#New Testament References to Luke

[seekingtheosis]

St. Luke the Evangelist - Healer, Historian, Iconographer

This blog post offers a comprehensive exploration of the life and significance of Saint Luke the Evangelist. It delves into his diverse roles as a healer, historian, and iconographer, shedding light on his contributions to early Christian literature and.

In the name of God the Father, Christ Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit, One True God. Amen Dear brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus IntroductionLife and MinistryNew Testament ReferencesGospel of LukeThe Universal SaviorParables of Mercy and ForgivenessThe Good SamaritanThe Ministry of HealingWomen in Luke’s GospelLuke – As a HistorianLuke – As an Artist Introduction On October 18, the…

View On WordPress

#Acts of the Apostles #Early Christian Literature #featured #Good Samaritan Parable #Gospel Authorship Traditions #Gospel of Luke #Iconography in Orthodox Christianity #Indian Orthodox Church #Luke the Physician #Luke&039;s Education and Background #Ministry of Healing Women in Luke&039;s Gospel #New Testament References to Luke #Orthodox faith #Parables of Mercy #Prodigal Son Parable #St. Luke as a Historian #St. Luke as an Artist #St. Luke the Evangelist #St. Luke&039;s Contribution to Christian Faith #St. Luke&039;s Gospel Themes #St. Luke&039;s Legacy in Christian Art and Writing #St. Luke&039;s Relationship with Apostle Paul

[beatrice-otter]

What's your expert opinion on the idea of Jesus and John being in a romantic relationship?

Never heard of this one before! But I'm pretty sure it's wishful thinking and projection.

I'm assuming that it's based on the whole Beloved Disciple thing? For those who aren't familiar, In the last several chapters of John, there are several references to a Disciple Whom Jesus Loved. He's cuddling with Jesus during the Last Supper, he's there at the feet of the cross (and Jesus tells him to take care of his mother Mary as if she was the disciples' own mother), he's one of the first witnesses to the Resurrection along with Peter and Mary Magdalene, couple of others. Traditionally believed to have been John, though Lazarus is also a strong contender. (Lazarus is the only person in the Gospel of John who is explicitly named as someone Jesus loves.) And then there's also the theory that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is a code for a reader-insert, because it applies to all Christians. We are all disciples (students) of Jesus, and he loves all of us.

Anyway, in the Last Supper the Beloved Disciple is "reclining on/at Jesus' breast/bosom/chest" and artists portray this as everything from sitting next to him to John's head in Jesus' lap. And any of these would be legitimate possible interpretations of the text.

But the thing to remember is that modern Western culture is very weird about men touching each other. We basically don't have any platonic physical contact between men, except for a quick hug with a backslap for Manliness. So there's a lot of things that we look at and go "aha! this must be Queerness!" and it's things that the culture in question would have thought was normal for men to do. Even if the guy really was lying with his head in Jesus' lap, it wouldn't necessarily be sexual ... and the Gospel author could just have meant they were sitting close together with the disciple in a favored seat. (In Luke 16, Jesus describes someone in heaven as being "in the bosom of Abraham" using a very similar phrase; I don't think he or the Gospel's author meant that being in heaven is having sexy cuddles with Abraham. Hilarious though that would be.) (You know what else is funny? Traditional Christian art about "the bosom of Abraham."

If you're looking for queer people in the New Testament, your best bet is the Roman centurion and his slave/servant. In Greco-Roman culture, being a male who was sexually penetrated was emasculating and made you lose massive status. So men who wanted male lovers would seldom have a lover of equal social status. Upper class men would take lovers from among their servants/slaves, and everyone would assume that the servant was the one being penetrated, and since the servant had less status to lose, that was fine. (The power dynamics involved are really awful.) Anyway, the centurion comes to ask Jesus to heal his slave--and makes kind of an elaborate production of it, so the slave must be really important to him. And he uses terminology that was sometimes applied to any slave ... but could also be used in reference to a rich man's low-class lover. It's circumstantial, but enough to make one wonder. (Jesus, by the way, heals the servant immediately; if there is queer subtext there, Jesus doesn't care.)

Because I can't not, here's some Bosom of Abraham art. We'll start with the ordinary:

and move on to the ridiculous:

(why do all the people look like babies in this one?)

#christianity #bible #bible scripture #jesus

[zehiiro]

Why I love 'The Book of Carol' title for S2

I feel like there's a lot of mixed opinions on the title 'The Book of Carol', and yes, it can easily be taken in many ways, but I'd like to talk about how I see it, and why I love it so much, and hopefully ease your minds a little.

In season 1 (specially in the marketing material) we have seen a lot of New Testament biblical references and I think this title is doing the same thing.

In the Bible the first 4 books of the New Testament are know as The Gospels and they are commonly known as:

The Book of Matthew

The Book of Mark

The Book of Luke

The Book of John

And these books are referred to in this way because their stories are told from the perspectives of Matthew, Mark, ... you get the idea.

Which leads me to believe that the reason season 2 is titled The Book of Carol is because it will be told mostly from her perspective, which is so perfect.

Season 1 was obviously mostly told from Daryl's perspective, and if done right, making season 2 from Carol's would lead to putting them both on an even field in season 3.

So that's my take on what it means, would love to know what you guys think.

#the book of carol #daryl dixon #carol peletier #caryl #the walking dead #twd #CarylArchives

[actualbird]

im beginning to doubt if luke packed like, an adequate amount of clothes in his luggage for this villa auction trip. because would he even have space for that given all the inVESTIGATION TOOLS HE BROUGHT ALONG WITH HIM?????

1 ) substance analyzer

(sidenote: how DID vyn know about this device??? what chemical testing adventures did luke and vyn get up to offscreen?????)

