Luke 16: A response to an article.

[paul becke]

timewerx, if they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, or Jesus recounting the parable, they are not going to listen to you.

'If they didn't listen to me, they are not going to listen to you. The servant is not greater than his master.'

 

[paul becke]

Most Christians don't understand those verses properly. Jesus is actually condemning 'worldly shrewdness', especially in applying shrewdness to do worldly affairs.

Children of the light should be less shrewd than the children of the world:

Luke 16:8

8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.

We go on to Luke 16:10-12 - handling property that isn't yours. Most Christians don't understand this. They it has something to do with succeeding in business or career, and living in a nice comfortable house, puttering around in a nice car. Those Christians will not inherit even one micrometer square property in Heaven!

To prove most Christians are in the wrong context, those verses are immediately followed by:

Luke 16:13

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

The entire context of those verses is actually condemnation of accumulation of wealth and would condemn most Christians by their lifestyles.



I agree with you.

I personally call it the 'satanic interpretation of the bible'

Few others here would agree with you as well. Unfortunately, only few think that way.

Most Christians in reality serve Mammon. Even an idiot can figure it out. Doesn't mean we're idiots!



Let's be honest and frank. MOst Christians love the dishonest steward too.

Even today, the Parables of Jesus still catches people off guard!

If you read the whole Luke 16, not just the parable, you can see the context is not about, in fact condemning shrewdness in worldly affairs, condemns keeping wealth to yourself.

Most Christians understand Luke 16 the other way, which makes the shrewd manager good, and succeeding in worldly trade/investments, favorable to God. They make Luke 16:13 the 'joke verse' and treat is as not absolute.

Like duh! Even an idiot can figure that out. Even an idiot knows a monkey will stick its hand a jar full of cookies than an empty jar....

So you see, it's a satanic interpretation of the bible with how most christians do it... The message of Jesus is clear but most will twist it to favor greed and acquisition of wealth. Most Christians obviously, don't use the word greed, more like blessings, rewards, promises, capitalism.

No. I think you're wrong, too, in interpreting the Parable of the Dishonest Steward in terms of shrewdness - at least in the sense that you all are, i.e, worldly shrewdness. Jesus was deploring the fact, which still obtains - that, while worldlings are extremely, even in a perverse way, commendably single-minded, focused and purposeful, in their efforts to attain their goals, Christians - just as you remarked emphatically with regard to Christian Mammon-worship in the West - are half-hearted about their Christian commitment. The Second Commandment is not negotiable. Period.

It is reminiscent of the passage in the Apocalypse 3:16, ''So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." In their focus on what they set their hearts on, and their commitment to attaining it, even the corrupt 'children of this world' manage to show up the generally observant Jew/Christian. They at least could be described as hot in their zeal for wealth and power, or cold in their appalling lack of empathy. Although it should surely go without saying that Jesus was not commending their single-mindedness in relation to the particular ambitions they lived by, or their moral code/lack thereof!

When you think of Jesus' parable about the farmer who built more barns to accommodate his bumper harvest, what would seem to most to be elementary prudence, basic common-sense (or business sense?), you realise what shallow witness to Gospel values the West has become accustomed to, perhaps has never known differently.

Even more so, when he rounded on his poor followers on one occasion, not because they were coveting a BMW or SUV, but because they felt assured of a modest meal, presumably, the likes of a little bread and fish!

Charity, commitment to self-sacrificing love is the currency of heaven. That, too, is what is referred to by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents - not natural gifts or skills.

Worldly ambition, indeed, usually under the pretext of being for the glory of God, has become virtually the supreme Christian virtue. It wouldn't be uncommon to hear a rapist soldier having a reference from one of his officers read out to the court, to the effect that he was a fine soldier, with a promising career ahead of him. Or how many times have you heard someone say of a young person who had died prematurely for whatever reason,... 'and he/she was so intelligent...!' Solzhenitsin once remarked in one of his books that a few centuries ago, the only Christian ambition most Russians considered legitimate was to a life of prayer, a devout life.

As I mentioned on another site, Ayn Rand, according to the 1% and their cronies, the only person with the genius to make a brilliantly-sophisticated philosophy from something as simple as the law of the jungle, would have viewed Christ as an indigent, itinerant preacher, and together with his Apostles, a gang of panhandlers (welfare queens in modern, Republican parlance, I believe), one and all, living off the bounty of a bunch of crazy women. We are told in one of the Gospels that Jesus and his Apostles were looked after by a group of women.

This quotes of the fathers and saints in this article set out the dynamics of wealth accumulation and its depravity:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive...s-on-mercy-that-might-enlighten-or-offend-you

 

[P1LGR1M]

Part Six


First, to prove that this language is symbolic and not meant to be taken literally, let's examine exactly what we are told by Yeshua. He says that first, Lazarus dies and is taken to the bosom of Abraham. Notice, there is no mention of his burial here. Then later the rich man dies, and he is buried (in Hades, according to verse 23). So the time sequence given indicates that upon his death, Lazarus was taken immediately to Abraham's bosom, while afterward the rich man was buried in Hades when he died.

