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

How the atheist philosopher Thomas Hobbes helped me understand the Bible!

Throughout the past couple years two certain verses have haunted me. They made me question God’s love and the definitions of right and wrong. I have always tried to ignore these verses, but they always stayed in the back of my head. Whenever I thought about them, I got frustrated and just tried to ignore them and pretend that they didn’t mean exactly what they said. Those verses were Isaiah 64:6 “But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” and Romans 8:8 “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

These two verses tell us that anyone, who is without the Spirit, cannot please God and that all their supposed moral acts are worthless. All kind and loving acts, if done without the Spirit, are worthless in God’s eyes. But how can this be? If a non-believer holds the door open for someone, shouldn’t that make God smile? If a non-believer gives a million dollars to a charity or a church, shouldn’t that please God? If a non-believer jumps into the middle of a fight to save the small child from getting bullied, shouldn’t that make God happy? Why would these moral acts mean nothing to God? These are the questions I faced all the time and the answers implied by these verses made me mad. One human is honestly helping another human, who wouldn’t smile at the thought?

To see why these works do not please God and are actually compared to filthy rags we need to look into the nature of human beings. Everyone has heard of the doctrine of original sin. The fact is that everyone sins and comes short of the glory and perfection of God. We all have a sinful nature in us and that leads us to our sin and separates us from God. But non-believers still do nice things; they aren’t only capable of bad, are they? Well, they aren’t only capable of bad, but they are certainly are not capable of being moral, or in God’s case, righteous. I know what you are thinking: “What do you mean non-believers are not capable of being moral?” First off, we need to look at the definition of a moral person. This is where Aristotle comes into play. In order for a person to be moral they must meet four criteria: 1) they must know what they are doing. For instance, if you trip a criminal who is running away from the police by accident; and that leads to the police catching the criminal- you did not act morally because you did not even know what you were doing. 2) They must choose to act the way they do and they must choose it for its own sake. For instance: if you are required to get to work in the next 15 minutes but the car right ahead of you breaks down and you help the owner push it to the side, you are not acting morally. You did not push the car to the side because you wanted to help the owner; you just wanted it out of your way. 3) The act must spring from a firm and unchangeable character. 4) They must feel pleasure after completing the act. Number two and three are where everyone falls short.

Back in the early 1600s an atheist philosopher started writing books. His most famous book was called “Leviathan.” His name was Thomas Hobbes.  Although I don’t agree with everything he writes in this book he does bring up one very good point. He says that every action we do is made because it is in our own self-interest. In philosophy this is called “egoism”. And this statement could not be more true. Think about it, there is no action you perform that you do not believe to be in your own self-interest. That is why we lie, cheat, and steal. Just like these sins, all other sins and wrongdoings are easily traced back to self-interest. But what about acts that appear loving? Nope, still done in self-interest. For example: when someone gives money to a charity they are acting in their own self-interest. Either they are trying to get a tax write-off or trying to gain a positive reputation or they want the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes afterwards or they feel an obligation to give back or they would feel bad if they did not give money to charity. Most of the explanations I just listed can be also be applied to every other act that seems “self-less.”  When you help someone move into their new house you do it because either there is a reward or you want your neighbor to like you or you owe your friend a favor or you want your friend to owe you a favor or you want the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes afterwards or you want to show off your muscles or you want others to think you are a nice person or you would feel bad if you did not help. So, as you can see, every action we perform is based on our own self-interest! And thanks to Hobbes I was able to see this and to know that someone else out there realizes that we are all egoists!

Here is another proof that I came up with, and the basis is formed on the question “If there was no gain would you do the action?” Another way of putting it would be to say: “If a certain action did not fulfill any self-interest, or did not provide a benefit to you, would you still complete the action?” The answer is a universal “no.” It is a fact that all actions have a negative consequence. All actions, performed by you, take up your time. As you complete an action you use up seconds, minutes, or hours of your life that you can never get back. So, right here, we already see that all actions have a negative consequence. The effect this has on people varies, but no matter how much it differs from person to person there is always an existing amount of a negative consequence. Again, this effect can be very, very minimal; but, it does exist. If an act provides no personal gain in accordance with self-interest then the overall effect of the action is negative. With nothing to overtake the –0.000001 amount of dissatisfaction, the overall effect is one of dissatisfaction. And, since it is logical to say that no rational being will perform an act that leads to a negative effect or personal dissatisfaction; then we can therefore say that every action a human performs must involve self-interest.

