post

anti-Christ? it's the truth. if "your best life" isn't in the life to come, your life to come must not look too appealing.

well guess what? The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. (Psalm 94:11) if you like this post, you can read more in the Bible

it occurs to me that the only way you can be living your best life now, is if you are on your way to hell. i have something to look forward too, on the other hand. has that occurred to you?

are you "living your best life now" Albert?

considering that none of us are more than 2,000 years old, even "our old ways" are chronologically after the cross.

continue reading, please. Jesus teaches them to pray by first praising God for who He is and what He has done, and second by asking Him for forgiveness, and for our basic needs. i don't know why you make a distinction between 'asking' and 'begging' -- in my mind, they are hardly separable, except perhaps that begging carries a connotation of increased humility while asking. perhaps you are saying we should not be humble before Him, and that we should demand of Him, as though HE is our servant to be ordered about? i don't think you will find that expressed in how Jesus teaches us to pray.

it's significant too, that we shouldn't lump all the pharisees together and condemn them in toto the gospels relate that many of them believed, but were afraid to speak up about it. and others withheld condemnation and reasonably said, if Jesus is from God, then what He is doing will not pass away - but if his works are from men, they will not last, so they should wait ((re: Acts 5:33-40)). we have the examples of Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea & after his conversion, Saul / Paul. our ((my)) human tendency is to try to neatly separate things and people into groups and call them black & white, good & evil, hero & villain. but reality is that it is not so simple, and that real things & real people leak over sharp boundaries & defy such simple categorization. for sure, there is one razor-thin dividing line: do you believe that Christ is the Son of God, made flesh and come to us from heaven, born of a virgin and going forth to offer Himself as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world, crucified and risen the third day, taken up to heaven again to prepare a place and to return to judge the quick & the dead? that's a high-contrast zone of delineation. but an idea that is right or wrong? a person who is right or wrong? typically, there is some truth, and some error in all of this. the same with the pharisees ((& sadducees, though we know less of them)). we shouldn't write them all off -- just like we shouldn't write off all catholics, charismatics, _______________ ((fill in the blank)). . . but let's all pray earnestly, asking God for discernment, understanding and wisdom, so that we do not make fools of ourselves and bring dishonor to His name, but reflect His glory and perfect truth -- for the sake of His name, because He is the Truth!

i am not in the slightest bit disputing a single thing that Christ says about them. what i mean to convey is the significance of what Christ is saying -- because the gospels are for the most part the only source of information we have about these people, and we believe Jesus, so in our minds we make the assumption that this is how everyone thought about them, and that Jesus was just giving voice to popular opinion. we kind of assume that well Jesus is just saying what would be on FOX News or something. but think about that assumption for just a second -- if everyone was already thinking this about the pharisees, how did they have such power? why weren't they out trying to murder 3/4 of the population of Judea if 3/4 of the population already had the same opinion of them? and why would the gospels bother to include such lengthy diatribes against them, if Jesus was just reiterating common knowledge? but if we recognize that both the pharisees and the sadducees were highly respected sects, the leaders of the people that the Bible describes them as ((e.g. John 3:10 - Jesus, stating the obvious, says that Nicodemus, a pharisee, is "a master of Israel")), then the message of Christ is a radical thing - He's not just calling out someone like Jim Jones or abortion clinic bombers or Westboro Baptist -- He's calling out Billy Graham & dr James Dobson. because here's the thing about pharisees: they are beautiful on the outside. they outwardly seem like they are holy and righteous. they are obedient to the commands and justify all they do through scripture. they add things to the Law, but they do so with logic & reasoning based on the Law ((with subtly wrong thinking)). when the scripture says "beware the leaven of the pharisees" it's not because "yeah, thanks Captain Obvious" -- it's because they are very appealing. it seems like the right thing to do. it looks for all the world like it's righteousness. but it's the inside ((the part you can't see just by looking at it)) that is full of dead men's bones. we need to be wary because we could easily be fooled. i just want to convey to everyone, that just like the pharisees & the sadducees, who we tend to think of as transparently evil, but who are really the people who are deceptively religious & observant, the same is true of false teachers. we are likewise told to beware such things - not because they are obvious and it's really a non-issue, like a command to not stick your hand in the vat of acid or don't pick up a running chainsaw by the wrong end -- but because they are attractive, deceptive, and not quickly & easily discerned as false. it isn't the obvious things that we need to "beware" of. it's the subtle errors, the ones that would "deceive the very elect, as though it were possible" -- and that's what the pharisees & sadducees & false teachers actually represent. the Judaizers & "Legalists" et al -- things that we would miss, if we are not vigilant. that's all. seriously, i am not trying to contradict Christ in the smallest sense at all! but helping us have some perspective on what He is saying to us: that it is a much more significant thing that maybe we give Him credit for ((because as for myself, i certainly spent much of my life thinking about this the wrong way -- that Christ was just stating the obvious. He was not. He was revealing the truth that was hidden))

