. And federal government-employee unions make it almost impossible to ever remove them from their positions.
Also, they never have to answer to the People in Congress because they can say that their activities are too secret to reveal even to the top members of Congress, even when these members ask for documents related to a specific, possibly-unlawful activity of the Security State which has become known to them. Most of the unlawful activities of the Security State never become known to anyone in Congress. For the Security State often operates in complete darkness. And this could give rise to rogue elements within U.S. intelligence who perform horrible, illegal acts without ever being held to account, even by their own agencies, who are not even aware of everything that their own agents are doing. Intelligence agencies are the most evil, dangerous things that have ever been invented, after nuclear weapons. JFK came to realize this, and was going to shut the CIA down, but it got to him first, at Dallas, through three secretly-hired hit men from Marseille. They triangulated on him; and the killing, brain-splattering shot came from the railroad bridge.
Also, the Security State, or Deep State, is "Deep" not only with regard to the depths of its secrecy and evil, but also in the sense that it never changes, but abides for decades, as presidential administration after administration passes away above it, and top Congressional leaders regularly change above it with the changes in the political-party control of Congress. So the Security State is ultimately untouchable, which makes it so extremely dangerous to the civil liberties of the People, and even to the lives of some individual citizens, including some in high office. The Security State stonewalls the People and tells them to just trust it. But democracy cannot be based on blind trust, but must be based on full accountability and transparency. That is, every part of a democratic government must be accountable to the People for every action that it takes. Otherwise, the People are under an unaccountable tyranny.
Also, sadly, the Security State could include many intelligence and law enforcement agents who have a neurotic paranoia. For only such people could continue to be suspicious of everyone and everything, no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. They could think that they are being "tough", and "hard", when in fact they are simply blind to their own mental imbalance, which could eventually lead them (legally) into the ditch (cf. Luke 6:39, Psalms 7:15). But there is still a ray of hope that it will not.
But while they continue to look for needles in a haystack, that is, to look for individual terrorists and spies within a vast populace, they are also continuing to watch some pieces of hay to see if they turn into needles. But only mentally imbalanced people would continue to watch pieces of hay, that is, continue to watch U.S. citizens who are completely innocent legally, especially when these citizens have a Constitutional right not to be continually surveilled by the government.
The standard of the Founders for the violation of one's privacy is probable cause, not possible cause. The latter standard was that of the Stasi, and of George III. It needs to end. It is not appropriate in a free country.
Also, mentally imbalanced people in the Security State who are now pushing most forcefully for the continuance and expansion of T.I.A. need to be fired from their jobs. For they will not quit until they have turned the U.S. into a total police state, vitiating the whole purpose for the American Revolution.
Also, they think that they are protecting "national security", but what they have done is set everything up for the future Antichrist's total surveillance and subjugation of everyone (Revelation 13:4-18).
~
(Re: Regarding T.I.A, what about the "third-party doctrine"?)
The "third-party doctrine" established in Smith v. Maryland by the Supreme Court is a mistaken doctrine, just as, for example, the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson by the Supreme Court was a mistaken doctrine. For the Supreme Court can make mistakes. For it consists only of fallible human beings.
Also, the "third-party doctrine" is fundamentally wrong because it ends up vitiating the whole purpose for the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is to protect the privacy of the People from government intrusion, apart from a warrant based upon probable cause.
For the "third-party doctrine" is found nowhere in the letter or the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, but was invented out of whole cloth in Smith v. Maryland solely to support a government overreach which had already occurred. That is, the government had obtained from a phone company all of the phone numbers which had been called by a criminal suspect. And these phone numbers had been obtained without a warrant based upon probable cause.
In this case, as in all others, the "third-party doctrine" is wrong because the suspect had to provide the phone company with those phone numbers in order for the company to complete his calls. The suspect was in no way intending for his calls to be made public. Indeed, that is why companies today go out of their way to provide their customers with "Privacy Policies", which indicate that the customer information which they obtain will not be made public without the permission of the customers.
But the government wants to obtain all information without any permission from such customers. The government wants to utterly violate their right to privacy, enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.
Imagine that what you have said to a "third party" such as your lawyer, your priest, your doctor, your psychiatrist, your banker, your very spouse, were to be made fair game for any government snooper to listen to, or to read, without your permission, and without any warrant based upon probable cause. Your sacred right to privacy would be utterly obliterated. This is what the awful, "third-party doctrine" established in Smith v. Maryland by the Supreme Court has now made "legal".