After showing that we are all egoists we can now go back to Aristotle's definition of a moral person. If you recall the second criterion was that the person must choose the moral action for its own sake. That means a person must do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing, not because they have some self-interest in the action. Since all actions are done with the thought of “This will not hurt me” or “It will hurt me more if I do not do this action” then these acts are not moral because these acts are done only under the condition that the chosen outcome will be less bad for you than the opposing action(s). So, by definition, no one is moral! No one can be moral because all of our actions spring from self-interest instead of morality. Now it is quite easy to apply this to theology. Because of the sinful nature inside of us we are egoists. Everything we do- we do it because it will benefit us. We do not do any action because it is the right thing to do; we do it because we want to do it. This is why we cannot please God and why all or good works are likened to dirty rags. Even when we do morally good actions or rightouesnessess we are only doing them for ourselves, not because of a moral or godly nature in us. God does not want us to do the right thing simply because He says so; he wants us to do the right thing because that’s what our heart tells us to do. He wants our earnest desire to be in line with morality or righteousness. And this is only possible if the Spirit lives in us.

Check this passage out, Jeremiah 31:31-34:

^“31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

³²Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

³³But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

³⁴And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Looking at verses 33 and 34 we see that God will write the law (morality) in their hearts! So man will be moral because they shall have a firm and unchangeable character and will do the right thing simply because it is the right thing. People won’t even have to teach others to fear God because that knowledge is already in their hearts.

So, it no longer bothers me when the bible says that all good works, while done in the flesh, are like dirty rags: in fact, it makes complete sense! We cannot please God because all our works are done for our own personal benefit instead being done for the sake of it being the right action. No wonder God calls them “filthy”: because we are trying to deceive ourselves and God when we do righteous acts and claim them to be moral. When in reality, we are just trying to benefit ourselves. Thank you Aristotle and Hobbes for helping me see the truth in God’s word!

Since I'm already talking about Hobbes I will take this time to explain another truth that has been shown to me through Hobbes’ Leviathan. In that book he says that we are always at war with one another and that in order to keep us from always fighting with one another for more power we must have an overarching legitimate government to keep us I line by fear of punishment. Hobbes’ writes “Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them in awe, they are in a condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man” He also says “Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” This last sentence is saying that without a government, there is no law to keep or follow. And without a law, there can be no injustice because justice/injustice cannot be defined. Unless the law says “do not steal” how can I say I am being treated unjustly if someone steals from me and is not punished? These couple lines from Hobbes, and the rest of his book, show the truth in God’s word also. Look how closely the quote from Leviathan matches up with Romans 4:15 “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.” It’s pretty much the same thing! Where there is no law, there is no injustice/transgression! I bet Hobbes stole this from Paul :)

But back to the first quote about the common power keeping people in awe: look at Romans 13:1 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” So, what it looks like to me is that God did establish governments. He did this because otherwise we would be constantly fighting with each other, just as Hobbes said. Without the overarching power to keep us in awe or to punish us we would all run free and take whatever we wanted knowing that it would lead us to war with each other. This is why a government or a hierarchy of power is necessary.

Man, I love it when reason, logic, and philosophy say exactly what God has already said. Even ungodly men have seen just how corrupt our bodies are! They mostly come to the same conclusions that God has already set, and prove the truth in His word as they do so.

Thank you God, that I know the truth. And I pray that my love will abound more and more in knowledge and judgment. That I may approve things that are excellent; that I may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. Amen.

What was preached by Jesus and the 12 after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection?

 

A lot of people still refuse to see the distinction in the gospel preached by the 12 apostles and the gospel preached by Paul. They see Paul’s teaching as a continuation of Jesus’ teaching and see nothing new given to Paul by revelation. This perplexes me, so in order to reverse this trend, I will highlight Jesus’ and the twelve’s teachings after the resurrection of Jesus.

Let me first start with what Jesus told his 12 apostles to do. Starting with the book of Matthew(ch28:19-20), the only thing Jesus says(after his resurrection) to his 12 is “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them to observe all the things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen”

So, what were the 12 supposed to DO? Baptize people! Teach people to observe the commands given by God! After reading this again, is Jesus talking about water or spiritual baptism? WATER! How can we know this? Because Jesus told THE APOSTLES to DO the baptizing. If he was talking about spiritual baptism he wouldn’t tell the apostles to go baptize people, because that wouldn’t make sense. Either the spirit baptizes you, or a person does. In this instance, it is a person (the apostles) who are doing the baptizing.

Now, I will go to the book of Mark(ch16:15-16). These verses say “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

We see again, that Jesus requires new believers to be baptized. From this verse alone, we cannot tell whether the baptism Jesus talks about is spiritual or water-based; that is why we compare it to like verses such as Matthew 28:19-20.

Jumping to Luke we have Jesus saying “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”

We see here that the 12 were to preach repentance and remission of sins in Jesus’ name. Again, this verse, alone, is very vague. What did the people need to repent of and how were the sins to be remitted? These questions will be answered shortly when we look at the book of Acts.

In the current passage we also se Jesus saying to stay in the city of Jerusalem until they are endued with power. At first this seems to conflict with the 1st two passages in Mark and Matthew (in those passages Jesus tells his apostles to teach all nations). But, we can reasonably assume that Jesus wanted the 12 to go to Jerusalem first, then once they got the power, they could then preach his name to all nations. So, remember, at this point in time the 12 were only allowed to go to Jerusalem.