The author keeps saying this...

let's examine exactly what we are told by Yeshua.


...and then goes on to inform the reader of many things that the Lord Jesus Christ...did not say.


He says that first, Lazarus dies and is taken to the bosom of Abraham. Notice, there is no mention of his burial here.

And this is not surprising. Who would have buried this man? Where would the body of a homeless man, probably a leper...have gone? And is this an issue that completely changes the intent of the teaching? Since conjecture is the format here, is it not reasonable that the body of the dead homeless diseased man was...tossed on a garbage heap?


If this story is literal, then we have a contradiction in the Bible. Here, Lazarus is shown to have immediately received the promise of eternal life.

No, we have no contradiction in scripture, what we have is an incredibly limited understanding of several doctrinal issues, which help the author come to conclusions that we shall see presently are in error.

First, the author embraces soul sleep. This is common for many that deny Hell and everlasting punishment. While it is not true that both soul sleep and annihilation are always believed, it is usually true that those that embrace soul sleep usually embrace annihilation. I have spoken with more people that embrace annihilation but not soul sleep, but, those that have embraced soul sleep usually embrace annihilation.

Lazarus is not said, anywhere, to have received eternal life. What is said is that Lazarus is carried into Abraham's Bosom, which in Jewish tradition is an equivalent to the Hebrew Sheol. Many consider that this is simply Jewish tradition, stemming from a corruption of beliefs through Gentile influence.

Doesn't matter, this is the term the Lord uses, and it fits well with the traditional view of Hades, where it was believed that there was a compartment for the Just, and one for the wicked. If the Lord simply intends to imply Lazarus was taken into the presence of Abraham and given a "seat of honor," it still does not affect the teaching, which is, the lawless man goes into torment, and Lazarus into comfort.

So I find the statement above not to convey that which is in the text, it is eisegetically inserted.


Yet the author of Hebrews clearly tells us that Abraham, as well as all the other Old Testament saints, have not yet received the promises given to them by God:

HEBREWS 11:13 All these [Abraham, Noah, Abel, etc.] died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. . . . 39 And all these [including Abraham], having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect. (NASU)


And here we see a complete lack of understanding of the doctrine of Perfection as found in the book of Hebrews. Lets see that in the KJV:


Hebrews 11

King James Version (KJV)

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


The key to understanding the doctrine of perfection lies in some fairly simple rules which we employ to come to right conclusions in all of our studies. We clarify the context as to whether we have an eternal or temporal apllication, we examine the meaning of the original (and here perfection speaks basically of completion), and we try to bring out of the text what is there...rather than making it fit our theology.

We again take into account that the story of Lazarus and the rich man takes place during the Age of Law, which is not just implied by Abraham's pointing out Moses and the Prophets (the Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures), but can be seen in the simple fact that...Christ has not yet died.

Now, all we have to do is notice that the writer of Hebrews is simply saying that the saints of the Hall of Faith were not perfected...without us. In other words...it didn't happen at that time. When did it happen? Well, fortunately the writer of Hebrews is thorough and does not leave us wondering.

Hebrews 10:14

King James Version (KJV)



14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.



Perfection, or completion came about through the sacrifice of Christ. Until He died to make this possible...no-one was made complete. Here we see that by His One Offering He has made complete FOREVER them that are sanctified. How are we sanctified?


Hebrews 10:10

King James Version (KJV)



10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


Same way.

So when the author atates...


Yet the author of Hebrews clearly tells us that Abraham, as well as all the other Old Testament saints, have not yet received the promises given to them by God:


...the author is confused about what the writer of Hebrews is saying, and that is made more evident here:

Hebrews 9:15

King James Version (KJV)



15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In a nutshell, we see that the sins of Abraham and every great saint referenced in Hebrews 11 had not received the Atonement the Cross supplied because...it had not yet taken place. We see here that the death of Jesus Christ is said to redeem the sins which were committed under the First Covenant (and in case you are not aware, the same word is translated both testament and covenant). In this Age, those that died during the Age of Law who were saved by faith as well as we in this Age who are saved by faith...can now receive the promise of eternal inheritance. We are joint-heirs with Christ, and partake of the LIFE which He came to give.


Now, lets take that a bit further, if you don't mind:

Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)



39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.



Hebrews 12

King James Version (KJV)



1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.



Jesus Christ is the Author and FINISHER, the originator and COMPLETER of our faith. Because of this it can be said that HE which hath begun a good work in us will finish (epiteleo) it unto the Day of Jesus Christ. God does not start a project and then abandon it, by which we can also say He will never leave nor forsake us.

