A little Bible study on The Book of Revelation and if Jesus is violent of not.

OK... Bible lesson here.

In Revelation, "The Lion and The Lamb" are the same but the thing is it was expected, as it was the first time Jesus appeared, that this Messiah would be a Lion. He was, except this Lion was ALSO, The Lamb.

To make Jesus The Lamb and “The Violent Lion” missed the entire point of Revelation. The Unveiling of Jesus is about The Lamb being King of Kings. To use this verse to justify Jesus being violent is actually the opposite it teaches.

Read it but look closely at verses 5, 6, 7, 8:

Revelation 5:

1.  And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll written inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2.  Then I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll and to loose its seals?''

3.  And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, or to look at it.

4.  So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it.

5.  But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.''

6.  And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7.  Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

 8.  Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9.  And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10.  and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth.''

11.  Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, 12.  saying with a loud voice: "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing!'' 13.  And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever!''

 14.  Then the four living creatures said, "Amen!'' And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever.

Notice the Lamb is Worthy to sit on the Throne AFTER He was called the Lion of Judah? And later, how did Jesus overcome the devil and evil? Read on… for this is THE KEY that unlocks and reveals Jesus for Who He Is..

Revelation 12:10.  Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.

 11.  "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

We overcame not by power of might but by the Blood of the Lamb and our word of testimony… ummm. Nope, you see no guns or violence in this verse. Again, twisting this verse is the OPPOSITE the Book is revealing. To make it a book that justifies war and violence is antichrist.

In fact, the prophetic word of Isaiah is very clear on the topic of Jesus being violent or not. Isaiah states that the REAL Messiah would be non-violent. Read it:

Isaiah 53: 9. And they made His grave with the wicked but with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth.

Conclusion:

If you believe in Violent Jesus, you are worshipping a false Jesus. You are not following or believe in the Real Jesus who was non-violent.

Before you respond (as opposed to attack), take time to study this out and see I am not pushing a false narrative. Deal with the verses and your OWN theological breakdown of the verses and see your view is simply wrong.

God or Angels - the Law of Moses

I even fell for it. People use the clearing of the temple as a rationalization for violence. I mean if Jesus is violent then we have a great fake story in the Book of Revelation. However, the bible speaks clearly of Jesus in prophecy.

Therefore, either Jesus was violent and the bible lies or Jesus was not violent.

Since Jesus is the image of the Father and His representation, then God is not violent.

So, again, if Jesus represents the Father and the bible states Jesus was NOT violent - then what do we do with all the OT violence that is supposedly from God?

Acts 7 has some interesting thoughts. The Law of Moses came not from God but through angels. The violence of the OT is often because of Angels and not directly God.

Isaiah 53: 9.  And they made His grave with the wicked but with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth.

Acts 7: 35 "This Moses whom they rejected, saying, `Who made you a ruler and a judge?' is the one God sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush.

Exodus 3:2 2.  And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.

To be like God? Or, to be fully human?

I was taught, as a young believer, I was to "become more like God". This ever sat well for me. I mean, that sounded like what the serpent stated in the Garden, "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.''

Now, wanting to “be like God” is not a bad thing, unless your God is also bad. However, if God is God, and you want to be God or a god, then one of you is off a bit.

I also had an issue as Adam and Eve would not have a point of reference in the meaning of "disobedience". Later, as they told the story to Cain and Able, both of these sons would have the reference of their parents mistake. However, for God to "punish" for just being "disobedient", then God just may be unjust. If it is for "blame shifting" and not taking responsibility then we have reasons for the consequences humanity suffered from our inability to take responsibility for our own actions. To blame someone else, who is the image of God, is to blame God and say He is not worthy to be our God.

It took me many years to come to terms that to believe I am to become more “god-like” or “like God” was a lie and that Jesus teaches us to be “more human”.

In addition, I was taught, the original sin was disobedience. I do not see that. I see Adam adding words to God’s warning and then blaming Eve, who then blames the serpent that God put in the garden. That is the sin. Blame shifting. Not taking responsibilities for our actions is “the sin”.

