Friday, October 14, 2016

Sabbath posts

The Sabbath is considered a morality dispute to many Christians.  But for various reasons I tend to wind up discussing it on my Prophecy Blog, because anything about The Calendar is potentially Prophetic.  So I figured I'd share some posts here.

In which I argue against the notion that The New Testament calls for Sunday Worship.

In which I address the SDA desire to connect it to The Mark.

In which I argue against those saying Jesus rose on The Sabbath not Sunday.

In which I address the Lunar Sabbath theory.

In which I revisit my view on The Sabbath's role in the Passion narrative.

In which I discus The Sabbath's connection to The Manna.

The last half of those I made within the last week.  They may be subject to some editing in the near future.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Using The Cross as a symbol of our Faith

There are lots of Christians out there today who want to reject it.  Not all advocating for some other symbol in it's place, many arguing that using Symbols is itself inherently Occult and so not something Christians should do.

The thing about Occult Symbolism is it involves a belief the symbol itself has Magical power.  I have said firmly that things like the mere sight of a Cross repelling Vampires is an inherently pagan philosophy, so I find it funny when I see Christians complain about the Cross losing it's power in much modern Vampire fiction.

And the thing with Secret Societies who may not always take the supernatural seriously.  Is that the symbols are meant to conceal not reveal, only those in the know should recognize it.  What The Cross means to a Christians is not hidden, we seek to make it common knowledge.

A Christian wearing a Cross is just a way to communicate that we're Christians as soon as we're seen.

Symbolism can be used in a purely text format.  And Paul does use The Cross as a symbol of the Gospel in passages like 1 Corinthians 1:17-18.
"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
And Galatians 5:11 and 6:12-14.
"As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.  For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.  But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."
And Ephesians 2:16.

And Philippians 2:8 and 3:18-19.
"For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."
And Colossians 1:20 and 2:14.
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"
Hebrews 12:2 is arguably being literal not Symbolic.

And all that is why I favor The Cross over the other two symbols that are sufficiently Ancient, The Chi-Rho Sign and the Ichys Fish.  Because Paul himself used it as a symbol of the Gospel he preached repeatedly.

But what about the question of if we depict The Cross accurately?  Regardless of if The Cross Jesus was on actually looked like the common symbol we use (The argument that it looked like an X is compelling), that that shape resembles the original Paleo-Hebrew design of the Tav, the last letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, I consider a valid Judeo-Christian basis for it.  In a Paleo-Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 three Tavs appear, the middle one being the untranslated Aleth-Tav in the exact middle of the verse.

Then there is the theory that the Israelites encampment in The Wilderness would have had a similar shape.

I sometimes I hear from Torah Observant Christians, "Why would I use a symbol of suffering and death?"  That happens to resemble how Muslims and sometimes Mormons criticize The Gospel.  And frankly that attitude is exactly what 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 is directed against.

Like many things certain groups don't like, there is a desire to blame it on Constantine.  Constantine didn't use it however, he used the Chi-Rho sign.   As far as state sponsored Christianity goes the first to put Crosses on it's coins as the Kingdom of Aksum in Africa, the same people who claim to have The Ark, makes you wonder doesn't it?

Carving of Crosses go back before that however.

None of this is an argument you HAVE to go around using The Cross as a symbol, I am not a Legalist.  This is simply saying symbolism isn't Bad, and refuting those who would go around shaming Christian for using a Cross.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

What does being Worldly actually mean?

In the Christians community today we love to quote verses like 1 John 2:15.
"If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
2 Timothy 4:10
"For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world"
And John 15:19
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."
But the perception seems to have become that these verses are primarily about enjoying Secular entertainment media, and such things.  While those can be a factor, they are not the point.

The word for World in the verses from John is Kosmos.  The Greek etymology of that word implies order, it has been taken to mean "the ordered system of the world".

This is same word where Satan is called the Ruler of the World.  These about how Satan owns all the nations of the World.

So when you read "Love not the World" remember then The United States of America is part of that world.

For more elaboration read my earlier posts.  Patriotic Idolatry and Standing for The National Anthem is Idolatry.

Believes are not Citizens of The World or any Earthly Nation, but of The Kingdom that is NOT of This World.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Standing for the National Anthem is Idolatry.

This whole outrage over Kaepernick just further proves the point I was trying to make in my Patriotic Idolatry post.

Regardless of Kapernick's political motivation to protest it (which I am very sympathetic towards, I support Black Lives Matter).   The very fact that so many supposed Christians are so offended by the idea of someone not doing it is what proves the Flag is an Idol to them.

So NO, I will NEVER again stand for the National Anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance or do any other such acts of worship that makes the Nation State itself a god.

And when someone tries to guilt you about how it's disrespectful to Solders or 9/11 victims, you should ask them if they're Catholic and think we're supposed to pray for the dead?  Because that's literally the same superstitious thinking they're using.  None of these rituals can bring the dead back.

I feel guilty about all the election related posts I made this year.  I got suckered in again when the truth is for a while now I've felt that Christians should not even think of themselves as citizens of any Earthly Nation.  That the Anabaptists had it right, we should obey the law so long as it doesn't conflict with following our Faith, but should also always remember that all Nations are ruled by Satan till the Second Coming, without exception.