Folks, if you have any doubts as to whether salvation is eternal or not, if you struggle with the teachings you run across that try to teach salvation can be lost...just study perfection in Hebrews. Called the "Holy of Holies of the New Testament" by some, myself included, it will give you a better understanding of the Captain of our salvation and the work He alone did.

But back to the author here, which seeks to teach that somehow the Lord is not teaching about consequences of sin, and inserts the demonic doctrine of soul sleep, and corrupts the teaching of Hebrews...

The great men and women of faith listed in Hebrews 11 have not yet been made perfect and given eternal life.

If we are made perfect through the shed blood of Christ, and the saints of old are made perfect with us, it is safe to say that they have also received the benefits of the Cross. Their sin is forgiven, completely.



They, along with all the saints of God from every age, are currently sleeping in their graves (Job 3:11-19; Psa. 6:5; 115:17; Ecc. 9:5, 10; I Cor. 15:20; Isa. 57:1-2; Dan. 12:2; Acts 2:29, 34; 13:36).

I will not mince words when I say this is demon doctrine, as that is my view of soul sleep. Every scripture given to support soul sleep is taken out the temporal context in which it is given.

"Sleep" is euphemistic for death, as the Lord made clear here:

John 11:11-14

King James Version (KJV)



11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.



Lazarus also dies, just as, well...Lazarus inour story, lol. If we had mention of Lazarus' sickness, if it had been recorded he had leprosy or similar disease, I would think that the Lazarus in the story is the same one seen here. But because we are not given that information, it is tumbled into the category of speculation.


These saints are awaiting the first resurrection, which will take place when Yeshua the Messiah returns at the sounding of the last trumpet (Matt. 24:30-31; I Cor. 15:51-52; I The. 4:16; Rev. 11:15-18).

Another misconception: the First Resurrection records only Tribulation Martyrs being resurrected. he word translated "first" can also be seen to refer to a qualitative position, rather than the "first in a sequence of events." By the time we get to the "first" resurrection, as a pre-trib rapturist, I believe we have already the catching away of the saints prior to this resurrection.

If you do not embrace a pre-trib view, you still have to account for the resurrection and catching away of the Two Witnesses. Which leads us to conclude that it is more than reasonable to see the First Resurrection as a reference to the type of resurrection, rather than some erroneously suggest, that it is the first time a resurrection takes place. Scripture is consistent on teaching a resurrection unto LIFE (for the Just), and a resurrection unto damnation (for the wicked). This is exactly what is pictured in this story.

Clearly, there is no way to reconcile the numerous Scriptures listed above with a literal understanding of the story of Lazarus and the rich man. What, then, does the death of these two men represent?

Clearly, they are not in need of reconciliation, as they fit harmoniously with all other teachings found in scripture.


What, then, does the death of these two men represent?


An amazing statment, really. They represent exactly what they seem to represent: two men die, one is tormented, one is comforted.

How hard is that?


The deaths of both the rich man (who represented the Jews) and Lazarus (who represented the other nations) are symbolic in this parable.


Actually, the rich man's death represents the rich man's death, and the death of Lazarus represents the death of Lazarus.

There is no need to insert a symbolism that does not even make sense. No need to spiritualize the very simple meaning found in this teaching...away.

Here, their demise depicts an elemental change in the status and position of the two groups.

The biggest problem here is that if the brothers of the rich man are directed to Moses and the Prophets, we see that Lazarus also is justified by Moses and the Prophets.

How do we insert salvation in Christ into this?

The teaching of Christ in His ministry to Israel was under the Law. He fulfilled the Law by first being the One prophesied to come; by keeping the Law perfectly; and by giving an understanding of the Law which was completely lost on those that sought to keep the Law.

 

[P1LGR1M]

No. I think you're wrong, too, in interpreting the Parable of the Dishonest Steward in terms of shrewdness - at least in the sense that you all are, i.e, worldly shrewdness. Jesus was deploring the fact, which still obtains - that, while worldlings are extremely, even in a perverse way, commendably single-minded, focused and purposeful, in their efforts to attain their goals, Christians - just as you remarked emphatically with regard to Christian Mammon-worship in the West - are half-hearted about their Christian commitment. The Second Commandment is not negotiable. Period.

It is reminiscent of the passage in the Apocalypse 3:16, ''So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." In their focus on what they set their hearts on, and their commitment to attaining it, even the corrupt 'children of this world' manage to show up the generally observant Jew/Christian. They at least could be described as hot in their zeal for wealth and power, or cold in their appalling lack of empathy. Although it should surely go without saying that Jesus was not commending their single-mindedness in relation to the particular ambitions they lived by, or their moral code/lack thereof!

When you think of Jesus' parable about the farmer who built more barns to accommodate his bumper harvest, what would seem to most to be elementary prudence, basic common-sense (or business sense?), you realise what shallow witness to Gospel values the West has become accustomed to, perhaps has never known differently.