the Bible itself shows that they, together with the Sadducees ((who we also tend to imagine were transparently wicked)) were the leading authorities in the religious life of Israel. they controlled the Sanhedrin. as i've pointed out more than once, Paul points to his association with them as a thing to be proud of. this is who Paul is referring to in Romans 10, when he says he can testify that they are zealous for God, but without knowledge ((seeking to establish their own righteousness rather than to submit to God's, which they were ignorant of)). Christ rebukes them for being not strict enough in their observance of the Law, but He also instructs people to obey them because they sit in the seat of Moses. they were able to stir the people against Him, even to the point of having Barabbas released & Jesus crucified. extra-Biblical sources support what i'm saying here, too - probably the biggest example being the writings of the historian Josephus ((also probably the most significant extra-Biblical source that confirms the historicity of Jesus Himself)), who claimed to be a pharisee himself ((though scholars today are skeptical that this is true -- and suspect that Josephus made this claim just to glorify himself -- which also in itself shows that historically, to be a pharisee was widely regarded as a respectable thing)) here's some reading material ((with references)) for you in that regard ((quoted from here)) In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus claimed the Pharisees had great power over the multitude and “that when they say anything against the king or high priest they are presently believed.”[6] What is more, Josephus maintained that the Pharisees’ profession was to be righteous and please God.[7] Moreover, Josephus said that the Pharisees lived meanly and despised delicates in diet.[8] Also, Josephus asserted that they followed conduct of reason.[9] Also, Josephus argued that the Pharisees honored the elderly and never tried to contradict them and never question them ever.[10] As far as the doctrines of the Pharisees, Josephus stated that they had a deterministic view but more compatible with “fate” determinism.[11] However, Josephus also claimed that the Pharisees had a syncretistic view of man’s action with “fate” because he wrote that the Pharisees, “say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate but not caused by fate.”[12] Josephus alleged that the Pharisees feared God and are weary to take away the freedom of men.[13] They performed divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices.[14] Josephus said that they exhibited virtuous conduct in the action of their lives and their discussions.[15] Apparently, the Sadducees put up with the Pharisees because they feared the populous who supported the Pharisees.[16] During the reign of the Hasmonean ruler Hyrcanus, Josephus discussed the relationship between the Pharisees and the Sadducees when he wrote the following: The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the Law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances … which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers…. But the Pharisees have the multitude of their side.[17] According to Josephus, the Pharisees were insubordinate to ruling authorities because they refused oaths of allegiance to Caesar and Herod and some were put to death.[18] Hyrcanus left the Pharisees because their form of punishment was too light for his liking toward one of his enemies.[19] In The Wars of the Jews, Josephus claimed that the Pharisees valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers.[20] The Pharisees made men believe that they were favored by God.[21] Josephus said that during the nine year reign of Alexandra the Pharisees were the real rulers of the nation. The Pharisees joined Alexandra to assist her in government, appeared more religious than other Jews, interpreted the Law more accurately, and “artfully insinuated” themselves in Alexandra’s favor.[22] What is more, they bound and loosed men at their pleasure in authority.[23] Josephus said that Alexandra “governed other people, the Pharisees governed her.”[24] The Pharisees took revenge on a man Diogenes and all those who assisted Alexandra’s husband when he crucified eight hundred Pharisees.[25] At this point it should be noted that there was a period of time during the Hasmonean Dynasty that the Pharisees underwent a hostile interval of oppression by the Hasmoneans. It began under the reign of John Hyrcanus who originally joined the Pharisees. However, a member of their group made a slanderous comment that Hyrcanus should quit the priesthood because his mother had conceived him in prison out of wedlock. Because of this Hyrcanus left the Pharisees to join the Sadducees.[26] During the reign of Alexander Janneus who ruled the Hasmonean Dynasty from 103 – 76 B.C. he crucified 800 Pharisees and had their children’s throats cut before their eyes.[27] It was when Alexander Janneus was on his death bed that he felt remorse for what he had done and instructed his wife Alexandra (she inherited the kingdom as his successor) to make amends with the Pharisees. She did reconcile with the Pharisees and it is during her reign that the Pharisees rose to power.[28] To end, Josephus’ picture of the Pharisees is more of a positive description. He portrays the Pharisees as a pious Jewish sect with integrity, a zeal to honor God and protector of the common people of their own ethnicity.

