The 3 Loves

This is a personal opinion but it seems to me that the most successful and happiest marriages are ones that exemplify three types of love: love of your spouse, the love of Love, and the love of God. When all three are present in a marriage, and shown by each partner, their relationship continues to grow and persevere. As for me, I am young, have little personal experience with love, and have never been married. I am not afraid to admit that I could be wrong and I would understand if you quickly dismissed my opinions based on my lack of personal experience. In this essay I am strictly giving my opinions and am in no way asserting that what I say must be fact. I would just like to give my perspective on this issue. It will be hard for me to keep the three types of love spate because there is definitely overlap. I apologize now for any confusion I lead you into when reading this essay.

I will start with the easiest type of love to define, and that is a love for your spouse. This really does not require much explanation. I do not think anyone would deny that the first requirement for a successful marriage would be for both parties to love each other. This love inclines one to want to do whatever it takes to make the other happy. They will want to get to know each other, they will want to have fun with each other, and will be willing to make sacrifices to make the other happy. The last part was the key to defining love and to differentiating the three types of love. To exemplify the love of a spouse is to make sacrifices to help your spouse reach their final goal. Whether that’s turning off the TV to talk about what your spouse wants to talk about or letting your mother-in-law live at your place to make your spouse happy. Their happiness is their goal and you will sacrifice to help them attain that goal. But love an emotions are funny things. They have this mirroring effect. Laws of physics prevent the creation of something from nothing (conservation of matter) and prevent mechanisms from creating more energy than was put into them (conservation of energy). But love and happiness do not follow such rules. Love and happiness can come from seemingly nowhere and can easily produce more happiness without added work. Seeing your spouse happy makes you happy. And this is the magic of love. Even though it takes a lot of work/energy to sacrifice your wants, you do it because you want your spouse to be happy. But sometimes, just that thought is not enough, even though it should be. Sometimes you question yourself, “Was everything I just did worth it?” But then, once you see your spouse’s eyes light up and see how big their smile is, you suddenly know that it was truly worth it. Their happiness becomes contagious and you catch the biggest and most effective virus (or should I say “love bug”) ever and immediately begin to smile as your heart overflows with joy. Out of the exhausted and doubting pit in your mind comes a rush of bliss, seemingly out of nowhere and with no work or effort put forth. This love of your spouse is only the first part of a beautiful marriage.

Moving on I would like to explain the love of Love. I have heard a lot of people say, “I love love.” So this idea of the love of Love cannot seem too foreign. Continuing with my opinionated definitions, I see the love of Love as one being willing to sacrifice to reach Love’s final goal. Love’s final goal is to have the purest form of happiness and joy bestowed upon both parties of the relationship. This is also a layer above the love of a spouse. When our love for our spouse is not enough to get us to sacrifice we depend on our love of Love to be the motivation. We all have an idea of the concept of Love; what true Love looks like, what Love requires of us, what Love’s outcome is, and the like. We also see love as this overarching good. Something that is pure and should be attained by all. If we attain this feeling of Love we will be eternally happy. And our best way to attain this Love and to become controlled by it is to perform the tasks demanded by Love. If we want to have our lives match the beautiful painting of Love we must work at it. We love the concept of a couple that is head-over-heels in love with each other. So, when a situation arises, or more hopefully in every area/decision, we ask ourselves, “What would Love do?” “What does love require us to do?” In this way we hope to choose the path that leads towards Love. Not only is the cause Love, but the effect is also Love. We use Love as a means to an end, with the end being the concept of Love. If we continue to strive towards the ultimate goal of love our relationship will be headed in the direction of stability and longevity. If we look at this idea of Love as an idea, concept, goal, or intrinsic good that is on a pedestal above the love of a human, we can use this as a reason or purpose that is greater than ourselves. Yes, I am creating a hierarchy here. The first level is the love of another. The second level is the love of Love. When we put this love of Love as something greater than humanity everything else is put in its place. Love exists without humanity and is our final goal. It is therefore separate from humanity and greater than it. When we strive for something greater than ourselves we are more likely to act in accordance with what the greater thing demands of us. That is why, as we strive to meet something greater than ourselves, we ask ourselves, “What would Love do?”