We're supposed to be Citizens of God's Kingdom which is currently not of this world.  So being Patriotic and being a good Bible Believing Christian are mutually exclusive.  We should never Pledge Allegiance to any piece of cloth.

And we love to cite Biblical commands against swearing oaths when we talk about Freemasonry, but forget that being an elected official, or a Solider, or testifying in Court also requires swearing an Oath.  I think maybe we should consider those things just as wrong for a Christian to do as Freemasonry.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Paul said there is neither Male nor Female in The Church

Galatians 3:28.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
I've mentioned this verse before discussing The Bible on Traditional Gender Roles.  And maybe this post risks retreading that same ground.

But I want to rant on how I'm tired of "Traditionalists" saying this is only about how anyone can get Saved.  No, it's not, the context of verses 25-27 are clear, this is about after we're Saved.

But the hypocrisy is that this isn't how anyone applies the references in the same verse to "Jew nor Greek(Gentile)" or "Bond nor Free".

Dispensationists like Chuck Missler are all about how The Church is a new entity and when you're in it you're neither Jew or Gentile, and so no one regardless of ancestry has to follow The Law.  While Hebrew Roots style Christians like Rob Skiba are all about how Gentiles are grafted into Israel and so everyone regardless of ancestry has to follow The Torah.

Neither supports saying believers can be distinguished between Jew and Gentile.  I don't fully fit into either of those camps but sympathize with aspects of both.

But plenty of both those camps want to cling to separate laws for men and women regarding how to dress and so on.

It is interesting that Chapter 4 keeps using the word "Son" and male pronouns, in-spite of just making clear females are included.  But remember the last verse of chapter 3 is about how we are all made spiritually Abraham's Seed, like what Roman 9-11 is about.

Yes the world into which they (and us still) were born was a patriarchal one.  And those norms influenced even the Hebrew Bible, but in Hebrews Paul calls The Law of Moses imperfect and says The Law is now written on our Hearts.  And I've talked before about how gender issues show those imperfections.

So just as Gentiles can now have the Blessings promised to Abraham, (which was always the plan in Genesis 12) so now has Christ allowed Women the Freedoms that only Men could have before.  Now also for both of those one could argue that comes with increased responsibilities, but that's for a separate debate about The Law under The New Covenant.

 I've also talked about how the marriage of Genesis 2 was equal unlike Genesis 3.

There are New Testament verses that get used to support patriarchal norms also, how do I address those?

A lot of what's said about Marriage is in the context of discussing The Church as The Bride of Christ, using an Old Testament custom as an illustration of a New Testament doctrine.  Others may be there just because they were living in a world that is patriarchal still.  And we also need to remember that there are words translated "Man" that are meant to be gender neutral.

I believe The Bible is consistent with itself, and Galatians 3:28 is the most unambitious statement on this issue.  And I think it ties in with how there were no separate courts for Women or Gentiles in Ezekiel's Temple.

Others have also blogged on this subject, the details often differing from my views but the gist being the same.  Here is one example, and another from the same blog.  And I read this interesting post on naming conventions.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

The Libertarian Party seems to be the only third party making any effort to do more then just Presidential election

That is something I've noticed as I try to look into state and local elections.

The Green Party seems to naturally want the President to solve everything on their own.  But it's funny that the Constitution Party is the one that most preaches the value of states rights, based on their Paleo-Conservative interpretation of the 10th Amendment, but they are making no no effort to win State elections.

I happen to live in Paul Ryan's congressional district,  So this November I'll have the opportunity to vote for Jason Lebeck for Ryan's Congressional seat, and Phil Anderson for Senate.

August 9th (this Tuesday) will be the Primary for those elections.  And I'm considering voting for Paul Nehlen just to further stick it to Ryan.  If by some chance Ryan lost the primary, the chaos that would create would further open the door for Lebeck.  Wisconsin is an open Primary, so if you're going to vote for a not Republican no mater what, take the opportunity to stick it to Ryan.

For the Senate primary however, Ron Johnson has no Republican opposition, and the not establishment pick Democrat is Scott Harbach, who is frankly what I call a Trump Democrat.  So don't vote for him, make your Protest vote a write in, Incitatus always works for Senate.

Returning to Third Parties.  When Third Parties became major parties in the 1800s, it was from gaining ground up success and support in Congress first.  The desire to put all efforts into just the Presidency is part of what current ones are doing wrong.  Even the Libertarian Party to an extent.

Vote Third Party for President, but support any Third Party running locally too.  We need to break this system.

In places where the Libertarians are the only Third Option.  I know my Liberal friends despise the Economic and Gun policy of Libertarians, but they are the true Pacifists on Foreign Policy, and do not compromise on individual Liberty, things like LGBT rights and ending the Drug War, and they can be trusted more on those issues then Democrats.  So yes vote Green Party if you're a progressive and it's an option, but if not vote Libertarian, you have much to gain and nothing to lose.

Immigration and Abortion are the two most notable issues Libertarians are divided on.  And sadly it seems the above mentioned Wisconsin candidates seem to lean to the right on those (while Gary Johnson and Weld themselves are Liberals on those issues).  But they will still be much more reasonable on those issues then a Republican party lead by Trump.