2 ) fingerprint testing kit

(sidenote: my buddy beckthebeetle said "how on earth did luke get a match for the prints if he cant connect to the internet???" which is such a good point and also so funny that i will be returning to it)

3 ) sAFE CRACKING TOOLS????

(sidenote: luke can crack safes. if he werent a government employee, he'd make SUCH a good master thief)

i know all these things are described as small, as they all somehow fit in a small bag he must have on-hand with him at all times (i cant believe luke pearce has the Bag Of Holding), but their size isnt my concern here. it's the fact that he Brought all of them. while they are all under the general category of Tools That Could Be Useful On An Investigation, their purposes and uses are wildly different, so it's simply a testament to how luke is bonkers (i say this oh so affectionately) and packing just anything and everything he thinks could POSSIBLY be useful later on. lest we all forget, he brought his resin kit to khaimit back in SOTT. so i wouldnt be surprised if he had a block of C4 tucked away in his luggage. just in case.

PLUS, luke brought peanut (arguably also an investigation tool but thats just a bonus, this bird is primarily an emotional support tool and also BirdSon) with him so he mustve brought peanut's food and treats because no matter how much he complains about peanut's chunkiness, he spoils that bird like nothing else. so i posit that his luggage is 40% tools + 40% peanut things + and 20% luke's actual day-to-day stuff that he brought along

and thus

luke: okay i need to ask a favor but none of you can tell mc, okay? does anyone have extra socks i can borrow?

artem, marius, vyn, taken aback because they thought with all the secrecy that it had something to do with luke's mysterious "vitamins" that he takes at HQ sometimes: socks???

luke: yeah, socks

artem: why?

luke: im out of socks

artem, who finds the concept of being underprepared to be unthinkable: youre out of socks? how??

vyn: i took you as somebody who was prepared for everything

marius: yeah, you brought safe cracking tools but you didnt bring socks?

luke: i brought...way more than just the safe cracking tools. which is probably why...i forgot to pack more socks

artem: how on earth were safe cracking tools higher on your list of priorities than socks?

vyn: in a similar vein, how was your chemical analyzer higher on that list of priorities too

luke: i know i know! but can we stop dissing on my lack of socks and start helping out with a collaborative solution to my lack of socks?

marius: and the fingerprint kit!!!---

luke: guys plEASE

marius: ---actually, wait a second. how did you get a match for sam zheng's fingerprint? theres no internet, you couldnt have connected to any databases to run that print through

luke: SOCKS. ANYBODY?

artem: no no, i was curious about that too, how did that work?

vyn: see this piece of information as your payment for the socks. quid pro quo

luke: you dont need the internet to create a new database of collected prints! okay, socks now, please? help?

artem: wait, no no. did you say 'create' a new database

vyn: and 'collected'

luke: ...............OKAY, LISTEN....

marius: oh my GOD? dude, did you fucking get everybody's prints at the villa???

luke: there was NOTHING TO DO for a few days and i was getting BORED doing NOTHING so might as well just lift everybody's prints from cutlery and furniture for future reference than do NOTHING but be alone with the fact im lacking SOCKS. SO CAN ANYBODY LEND ME SOME SOCKS ;-;

#tears of themis #anyhoo done with phase 3 plot!! this case took a turn for the What The Fuck and it's v interesting!! #luke pearce

[drunkinchicago]

coriolanus snow x lucy baird

Chapter 1: born king

prodigal (comparative more prodigal, superlative most prodigal)

Wastefully extravagant.

(by allusion to the New Testament story commonly called "The Parable of the Prodigal Son", Luke 15:11–32) Behaving as a prodigal son:

Having (selfishly) abandoned a person, group, or ideal.

Returning or having returned, especially repentantly, after such an abandonment.

“A born king is a very rare being.”

― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract

The first thing he thought upon the discovery of her death was, at least I don’t have to hear her sing anymore.

It was a morbid thought, a perturbed one, arguably even disgusting. This was a concern Coriolanus mulled over as his chef placed a platter of raspberry clafoutis before him, no condolences accompanied. The private hire was an Avox, retrieved and funded by Strabo Plinth. Even if he had sorrows to express, he couldn’t, but it was in that way that Coriolanus preferred it. In fact, his highest preference was when the saucier wasn’t in the room at all. He detested eating before other people. The art of consumption had become such a contrived behavior when presented with an audience. Years and years of pretending to be full, knowing when and how to laugh just as his stomach began to growl - Coriolanus could only comfortably eat in solitary, the singular setting where he could convince himself to stop performing.

In such fashion, Coriolanus saved his first bite until the male Avox had headed toward the pantry, arms full of bread and other leftover ingredients wrapped in wax paper. It was a strange concept, that the Snows’ pantry would be full of food, that a meal could even be prepared, let alone in excess. As Coriolanus watched the figure of the chef retreat, he realized he didn’t know the name of the man who had spent the last three days serving him. And who could Coriolanus ask? Certainly not the Avox himself. Strabo Plinth hadn’t bothered to introduce the culinary staff, nor the rest of the help he had sent to the penthouse days prior. In fact, Coriolanus hadn’t even known they were coming. He and Plinth had discussed the idea in passing, with Coriolanus still feeling too bashful and prideful simultaneously to directly request such a thing. But here they were, a three-meal chef, a sous chef at lunch and dinner and two maids, far from the first people the Plinths’ had paid for on his behalf. There were the movers, the custom furniture builders, the painters, the realtor they had to pay off to repurchase the apartment in the first place - it was an endless laundry list, but so were their funds. It seemed to bandage the weeping wounds left by the loss of their beloved son Sejanus, and these were wounds that they believed Coriolanus to share, the kind of devastation a person feels when he loses his closest companion. Strabo had referred to their heir arrangement as the only thing Ma Plinth had left to live for, and naturally, Coriolanus leaned into it. How could he not? He was wounded, just not in the way they thought him to be. He had been the one with the gun, may as well have been the one holding the noose. But they didn’t have to know that.