Next, we move to the book of John(ch21:15-17). The few small remarks we see Jesus telling Peter is for Peter to feed Jesus’ lambs/sheep/sheep. But who are these “sheep”? A verse comes to my mind which tells us exactly who the sheep are. Matthew 15:24 “But he answered and said, I am not sent BUT unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This verse tells us that Jesus was sent ONLY to the house of Israel; no one else. Why are these sheep “lost”? Because “I(Jesus) came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”(Luke 5:32).

So, we see that Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep. But, using our knowledge of other verses we can see that Jesus wants Peter to feed only the “house of Israel”! Just as Jesus had been doing. Why had Jesus only been sent to the house of Israel? Because “for salvation is of the Jews” John 4:22!!!! Even Paul tells us that Jesus came unto the Jews only in Romans 15:8 “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision.”

ACTS

Now I shall look at the book of Acts. Right off the bat in Acts 1:4-5 we read “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

Again, Jesus tells His apostles to “not depart from Jerusalem” until they are baptized with the Holy Spirit. Once they attain the Holy Spirit they are to be witnesses unto Jesus in “Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

So, it all lines up. After Jesus was resurrected the 12 were to stay in Jerusalem until they received the Holy Spirit. Then they would preach his name unto the uttermost part of the earth. But notice, the area of preaching was the only thing that changed! Jesus did not change what they were supposed to do. They were still to feed the sheep; preach to only the house of Israel. And, they were required to baptize people with water. No where does Jesus modify these instructions. Let me rephrase and repeat. Peter, and most likely the other apostles, were to preach and WATER baptize people in all the earth that were JEWS(members of the house of Israel).

Now, I shall continue with Acts but will be focusing on what the 12 preached. If we look at Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” we see that  the 12 are keeping in line with Jesus’ instructions to feed only the house of Israel. If we fast forward a little bit to Acts 11:19 we see the followers of Jesus continuing with the instruction to preach to Jews only: “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.”

When these members of the house of Israel heard the statement made in Acts 2, they were pricked at the heart and asked “what shall we do?” And this is what Peter says “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”(Acts 2:38) WOW! This verse tells us so much! First off, Peter told them to Repent. This is an act that these people had to do. Next, we see Peter telling them to be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost. This verse makes clear that the baptism Peter is talking about is WATER baptism. We can know this for 2 reasons. First, Peter tells them that baptism comes BEFORE receiving the Holy Spirit, so they obviously aren’t baptized BY the Holy Spirit. Second, where have we seen the wording “baptized for the remission of sins”? Mark 1:4 which says “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” It can only be concluded that since John baptized with water and preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, that Peter also is talking about water baptism.

Re-read Acts 2:38, please. What is remitting their sins? Jesus’ blood or the water they are baptized in? This verse says nothing about Jesus’ blood taking away their sins. In actuality, it tells us that the water baptism, in the name of Jesus, and repentance, is what remitted their sins. This is foreshadowing Jesus as a fountain of life that WILL(future tense) wash away the sins, but that’s another lesson. The point is that water baptism is still preached for remitting sins even after Jesus had died and been resurrected.

In Acts 3:19 Peter says “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” Repentance and conversion are requirements for the blotting out of sins.

It seems as though every time Peter speaks of obtaining everlasting life he tells his listeners to Repent; repent for what they did to Jesus by handing him over to Pilate and hanging him on a tree. Peter does not glory in Jesus’ death and he urges others to be sorry for causing such pain to befall the Lord. Does this sound anything like what Paul taught? Not at all! Peter wanted everyone to be sorry for their actions, while Paul gloried in Jesus’ resurrection! Peter’s was a message of sorrow and responsibility, while Paul’s was a message of grace and thankfulness!

Therefore, we can summarize Peter’s message as:

1) Water baptism
2) Repentance
3) only to the house of Israel

While Paul’s message consists of:

1) Spiritual baptism
”One Lord, one faith, one baptism” “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” “For Christ sent me not to baptize” “I THANK GOD THAT I BAPTIZED NONE OF YOU”

2) grace through faith
”For by grace you have been saved, through faith” “NOW that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.”

3) unto the Gentiles, gospel of the uncircumcision
”when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter” “that we(Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the heathen, and they(the apostles) unto the circumcision.”

A Stronger Free Will Defense: Arguements against Predestinationism

Let me start off with a quick attack. If predestinationism is true, then evangelism is the most selfish act possible. You think God needs your help to bring someone to him? If it’s God who chooses how and when we will be saved, then he doesn’t need your help. If you say you helped bring someone to Christ, aren’t you taking credit for what God did? For what only God can do? If “Total Depravity” is true, evangelism is pointless. No one could share the love of God with an unsaved person because they are to “depraved” to accept or understand it.