It must be overturned, or the Constitution is dead.
Smith v. Maryland represents a failure of one of government's core functions -- the protection of fundamental rights.
~
(Re: Regarding T.I.A., why cannot the government track your movements and activities which you do publicly?)
It can, if it has a judicial warrant based upon probable cause that a crime has been committed, but not on mere "possible cause" that a crime has or "could" be committed. For that would be no different than the crime of stalking.
As an analogy, imagine that a male stalker of a female celebrity was arrested and brought to trial.
During the trial, he testified: "Your honor. I am not a stalker. For I only followed and watched her in public places, and in public forums on the internet, where she had no expectation of privacy".
The judge answered: "I'm sorry, sir, but that is irrelevant. For otherwise you would be here under the charge of trespassing on private property, or under the charge of the crime of hacking. The crime of stalking refers to public places".
"But I did her no harm, your honor."
"You did her the harm of the invasion of her life, so that she could not post anything on the public internet, or go to any public restaurant, or have any guests park on the public street in front of her house, without you being there breathing down her neck, knowing everything that she did publicly. She had to stop eating in restaurants to avoid you and your friends sitting at tables next to her, and surveilling everything that she did and said. You ruined her life. And now you must go to prison, and pay a million dollars in damages to your poor victim, whose life you struck with your obsessive stalking."
~
(Re: What about *FISC warrants?)
Sadly, FISC is like a FIST (a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Travesty) in the eye of the U.S. Constitution. For unlike a normal court, FISC does not have competing pleaders. And so there is no due process for the violation of a U.S. citizen's Fourth Amendment right to privacy, just as there is no due process for the violation of a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right to a "public trial". Instead FISC hearings are utterly secret.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Instead, FISC relies solely on government-friendly judges. If judges are deemed skeptical of the government, they are never picked for FISC in the first place. Or, if judges are picked, but then later are found to be rejecting too many warrant requests, they are simply "promoted" from FISC to some other court, and replaced with judges who are compliant.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" against him. Instead, he does not even know that there is any accusation against him.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him". Instead, the witnesses testify against him in secret, without him even knowing about it. Truly, this rises to Stasi-level tyranny.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor". Instead, the FISC judges are only allowed to hear witnesses against him. Truly, the Founders are turning in their graves.
Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". Instead, he is left utterly defenseless. Truly, this is a crime against justice.
But the Security State feels that the current setup must abide. For it has allowed the Security State to become a Power unto itself. It is now an Anti-Constitutional, Fourth Branch of government, with no accountability whatsoever to the People.
May God help us.
~
(Re: I thought that Obama ensured warrantless searches and indefinite detention without access to counsel when he signed into law the *NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act)
That is chilling. For the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that no searches shall be conducted without a Warrant, and "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".
Also, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that every accused person "shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury".
Also, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that every accused person shall "have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence".
The Founders indicated these requirements precisely to counter the tyranny of George III of England, who thought that he could do whatever he wanted with his citizens in the name of Britain's national security. And he thought that he could get away with doing his will often secretly. For tyranny loves secrecy. Indeed, "indefinite detention without access to counsel" assures secrecy, as well as no Supreme Court review. For without counsel, someone locked up indefinitely for "national security" reasons can never challenge the NDAA in federal court. And the law requires someone with "standing", i.e. someone who has actually had his civil rights denied through the NDAA, to bring a suit in federal court for Constitutional review of the NDAA statute.
If the NDAA indeed countervails the Constitution in these ways, then the Constitution means NADA, and we are back under a gross tyranny. The Founders are turning in their graves. And what was the point of the American Revolution?
To establish the tyranny of a Security State.
~
(Re: Could the Security State purposely allow another 9/11-type event, so that it can increase its powers over the People?)
Possibly. And there are some worrying signs of this.
For example, there was recently a nationwide test in which everyone's cell phone was taken over by an emergency message from the government, as if in preparation for a huge, national emergency. (Also, note that such a taking-over of everyone's cell phone could point to the possibility of the government having the ability to one day permanently disable every cell phone, such as to thwart a rebellion against it.)
Also, some hedge funds are now liquidating, as if they want to pocket their cash away before disaster strikes and they lose everything in the stock market and an economy-wide crash, like happened in 2008's Great Recession.
Hedge funds are for extremely-rich people. And they have access to top leaders in the government, who could have warned them to stash their dough away before another, impending 9/11-type event occurs in our near-future.
And so, like in 2008, the People will be left holding the bag.