Even more so, when he rounded on his poor followers on one occasion, not because they were coveting a BMW or SUV, but because they felt assured of a modest meal, presumably, the likes of a little bread and fish!

Charity, commitment to self-sacrificing love is the currency of heaven. That, too, is what is referred to by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents - not natural gifts or skills.

Worldly ambition, indeed, usually under the pretext of being for the glory of God, has become virtually the supreme Christian virtue. It wouldn't be uncommon to hear a rapist soldier having a reference from one of his officers read out to the court, to the effect that he was a fine soldier, with a promising career ahead of him. Or how many times have you heard someone say of a young person who had died prematurely for whatever reason,... 'and he/she was so intelligent...!' Solzhenitsin once remarked in one of his books that a few centuries ago, the only Christian ambition most Russians considered legitimate was to a life of prayer, a devout life.

As I mentioned on another site, Ayn Rand, according to the 1% and their cronies, the only person with the genius to make a brilliantly-sophisticated philosophy from something as simple as the law of the jungle, would have viewed Christ as an indigent, itinerant preacher, and together with his Apostles, a gang of panhandlers (welfare queens in modern, Republican parlance, I believe), one and all, living off the bounty of a bunch of crazy women. We are told in one of the Gospels that Jesus and his Apostles were looked after by a group of women.

This quotes of the fathers and saints in this article set out the dynamics of wealth accumulation and its depravity:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive...s-on-mercy-that-might-enlighten-or-offend-you

Hello Paul, I just have to ask: what bothers you more: our liberty as Americans? Or our liberty as born again believers?

The WEST has been a significant source of great preachers, teachers, and missionaries. God's blessings upon the Body of Christ in America has seen some very remarkable work accomplished in evangelical efforts.

Anti-American sentiment is as tasteful as Christian bashing, and I still have yet to meet the man that has actually met all of the saints in America, and can actually look down thier noses and sneer...and be justified intheir attitude.

Have you met all Americans and understand their beliefs, and have witnessed the fruit of their lives?

God bless.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you for the kind words.

I think we can safely say that the issue of Christ being a "new" Mediator arose from my inadvertantly saying "mediator" rather than minister, lol. My statement that scripture does not say Christ is the New Mediator (which would of course imply there was one fulfilling that role previous to Christ's role) was challenged by what I consider a sketchy translational effort found, as far as I know...in one translation. And only this translation, that I know of, does so.

However, it is found in the Greek texts.

That's why we know it's meant only as a contrast to Moses, the mediator of the "Old" covenant, and not as an equivocation with Christ.

But we are in complete agreement that Moses the Mediator, Intercessor and Prophet was only a shadow of the reality to come in Christ (Heb 10:1).

He had no more to do with Christ as Mediator, Intercessor and Prophet than the OT sacrifices had to do with Christ's atoning sacrifice.
They were all just patterns of what was to come in Christ (Co 2:17).

And it looks like you've been able to address more of the article, in spite of the derailment of your OP.
Keep up the good work.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[P1LGR1M]

However, it is found in the Greek texts.

That's why we know it's meant only as a contrast to Moses, the mediator of the "Old" covenant, and not as an equivication with Christ.

But we are in complete agreement that Moses the Mediator, Intercessor and Prophet was only a shadow of the reality to come in Christ (Heb 10:1).

He had no more to do with Christ's as Mediator, Intercessor and Prophet than the OT sacrifices had to do with Christ's atoning sacrifice.
They were all just patterns of what was to come in Christ (Co 2:17).

And it looks like you've been able to address more of the article, in spite of the derailment of your OP.
Keep up the good work.

In the faith,
Clare

And I think we are in agreement on what is vital.

God bless.

 

[Clare73]

But the New Covenant is not "new" in the sense that the Lord decided upon this Covenant because, well gee, the "old" one wasn't working, lol.

It is new because God called it new (Jer 31:31), Jesus called it new (Lk 22:20), Paul called it new (2Co 3:6),
and Heb calls it new (Heb 9:15, 8:6).

And Heb explains that by God calling it "new," he made the Sinaitic covenant "old" and obsolete,
thereby setting aside the Mosaic Law, witih its curse (Gal 3:10), on which the covenant was based
because the Law could not obtain righteousness (Heb 7:18-19), and replacing the Mosaic Law with
the law of Christ (1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2), which is the law of love (Ro 13: 8, 9, 10; Gal 5:6, 14; Jas 2:8),
and which fulfills (performs) the whole law (Ro 13; 8, 9, 10), because

if I love God, I will not take his name in vain, nor worship idols;
if I love my parents, I will honor them;
if I love my neighbors, I will not steal from them, nor kill them, nor commit adultery with their spouses,
nor lust after their possessions.

So the law of Christ fulfills the whole law (Ro 13: 8, 9, 10), and with no curse attached for imperfect obedience.