Lastly, there is the love of God. This is the highest good. If the love of your spouse and the love of Love are not enough to get you to sacrifice your wants for something else then you can trust in this type of love to be enough. The love of God is also greater than humanity. God easily exists with humanity and since he created us, he deserves our love and praise. To parallel the other two types of love, to love God is to sacrifice our wants in order to please God. This should be our ultimate goal. If we make it our primary responsibility to please Him, then we will do what He wants. And when it comes to marriage He wants us to love and care for our spouse. We are to treat others as we want to be treated. Would a perfect and loving God want us to hit our spouse? No. Would god want us to cheat on our spouse, even if the spouse never found out? No. Would God want us to think about cheating on our spouse, even if we never acted on it? No. With these 3 questions you can see how three types of love are needed to have the most successful marriage. Let’s refresh the questions to say: “Should we hit our spouse?” “Should we cheat on our spouse, even if they never found out?” “Should we think about cheating, even if we never act on it?” The first question can be answered by asking ourselves, “What would someone who loved their spouse do?” It can also be answered by the 2 higher levels of love. The second question cannot be answered by asking, “What would someone who loved their spouse do?” because the event would not affect the spouse (assuming they never found out about it). The second question must then be answered by a higher level, “What would someone who loved Love do?” An affair would destroy a relationship grounded in Love. Love does no harm and an affair would go against the principles established by Love. The third question cannot be answered by the first two types of love. If you just thought about cheating, without acting on it, then the spouse would certainly not be affected. Also, the concept or goal of a perfect Love would not be affected because no action was taken that would prevent you from that love. So, we must ask, “What would someone who loved God do?” They would not have these impure thoughts. To even look at another with lust in your heart is to commit adultery. God can see your thoughts and thoughts of sin or immorality do not please Him. We must put away thoughts of sexual immorality if we are to practice loving God. And remember: God is Love.

A possible fourth type of love is the love of your children. I am not sure where this love would fall in the hierarchy. I also have refrained from adding this love because not all couples have children and I do not believe you must have children to have the most successful marriage possible; although it can help. Regardless, I hope I was able to explain my thoughts in a clear way and that I didn’t confuse you too much. “And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

Mourning After Death: The most selfish act besides killing

Just after reading the title I’m sure you’ve already judged me and are gearing up to attack me as soon as I start to explain myself. I do not care if you agree with me, my greatest fear is only that you’ll read the rest of this essay with a bias against me. I ask that you please let that go and just listen. Your possible frustration will not affect the words that have already been written. It only affects the attitude you have as you continue to read. You’ll be clouding your own mind instead of the words on the page.

Let me just start by saying that I do not wish death on any one. I hope this is obvious. I also would love to see the day that nobody died and therefore no one would mourn. The loss of life is hard to deal with and I would prefer if no one ever had to deal with it.

Now the first place to start is to describe the emotions, feelings, and thoughts that happen to someone who has lost someone they care about. They probably go through the 5 stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. The first 4 stages are what I will try to show as being self-centered. The last step is acceptance, which is more a state of mind and not a feeling or action. For the rest of this essay, to make it easier to understand, I will use the example that someone close to you has died. I will therefore be referring to you as the person I am trying to argue with and show that you are being selfish.

Stage 1: Denial

Here is where you refuse to believe that someone you care for has actually died. The most common phrase used at this point is “I don’t believe it.” Do you really not believe it? Or do you just not want to believe the truth? Regardless of the answer we need to ask a different question: “Why don’t you believe or want to believe?” Answer: Because of the significance of the event. A life has ended. But, why do you care that a life has ended? The unintelligent and superficial answer would be, “Because I care about the person.” But do you see what the problem with that answer is? Just because someone died, does that mean you no longer care about that person? No, of course not. You care for that person now just as much as you did when they were alive. So, back to the original question: “Why do you care that they died?” There are two answers you might give. Either “I’m sad because they don’t get to live out the rest of their life.” (This assumes that living out your life is a positive thing. I’m okay with that assumption). Or they say “I’ll never get to see them again.”