Upon the staff's initial arrival, one of the haggard maids had handed Coriolanus a note simply saying:

For this hard time (and after).

-SP

Coriolanus’ face burned as he read the letter. He knew he should be thankful. This was the treatment he faintly remembered from his early childhood years - an opulent household with quiet faces to wait on him. This was the life of a Snow. For the first time in a long time, Coriolanus was starting to see the walls before him match the seemingly imagined home he’d missed. He spent hours waltzing up and down the grand hall leading to the bedrooms, running his hands along the red velvet trim of the walls and breathing in the scent of deep mahogany. Be happy, he told himself scornfully. Be happy. At the hands of a man from the Districts, it was difficult. He was not new to the feeling of insecurities implanted by the war-found success of the Plinths’, but he was now reliant on them. He didn’t assume that Strabo and Ma would rebuke support - in fact, he was almost entirely confident that they wouldn’t. Unless they found out about the impossible, Coriolanus was as sure of their dependable nature as he was that the sky was blue. That was not the concern. The worry manifested itself in the depths of the night, burrowing into Coriolanus’s hard chest - you’re not a real Snow. He thought of how ashamed his father would be that he was taking checks from the hands of people born in District 2, that he was nothing without it. Where the Plinths had risen in the wartime, the Snows had fallen. It felt like losing all over again to find himself in a position without self-sustenance in the slightest. The name Snow had once been associated with exclusivity and the highest prestige. They wouldn’t have needed help or given it. All they had were one another at the top.

He knew that no one else was judging him because the arrangement between the Plinths and him was private. To the outside world, Coriolanus was the Capitol’s own prodigal son - damaged and heartbroken, strong at the hands of great suffrage, returning on his hands and knees to serve the Capitol, his beloved and righteous home. He had come back from his stint in the Districts exteriorly hardened by the world and impressed the public with his immediate enrollment in University thanks to Dr. Gaul. There were already rumblings of Coriolanus being offered apprenticeship as a Gamemaker for the 11th Hunger Games, as he was receiving top marks in his studies of advanced military strategy. Just like your father, Tigris had purred over tea the week before. Coriolanus couldn’t tell if she meant it as an insult or a compliment.

The misfortune was that as much as it mattered how others perceived him, his inner thoughts consumed him even more, and they weren’t pleased, or surprised, or inspired. Coriolanus found himself flickering the lights on and off in his bathroom, scaring himself with the gaunt, blank expression on his face. Blood rushed from his cheeks as he shaved, carelessly nicking himself and watching as the water in the sink turned a pale pink. The voice in his head reminded him that he wasn’t enough - he was a bottomfeeder, a try-hard, an actor before an unamused crowd, all of which shared his own face with a different expression. And his wasn’t the only voice in his head.

-

The funeral was short and of low attendance, as Coriolanus had expected and as Grandma’am had wanted. She’d asked for her ashes to be buried in the soil of the roses planted upon her rooftop garden, an act Tigris had selflessly committed wearing black lace gloves. Aside from his cousin and himself, Pluribus Bell was the only attendee. Pluribus had played a large role in the final year of Grandma’am’s life, housing her and Tigris in some rooms above his nightclub while they ironed things out. Had Coriolanus invited the Plinths’, he knew they would’ve come, wearing the same black suits they’d had custom made for Sejanus’ funeral. Coriolanus had repeated his outfit as well. He was standing at the front row of funerals often as of late, if not singing in them. Singing.

When he closed his eyes, feigning mourning, he could hear his grandmother practically screeching the verses of “Gem of Panem”, and there it was again, that guilt-inducing feeling he had of thankfulness that he would never again wake to the sound of it. The night of Grandma’am’s passing, which was peacefully in her slumber, Coriolanus had held Tigris as she rocked back and forth, rattling with sobs. He didn’t cry, and he wasn’t sure why. He loved his Grandma’am, certainly he did, didn’t he? She had practically raised him. Yet every time he attempted to conjure sadness, his heart only drummed with anger, recalling the fears he’d had of her spouting about his potential presidency to his peers, the gratefulness he was for a broken elevator that kept her locked away from the world. Worse, he felt a sense of unease as his brain looped his Grandma’am’s comments about her like a broken record - hardly a girl, his grandmother had said. Hardly a girl.

If only. At the thought of her , Coriolanus brought the precious orange silk scarf he’d been clutching to his face, pretending to weep into it. Instead, he breathed her in, practically choking on it. How funny, this scarf had once smelled like his mother. Now, it was only her. Lucy Gray, wrapping it around her shoulders, looking like the best thing he’d ever witnessed, of a finer quality than anything wealth could fabricate. If he tried hard enough, he could almost taste her, feeling the way he kissed her like he was hungry and hadn’t before eaten in his life, crawling along the dirt until he landed at her feet begging, satiate me. Satiate me. I’m so starved, Lucy Gray, feed me. Because nothing else had satisfied him and nothing could, not in the way she did. He woke sweating at night from dreams of her, whimpering at the coldness on the other side of his bed, cursing the cashmere and goose feather dressings. His own hand paired with thoughts of her calmed him for only a minute, because what was pleasure worth if she wasn’t giving it to him? His wanting grew violent at times, when he recalled how he’d felt with his knees in the pines that morning she’d left. He wanted to crush her skull with his own hands, spilling her brains onto the tile floors of his bedroom, the most expensive and divine flooring the world had ever known. Could he study every cell of her then, find the thing that made her so desirable and vaccinate himself with it, so that he could go on alone? Because he couldn’t for much longer, he was convinced. His breaking point was ahead, looming like a mountain beyond, and he wasn’t sure if there was snow on the top of it anymore.

authors note: (this is from my ao3 account but i always try to crosspost on here too, worked well on my old tumblr w my wednesday fanfiction so yeah cool)

feeling really inspired and excited by this project. it's an alternate ending/universe of sorts set after the ending of the ballad of songbirds and snakes during which lucy gray baird does not remain a mystery and we can explore coriolanus snow's life in the aftermath, including his *severe* inner turmoil. it will(is?) dark and intense but that's what i love about their dynamic. looking forward to working this out and i hope you enjoyed! feedback is always appreciated, thank you in advance.