Now that I got that out of the way it’s time for me to show you the verses in the Bible that prove my point. God does not choose who will believe in him, nor does he choose who will not believe in him. God does not predestinate individual people, but he does predestinate believers. What I mean by that is: God doesn’t say to himself before someone is born that, “I want Joey to be saved, therefore I will make him believe in me. I will pre-determine whether he chooses life or death.” What God does say before anyone is born is, “I have decided that everyone who believes in my name and the work of my son shall inherit the kingdom. I have pre-determined that anyone who puts their faith in me will go to heaven.” From now on I will show you verses that explain God’s will that all should be saved and verses that describe the choice God gives us: we believe in him or not, we choose life or death.

No one is more special in God’s eyes than anyone else. But, believing in predestination puts you on a pedestal. If you believe you are saved because God chose you to be saved, then you are saying that you (before you realized you were saved) were better than me. God does not do things randomly; therefore he must have had a reason to pick you over someone else. So, what makes you better? Why does God love you more than someone else who is not saved but is willing to seek him? John 3:16, the verse everyone knows says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…” Who does God love? The world! Who did God give his son for? The world! If God chooses who would be saved then this verse would read, “For God so loved the chosen elect that he gave his only begotten son.” Therefore, God does not choose who will be saved because we know that God gave his son to the world and not the chosen elect. Because God gave his son to the world, anyone can be saved. All you have to do is believe. The only way God could give his son to the world is if the whole world had a chance to receive the son.
Now I will offer a proof for free will based on this verse:
1. A person is not saved if they do not receive Jesus.
2. In order to receive Jesus, a person must have the ability to receive him.
3. Each person is part of the world
4. If something is given to an object, if the object has the ability to receive, the object can receive the given item.
5. God gave Jesus to the world.
6. God does not do meaningless actions.
7. Therefore- The world, each person, must have the ability to receive Jesus.

Conclusion: Since God does not do meaningless actions, then if God gave the world his Son, it must be because the world has the ability to receive his son. Each person is a part of the world, which means that each person has the ability to receive the gift God has given us. Predestination says that God chooses who receives his son, therefore not allowing/preventing some from receiving his Son. It follows that predestination stated that not all people have the ability to receive Jesus, since God chooses who has the ability. Therefore predestination is invalid.

1 Timothy 2:4 says, “God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved…” As you can see, God wants everyone to be saved. How are we saved? By believing in him. So, God wants everyone to believe in him. If God chose who would believe in him, then he doesn’t want everyone to be saved. Let me illustrate this with an example: I am in the mood to eat apples. So I go to the store to buy them. Now, the only apples that I will allow to come into my shopping cart are green ones, because I don’t like red apples. In order for apples to be green, it must have a green pigment in its cells. So, when I got to the store I only allow apples with the green pigment in them to get into my cart. Now, I love apples and am very hungry, so I want all the apples to be green (have a green pigment) because I want as many apples as possible. But, the apples have or do not have the green pigment independently of what I want. I did not make the apples green; I just chose the ones that were green. To relate that to humans. God (the hungry shopper) does not choose who has the spirit or believes in him (have the green pigment); he only chooses those with the spirit (green apples) to come into heaven (the cart). God wants all to be saved (the shopper is very, very hungry) he wants as many people to be saved as possible (wants all apples to be green and not red) but people have the spirit or do not have the spirit (have or do not have the green pigment) independently of what God wants.

1 Timothy 2:6 says, “Who gave himself as a ransom for all people.” Again, God would not give someone a ransom if they were not able to accept it, that would be illogical and pointless. Therefore all must be able to accept the ransom.

2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is longsuffering (patient) to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance.” The KJV says God is longsuffering to us-ward and the NIV says God is patient with you. These verses tell us that God is patient with us! What is God showing? Patience. Who is he showing it to? Us. Why is he showing it? Because He is “not wanting anyone to perish.” From this we can conclude that it is our job “to come to repentance.” That is the only way in which God can be patient with us. If it was God’s decision whether or not we came to repentance, then God would only be being patient with himself. If it is God’s choice as to whether we are saved or not, there is not patience required toward us. God could put Jesus into our lives at any point – no waiting/patience necessary.

Next- I know that logically the absence of proof is not proof of absence but let me bring to light the way faith is portrayed as opposed to the way it is never portrayed. In Hebrews 11:1 it says, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see…” [NIV] “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…” [KJV] Notice these things do not say “certainty FROM what we do not see,” nor “the evidence FROM things not seen.” Also notice that the bible never mentions faith FROM God or faith from Jesus, but faith in God and faith in Jesus! Romans 10:17 tells us exactly where faith comes from, “So faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” God does not give us faith; we attain faith by hearing the word of God. Also, the bible has never lead me to believe that I am justified by the constraint of God’s choice, or that I am justified through the will of God.

Titus 2:11 says “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” This verse alone disproves/refutes the Calvinistic doctrine of ‘Irresistible Grace.’ This verse tells us that God’s grace has appeared (been shown) to everyone. But as we all know, not everyone goes to heaven. This means that some people who have seen this grace have turned it down and not accepted it. Therefore God’s grace is resistible!