And, like after 9/11 and the so-called "Patriot Act", the People's civil rights, and so their power, will be obliterated in the name of "national security".
And then the Security State will rule over all, turning the country into a police state.
(There may be some people whose mouths water at the very thought of this.)
--
*Luke 22:42 / *Lk. 22:42 -
See section 2 of 1 John 2:2 below.
--
*Luke 23:2 / *Lk. 23:2 -
The original Greek word (diastrepho: G1294) translated as "perverting" can mean "corrupting", or "turning away" (Acts 13:8).
--
*Luke 23:23 / *Lk. 23:23 -
The original Greek word (epikeimai: G1945) translated as "were instant" can mean "insisted".
--
*Luke 23:26 / *Lk. 23:26 -
"Cyrenian" (G2956) means an inhabitant of Cyrene, a city in Libya which is now called Tripoli.
--
*Luke 23:30 / *Lk. 23:30 -
See "Luke 23:30" under Isaiah 2:12 above.
--
*Luke 23:34 / *Lk. 23:34 -
Here, "them" refers only to the "they" in Luke 23:33,34b, the soldiers who crucified Jesus Christ, and cast lots for His clothes. Likewise, in Luke 23:34, "do" refers only to the act of the soldiers nailing Jesus to the Cross in Luke 23:33. These soldiers were elect individuals, for subsequently they all came into faith in Jesus as the Son of God (and so became saved: John 3:36), after watching Him on the Cross, and seeing the miraculous earthquake which occurred at the moment that He died (Matthew 27:54). God offers no forgiveness to nonelect individuals (Romans 9:11-22, Luke 12:49; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9). He grants His miraculous gift of faith only to elect individuals (Acts 13:48b, Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65).
(See also Romans 9:11 below)
--
*Luke 23:43 / *Lk. 23:43 -
(Re: Does the *thief on the cross mean that baptism is not necessary?)
The thief on the cross could have been baptized before Luke 23:42-43 happened, but then backslid and committed theft. Also, baptism is only a New Testament/New Covenant requirement for ultimate salvation (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-11, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12). And the New Covenant was not put into legal effect until Jesus Christ died (Hebrews 9:16-17, Matthew 26:28). But Luke 23:42-43 happened before Jesus died; and so baptism was not yet a requirement for ultimate salvation. But now that Jesus' death is past, Christians have to obey all of His New Covenant commandments (John 14:21-24) if they want to obtain ultimate salvation (Hebrews 5:9, Romans 2:6-8), including His commandment that every Christian get baptized (Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38), and by immersion/"burial" in the water of baptism (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:37). Also, a Christian can ultimately lose his salvation if he wrongly employs his free will to commit unrepentant sin (Hebrews 10:26-29; 1 Corinthians 9:27, Luke 12:45-46), which includes unrepentant sins of omission (James 4:17), which would include refusing without repentance to get baptized, and by immersion.
(See also Mark 16:16 above)
~
(Re: Deathbed, battlefield, and prison conversions)
Regarding prison conversions, people can get baptized in prison. Regarding those who become Christians on their deathbed or on a battlefield, Jesus Christ will give them enough time to get baptized, just as, for example, if Christians commit a sin, He will give them enough time to repent (Revelation 2:21). Even if someone who becomes a Christian on their deathbed or on a battlefield is paralyzed or gravely wounded, he can still be baptized by people helping him (cf. Mark 2:3-5) by lifting him off of his bed or stretcher and immersing him in a tub of water or in a natural body of water. And if his doctors or medics warn that such a maneuver will only hasten his death, Jesus could surely see to it that it does not. And even if it does, what would it matter to give up a little more time of this mortal life in this fallen world in order to attain ultimate salvation (Mark 8:35, John 12:25), and to get to go and be with Jesus in heaven at the moment of death (2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21,23)?
--
*Luke 23:45 / Lk. 23:45 -
(Veil)
See Matthew 27:51 above.
--
*Luke 23:46 / *Lk. 23:46 -
Jesus Christ's soul did not go down into hell when He died, but up into heaven, into the hands of God the Father (Luke 23:46). The same day that He died, Jesus' soul went into paradise (Luke 23:43), which is in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2-4), and which is where the tree of life is (Revelation 2:7), in the literal city of New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:2) in heaven (Hebrews 12:22).
~
The original Greek word (paratithemi: G3908) translated as "commend" can mean "commit" (1 Peter 4:19).
--
*Luke 23:51 / *Lk. 23:51 -
"Arimathaea" (G0707) could refer to a city called "Ramah" (H7414).