#the ballad of songbirds and snakes #tbosas #ballad of songbirds and snakes #the hunger games #thg series #thg #tbosas spoilers #coriolanus snow #snow #president snow #snowbaird #coriolanus snow fanfiction #coriolanus x lucy gray #lucy gray baird #lucy gray x coriolanus #suzanne collins

[officialyourdailyinspiration]

I Am the True Vine

1 ‘I am the true vine’, said Jesus, ‘and my father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn’t bear fruit; and he prunes every branch that does bear fruit, so that it can bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean. That’s because of the word that I’ve spoken to you.

4 ‘Remain in me, and I will remain in you! The branch can’t bear fruit by itself, but only if it remains in the vine. In the same way, you can’t bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. People who remain in me, and I in them, are the ones who bear plenty of fruit. Without me, you see, you can’t do anything.

6 ‘If people don’t remain in me, they are thrown out, like a branch, and they wither. People collect the branches and put them on the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want, and it will happen for you. 8 My father is glorified in this: that you bear plenty of fruit, and so become my disciples.’

Obeying and Loving

9 ‘As the father loved me,’ Jesus continued, ‘so I loved you. Remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my father’s commands, and remain in his love. 11 I’ve said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and so that your joy may be full.

12 ‘This is my command: love one another, in the same way that I loved you. 13 No one has a love greater than this, to lay down your life for your friends. 14 You are my friends, if you do what I tell you. 15 I’m not calling you “servants” any longer; servants don’t know what their master is doing. But I’ve called you “friends”, because I’ve let you know everything I heard from my father.

16 ‘You didn’t choose me. I chose you, and I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last. Then the father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17 This is my command to you: love one another.’ — John 15:1-17 | New Testament for Everyone (NTE) The New Testament for Everyone copyright © Nicholas Thomas Wright 2011. Cross References: 1 Kings 3:5; Psalm 80:8; Psalm 92:14; Proverbs 18:24; Isaiah 50:5; Amos 7:3; Malachi 1:2; Matthew 5:16; Matthew 7:7; Matthew 7:19; Matthew 12:33; Matthew 13:21; Luke 12:4; John 3:29; John 8:31; John 13:10; John 13:34; John 15:2; John 17:23-24; John 17:26; 1 John 2:3; 1 John 3:23; 2 John 1:5

#Jesus #love #obedience #True Vine #trust #God the Father #gardener #John 15:1-17 #Gospel of John #New Testament #NTE #New Testament for Everyone #Holy Bible

[cruger2984]

THE DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE ARCHANGELS Feast Days: September 29, March 24 (St. Gabriel's traditional feast), May 8 (St. Michael's apparition at Monte Gargano), October 24 (St. Raphael's traditional feast)

"Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than this. And he said to him, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man!'" -John 1:47-51

St. Michael. St. Gabriel. St. Raphael. These are the Three Archangels that is been mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, and they are honored by the Roman Catholic Church.

The archangels are spiritual beings of the highest rank created by God before the beginning of the world. They have no material body and are immortal. Their name is given according to the mission have received from God. The word archangel is only used twice in the New Testament: In the 4th chapter of Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians and the Epistle of Jude. 

The archangel Michael, whose name means 'who is like God (or Quis ut Deus?)', was assigned to fight the devil. He was appointed to cast Lucifer out of Paradise, for challenging the sovereignty of God, as according to the Book of Revelation: 'Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.' 

Michael helps us in the daily struggle against Satan, who will be defeated in the Apocalyptic war at the end times. 

In Roman Catholic teachings, Saint Michael has four main roles or offices. His first role is the leader of the Army of God and the leader of heaven's forces in their triumph over the powers of hell. He is viewed as the angelic model for the virtues of the spiritual warrior, with the conflict against evil at times viewed as the battle within. The second and third roles of Michael in Catholic teachings deal with death. In his second role, Michael is the angel of death, carrying the souls of all the deceased to heaven. In this role Michael descends at the hour of death, and gives each soul the chance to redeem itself before passing; thus consternating the devil and his minions. Catholic prayers often refer to this role of Michael. In his third role, he weighs souls on his perfectly balanced scales. For this reason, Michael is often depicted holding scales. In his fourth role, Saint Michael, the special patron of the Chosen People in the Old Testament, is also the guardian of the Church. Roman Catholicism includes traditions such as the Prayer to Saint Michael, which specifically asks for the faithful to be 'defended' by the saint, and the Chaplet of Saint Michael consists of nine salutations, one for each choir of angels. 

The archangel Gabriel, whose name means 'God is my strength or hero of God', received the mission to proclaim God's almighty power. He was sent to announce the birth of Jesus to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the Gospel of Luke, when Mary objected that she was still virgin, Gabriel replied: 'Nothing is impossible from God.' 

Gabriel has the power to assist us in the most desperate cases, and to protect those who announce the Good News. It is said that Gabriel is the destroyer of the sinful city of Sodom.