Deuteronomy 24:16 says “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” In the T (total depravity) doctrine of Calvinism there is this theory of “Original Sin” and this theory basically says that because Adam sinned and we are all born of Adam, we are all guilty of that same sin. Therefore we are born sinful leading to our total depravity. But, as the verse in Deut shows, we are not help accountable for someone else’s sin. All will be put to death for their own sin! We don’t deserve death because of Adam’s sin; we deserve death because of our own sin. The Bible says “through one man’s sin death entered the world.” When Adam sinned, all his offspring now had a sinful nature, but are not guilty of sin until they commit their own first sin. There is also a verse in Romans that says “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Why do we all fall short? Because we all have sinned. This verse does not say “For Adam has sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.”

If the fact that we are descendants of Adam means that we are born sinful, then Jesus was sinful.

For my final points I will use three passages, 2 that show us it is our choice whether or not to choose God/life or death; and one that shows how God is not the one to plant the seed of faith in our hearts. The first comes from Deuteronomy 30:15-20 which says, “15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Here God is telling us to choose life! It is the person’s choice whether or not to choose God. This verse would be contradictory if God was the one to choose for us.

2nd passage, Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach) 15:11-20: “Say not: "It was God's doing that I fell away"; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: "It was he who set me astray"; for he has no need of wicked man. Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him. When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will. There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; he is mighty in power, and all-seeing. The eyes of God see all he has made; he understands man's every deed. No man does he command to sin, to none does he give strength for lies.” This passage can also be found at http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach15.htm. But, what this verse is saying is clearly evident. And though this book lies within the apocrypha, it is still used for teaching.

The last passage comes from 1 Corinthians 3:5-8: “5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.” Now, was it God or man who planted the seed? Was it God or man that started the process? It was man! Someone plants the seed of faith in us by sharing with us the word of God, and once that seed is planted (once we believe) God then does the growing part by continually sanctifying us. It now makes sense to put 2 verses together- “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” and “being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil 1:6). You see, once we choose accept Jesus, once the seed is planted; God then helps us grow. He changes us, and then continues to sanctify us through his word.

The True Meaning of Death

Did the Serpent lie when he told Adam and Eve that when they ate the fruit they would not die? Why do we still die, even though Jesus took the curse? It turns out that most of us have an incorrect definition of death when it comes to these passages. Death, is actually an end to immortal spiritual life which is equivalent to life without God. I shall now try to prove this to you using different passages in the Bible.

When Adam and Eve were being tempted by the Serpent he said, “You will not die.” As the story unfolds we see that after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they did not physically die. They still could walk around and live their life. So, did God lie to them when he said to not eat of the tree or you will die? Of course not, but seeing as Adam and Eve did not fall to the ground God must have meant something other than physical death. After God “found out” that Adam and Eve ate from the tree he kicked them out of the garden. This action represented two things: First, A&E could no longer eat of the tree of life and therefore would no live forever. Their immortal life that they had died as soon as they ate of the fruit. We also know this because Paul tells us that “the wages of sin is death.” What this sin also did was to end their personal relationship with God. God walked around in the Garden and talked to Adam before they were kicked out. But after the sin, they no longer had that relationship. Therefore, the sin they committed did lead to their death. The death of immortal life and a life with God.

Next up comes Jesus. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” Jesus died so that we might live. Everyone would agree with me when I say that Christ took our punishment for our sins upon himself on the cross. This had to happen because again, the wages of sin is death. But, if Jesus took the curse for us, we do we still die by the curse? If Jesus died so that we don’t have to, why is my grandmother not alive right now? If Jesus was supposed to take our punishment, why will I never see the age of 100? This is because the definition of death, used in these contexts, being a stoppage of the heart is wrong. What death actually means is a lack of immortal life, a life without God. This means, that if Christ really did take away the punishment of death then Jesus had to have lost eternal life, to be without God. This, as it turns out, is exactly what happened. Jesus did lose his eternal life; that is the whole reason why Jesus had to be resurrected from the dead! If he had not lost his life, the resurrection would not have much meaning. Also, we know from what Jesus said when he was on the cross: “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me,” that Jesus was without God for a certain period of time. It all makes sense! Again, Jesus was resurrected so that he could be with the Father!

Now, I would like to focus on verses Paul writes that explain this matter further. One verse that I like to point out is Ephesians 2:12-13 which says, “Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and WITHOUT GOD in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” This verse shows how we were once without God, which by definition is: dead. We were dead because we were without God, but because Jesus came we are made alive. This is what it means when the bible says, “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in our transgressions” (Ephesians 2:4-5). Also, in Colossians it says, “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins” (Colossians 3:13). Add this with Romans 8:10-11 which says: “10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.” These two verses make it evident that before Christ comes in us we are dead, and once he joins us we are made alive. Therefore, this death that these verses are talking about is not a medical death, but a death of eternal life and/or a life without God.

How we know Paul preached a new gospel

Did Paul preach the same gospel as Jesus? Did he preach the same gospel as Peter? Throughout his letters Paul makes many attempts to get people to see that his message is new and different. We will see how Paul’s use of the terms “my gospel,” “mystery,” and “revelation” gives proof to the fact that Paul preached something new. We will also use logic to show why Paul does preach something different.