--
*Luke 24:27 / *Lk. 24:27 -
(Re: Means that all of the Old Testament is part of the Gospel?)
The key words in Luke 24:27 are the parts of the Old Testament "concerning himself", just as later in the chapter (Luke 24:44-47).
(See paragraph 3 of section 6 of John 1:1 below)
--
*Luke 24:31b / *Lk. 24:31b -
(Re: Means that Jesus is no longer bound to the flesh?)
See John 20:26b below.
--
*Luke 24:39 / *Lk. 24:39 -
(Re: *Gnosticism)
(See also the "Gnosticism" sections of Matthew 4:4 above and 1 John 4:3 below)
Christians need to be careful not to be deceived by the Gnostic/antichrist lie that Christ is not in the flesh (2 John 1:7), and that Christians will not forever be in the flesh. For the Bible shows that on the third day after His death (Luke 24:46; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4), Jesus Christ was not resurrected as a disembodied spirit, but in his human, flesh and bones body (Luke 24:39, Hebrews 2:17). That is why His tomb is empty (Matthew 28:6), and why He still has the wounds of the crucifixion on His resurrection body (John 20:25-29). And Luke 24:39 did not stop being true once Jesus ascended into heaven. For He will remain forever the human mediator/high priest of Christians (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:24-26), in human flesh, just like they are in human flesh (Hebrews 2:17). And when He returns, He will still have the wounds of the crucifixion on His resurrection body (Zechariah 13:6, Zechariah 12:10-14).
Gnosticism mistakenly thinks that flesh is evil in itself, and that only pure spirit can be good. But Jesus Christ proves that flesh is not evil in itself, for He has been made flesh (John 1:1,14, Romans 1:3, Luke 24:39) and remains without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Genesis also proves that flesh is not evil in itself, but was created by God as something very good (Genesis 1:31). Adam and Eve were flesh, for they were the progenitors of the human race alive today. And they were immortal before they fell into sin, for it was only their falling into sin which made them become mortal (Genesis 2:17). So Adam and Eve started out as immortal flesh. And so the future resurrection (if dead) or changing (if alive) of Christians into immortal flesh bodies like Jesus has (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53, Philippians 3:21, Luke 24:39, Romans 8:23-25) will be God allowing them to partake of the original, immortal-flesh condition of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before their fall into sin.
Also, beware the more-general Gnostic lie that even the entire physical universe is evil in itself and that only a purely-spiritual heaven can be good. For this lie is employed by Gnosticism to wrongly revile the Creator God YHWH as an evil, tyrant, lesser god, whom Gnosticism says created the physical universe to be the foul prison house of human spirits, whom Gnosticism says by mistake fell from bliss in a purely-spiritual heaven down into the physical universe and became trapped in suffering, fleshly bodies. No doubt the future Antichrist will employ this lie as part of his utter reviling of YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36). But Genesis shows that our physical world was created by YHWH as something very good (Genesis 1:31).
And the Bible shows that the whole plan of Creation was not that humans, who are both flesh and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23, Luke 24:39), would become purely-spiritual ghosts and float forever on clouds in a purely-spiritual heaven with God, but that God would become both flesh and spirit like man (John 1:1,14), and that God would ultimately come down from heaven to live with man on a future, New Earth (Revelation 21:1-4), as in a new surface for the earth, just as God had walked on the earth in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:8). Also, on the New Earth, Christians will be allowed to eat from the literal tree of life (Revelation 2:7, Revelation 22:2,14), just as Adam and Eve had not been forbidden to eat from it in their unfallen state (Genesis 2:9,16-17). So, with regard to Christians, God will completely undo the effect of the fall of Adam and Eve. Christians will be able to live in an earthly, physical paradise forever with God (Revelation 2:7), just as Adam and Eve and their descendants might have done had not Adam and Eve fallen into sin.
So beware the Gnostic lie. Beware the Antichrist.
(See also Revelation 2:7 below)
~
(A spirit hath not flesh and bones)
Luke 24:39 is referring to the disembodied spirit of a dead person, which Jesus Christ was not when he spoke Luke 24:39 in his immortal, resurrected, physical body, which also has a spirit, just as we have both a body and a spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Also, obedient Christians can be called "spiritual" even while they are in their mortal physical bodies (Galatians 6:1).