The Sinaitic covenant and the law on which it was based were both temporary additions (Ro 5:20; Gal 3:19) to the covenant of Abraham (Ge 15:9-21), which did not alter that covenant (Gal 3:17-18).
Those additions expired with the death of Jesus, and now all God's people are under the new covenant and the law of Christ, which is love fulfilling the whole law, but without a curse attached (Gal 3:10).

<snip>

*sniff*

(just kidding, lol)

I just cannot consider that. This is one issue that I think most misunderstand: they see Melchisedec as establishing Christ, rather than viewing Melchisedec as a picture prophecy, a shadow of the True.

*sniff*


(yes, I will re-use a good joke, lol)

I know you aren't saying you disagree with Heb 7.

The Melchizedek thing is not about establishing Christ, it's about being a type of Christ the priest, with no beginning and no end, in an eternal order of priesthood (Heb 7:3), just as Moses was a type of Christ, the Mediator, Intercessor and Prophet.
Neither of them establish Christ, they point to Christ, they are the pattern of Christ.

The order of Melchizedek is a type of the eternal order of Christ's priesthood, as Aaron was the order of the Levitical temporal priesthood.
As a type of Christ the eternal priest, Melchizedek was greater than even Abraham (Heb 7:4-10).

Scripture presents no conflict between Melchizedek and Christ, nor any diminishment of Christ in the eternal order of Melchizedek.
So I think neither should we.

Again, thanks for the kind words. It easy to get an amen when the simple truths of scripture are presented. This is an effect in the hearts of believers which bring joy to us, and it is sad that there are those that do not know that joy. But we can seek to lead them to it, right?

God bless.

Carry on with the good work.

And on "cutting a covenant," it's an old phrase, probably based on covenants being made in blood, which required something get cut.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Senecharnix]

Without Scripture against which to measure it, how do any know what spirit is influencing them?
How do they know it is God they are listening to?
Satan masquerades as an angel of light, filling with agreeable knowledge, experience and spirituality.

In the faith,
Clare

Many, if not most, Bible readers mislead themselves through Scriptures either on their own through misinterpreation or with the misguidence of evil spirits and/or false teachers...A person either knows God's voice and spirit or not...Satan and his minions have masqueraded as spirits, shepherds, teachers, and prophets of Light in Christianity since the earliest days of the Church. Paul warned about that phenomena wayback when. Those serpents exerted a huge influence over every aspect of Christianity's development, including the composition of the New Testament. They continue misleading many who claim to be Christians, including more than a few who idolize the Bible. As wonderful as it is, such is no worthy substitute for a close relatioship with God....

 

[timewerx]

No. I think you're wrong, too, in interpreting the Parable of the Dishonest Steward in terms of shrewdness - at least in the sense that you all are, i.e, worldly shrewdness. Jesus was deploring the fact, which still obtains - that, while worldlings are extremely, even in a perverse way, commendably single-minded, focused and purposeful, in their efforts to attain their goals, Christians - just as you remarked emphatically with regard to Christian Mammon-worship in the West - are half-hearted about their Christian commitment. The Second Commandment is not negotiable. Period.

I don't know why you say you think I'm wrong. My only guess is you didn't read all my post and tried to get the whole idea.

My post you quoted agrees with your reply.

I agree with you in the parable of the shrewd manager. We saw shrewdness in the very wrong application...

Shrewdness in maximizing profits, is really no different than thievery!

...But in the right application - in the search for truth it will go a long long way.

See this one definition of shrewd:

3
obsolete : ominous, dangerous

4
a : severe, hard <a shrewd knock>
b : sharp, piercing <a shrewd wind>

5
a : marked by clever discerning awareness and hardheaded acumen <shrewd common sense>

Shrewd - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I believe Jesus displayed these characteristics don't you think? Especially when he did his preachings and interacted with people. He displayed remarkable discernment of people, what is in their hearts and minds, and responded in kind to get their attention.

But one things is clear. Jesus wasn't shrewd in trying to make his life on Earth better, more comfortable, wealthier, etc as the disciples too. They did their best to deny themselves. Shrewdness was limited to delivering the Gospel and discerning the enemies of the Gospel only.

When you think of Jesus' parable about the farmer who built more barns to accommodate his bumper harvest, what would seem to most to be elementary prudence, basic common-sense (or business sense?), you realise what shallow witness to Gospel values the West has become accustomed to, perhaps has never known differently.

Even more so, when he rounded on his poor followers on one occasion, not because they were coveting a BMW or SUV, but because they felt assured of a modest meal, presumably, the likes of a little bread and fish!

Charity, commitment to self-sacrificing love is the currency of heaven. That, too, is what is referred to by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents - not natural gifts or skills.