It is said that Gabriel played some important roles: he taught Moses in the wilderness to write the Book of Genesis, the revealing of the coming of the Savior to Daniel, his appearance to Joachim and Anne the birth of Mary, and the appearance to Zechariah to announce the birth of John the Baptist. 

In the Gospel of Matthew, Gabriel may have been the unnamed angel, who appeared to St. Joseph in his sleep and instructed Joseph not to divorce Mary quietly, and explained that Mary’s child was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and that He would be named Emmanuel, which means God is with us. And in the Gospel of Luke, Gabriel may have been the angel who appeared to the Lord Jesus himself, in the Garden of Gethsemane before His Passion, to strengthen him. 

The archangel Raphael, whose name means 'God has healed', was appointed to cure the sickness of the spirit and of the body, and appeared in the Book of Tobit, and is also identified as the angel who moved the waters of the healing sheep pool.

After getting blinded, God hears both Tobit and Sarah's prayers and Raphael is sent to help them. Tobias is sent to recover money from a relative, and Raphael, in human disguise, offers to accompany him. On the way they catch a fish in the Tigris, and Raphael tells Tobias that the burnt heart and liver can drive out demons and the gall can cure blindness. They arrive in Ecbatana and meet Sarah, and as Raphael has predicted the demon, named Asmodeus, is driven out. Tobias and Sarah are married, Tobias grows wealthy, and they return to Nineveh (Assyria) where Tobit and Anna await them. After revealing his true identity, he said to him: 'I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord.'

Tobit's blindness is cured, and Raphael departs after admonishing Tobit and Tobias to bless God and declare his deeds to the people (the Israelites), to pray and fast, and to give alms. Tobit praises God, who has punished his people with exile but will show them mercy and rebuild the Temple if they turn to him.

Michael is the patron of the military and police forces, Gabriel is the patron of messengers, those who work for broadcasting and telecommunications such as radio and television, postal workers, clerics, diplomats, police dispatchers and stamp collectors, and Raphael is the patron of the blind, of happy meetings, of nurses, of physicians and of travelers. 

#random stuff #catholic #catholic saints #michaelmas #archangels #saint michael #saint gabriel #saint raphael #archangel michael #archangel gabriel #archangel raphael

[kemetic-dreams]

Conner has done a great job of explaining how and why Jesus apeared to be a sorcerer or magician, as well as shedding light on one of the major reasons the Pharisees were perecuting him. Having spent time in Egypt, land of Egyptian Magick, where he also met Mary Magdalene, a Temple Priestess in the huge Alexandrian church (run by John the Baptist no less), he returned to his homeland (after spending 20 years in Egypt) where he had learned some basic tricks of the Magicians there. Jesus was not a sorcerer per se, it is just that the way he did his miracles looked like the way the Egyptian Magicians did it -- spitting (twice according to Mark) to give the blind man sight -- would not The God just speak the healing, or touch the man's forehead... why spit in the dirt? This is all better explored and exapanded on in Hegland's book Anunnakki Endgame III which goes into the backstpry of Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, Paul and the creation of the New Testament (NT). Hegland also shares that he had the advantage of a Jewish Rabbi to explain scenarios in the NT and the Wedding at Cana is a real surprise. Key to the whole overall backstory is what the Piso Family in Rome was up to, and unfortunately Conner is not (yet) aware of that side of the story, but Hegland exposes it and connects the dots. You really need both Connor's and Hegland's books to get the whole picture... one expands the other.

‘Jesus the Sorcerer’ gets a ‘5’ just for putting ‘Jesus’ and ‘Sorcerer’ in the same sentence and title while being one of the very, very few to step into the huge footprints of Morton Smith (‘Jesus the Magician’). Conner doesn’t just repeat Morton’s focus on the pagan and Jewish witness of Jesus but rather does a better job on all the contemporary historical-critical issues of the New Testament ( a la Bart Ehrman) as well as a more complete comparison with the Greek magical papayri. Conner even extends his analysis to Paul who he dismisses as “concerned only with convincing”, Clement of Alexandria and Origen who admitted to keeping secrets, and early church theologians who were busy cursing their opponents (in good Egyptian magical tradition).

The book also gets a ‘5’ for its comprehensive and insightful Greek scholarship. The Jewish trial accusations against Jesus of “deceiver” and “imposter” are easily decoded as “sorcerer” as well as the accusation in Luke of “perverting our people”. The Spirit descending “on” Jesus like a dove is re-written in Matthew and Luke as “upon” so as to not give the impression Jesus is channeling or being ‘adopted’ at that point. Conner explains insightfully that the ‘Beloved Disciple’ who is “lying against Jesus” often translated in his “bosom” actually can refer to being in his “lap”.

Conner also gets a ‘5’ for his superb scholarship. His footnotes are as long as his chapters, however his chapters are mercifully short. He easily makes the overall point that there is virtually no difference between magic (which he succinctly defines as ‘religion that works’) and Christian prayer, exorcism, miracles, casting lots for the replacement of Judas, and using ‘black magic’ against their opponents. He notes that Luke screwed up using the “finger of God” phrase since it goes back to magical papyri and sorcerer opponents of Moses. Magical techniques Jesus used most often referenced in Mark are using spit, groaning, looking up to the sky, using special words of power, and dramatics. He insightfully recognizes that the power of Jesus was magical in that it had no moral or personal quality to it since it adhered to his very clothing—and, later the same idea transferred into the veneration of relics. He also perceives that Paul really had an adoptionist theology. Jesus was “appointed” son of God at the Resurrection using several quotes from Romans and Acts.