“I’m sad because they won’t be able to live out their life.”

You are probably going to think I’m a huge jerk for saying what I’m about to say, but please look deeper and test what I’m saying to see if it’s true. My question is: Why should someone be sad that another person cannot live out their life? Does the person who passed away care that they can no longer live out the rest of their life? No, they are dead. They do not have this facility. Does the person who passed away have any negative feelings/attitudes/thoughts about death? No. Again, they are dead and are not capable of that. If a person says the above quotation what they really mean is: “If that person was alive then they could experience the joy and happiness that comes with life.” You want the other person to experience happiness because if you saw the other person in a state of happiness that would make you happy. And that’s the key. The selfishness is right there at the end. If that person were alive right now, they would have the ability to experience happiness. And when they are happy you are happy. It’s all about your happiness. It’s an altruistic selfishness. At this point you might argue that you want the other person to be happy for their own sake. That their happiness is the final good/goal. I would respond to this in two ways. First, look at the two words that start the person doing the “wanting”. It’s “you”. YOU WANT ___________. It’s all about what you want. Secondly, the dead person does not want to be happy. They are incapable of wanting anything since they are brain dead. Plus, the dead person is not in a negative state. They are not sad nor depressed nor do they lack/want anything. They cannot have those feelings. Again, they do not want to be happy. Therefore, their happiness cannot be a final good. It can only be an instrumental good for you.

“I will never get to see them again.”

This is an easier response to explain. Just re-read it and you will see that it reeks of selfish attitude. The first word is “I”. Right there anyone can see that you are just talking about your own wishes. This sentence contains no happy thoughts for the dead person. Instead, its only focus is on what you want.

Stage 2: Anger

The next step in this process is anger. People become mad at the situation. But, we must find what you are really mad at. You are mad that the person is dead. But why? And what is your anger directed towards? We must first answer the questions of why you are mad your friend is dead. As you might say, it is either because your friend won’t get to finish out their life or because you cared for them and did not want to see them dead.

I already explained the actual, underlining, selfish feeling behind you wishing your friend could live out their life so I will move on to the next answer. You did not want to see your friend dead. This is because you see the state of death as a negative thing. So, you are mad that something negative happened to your friend. But again, that is not where it ends. When you care about someone, you also mimic their emotions. When someone you care about feels sad, you start to feel sad. When your friend laughs in happiness, you will smile back in happiness. One must admit that when you get a gift for someone, you enjoy giving it to them because seeing their happiness gives you happiness. It is partly a selfish act. Back to the death situation. When your friend dies, you see it as something negative happening and you see your friend in a constant negative state. In this way you also become sad and in a negative state. You become angry that whatever caused your friend’s death is also affecting you. You are in a negative state because your friend is in a negative state. This negative state partly manifests itself as anger.

This anger also comes from not being able to see your friend again. You are angry because you will not be able to experience friendship with them again. You are being totally selfish in your anger towards everything you will not have. You are angry because you want to have your friend, but the friend was taken away. You are angry because you want what you can no longer have.

Stage 3: Bargaining

This whole step clearly contains the flavor of selfishness. You ask to give up one of your items in order to reverse the death of a friend. Why? Because you would be happier not having that item and instead having your friend. At this point you might say that you would not be doing this only for yourself. You truly would give up anything for the other person to be alive. There are now two things to look at here. The selfish act of helping someone back to life AND the weighted bargain.

Starting with the selfish act of helping someone back to life: How would you feel if I told you that your bargain helped someone back to life? You would feel such gratification knowing that you had a hand in bringing someone back to life. And this is not a consequence, it is the cause. So, when making “the bargain” you are only thinking about how happy you would be if that person came back to life and how happy you would be knowing you had a hand in it.