Where does grace fit in this? It fits by means of humility. If one is proud and demanding to be honored as a god-like being, God resists the proud and arrogant. If one is humble, God gives grace. The trick is, humility, is not easily manufactured, and usually comes through much pain and suffering. Much like the suffering Jesus endured, though most likely not a severe.

we learn empathy through feeling pain. We grow and learn to love others when we see ourselves as fellow humans on this planet instead of “god” and those that worship him or her.

If you take time to examine what you actually believe versus what you were taught – how much would stand? 

The Nashville Statement versus the bible Part 1. (edited)

There is a lot of talk about this “Nashville Statement” (NS), but does it hold up to what the bible actually says and teaches? Over the next few weeks I will explore how “off” these evangelicals are in their signing of this ‘hate document”. For starters, we are looking at a Jewish system of belief that forbid the heterosexual men to have same-sex with men… as that is unnatural. It also  prohibits sex in any form  in pagan worship.

Article 1.

WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church.

WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.

My Response: There are only two verse in the whole bible that remotely states this – but only by interpretation. Jesus states: Matthew 19 (also in Mark 10 the same story):


3.  The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?'' 
 4.  And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning `made them male and female,' 
 5.  "and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 
 6.  "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.'' 
 7.  They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?'' 

 8.  He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 

This verse is not “anti-gay” but anti-divorce. To twist it to mean “anti-gay” means you do not honor the texts context. Jesus is not saying this is the only “marriage” but that a man and woman join together to procreate and stay together and not divorce as they have become “one flesh”. In Jesus day, if a woman was divorced she would have nothing to turn to but prostitution or begging. If a man divorces his wife and leaves her this way then that is the “sin” of this passage and not “homosexuality”.

Meanwhile, marriage in the bible had “polygamous, or polyamorous relationship(s)” all throughout it. You even have King David sleep with, get pregnant, and have murdered, the husband of Bathsheba – and yet, somehow, David is a “man after God’s own heart”. We see the patriarchs have multiple wives, (though it never works out that great). To deny these are also "biblical marriages" that were allowed by God and the Jewish faith is to also dishonor the history and reality the scripture presents. 

Even in the New Testament, Jesus never states that a man cannot have more than one wife – but that a man and wife should not divorce as in the passage above. To use this scripture in the way it is on the Nashville Statement is unBiblical and even goes against the teaching of Jesus as one must pervert His words to make it mean as those who signed this trash want to make it mean.

Jesus and Paul never stated a man could not have more than one wife. Paul’s only limitation was that if a man wanted to be a leader in the church he must only have one wife. To make the bible say what it does not is twisting the verses to fit one’s one desires and beliefs… but thankfully the bible does not say what these people claim it to say. 

On the idea that marriage is not a contract but a covenant? It is a legal contract and that contract is man-made. Adam and Eve never went before a judge and signed a document. Therefore, with the logic of the NS, Adam and Eve were never married but created for each other so Adam would have a suitable mate. In other words,  Eve was given to Adam to procreate as Adam did not see any other "animals" that would be acceptable. (think about that one - we could be arguing that a marriage between a man and rhino as a traditional marriage.

One last thought Galatians 3:

 26.  For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 

 27.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 

 28.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 

 29.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

If we are now "in Christ" then there is no separation of male or female as we are all one in Christ. This verse alone stands against the bulk of the Nashville Statement... of which I will discuss next week.

Bonus: If anyone says I am justifying divorce here, and one person accused me of that, I am not. I am stating that the verse often used to clobber the gay community is not about gay people. It is about divorce and as you can see, Jesus did not like it and neither do I. 

You're a marshmallow!

(source)

Years ago... I mean like way back in 1983/84 I had the pleasure of hearing Brother Jed and Sister Cindy (the disco queen) do some street preaching. They would show up and shout all sorts of horrible things like, "You dress like a whore" and the female students. They would go on and on about how everyone one was "going to hell". I even heard brother Jed, during a q and a state, "The ONLY godly form of economics is capitalism." Even after the Montana State University police escorted Brother Jed and Cindy off campus they still came back. Even the fellow students began to repeat the catch phrases... "I was a disco queen" and the crowd said it with Cindy... You are all "going to hell"... as the crowd said it with her. If they had not been so obnoxious I might have felt sorry for these two street evangelists.