First off, let’s start with the obvious. Jesus had 11 or 12 disciples (depending whether or not you want to include Mathias) that followed him and agreed with his teaching. So, why didn’t Jesus choose 1 or more of them to spread the gospel to the Gentiles? He had 11 perfectly capable men who were more than willing to preach the good news, so why did Jesus pick someone new to spread the “gospel of the grace of God?” (Acts 20:24). It only makes sense that Jesus wanted another Gospel preached as to why he chose a new man. But was there a different Gospel to preach, other than the one the disciples knew, the one Jesus preached to them? Yes there was, and that gospel was one centered around God’s grace. The fact that Jesus had to die, and his death and resurrection led the way to everyone’s salvation. Jesus became the curse for which we were under because we sin, he then died to take the punishment of that curse, and rose 3 days later so that we, too, might live again with him. And to accept what Jesus has done for us all we have to do is put our complete trust in him and his finished work on the cross, and that no works we do can take part in our attempt at salvation. This sounds so obvious to us, we’ve been taught this for most of our lives, and a lot of people thought the disciples knew this too. But, as I shall show you, they had no idea.

Twice in Mark and twice in Luke the Bible shows us that the disciples did not understand the fact that Jesus had to die. In Mark 8:31 it says, “He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” This passage goes to show that the disciples did not know that Jesus must die and rise again. They did not want Jesus to die and Peter thought it would be stupid if Jesus did die. It follows that if the disciples did not know that Jesus had to die then they did not know what Jesus’ death would actually do for all believers. They did not know what God wanted, as shown by the bolded/underlined verse, but they had in mind only what they wanted. Next, in Mark 9:31 it says, “… ‘The Son of Man is going to be delivered over to human hands. He will be killed, and after three days he will rise.’ But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.” Again, we see here that the disciples did not know or realize that Jesus had to die. Even after Jesus told them this second time, they still did not see it. Not only did they not know what Jesus meant, but they did not even ask him. These verses clearly show us that the disciples were in the dark when it came to Jesus’ death and therefore did not know what his death would do.

Continuing on with Luke in the first passage we will look at is 9:43 which says, “While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be delivered over into human hands.” But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.” More proof that not only did the disciples not know what Jesus meant but that God the meaning from them on purpose. God did not want them to know what Jesus’ death and resurrection was all about. It was not for the 12 to know what God had in mind so the God could reveal it to Paul. Yet again in Luke 18:31 we see the same story: “Jesus took the 12 aside and told them, ‘We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.’ The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.” This is the final time I am going to say this: The disciples did not know that Jesus had to die. They did not realize what the significance was in Jesus’ death and resurrection, as these 4 passages pointed out. Why? Because God did not want them to know.

God now moves on to establish a new dispensation. This time all will be saved solely by placing their faith in Jesus, and not by works. This is God’s gift of grace. Nothing we do can help us attain salvation; it is all about what Jesus did. Now, God has to make this known to everyone, and that is why he chooses someone new to reveal this mystery to. Now I will go through the reasons we can know that Paul preached a different gospel.

First, I will start with the fact that Paul proclaims the massage he teaches as “my gospel.” In Romans 2:16 Paul says, “This will take place on the day when God judges everyone’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.” Again, in 2 Timothy 2:8 he says, “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal.” And finally, in Romans 16:25-26 Paul says, “Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all Gentiles might come to faith and obedience.” These verses, and especially the last one, clearly show that what Paul preaches is his gospel and no one else’s. God revealed it only to him and it was revealed when God wanted it to be. Who else uses the term “my gospel”? No one! Now, let’s go through that last verse word by word. Once Paul uses the term “my gospel” he then goes on to explain what that is. Paul’s gospel is the massage he proclaims about Jesus Christ. What does Paul preach about Jesus? That he paid the punishment for our sins with his death and that his resurrection allows us to live with him also, and that all we must do is believe in him. Then Paul in this verse says that his gospel is “the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past.” We all know what Paul means by “revelation” because in Acts we hear the story of how Jesus revealed a message to Paul. Now, the mystery which was hidden is exactly what Paul preaches now; that Faith alone in Christ will save us because of what Jesus’ death and resurrection meant. The next words used in this verse are important and usually skipped. They are: “but now.” These two words put together mean that the object in the sentence did not exist prior to a certain period, though the event does exist after that period. To put it another way, the message or mystery Paul preached was not made known prior to Paul BUT NOW the mystery or message is made known. The plan behind Jesus’ death was not known before Paul, but has now been made known to Paul through the revelation. Soon after these words comes “by the command of the eternal God” which shows us why this mystery hadn’t been known before- because God did not want it to be made known. When Paul is converted God commands the mystery to be made known through the revelation Paul receives.