Now onto the weighted bargain. This means that the bargain you make will provide a net positive outcome to yourself. If the net outcome was a negative you would not make the. Let me illustrate with examples. If you said, “I will give up my car and my house to have my friend come back to life,” you are only making this deal because the personal happiness you would receive from knowing your friend is alive outweighs the negative effects of giving up your car and house. Do you agree? Nah, you probably still think you would make this bargain solely for the friend’s happiness. Well check this out. If your friend was alive would you give up your car and house if it meant your friend would get a $100 gift card to Best Buy? Huh, would you? But the gift card would make your friend happy! And you said earlier that you would give up your car and house simply for their happiness. So why not this time? I’ll tell you why! Because the negative effects outweigh the positive effects. You are being selfish, but there is nothing wrong with that J Everyone is selfish. Sure, a lot of people would trade some material property in order to bring someone back to life, because the overall personal outcome is your own happiness. But no one would trade two expensive material items for a small monetary card because the overall personal outcome would be negative. Therefore, you would only make “the bargain” because of the happiness you attain from the result.

Step 4: Depression

This is the final stage of grief that I will be talking about and could possibly be the most controversial. If I were to summarize it now I would say depression is a totally self-centered attitude and anyone could get out of their depression if they stopped feeling sorry for themselves, accepted what happened, and just tried to make their future better. It’s that easy! Depressed is defined as “sad and gloomy; dejected.” I will therefore characterize a depressed person as sad or gloomy.

When a person is depressed or sad or gloomy we have to ask what caused it and why does that event make them sad? As is the case with the rest of this essay we will cover the event of death. It’s no surprise that if you ask someone what emotion they would feel if someone they cared about died the number one response would be sadness or depression. So let’s see why that is. If someone you cared about died and you became sad I would ask, “What’s wrong?” you would reply, “My (spouse, significant other, best friend, etc.) passed away.” To which I would respond, “Why does that make you sad?” You would then probably give me a funny look and counter with something like, “Because I loved them.” Do you see where I’m going with this? Does your friend’s death now prevent you from loving them? No. So what are you implying when you say the reason you are gloomy is because someone you loved is dead? We have already been over the answers: “Because they won’t be able to live out their life.” And “I won’t be able to see them again.” So what else is there? Possibly: “I won’t be able to share my love with them,” “I will always miss them,” “There will now be an empty hole in my heart,” “They made me happy.”

All those excuses are egotistical and full of self-pity. You won’t be able to share your love with them? Ok, I don’t deny that, but it’s just one more problem that affects no one but you. So accept it and move on. You will always miss them? See that first pronoun? It’s “you” which, like all the other excuses tells us that the only person this problem affects is you. Missing someone is natural. So accept it, move on, and stop feeling sorry for yourself. We all miss something; this is life. There will be an empty hole in your heart? That is so self-centered. You think the rest of us haven’t felt heart-brake before? It happens to everyone. The fact that this has also happened to you makes you human. So stop feeling sorry for yourself and move on. They made you happy? Everyone loses something that makes them happy, you are not the exception. Find something else that makes you happy. There are multiple people or things that can provide happiness, so stop letting yourself be sad over what you don’t have and go search for another person/item that will make you happy. All of those excuses were centered on things you no longer have. It’s all about what happened to you. Self-pity at its finest. Now get up, accept it, and move on. You can be happy again if you stop crying over what you had and start to focus on what you currently still have or can have.

I hope you stuck with this essay and continued until the end. And I know on the surface this looks awful and unsympathetic, but I hope you take a closer look at what I said and actually think about it. Not only will seriously considering what I said be tricky but knowing how to apply this will be tricky as well. I highly recommend not showing this essay nor using its logic to someone who is grieving. This should only be used as a teaching tool before a person grieves or a long time after a person has finished mourning their dead. Only with a clear mind should one read or be given this reasoning.

As a tangent I will explain how I want this logic to be applied to my loved ones should I die. If I die, please do not mourn for me. No amount of sadness or depression can change the outcome. Also, I will be dead and will not have the ability to see who is crying over my death. So, if you believe that you will be “paying your respects” or something like that, don’t worry about it. I don’t see how you can respect a dead person. In order to show respect, I must be able to observe it, which would be impossible if I’m dead. Also, how do you think I would feel if I knew that I had a part in your sadness? I would feel awful. No matter what happens, I never want to be the cause of your depression or tears. Even if it is because I died, I still would not want to know that you were in a state of mourning because of me. So, do me a favor please, and do not mourn my death. I do not want to be the cause, either directly or indirectly, of any form of sadness.