Worldly ambition, indeed, usually under the pretext of being for the glory of God, has become virtually the supreme Christian virtue. It wouldn't be uncommon to hear a rapist soldier having a reference from one of his officers read out to the court, to the effect that he was a fine soldier, with a promising career ahead of him. Or how many times have you heard someone say of a young person who had died prematurely for whatever reason,... 'and he/she was so intelligent...!' Solzhenitsin once remarked in one of his books that a few centuries ago, the only Christian ambition most Russians considered legitimate was to a life of prayer, a devout life.

As I mentioned on another site, Ayn Rand, according to the 1% and their cronies, the only person with the genius to make a brilliantly-sophisticated philosophy from something as simple as the law of the jungle, would have viewed Christ as an indigent, itinerant preacher, and together with his Apostles, a gang of panhandlers (welfare queens in modern, Republican parlance, I believe), one and all, living off the bounty of a bunch of crazy women. We are told in one of the Gospels that Jesus and his Apostles were looked after by a group of women.

This quotes of the fathers and saints in this article set out the dynamics of wealth accumulation and its depravity:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive...s-on-mercy-that-might-enlighten-or-offend-you

I agree with everything you said there

And thanks for the link!

 

[Senecharnix]

I would agree that "throwing scripture in people'sface is wrong, but, I would also say that it is vital to have a proper understanding of scripture as well, and there will be times when that "thumping" is for the good of the one getting "thumped:"


2 Timothy 3:16-17

King James Version (KJV)


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

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


By study we exercise our senses to discern good and evil, and for all of us, Senecharnix, there are going to be times when our toes get stepped on, lol. It's not always pleasant, but if we submit ourselves to that which scripture teaches, it is always for our good.

Consider:


Matthew 23

King James Version (KJV)


1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.


It is easy to point out where others are in error, but to examine ourselves and allow scripture to show us the sin inn our lives is much harder. As we look into scripture it is vital to have a proper understading of what is being taught that we might apply those truths in our lies. The fruit we produce will be evidence of scripture's effectiveness as we are conformed to the image of Christ.

We are all on that journey, and at different stages of progress. As we come together to discuss he ord we can, because we have different perspectives, different methods of study, and different lives...help each other as we walk with the Lord





While it is true that we rely upon the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us, we do not neglect that which God has given us in His word. For this reason God gifts men for the specific purpose of teaching and preaching, and men that have the calling to minister the word of God. So it is needful that there be those that have a sound grasp on the teaching of God's word.

And everyone starts smewhere, right? None of begin relationship with God without first hearing the word of God. We do not determine the meaning of scripture for ourselves, for the meaning is already given, and we seek to understand the meaning of scripture,that which it teaches.

God bless.

I am not saying the Bible is useless. Sure, it is a wonderful source of truth and inspiration for those who are of immature faith or who are searching for faith. I, however, am saying that God dwells in the hearts of those who are truly His children. Their hearts are superior to any book, even the Bible. They are truly temples for what most folks think inspired every word in the Bible. Unfortunately, their ranks are not vast. Most folks who claim to be Christians are not true children of God&#8230;.


The children of God who are the most mature and strongest in their faith are like the great ones who populate the pages of the Bible. It is a sure bet that none of them are Bible thumpers. In your vernacular, however, they are those of whom it can be said live the Word and speak the Word without needing to quote scriptures very often&#8230;.


The bottom line is that a close, dynamic relationship with God and the Son are far more important and valuable than anything written in any book, even the Bible. Whether you agree or not, they still impart revelations and insights to God&#8217;s children and help them discern truth, smell deception, and recognize evil. They also correct and guide them....


Never forget that a lot of what religion teaches is meant to keep believers beholden to churches and preachers. They use the scriptures to control their flocks&#8212;and religion controlled the scriptures long before such were codified. Yeshua came to liberate the children of God from such nonsense. That is what the Holy Spirit is all about. He is the living word of God and the mentor of those whom God gathers to Himself&#8230;.


Worshipping Scripture will never impress God in any way that will prove profitable. Remember, the Pharasees practically deified Scriptures. Yeshua did not seem impressed with them in any way that helped them escape Hell&#8217;s torments....

 

[he-man]

Many, if not most, Bible readers mislead themselves through Scriptures Satan and his minions have masqueraded as spirits, shepherds, teachers, and prophets of Light in Christianity since the earliest days of the Church. ....

2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing, if the same ministers also masquerade as the ministers of righteousness; whose ends shall be according to their works.

People are the enemies of the cross, who disguise oneself as a false show or pretence claiming to be preachers of light, and to mask themselves hiding the real Jesus.

Rom. 9:22, where "fitted" is in the middle voice, indicating that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for "destruction", of the adversaries of the Lord's people, Phil. 1:28 ("perdition"); of professing Christians, really enemies of the cross of Christ, Phil. 3:19

The present participle of the verb with the article, which is equivalent to a noun, signifies "an adversary," e.g., Luke 13:17; 21:15; 1 Cor. 16:9; Phil. 1:28; 1 Tim. 5:14. This construction is used of the Man of Sin, in 2 Thess. 2:4, and is translated "He that opposeth," where, adopting the noun form, we might render by "the opponent and self-exalter against...."