y'all don't seem to be apprehending what i'm saying. Christ speaks the truth, Amen! but maybe we do not appreciate how radical it is. when Paul says all these things are like refuse to him now, that's also an incredibly radical statement. what do y'all think, post is unaware of the scripture? doesn't the OP quote from and allude to the very same ones you're trying to point out to me? thank-you, all the same.

did y'all catch that? Christ said they are like things which outwardly appear beautiful not ugly. not obviously rotten to the core. beautiful. the outside of the cup is clean -- spotless.

maybe you haven't finished reading, or maybe you posted before you thought about it. Paul - who is fully aware of what Christ teaches - lists being a pharisee as a thing he had reason to boast in. and he doesn't feel it necessary to explain why this is a reason to boast. that is not the perception we have today. in 1st century Judea, you could have opened up a school and called it "Pharisetical School of . . ." and you wouldn't need to hang another sign in the front yard explaining it. everyone would know that this was claiming to be a righteous, disciplined, holy & obedient, law-abiding institution. but in the 21st century, open up a school and call it "Pharisetical School of . . ." well. guess what people will assume. so without this understanding, we're missing the gravity of what Christ is doing and saying when He taught. this would be like arriving on the scene & calling Shiloh a wicked hypocrite & a fool who can't think clearly ((because we all clearly understand that Shiloh is actually righteous & sincere, and that there is no flaw in his mind)). what Christ is doing here is blowing everyone's minds -- i don't think that's something that we generally appreciate when we read the gospels, because we have this preconception that the pharisees were a transparently corrupt group of people that only the simple would think are actually good. no! quite the opposite -- these are the people who everyone admired & respected. the dr. Charles Stanleys, the John MacArthurs, the Spurgeons, the D.L. Moodys, the Tyndales, the Wycliffs, the Martin Luthers of their day. the shiloh357s and the Georges and the FresnoJoes.

the point being that Christ wasn't - as some people give the impression - just saying out loud what a lot of people were already thinking. it's not as though Jesus was calling Trump a liar or Clinton corrupt. He wasn't simply giving voice to what 'the enlightened' had already been secretly discussing. not just opposing the main-stream narrative, but crushing what everybody took for granted. Jesus was saying things that simply did not enter into the minds of people at all. so when the scripture tells us that by faith, God clothes us with a righteousness that is greater than the pharisees, it is not just saying 'congrats, i pronounce you better than a sleazy hypocrite & liar' -- far more! the gift of God is fantastic and indescribable -- something to make us absolutely ecstatic about! i was dirt, nothing more than muck, lucky if i even had some moisture -- and He set me higher than all the angels, simply because i believe, and trust Him i just can't even . . . you know?? ♥ what God is this? what a God this is!!