Conner even ventures into the area of Secret Mark and makes a great case that its depiction of Lazarus being roused out of the tomb and spending the next six days with Jesus in the home of Lazarus before a secret initiation was the original Mark with the current versions in Mark and the Gospel of John being the cover-up. Conner also makes a decent argument that Lazarus is the ‘Beloved Disciple’ of John but does not convince me since the same circumstantial argument could be made for Mary Magdalene who he unfairly consigns to the second century rumor bin.

The book is a worthy companion to ‘Jesus the Magician’ but its biggest failing is taking modern scholarship too seriously in portraying Jesus as a failed end times prophet and keeping Gnosticism at arms-length in the second century. Paul was actually the end-times prophet and his Herodian family and friends who penned the four Roman gospels followed his lead. Jesus was actually a mystery school teacher who taught soul travel as one can see clearly from the Dialogue of the Savior that scholars agree is first century material. The Gospel of Thomas is obviously a crypto-gnostic work of the first century as well since the Gospel of John was so clearly written to counteract it by embarrassing Thomas, saying that you can’t follow Jesus in soul travel, and that all one has to do is believe in the new Logos theology. A 2014 book called ‘The Lost Gospel’ also does a scholarly job of fixing the allegory of ‘Joseph and Asenath’ in the first century as a Jewish-Christian gnostic work about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. All these issues are covered in my book of 2013 on Amazon called ‘The Samaritan Jesus’.

#kemetic dreams #north africa #africa #jesus #jesus christ #faith in jesus #jesus is coming #jesusisgod #faith #bible #salvation #god #sorcerer #jesus the sorcerer #magic

[yieldfruit]

Tell the whole story of the Gospel not just the part you want to tell.

I'm unsure what you are referring to, but I've shared the whole Gospel many times on here and happy to do so again:

Being a Christian is more than identifying yourself with a particular religion or affirming a certain value system. Being a Christian means you have embraced what the Bible says about God, mankind, and salvation. Consider the following truths found in the Bible.

God Is Sovereign Creator Contemporary thinking says man is the product of evolution. But the Bible says we were created by a personal God to love, serve, and enjoy endless fellowship with Him. The New Testament reveals it was Jesus Himself who created everything (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Therefore, He also owns and rules everything (Psalm 103:19). That means He has authority over our lives and we owe Him absolute allegiance, obedience, and worship.

God Is Holy God is absolutely and perfectly holy (Isaiah 6:3); therefore He cannot commit or approve of evil (James 1:13). God requires holiness of us as well. First Peter 1:16 says, You shall be holy, for I am holy.

Mankind Is Sinful According to Scripture, everyone is guilty of sin: There is no man who does not sin (1 Kings 8:46). That doesn't mean we're incapable of performing acts of human kindness. But we're utterly incapable of understanding, loving, or pleasing God on our own (Romans 3:10-12).

Sin Demands a Penalty God's holiness and justice demand that all sin be punished by eternal death (Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 6:23). That's why simply changing our patterns of behavior can't solve our sin problem or eliminate its consequences.

Jesus Is Lord and Savior Romans 10:9 says, If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. Even though God's justice demands death for sin, His love has provided a Savior who paid the penalty and died for sinners (1 Peter 3:18). Christ's death satisfied the demands of God's justice, and Christ's perfect life satisfied the demands of God's holiness (2 Corinthians 5:21), thereby enabling Him to forgive and save those who place their faith in Him (Romans 3:26).

The Character of Saving Faith True faith is always accompanied by repentance from sin. Repentance is agreeing with God that you are sinful, confessing your sins to Him, and making a conscious choice to turn from sin (Luke 13:3, 5; 1 Thessalonians 1:9), pursue Christ (Matthew 11: 28-30; John 17:3), and obey Him (1 John 2:3). It isn't enough to believe certain facts about Christ. Even Satan and his demons believe in the true God (James 2:19), but they don't love and obey Him. True saving faith always responds in obedience (Ephesians 2:10).

Source: https://www.gracechurch.org/about/gospel

[dr-lizortecho]

Queerness and the Bible

Okay, before we can dig into the meat of this we have to address what the Bible/Scripture is and is not. Since it is the only source that we will be using during this discussion. These passages aren’t going to be dug into as deeply as the rest, because it’s not what we are here to talk about, but rather the setup to understanding what the Bible says about queerness and queer relationships.

That being said this discussion will keep two main ideas in mind; that Scripture (the Bible) is sanctified and set apart by God, that being his word given to the Christian community, and that it is not to be read or interpreted through the men who penned it and translated it but through the Holy Spirit.

This is something based in Scripture itself, as Paul says in II Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Which isn’t the only claim to Scripture being directly from God, as John claims (John 1:1) that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This concept of the Scriptures being inseparable from God and being a tool of God follows in many letters and books of the Bible. Isaiah records that not only is the scripture from God (and his word directly to his people) but that the Spirit would gather the Scriptures together and keep them for all future generations (Isaiah 34:16-17). Furthermore, the New Testament puts a heavy emphasis on the Scriptures being read and understood “only” through the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:10-12 saying that “but God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.” Meaning that only the Holy Spirit can know the meaning of the Scriptures. So only a Christian who is using the Spirit to interpret these verses can know God’s intentions and meaning behind them. (Further verses that discuss the Spirit as the means of understanding Scripture; Luke 24:45 and Ephesians 3:16-19)

So in short, Scripture is given by God and set apart for instruction. However, it is not untouched by man’s failings and biases. As Paul says in Romans 3:23 “-all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Meaning all those who transcribed, instructed or translated the Bible are as susceptible to biases and sin as anyone interpreting the scriptures today.

Now to address the Scriptures that reference homosexuality or supposedly reference homosexuality (as there are both). To approach these verses one has to take a look at the larger picture of what is being said. By asking a few simple questions about the author of the verses and the time and settings in which they were written.