In Gal. 5:17 it is used of the antagonism between the Holy Spirit and the flesh in the believer; in 1 Tim. 1:10, of anything, in addition to persons, that is opposed to the doctrine of Christ. In these two places the word is rendered "contrary to.

In the Sept. it is used of [an opponent 7854] Satan, Zech. 3:1, 4 and of men, Job 13:24; Isa. 66:6.
Heb. 10:27, "adversaries." In each place a more violent form of opposition is suggested than in the case of enantios.
DEVIL, DEVILISH (&#948;&#953;&#945;&#946;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#962;, 1228), "an accuser, a slanderer" (from diaballo, "to accuse, to malign"). The noun is applied to slanderers, false accusers, 1 Tim. 3:11; 2 Tim. 3:3; Titus 2:3.

Where then came the false belief of demons, devils, evil spirits?

As in after-ages, the heathens believed, that the world was governed by genii, hero-spirits, or daemons, by the appointment of the Deity; so in these earlier, and first ages of idolatry, they worshipped only the lights of Heaven, and the elements; allowing indeed a supreme Deity, but thinking these all had intelligence, and were appointed by him to govern the world.

Their kings and learned men did indeed know God, but they did not retain him so strictly in their knowledge as they ought to have done, but set up other deities besides, and instead of him. They thought that the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Elements, were appointed to govern the world'
THE CREATIONAND FALL OF M A N. By Samuel Shuckford D.D. Page 433

 

[Clare73]

Many, if not most, Bible readers mislead themselves through Scriptures either on their own through misinterpreation or with the misguidence of evil spirits and/or false teachers...A person either knows God's voice and spirit or not...Satan and his minions have masqueraded as spirits, shepherds, teachers, and prophets of Light in Christianity since the earliest days of the Church. Paul warned about that phenomena wayback when. Those serpents exerted a huge influence over every aspect of Christianity's development, including the composition of the New Testament. They continue misleading many who claim to be Christians, including more than a few who idolize the Bible. As wonderful as it is, such is no worthy substitute for a close relatioship with God....

And yet "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2Ti 3:16) and, as such, is the written rule given by God to measure the spirits.

So how do they know what spirit they are listening to?

Is someone proposing Scripture as a substitute for the witness of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to our spirit that we are adopted sons of God?

And where do you find the word "relationship" in Scripture?

Do you prefer no moorings to the written truth of God, preferring instead be your own authority for truth?

"Hath God said?" started in the garden.
When Satan slips one from their mooring to what "God hath said," they have rejected the only protection God has provided against deception.

Not a good place to be, when Satan masquerades as an angel of light, filling with agreeable knowledge, light and spiritual experience.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[timewerx]

So how do they know what spirit they are listening to?

If the spirit, idea, concept cannot acknowledge the reality of Jesus (confess that He came in the flesh), then it belongs to the spirit of the antichrist.

Do you think the bible taught me that or a pastor? No

The Spirit did. The Spirit gave me discernment of spirits, concepts, and ideas at a young age of 13, I haven't even read the bible yet!!!

If you don't believe the Spirit can teach these things in the absence of the bible, then you have a big problem with God.

In was in fact by the power of God, I was kept from going the way of the world, NOT by reading the bible day and night. It was simply by choice to deny myself, hate the things of this world that God started working in my life in a very powerful way.

 

[Clare73]

If the spirit, idea, concept cannot acknowledge the reality of Jesus (confess that He came in the flesh), then it belongs to the spirit of the antichrist.

Do you think the bible taught me that or a pastor? No

The Spirit did. The Spirit gave me discernment of spirits, concepts, and ideas at a young age of 13, I haven't even read the bible yet!!!

If you don't believe the Spirit can teach these things in the absence of the bible, then you have a big problem with God.

In was in fact by the power of God, I was kept from going the way of the world, NOT by reading the bible day and night. It was simply by choice to deny myself, hate the things of this world that God started working in my life in a very powerful way.

And where did you learn the truth about God,

about his provision of his own Son as a sacrifice of propitiation, to remit the punishment at the Final Judgment due on the sin of the those who believe in Christ?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[timewerx]

And where did you learn the truth about God

If you don't believe these things, you are also condemning to hell the very young ones and babies who die before the evil world has a chance to turn their hearts into evil and before they can hear the Gospel.

You're making God look so unfair and evil to non-Christians.

 

[Clare73]

the Spirit can teach these things in the absence of the bible,

And where did you learn the truth about God,

about his provision of his own Son as a sacrifice of propitiation, to remit the punishment at the Final Judgment due on the sin of the those who believe in Christ?