we have a much different perspective about pharisees than people in the 1st century would have had. we're like "ah, pharisees, bad people, hypocrites" and we use the word in a derogatory sense. but in the 1st century, if you asked anybody who were the most generous, godly, righteous people in town, they would have pointed you to the pharisees. they were the 100% obedient, above-and-beyond keepers of the perfect law of God, who spent all day, every day, doing everything they could to be in complete compliance with all that is written in the word. if there was anyone who was holy, it was a pharisee. if there was anyone you could call a man of God, it was a pharisee. if you wanted to talk to someone who knew about the ways of the One true God, it would be a pharisee. if you wanted to hear the wisdom of God and right doctrine and the explanation of scripture, you'd go to a pharisee. so when we read "your righteousness must exceed that of the pharisees" -- it's lost on us. but to the people who heard Christ say this, it would have been an enormous shock. it would have made them think, "who then can be saved??" -- it would have seemed like it was hopeless. we almost get a sense of it when He says "be perfect, as your Father is perfect" -- but a lot of us don't even get it then. a lot of us think "yeah i can be as perfect as God" . . . wow. do you really have that low of an opinion of the perfection of the Father? or that high of an opinion of yourself? when Christ, an unlearned son of a manual laborer from the backwaters of Galilee, stood up and opposed the pinnacle of human righteousness on the planet, and called them ignorant and wicked, it was a big deal. that's not going up to Benny Hinn and telling him he's a hypocrite. that's telling Mother Theresa her soul is black. that's telling Mahatma Ghandi he's a rabble-rouser. that's calling Winston Churchill a wuss or Chuck Norris a pansy. that's saying the Dalai Llama is a bully. that's saying Anonymous has sold out to 'the man.' there's evidence of this in scripture, too -- when Paul is going down a list of reasons he could have boasted, or had confidence in himself, or what he might have put on a resume, in Philippians 3, he says he is a Benjamite - the one tribe who never intermarried with the pagan Canaanites - so, a 'Hebrew of Hebrews.' with the next breath, he says, "as for the Law, a pharisee" -- no further explanation; no explanation is needed: a pharisee is the observer of the Law. there was absolutely no such thing as more perfect obedience to the law than to be a pharisee. but this is who Christ called children of the Devil, and of whom He says, our righteousness must exceed theirs, or we will never enter the Kingdom at all. that is what makes "law-keeper" Christianity so pitiful, and what makes the grace of God and the gift of the righteousness of Christ by faith to all who trust in Him so extremely great and precious. because no one could be more obedient to the commandments than a pharisee: as far as the flesh is concerned, it is inconceivable to be more righteous than a pharisee. if you think you're doing great because you are keeping some commandments, and you go to church on sunday, maybe on wednesday too, or better yet - you go on satuday because, 'sabbath' and 'will think to change the times and seasons' -- it's highly likely that you're nothing next to them. an heathen by comparison. i'm afraid we just don't have the right view of them, because we've all heard so much preaching about them as though they were hypocrites and liars. we just think of them like they're some sleazy tv preacher who looks good on camera & says all the right things with charisma, but is doing lines of coke with prostitutes in the back of his limo on monday morning. but that ain't the right picture.

thanks, that's very kind! i wasn't sure how to take you earlier, lol - before i read what you wrote ((oh & yes, i did write it - but i don't think it's that good. i believe the Spirit moved me to relate the message that's more or less in there, but not that He inspired my words or anything))

did you write all this? LOL but seriously, did you write it?