Paul uses the word “mystery” 15 times, and all are talking about the revelation of Jesus’ being the final piece of salvation. Let’s look at Romans 11:25 first. “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not think you are superior: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in, and in this way all of Israel shall be saved.” Now, this verse has a lot in it, but I only want to focus on the surface level of the mystery. The mystery here, which is part of the full mystery made known to Paul, is that Israel has experienced a hardening in part. Did Jesus ever preach that Israel would experience a hardening in part? Did Jesus even mention Gentiles coming in? No, he did not. This is part of the mystery that was revealed only to Paul. Now, don’t get me wrong, Jesus knew what would happen, but he did not preach it. He left it to his father’s plan, which was to reveal it to Paul. Now onto Ephesians 3:2-6 which says, “2Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. 6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” The first thing we see in these verses is that the administration (dispensation in KJV) of God’s grace was given to Paul for us. Wow, this clearly portrays the teachings of the grace of God given to Paul, not to Peter or James or the rest of the disciples. Paul then reiterated that the mystery was made known to him by revelation, not by anyone on earth telling him. Peter didn’t tell him, nor did anyone else. In verse 5 Paul tells us that the mystery was not made known to men in other generations. Meaning that anyone who came before Paul did not know the mystery of God’s grace. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs with Israel. Now ask yourself, did Jesus ever preach that the Gentiles would be heirs also? No, he did not.

One more thing I want to show is that Peter, even after Christ died, did not realize the mystery of the gospel of the grace of God. In Romans 14:20 it says that, “all food is clean” which is contrary to what Leviticus says, but we know that the death and resurrection of Christ, along with God’s grace, changed many things. This is why Paul now says that all food is clean. But, if we look back at Acts chapter 10 we see Peter’s vision. In this vision Peter is told to kill and eat the animals that God sets down before him. But, Peter responds by saying, “Surely not Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” By which God responds with, “Do not call anything impure that God had made clean.” This discussion happens three times then God just lifts the animals away. The passage shows us the Peter still did not understand the mystery that God had kept hidden until revealed to Paul. Therefore Paul and Peter must have preached different things.

Finally, the last point I would like you to consider is that Paul says the word “grace” 87 times to show how we are saved today (grace through faith). But Jesus never mentions the word grace in his earthly ministry. Therefore we must realize that the two were preaching different ways of attaining salvation.

Do Paul and James Contradict?

Throughout my study of the Bible I have seen the various ways Paul tries to get the point across that we, as Gentile believers, are saved by “grace through faith” and not by works. (Ephesians 2:8). All throughout his letters you see him rebuking the different nations for digressing back to works based salvation. The Galatians thought they had to be circumcised and the Corinthians thought they had to speak in tongues. No matter how many times Paul preaches that we are saved solely through God’s grace, some people still don’t get it. So, after reading Paul’s letters I skipped to the book of James and saw many things that are the exact opposite of what Paul preached, but then looking back at the first verse I knew that James was speaking to the “12 tribes of Israel” meaning the Jews. That explains the contradictions. But the purpose of the paper is not to prove that different books are written to different people as 2 Timothy 2:15 says, I will leave that for another paper, but to prove that James and Paul preach opposite messages, in terms of salvation.

First, I’ll start by laying down some key verses found in the books of Paul that most of us already know. Romans 3:28 says, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” Therefore, our faith must not rest upon observance of the law, and observance of the law =works. This is shown in Romans 4:4-5 when it says “Now to anyone who works, their wages are not credited to then as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to anyone who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.” So, our works have NOTHING to do with salvation. Verse 4 says that when someone works they are owed money, and therefore it is not a gift. If I work 10 hours at McDonalds they will give me $70, not because they want to throw money away, but because they owe me. They are required to give me money based on my actions. In terms of salvation, Paul tells us that God’s grace is a free gift and cannot be earned. Nothing we can do can merit grace. Grace is not owed to us because of our actions; therefore we must have complete faith in Jesus’ finished work and realize there is nothing we can do to achieve salvation. Verse 5 clearly portrays this when it says “to anyone who DOES NOT WORK…” So, can works be any part of attaining righteousness? Can it be .0001%? No! Romans 11:6 says, “And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.” You can’t have part works and part grace; according to the definition Paul’s gives us, that is impossible. It’d either 100% grace or 100% works, the 2 cannot be combined. In order to attain righteousness we must not work, but trust God. Is this saying not to do any good works ever? No. Once we are saved, and even before, we should do good works, but those works should not ever be mixed with our perception of salvation.

Romans 9:16 says, “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” This also testifies to the fact that not even a desire to do what is good can save us. God’s mercy is all that can save us. Faith, putting your trust in God and Jesus, is the only way to be saved; nothing you do, but believing in what Christ did. Christ did all the work for you; just believe that and you in. Romans 10:4 reiterates that point when it says, “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” Christ fulfilled the law FOR us; we don’t have to do anything! Just believe. Galatians 3:3 says, “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?” Human effort is what Paul is trying to steer away from (again, I am only talking in terms of salvation.) God’s grace requires and demands no effort on our part. Nothing we can do can help us attain salvation.