Thanks for reading!

*Note: I make no claim as to whether acting in selfishness or selfishness, in and of itself, is right or wrong. I do not wish to answer that question. All I wish to show is that mourning is a selfish act. I do not assert whether it is morally right or wrong. That is for someone else to decide.

Different Gospels

Hello,

I have recently created an xtranormal video called "Different Gospels." It can be found on youtube.com by clicking here

Below is the script in case you wanted to slow the conversation down and read what they are saying, or maybe you just couldn't understand some parts of it. Regardless, here it is:

Girl:Hello. How are you doing? Can I share the gospel with you?

Guy: But of course. May I ask which one you would like to share with me?

Girl: Oh, well, I am a christian. So i'm talking about the gospel in the Bible

Guy: Well, that still doesn't answer my question. There are many gospels in the bible

For instance, you have the gospel of God in Romans one one. You have the gospel of his son in Romans one nine. The gospel of Christ in Romans one sixteen. And what Paul calls my gospel in Romans two sixteen and Romans sixteen twentyfive and second Timothy two eight. Along with many more.

Girl: But those are all the same message, just different titles

Guy: On the contrary! Different names means different messages. Let me show you. What is your name?

Girl: Jessica Anderson

Guy: And what is your sister's name?

Girl: Ashley Anderson

Guy: Alright, so if i said. Can I talk to Ms. Anderson, you wouldn't know who I was talking to. It could be you or your sister. So when you just say the gospel, how should i know which one you are talking about? But if i say, can i talk to Jessica Anderson, you know exactly who i am talking about. And again, with the Bible, i will know what you're talking about if you say which gospel you are talking about. such as the gospel of christ.

girl: I guess that makes sense. But if you read what each gospel says, they teach the same thing. so you must be wrong

guy: Oh really? Let's talk this out. Tell me, according to Paul and the gospel he preaches, how is one justified?

girl: That's easy. we are justified by faith.

guy: And how are we justified according to James and the gospel he preaches?

girl: Same way. We are justified by faith through grace.

guy: You are but half right. You are correct in saying Paul teaches we are justified by faith. But James preaches we are justified by works.

girl: Wait, what?

guy: Please take out your bible. In romans four two Paul says, For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof]to glory; but not before God. Here Paul is implying that Abraham was not justified by works. Now turn to James two twenty one. Here it says, Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Here the apostle James tells us that Abraham was indeed justified by works. doesn't that sound like two different messages?

girl: Well, yeah, but the bible cannot contradict itself. so something must be wrong with your argument. and just one verse isn't gonna change my views.

guy: Well, it is not a contradiction because the apostles are talking to different people. According to Romans eleven thirteen and galatians two seven Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcision, meaning the gentiles. James, as we see in Galatians two nine was an apostle to the circumcision, meaning the jews. Therefore, it is not a contradiction because these verses were written to two different audiences.

girl: Oh.

guy: Let's continue with the passage. Look at James two twentytwo. It says. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? This verse tells us that for abraham his faith was perfected by the works that came after faith. Now, let's contrast this with Galatians three three. here Paul says. Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? So we see here that Paul says were are justified only by faith and that our works accomplish nothing.

girl: umm, okay, you are starting to convince me a little. is there anymore?

guy: But of course. Look at James two twentyfour. it says Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. So James is clearly saying that we are justified by works and faith. But Paul says something different. In Romans four five Paul says But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. and in galatians two sixteen Paul says Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Here, we clearly see that Paul strictly seperates works from justification. Therefore, James and Paul teach different ways of justification and different gospels.

girl: Hmmm, that is interesting. I will have to pray about this and study it out.

guy: Very good. I could not ask for a better response.