someone said, more or less, that if you love what you do, you will never work a day in your life. though you are not talking about "work" in terms of physics ((like i am, ostensibly, lol, because this is not quite a science thread after all is it)) this attitude is interesting because it is the "work" of those found in Christ: we are not under the Law, as though we must establish our own righteousness, and must do some 'work' and receive as wages such things as being at peace with God, justified and able to stand before God, forgiveness, holiness, salvation. instead -- He gave us our 'wages' as a gift, without our having done any work, and without demanding it from us. He declared us holy, gave us salvation and justification and peace with Him, all on the basis of faith -- not because of any works at all. the scripture even says the person who does no work at all, but believes, is called righteous by God ((Romans 4:5)). so we volunteer. we do not 'work' we received a gift, not wages. the gift is so great that we are compelled to do the things a laborer under hire would do, from love for Him. but it is not wages, it is not work -- we love what we do, and we will never work a day in our life

in general "slipperiness" is measured & discussed using some derivative form of the coefficient of friction between two surfaces. considering that no there is no power in heaven or on earth which can separate us ((re: Romans 8:38)) and that the righteous shall not be moved ((re: Proverbs 12:3, Psalm 112:6, etc.)) then this frictional coefficient may in some sense have an infinite measure. ((though measure is a subject that right now we are 'waving our hands' about not providing any rigor at all about defining)). the question here is almost -- are the saints preserved? are we eternally secure, if we are His chosen? or can we fall out of His hands? i think those who belong to Him know the answer to that; His name is The Answer

no Shiloh -- maybe you only speak to "yes-men" ((and those who oppose you, you try to get banned from the topic)) but the purpose of the sacrifices and offerings are clearly stated in scripture. they are not "for a memorial" feasts are "for a memorial" -- e.g. the Lord's Supper is "for a memorial" -- but you imagine it will be replaced by a blasphemous sacrifice which the scripture clearly states is "for atonement for sin" and "for a guilt offering" and "for sanctification" -- not because the scripture says so, but because that's how you can make it 'make sense' to yourself. it's something that is added -- not something that is written. yes, the sacrificial system under the old covenant pointed forward to Christ: it is a shadow, and the substance is come. but a second shadow? what, do you imagine there are two lights? and two substances? forget it. you're not going to listen, and i'm not going to take part in this thread anymore. i have put enough here that anyone who has ears can read and consider for themselves. self-imposed ban. goodbye.

if making the plain observation that another person appears to be speaking without knowledge is "personal attacks" -- then consider me also on a self-imposed ban. goodbye.

stop right there: it's not a memorial. that is not what the scripture states. that is something you are adding to it, without justification, but rather, in order to justify a position you already hold and are approaching the scripture with looking for a way to fit the scripture into your presupposed idea.

we are to offer our bodies as living sacrifices. not our livestock.

not only is this expressly not the purpose of the sacrifices as written and described in Ezekiel ((which are instead very clearly guilt, sin, atonement and sanctification sacrifices)), but we already have a memorial and reminder of the sacrifice that Jesus made. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20) is the Lord's Supper "not good enough" ? there is an obvious problem with the existence of the sacrificial system, if you read this description presupposing that it will be a literal temple in a presupposed literal 1,000 year reign after the resurrection. so to 'fix' that wee issue of blasphemous abomination going on at the feet of the Lord for a thousand years, without any Biblical support whatsoever, the common 'explanation' is 'no no no -- these are different these are memorial sacrifices!' i don't buy it. it's like being busted at airport security and saying 'oh no no this is different, it's medicinal' it's still illegal to bring dope back from Jamaica, and blood sacrifices are still blasphemous after Christ has offered Himself, once and for all.

something that puzzles me is that in Ezekiel's vision, the temple is described as being adorned with engravings of angels and palm trees. Solomon's temple, by contrast - built according to a design given by God for the express purpose of being built - was adorned with engraved images of angels, palm trees, and open flowers. what is the significance of the open flowers? of them being absent in this vision?

in Ezekiel's vision, out of the temple flows a river, from its foundation, of a water that gives life. that may sound familiar -- and it should: Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them. (John 7:38) rivers of living water flow out of the believer - not a physical temple in Jerusalem, according to Christ. Christ -- who is the only foundation. Christ -- who is the center of the believer, who no longer himself lives, but Christ lives within him. the believer - who is the temple of God. allegory? hmm.