--
*Luke 24:44 / *Lk. 24:44 -
This does not say that Jesus Christ fulfilled at His first coming everything prophesied in the Old Testament regarding Him, but that everything prophesied in the Old Testament regarding Him must be fulfilled. For Jesus did not fulfill, for example, Zechariah 14 at His first coming. But because it must be fulfilled, He will fulfill it at His future, Second Coming, along with all of the other Old Testament prophecies which He did not fulfill at His first coming (e.g. Micah 4:1-4, Isaiah 19:18-25).
So Acts 13:29 must refer only to all that was written in the Old Testament regarding Jesus Christ's suffering and dying for our sins (e.g. Isaiah 53, Psalms 22). Indeed, Acts 13:29 was even before Jesus had resurrected on the third day after His death, which resurrection was also written of Him in the Old Testament (e.g. Acts 26:22-23, Psalms 16:10, Hosea 6:2).
--
*Luke 24:45-48 / *Lk. 24:45 -
While the understanding of the Old Testament prophecies regarding Jesus Christ's suffering and death for our sins (Isaiah 53; 1 Corinthians 15:3) on the Cross (Psalms 22), and His rising physically from the dead (Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:31) on the third day (Hoses 6:2; 1 Corinthians 15:4, Colossians 2:12), was not given to the apostles of Jesus until after they had witnessed the fulfillment of these prophecies (Luke 24:45-48), this does not contradict that other prophecies can be understood before they are fulfilled (e.g. Matthew 2:4-6).
Luke 24:45-48 happened before the Pentecost in Acts 2, and was made possible by the apostles of Jesus Christ receiving God's Holy Spirit in some measure before that Pentecost (John 20:22). Non-Christians often cannot understand the Spirit's teachings, including Biblical prophecy, because they have not received the Spirit like Christians have (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). But even Christians retain their free will, and so can wrongly employ it to quench the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19) within them and reject what He is trying to tell them (either directly or through other Christians) regarding how to understand Biblical prophecies. It is possible for Christians to become united in what they believe (1 Corinthians 1:10) if they will submit their will to the Spirit and to what He teaches in the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2-4).
--
*Luke 24:49 / *Lk. 24:49 -
(Re: Do not most scholars, even Pentecostal ones, reject the idea of Holy Spirit baptism being an empowering event subsequent to salvation?) / (*Power)
Note that Holy Spirit baptism is an empowering event subsequent to salvation. For:
[Luke 24:49]
A parallel passage refers to this enduing with power as Holy Spirit baptism:
[Acts 1:4-5, Acts 1:8]
This was first fulfilled at the Pentecost in Acts 2, just as the empowering of other Christians through Holy Spirit baptism occurred at subsequent times (Acts 19:6, Acts 10:44-46), down until this day.
(See also paragraphs 2-3 of Mark 16:16 above. And see Luke 6:19 above)
--
*Luke 24:53 / *Lk. 24:53 -
At the time of Luke 24:53, Christians had received God's Holy Spirit in some measure (John 20:22), thereby making their bodies temples of God (1 Corinthians 3:16). Also, even after the Pentecost in Acts 2, Christians continued to worship God in the second Jewish temple building in Jerusalem (Acts 2:46-47, Acts 22:17).
--
*John / *Jn. -
(Re: Can you describe in detail what Jesus is like?)
The Gospel of John does that for us wonderfully. Read it over and over, from start to finish, and Jesus Christ's long discourses there will give you a deep sense of what He is like.
--
*John 1:1,14 / *Jn. 1:1 -
(Re: The *Trinity)
Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6, Matthew 1:23). And He is uncreated God, just as God the Father is uncreated God. For everything created was created by Jesus (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Because Jesus is uncreated, there was never a time when He was not. He has always existed. He is YHWH the Holy One, from everlasting (Habakkuk 1:12a, Acts 3:14, Micah 5:2c). He is YHWH the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Titus 2:13), YHWH the good shepherd (Psalms 23:1, John 10:11, Mark 10:18), YHWH who will set His feet on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem at His return (Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12), YHWH the first and last (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 2:8), YHWH the great I AM (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), the great God (Titus 2:13), the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6), one God with God the Father (John 10:30, John 20:28), equal in divinity with God the Father (Philippians 2:6).
Just as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) is the three distinct, coexisting Persons (Mark 1:9-11) of God the Father (Galatians 1:3), God the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and God the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19-20; Acts 5:3-4), so the Trinity is YHWH the Father, YHWH the Son, and YHWH the Holy Spirit. For YHWH is the only God (Isaiah 45:5-6). He has always been and forever will be the only God (Isaiah 43:10b).
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 6, 2018