I hope it is clear to everyone that we are saved by faith alone. Faith in Jesus and God’s grace. No amount of works can help us, or should be done, to attain righteousness.

Now, onto James. Here, I will start with a bang to keep you interested. Do you believe we are saved by faith alone? If so, then why does James in 2:24 say, “You see that people are justified by what they do and NOT BY FAITH ALONE.” Paul clearly says we are justified by faith alone, but James says we aren’t (they must be talking to 2 different people). Now, for some other verses in James. Chapter 2 verse 12 says, “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law…” Now, according to Paul, do you think we should act as if we are going to be judged by the law? I don’t think so. We should act as if we are saved by God’s grace, not judged by the law, but called to do good works. Then move down to verse 14 which states, “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if people claim to have faith but have no deeds (NIV or “works” in KJV)? Can such faith save them?” The implicit answer is no. So what James is saying that faith without works cannot save you. This goes against what Paul says in Ephesians 2:8. This point is reiterated in James 2 verse 17: “In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” But Romans 9:19 told us it did not depend on human effort. James literally says works MUST accompany faith, or that faith is dead, Again, James preached faith + works; not faith alone. One last time James says in 2:26, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” I don’t think it can be spelled out more clearly that James believes salvation/righteousness = faith +works.

Now comes the confusing part, but eye opening once you understand it. Both James and Paul use the story of Abraham to back up their points. In Romans chapter 4. In verse 3 Paul writes, “What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.’” In verse 13 he says “It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would he heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.” Verse 16 says, “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace…” Paul shows us continually that is was strictly Abrahams’ faith that saved him and not any works. Not let’s go to James. 2:20-22 says: “You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our fat her Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the alter? You see that his faith and his actions were working TOGETHER, and his faith was made complete by what he DID.” So, James is saying that Abrahams’ works + faith gave him righteousness. So, is Paul or James correct, being that they say 2 opposite things?

Well as it turns out, unsurprisingly, they were both right. Paul recounts the story in Genesis 15 and James recounts the story in Genesis 22. So was Abraham declared righteous twice? Yessir. Romans 4:11 says “…So then he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised (Gentiles), in order that righteousness might be credited to them. AND he is then also the father of the circumcised (Jews) who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.” Continuing in verse 16; “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring- not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written ‘I have made you a father of many nations.’” So, why did Abraham have to be declared righteous twice? So he could be the father of all who believe. In order to be the Gentile’s father he must be justified by faith. And in order to be the father of the Jews he must be justified by faith + works.

Finally, I think it is correct to say that Paul and James preached different messages in terms of salvation. Paul said we just need faith. James said it is faith + works. These 2 messages do not conflict with one another because Paul is talking to the Gentiles and James it talking to the Jews.

Timeline

Why the Serpent is Satan.

Why the Serpent in Genesis chapter 3 is Satan

I. The serpent will be crushed under a man’s foot
A. Verse 15 says And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
1. The women’s offspring will eventually entail Jesus’ birth. And Jesus will defeat Satan.
2. Romans 16:20 says “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.” This shows that God will crush Satan’s head under Eve’s offspring’s feet.
I. Orginial Liar
a. John 8:44 says “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
i. The Serpent is the original liar, The original liar is Satan. Satan is the serpent.

II. The Book of Revelation
a. Revelation 12:9 “The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”
b. Revelation 20:2 “He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

III. Satan has only directly tempted God’s “sons” or the sinless
a. It is a fact that Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness. Jesus was perfect/sinless and God’s creation and had an obligation to fill, ordered by God. So Satan tried to destroy all that.
b. Who else was God’s creation? Who else was perfect/sinless? Who else had an obligation to God? And who was tempted in order to destroy all of that? Adam!
IV. Parallels between the beginning and end of chapters in Genesis.
a. Genesis 1
i. Beginning = starting creation
ii. End = finishing creation
b. Genesis 2
i. Beginning = Heaven AND earth were finished
ii. End = Man AND wife come together to become one (finished)
c. Genesis 4
i. Eve gave birth to Cain, and praised to Lord
ii. Seth gave birth to Enosh, and praised the Lord
d. Genesis 5
i. Self explanatory, it’s a list of Adam’s descendents
e. Genesis 6
i. Beginning = People began to multiply; Fulfilling what God commanded them to do
ii. End = “Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him”
f. Back to Genesis 3
i. Beginning = “Now the serpent was more craft than any other wild animal”
ii. End =Cherubim (4 faces, 3 being animals) and flaming sword
iii. This leads us to believe that there was something mystical/other-worldly characteristics of this serpent; which would point to Satan.
V. Dust
a. “and dust you shall eat all the days of your life” [serpent]
b. “you are dust and to dust you shall return” [man]
c. Satan feeds off of sinful people/actions. When the sinful man dies, he is together with Satan.
VI. How the stories go
a. Who is the Bad guy in this story? [serpent]
b. Who is the bad guy in the Bible? [Satan]
c. Serpent = Satan