Now, let's look at what Peter says. In Acts 10:35 Peter says, But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. So, Peter also talks about works being a necessary part of salvation. Then if we turn to his message in Acts three nineteen Peter says Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. Now, re-read that verse. Doesn't it sound a little strange to you? It doesn't sound like anything Paul would say, does it? Let's break it down. The verse starts off with Repent and be converted. Paul never uses the word, or any form of the word convert. Paul also never commands anyone to repent. So don't you see how these two apostles could be preaching different things?

girl: Maybe

guy: Look at the second half of the verse. It says that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing come. Remember, this verse is in Acts three. So Christ has already died and risen. So why does Peter say that your sins MAY! be blotted out WHEN! the times of refreshing come? It is very important to see that Peter is telling the audience that their sins may be blotted out, but only when the times of refreshing come. That measn that their sins were not taken away on the cross. Their sins are still with them and will be taken away in the future when the times of refreshing come. Is this in line with what Paul says?

girl: No, it's not. You may be on to something. Because Paul says in Colossians three thirteen. Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. This means that our sins are already taken away. And in Romans four seven through eight Paul again says Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. So, Paul is really stressing that our sins are no longer an issue because Jesus took them away at the cross.

guy: That is exactly right. But let's look at this topic a little more. According to Jesus and the 12 apostles, you had to forgive others if you, yourself, wanted to be forgiven by God. In Luke six thirty seven it says. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. And in Matthew six fourteen it says For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. These verses clearly state that you must forgive others if you want the Father to forgive you.

girl: agreed

guy:But now let's look at what Paul says. Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do you. So you see that Christ already forgave us, therefore we should forgive others. Let's also look at Ephesians four thrity two, And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. Same thing. We should forgive others because Christ has already forgiven us! Now you can clearly see that difference, right?

girl: yes. i definitely can.

guy: This Grace that Paul loves to teach about was made available to him first. The members of the circumcision do not get to enjoy this grace while they are living. Not until the times of refreshing come can they see their sins taken away. We can see this in Paul's first letter to Timothy in chapter one verse sixteen. It says, How be it for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should here after believe on him to life everlasting.

girl: hmmm

guy: Let's also break this verse down. Paul says in me first. Which means Paul is the first person to obtain this object. And the object is longsuffering. This longsuffering is pretty self explanatory. God is, in a way, suffering for a long time. Which mean God is not imputing the sin on Paul that he has committed for a long time. This is also called mercy. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. Therefore, since God is not holding Paul accountable for his sin, God is not punishing Paul, which is an exmaple of mercy. If we continue with the verse Paul tells us that this is a pattern. As in everyone else will get this same treatment. This grace and mercy that God bestowed on Paul will now be available to all. Then when we look at the last part of the verse it says for a pattern to them which should here after believe. So, again, we see that Paul is the first to get this grace because it is a pattern for them which should. Here After. believe. So everyone who believes after Paul will also get this grace.

girl: wow. that one verse says a lot.

guy: it certainly does.

Now, last but not least, we shall look at the gospel Jesus preached.

girl: Wait, are you gonna tell me that Jesus preached a different gospel, too?

guy: It depends. Jesus preached a gospel different than Paul, but he did preach the same one as the 12 apostles. And that is the gospel of the kingdom.

girl: So, according to your previous logic, if different gospels are being preached then they must be talking to different people. And since you say Jesus's gospel is different than Paul's. you must also think that Jesus did not share his gospel with us but with the circumcision or the Jews.

guy: that is correct

girl: But Jesus came to save the world. He must have come to preach to everyone.

guy: Well, if you don't want to believe me, that is fine. But let me show you what the Bible says. In Matthew fifteen twenty four it says. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So in this verse we see Jesus was sent to Israel, not the Gentiles.

girl: okay

guy: In John four twenty two Jesus says. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. This verse tells us that according to the gospel Jesus preached salvation was of the Jews, not the Gentiles.

girl: okay

guy: And finally in Romans fifteen eight Paul says. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. Here even Paul tells us that Jesus was a minister to the Jews. And in Romans chapter eleven verse theirteen Paul says. For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office. This tells us that we, as gentiles, also have an apostle. and his name is Paul.

girl: hmmm. the scriptures do make a convincing argument. I guess i now have a lot to think about.

guy: I will pray for both of us. That his truth will be opened to boh of us and we continue to grow more and more in knowledge according to philipians one verse eight. If you have any questions feel free to come back and ask. Have a great day

girl: you, too. Good-bye