One of the most often cited scriptures and biblical stories used to condemn homosexuality is that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Which is at its core a story of a group of people who committed many sins, brazenly and unrepentant. It chronicles two angels who visit Sodom to test the inhabitants, for if they find even ten righteous people it will be spared God’s wrath. Upon entering Sodom the angels are only met with the hospitality of one man, Lot, who welcomes them into his home so they don’t sleep on the streets. Then the rest of the town shows outside his door to demand he hand them over so they can rape them. Which in itself is a sin, fornication. This story incorrectly claims the city’s sin as homosexuality, because Lot is seen as “righteous” and spared from the destruction of Sodom, because he offered his daughters to be raped instead of the masculine presenting angels. But this is challenged by Ezekiel 16:49-50 which says “-this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” Which lays the claim of inhospitality being Sodom’s major sin, not actually the fact they would prefer to commit violence against strange men than Lot’s daughters. While Jude 1:7 is also cited as anti-homosexual it says “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire”. Sexual immorality includes all the sexual sins, that being any sexual relations that defy the laws of God. Since Sodom attempted to gang rape strangers they were not married to they were meeting a lot of biblical requirements for sexual immorality. As for “strange flesh” it is discussing the lust they felt for angels, which is warned against in Genesis 6:1-4, human and Angel relations remove man from God’s favor and it is considered evil in his eyes. Meaning that there is no direct claim to homosexuality being a sin in these verses, only an interpretation taken by readers and then passed down and taught throughout the years. Which of course impacted a lot of the writings of later prophets and disciples.

The next passage that shows up in the Old Testament is Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination”. Now at first glance this is very straightforward, it is a direct statement that paints a clear picture of homosexuality and marks it as a sin. But this can quickly change with a look at the entire book of Leviticus, its intended purpose and an understanding of the culture and historical setting in which this particular book of laws was written down. Now to understand Leviticus, as with a lot of the Old Testament scriptures, it has to be acknowledged that they were in part passed down orally for generations. Though Leviticus was written down in part, most of it spent hundreds of years being passed down orally, and undoubtedly shifting with the culture and time. The laws in Leviticus are the old covenant that the coming of the Messiah dissolved in place of the new covenant, now this doesn’t necessarily wipe away all the importance of the old covenant or make it insubstantial. What it does say though is that the old covenant was designed specifically for a separate people group with different stumbling blocks laid at their feet as a lot of these laws can be traced back to being protections for the Israelites.

Leviticus 18:22 specifically addresses pagan practices or religious practices of non-Jewish people groups in the surrounding area. This is in part because Leviticus is written for the tribe of Levi, the priestly tribe. This passage is specifically designed to set God’s priests apart from priests of different religions, which is something the scriptures take very seriously. Furthermore, this rule book lays out many laws that are not upheld today, or even truly held as sins. Amongst them wearing fabrics with multiple fibers, having sex while menstruating or with a menstruating person, cross breeding livestock, sowing fields with multiple seeds, or cutting the hair off the sides of the head. These are all held as being part of the old covenant, meaning that any laws in this book not repeated in the new covenant should be held to the same standard. Leviticus also brings up same sex relations in 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” This verse isn’t specifically addressed to the priesthood, however it is a part of the covenant made for the Israelites who were fleeing persecution on their way to a new land. These laws were devised to create their best survival and strength, which in part relied on procreation. Which could attribute to all the discussions in this passage about incest and not sleeping with a menstrating woman (as that is when a woman is usually least fertile). Also, it’s worth a note that this passage reflects and is in almost the exact order of Leviticus 18:22, which could be a sign of oral repetition as well as the cultural impact of the views of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Which leads us into the New Testament and the new covenant with God. Now some verses from the gospels are used in arguments to claim homosexuality is unnatural, but these verses are specifically addressing marriage and more importantly are discussing the first marriage. That being Adam and Eve, who were created male and female for procreation purposes. These scriptures can be found in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9. These are less consequential in the discussion of homosexuality being a sin as they are verbal quotations of Genesis in the discussion of biblical marriage. It’s worth noting that Genesis 1:27 says that “-God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Meaning that both man and woman are in his image, therefore He has neither sex and His image is less about physical form then spirit. Furthermore, Adam and Eve were created with procreation in mind, Genesis 1:28a “then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” Leaving the first marriage as a means of procreation rather than a specific role model of all future marriages. Neither is Jesus referencing the Torah in a conversation about divorce him condemning homosexuality.

Every reference to homosexuality in the New Testament was penned by Paul and (possibly) his followers. Which in respect to him and his apprentices having assumed authorship of nearly half of the New Testament isn’t too much of a shock. Though it brings into question who Paul was and his personal biases and contradictions throughout his works, as well as his intended meaning behind these verses. Paul the apostle originally studied as a Pharisee and was one of the most active against the early Christian church, persecuting followers of Jesus. Acts 22:3-4 Paul says that “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today. I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.” This reflects both his early strong convictions to the Torah and oral Jewish teachings, as well as his strong convictions in what he believes. These qualities aren’t depicted as having shifted with his conversion to Christianity outside of his view of outsiders softening (which can be seen through his work to carve space for the gentile Christian in the church). Which left Paul as not only well educated on the Jewish teachings of the time but very familiar with the pentateuch and the oral teachings that surrounded it.