If you don't believe these things, you are also condemning to hell the very young ones and babies who die before the evil world has a chance to turn their hearts into evil and before they can hear the Gospel.

You're making God look so unfair and evil to non-Christians.

You didn't answer my question.

Please answer my question.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[timewerx]

You didn't answer my question.

Please answer my question.

In the faith,
Clare

I already did, are you saying you're not reading thru my replies??

 

[Clare73]

the Spirit can teach these things in the absence of the bible,

And where did you learn the truth about God,

about his provision of his own Son as a sacrifice of propitiation, to remit the punishment at the Final Judgment due on the sin of the those who believe in Christ?

If you don't believe these things, you are also condemning to hell the very young ones and babies who die before the evil world has a chance to turn their hearts into evil and before they can hear the Gospel.

You're making God look so unfair and evil to non-Christians.

You didn't answer my question.

Please answer my question.

I already did, are you saying you're not reading thru my replies??

I thought I had read them all.

What is the number of the post in which you answered my question?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Senecharnix]

And yet "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2Ti 3:16) and, as such, is the written rule given by God to measure the spirits.

So how do they know what spirit they are listening to?

Is someone proposing Scripture as a substitute for the witness of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to our spirit that we are adopted sons of God?

And where do you find the word "relationship" in Scripture?

Do you prefer no moorings to the written truth of God, preferring instead be your own authority for truth?

"Hath God said?" started in the garden.
When Satan slips one from their mooring to what "God hath said," they have rejected the only protection God has provided against deception.

Not a good place to be, when Satan masquerades as an angel of light, filling with agreeable knowledge, light and spiritual experience.

In the faith,
Clare

Perhaps, you are unaware that most of the Apostles were illiterate. Matthew was probably the only one that was literate. Most of their disciples were also illiterate. Other than the libraries of rich folks, the only way any of them enjoyed access to what we now call the Old Testament was by venturing to the Temple or synagogues&#8230;The first gospel, Mark, was not written until well over a generation after Yeshua returned to the Father. The Gospel of Matthew was written several years later whereas the gospels of Luke and John were written many years after that. Even after they were written and after the epistles attributed to Paul were written, relatively few copies of them existed for many centuries. Throughout that time, many, if not most believers, were illiterate and had no access to any Scriptures. Even after the Bible was finally compiled, relatively few copies of it existed until Guttenberg invented the printing press many centuries later. Yet, afterward, the vast majority of Bibles were still being printed in Latin. Greek was the only other flavor. Hardly anyone other than priests, theologians, and scholars could read them even if they had one. The cult of the Bible did not begin until late in the Sixteenth Century when some brave souls began daring to print it in native languages. Even then, they remained uncommon for many years and most believers remained illiterate and too poor to afford them even longer. During all of that time, countless believers somehow managed to muddle their way through their lives without access to Scriptures, while remaining faithful to God. How weird, huh?...


How can you be so certain that the scriptural literature that you have practically deified is true scripture and not an amalgam of truth and nonsense? How can you be so sure that the Bible failed to be corrupted? How can you be so sure that the Catholic theologians that decided what is scripture and what isn&#8217;t were correct about their decisions? After all, Satan was &#8220;masquerading as an angel of light, filling with agreeable knowledge, light and spiritual experience&#8221; among them and throughout the remainder of the Catholic Church. He had been doing so since the earliest days of the Church and continues to do so in all churches&#8230;.


God,the Son, and the Holy Spirit are my authorities. They form my living, interactive Bible. God is a god of the heart, not books. He speaks to those that He gathers to Himself and guides them. If one needs to depend on a book rather than God for mentorship and guidance, then their faith is in vain&#8230;.

 

[timewerx]

I thought I had read them all.

What is the number of the post in which you answered my question?

In the faith,
Clare

Post #93 I said from the Spirit which really means the Holy Spirit.

I also explained to you in another thread, I hope you still remember because I already forgot which thread it is. Same source, the Holy Spirit, that someone died for all of us.

But the Holy Spirit also made clear it is not the main ingredient of Christianity of the knowledge of Jesus died on the cross but in obeying the teachings of Jesus.

The Gospels in the Bible did not even state that Jesus himself gave the command to "believe I died in the cross for your sins" but simply "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you"

If you keep believing the bible is infallible, you will never understand what I'm saying.

For some book to rival the Holy Spirit as the source of truth, Jesus would have mentioned it with such importance too, even rivaling the Holy Spirit in importance as with regards to the source of truth, but he didn't.

Perhaps, you are unaware that most of the Apostles were illiterate.

...and for many centuries to come. Literacy is quite a modern phenomenon!

If anything, the bible may have actually drowned the Holy Spirit from fully manifesting in the lives of Christians.

Many Christians glorify shrewdness, then be shrewd where it matters, not by making more money but in seeking the truth!