After a long tirade on how everyone was a sinner and was "going to hell" I got sick of them only saying half the gospel, (yes we are all sinners - who deserve the judgment for our transgressions and I still believe that though I may not agree in how God will do that). I to shout, "Everyone knows they are sinners. They get that... but why don't you tell them how to get saved? Why don't you tell them about Jesus?"

Sister Cindy turned toward me in here religious fiery... and shouted at me.... "You know what you are!?!? You're a marshmallow!"
I laughed and said.... "Tell them about Jesus."


http://www.brojed.org/cms/

Trump and Tolerance

If you preach tolerance, then why are you not tolerant about Trump? Yeah… that is the question that some ask. First, the very fact the question is asked, means you are living in a world of privilege and do not even know it. Here is the definition: tol·er·ance ˈtäl(ə)rəns/Noun 1.the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. "the tolerance of corruption" synonyms: acceptance, toleration; More 2.an allowable amount of variation of a specified quantity, especially in the dimensions of a machine or part. Now, I tolerate someone who I see does not want to be part of the “good” that would add to society instead of trying to make it worse. The cartoon is an example. I tolerate and would even fight for the KKK to speak their hate as well as teach their hateful beliefs. However, if they do kill someone, they cross theline. Trump, is tolerable when he is not in a power position that can harm many people. Trump has done many things (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2017/04/26/431299/100-ways-100-days-trump-hurt-americans/) that has made it harder to do things like pay a house payment or even buy a house. In fact, during the election he joked that the housing crisis “was a good thing for him” as thousands of people lost their homes. Talk about being in touch with “the people.” Now, if Trump lived in a way that did not harm so many people them he would be “tolerated.” However, when someone is harming people then tolerance is not something that can happen… as Trump (or someone like him) negate it by their actions. It is like this. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement wants people to know that black people are being killed/murdered and we need to change something. Instead, there was the response of “all lives matter” where I even bought into it until I found out it was to negate the need to change the cop killing that is happening. Then the police began a “blue lives matter” in another attempt to negate the problem. Now, people are all, “BLM supported killing cops”. No, not at first, but after three more deaths and not one cop charged, the anger rose to that point. Was it right? No. However, JUST THE FACT THERE IS THE BLM movement show there is an issue as there would be NO NEED for BLM if there were not an issue. Think about that before you respond. There IS A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS ADDRESSING and pointing to things or people in the movement only proves that there is an issue… Back to tolerance. Jesus loves EVERYONE! He does. However, just as not all will ove Jesus that does not negate His love or that we love others. Sometimes, as with Trump, or other “Christians” who claim Jesus but then turn their backs on the poor, hungry, sick, and anyone else Jesus taught us to reach out to andlove – in a very anti-Christ way – we need to stand up and cry, “evil” when it happens. Now, for those who now think that after eight years of criticizing Obama that now we “must accept Trump as our president” I say, no. I do not need to accept him as President any more than Paul accepted Caesar as Lord. In fact, Paul was subversive to the point that he proclaims a phrase considered treason in Roman…“Jesus Christ is Lord” – and with that declaration, he stated that Caesar isnot Lord. Trump is not my president or Lord or anything but a reality TV star that had stupid people vote him in a position he has no qualifications to do.

Who was the Greatest Reformer?

Many just think of Calvin and Luther as the only Reformers. If I were to pick - Luther is good but not great but when i was looking at them Zwingli seemed to be closest to my thoughts. Funny thing is the assistant to Luther would take Zwingli's writings and promise to show Luther - but the assistant knew that Luther would through a fit when he read it. The assistant wanted to keep the two as distant friends who still mutually admired each other. 

Now, if I were to choose a great reformer Friedrich Myconius who kept that peace between the so-called "Great Reformers". When Friedrich Myconius became ill and believed he was dying he sent a note to Luther who replied, ""I command thee in the name of God to live because I still have need of thee in the work of reforming the church.… The Lord will never let me hear that thou art dead, but will permit thee to survive me. For this I am praying, this is my will, and may my will be done, because I seek only to glorify the name of God." He lived two more years and even outlived Luther by a couple of months.

A man of peace in a time of sometimes shameful arrogance over theology is my Reformer.

Picture by the original uploader was GregorHelms at German Wikipedia - Transferred from de.wikipedia to Commons by Magnus Manske using CommonsHelper., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7900903