Now, a quick look at Paul’s contemporary Jewish philosopher's teachings and translations of the Torah can help inform how Paul’s steadfastness could have viewed homosexual relations. The teachings of Philo, that echoes the passages in Leviticus on homosexuality being an abomination, and asserting that the death penalty should be enforced. This reflects the understanding of the Torah at this time, something Paul would have been familiar with as he studied the Torah and other Jewish teachings. Which leaves the conversation of what Paul’s stance would have been on homosexuality based on the culture of the time, since his peers all viewed homosexuality as sin deserving of death. Which arguably Paul agrees with in Romans 1:26-28 “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting”. At first glance this passage condemns homosexuality in clear and certain terms. However, Paul’s letter continues to the Romans and explains that these sins and judgements are from man. He further asserts that “-you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things” (Romans 2:1). He informs the church at Rome, and specifically the Jewish Christian’s, that they are in fact as accountable for their sin as the gentiles. Then he informs them God is the one who decides final judgment and not them. Which leaves a few separate ideas to be examined, the first being that Paul references a sin that the Jewish community holds as particularly detestable and the second being his references to pagan worship and practices.

Paul uses the interpretation of the Torah on homosexuality to paint a picture of sin that is deserving of death to then claim that the church itself has committed the same crimes. Leaving Paul with the claim that all sin is the same in God’s eyes and that even something they the community held as so detestable is capable of forgiveness. In this he repeats that there is none righteous among mankind, which echoes the story of Sodom itself in the infliction of God’s wrath, while preaching hope through the new covenant made through Jesus’s death and resurrection. Now, this can be viewed as the claim that homosexuality is a sin that is forgivable (as with all sin) or rather the current views on homosexuality being used to make a stark contrast to drive home his point. In addition, there is reason to believe this reference to perceived homosexuality was in fact discussing pagan rituals. These rituals were common in Corinth (the city in which Paul wrote the letter to Rome from) as well as throughout the Greek world. The verses before the “condemnation” of homosexuality paint the picture of what specifically Paul is addressing, Romans 1:23-25 “{they} changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” These pagan rituals would have included temple prostitution as well as pederasty (sexual relationship between an adult man and a young boy). So instead of Paul asserting that homosexuality is a sin, he is addressing the idolatry that surrounded him and the church. A warning that reappears throughout the New Testament. So if his words here are to be taken as any sort of moral judgment (which he himself warns against in the passage) it is against pagan practices and not homosexual orientation.

Paul writes to the church in Corinth that “do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)”. Which has sparked many debates about translations and intended meanings. It’s argued the best translation reflects the above mentioned temple prostitution and pederasty. However, even if this is not the case any list of sins being compiled by a man will hold biases from their lived experiences and fears. And what we know about Paul suggests he would hold homophobic views, that would include the idea of being on the receiving end of homosexual sex as demasculinizing. From all his writings it’s easy to see that he viewed women as lesser (possibly why some translations translate effeminate in place of homosexual/sodomite) so anything that compromised his ideas of masculinity would make those men fall into a lesser social class. This is something that would compromise his ability to make a truly detached analysis of homosexuality. This same translation discussion applies to the use of the same words in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 “but we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine”. In addition, these translations are based on a word that Paul seemingly created, that being arsenokoitai. Which translates most accurately as pertaining to the previously discussed pederasty. Also, of note, 1 Timothy is considered to be possibly written by followers of Paul after his death. Which would explain the word being used out of the same context found in Romans and Corinthians, as it relies on not only Paul’s interpretations of the Torah but on his followers interpretations of his letters.

This leaves to question whether this analysis falls under the concept of the Spirit revealing God’s intent or the bending of scriptures to follow sinful desires. Which leaves another concept to be explored, that being scripture that shows support of homosexuality and queerness. This won’t be any verse that specifies homosexuality since the concept of sexual orientation wasn’t something that would have been mainstream during the periods in which these letters and accounts were written. Instead they will be verses that discuss sexual otherness and love.

The Bible puts a heavy emphasis on love and its importance to Christianity. 1 John 4:7 “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God”. Meaning that all love is from God and a mirror of his image. Some people will falsely claim that queer love would not be real love, that it is lustful and sinful desire instead. However, the scriptures defines love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 “love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things”. This definition supports homosexual and heterosexual relationships, because it gives criteria that are met in a lot of long lasting and forgiving relationships. Furthermore, the couples who had to stick out for so long in a world where their relationships would never be acknowledged or the marriages legally allowed have shown more long suffering than most.

In addition to homosexual love being from God there has always been a place for the sexually other inside of the church. During the times in which the church was first being founded one of the most prominent sexually othered members of society were eunuchs (men who have been castrated) as they were viewed as having a lesser social status. This being in part because of their removal of their sexual organs and in part the absence of sexual desire. Not all of these men became eunuchs willingly or for religious reasons. As Jesus says in Matthew 19:11-12 (in response to the disciples saying celibacy was better than marriage) “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it”. Reflecting the differences between eunuchs who did not (or did not want) sexuality or desire, court eunuchs and intersex individuals. These people were decidedly queer in their day and age, from reception socially to their experiences of sexuality and sexual desire. Furthermore, the scriptures take similar contradictions on their existence. Deuteronomy 23:1 says that “he who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the Lord”, meaning that eunuchs weren’t allowed near the presence of God (or the physically deformed, see Leviticus 21:20). While other scriptures say the opposite, Isaiah 56:4-5 “for thus says the Lord: ‘to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off”. Which not only offers them a place in heaven but a highly revered place. This is the sentiment that is continued by Jesus and his disciples, and part of the foundations of the Christian church. This can be seen in Acts 8 when Philip preaches the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch who converts to Christianity, professing Jesus as his savior. The eunuch is then baptized in Acts 8:38 “so he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him”. This baptism officially making the eunuch part of the Christian church as it symbolized the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, the old covenant has gone away as depicted in Acts 10:15 “then he said to them, You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean”. This is the final conclusion that Peter has about his vision of God telling him to break the old covenant by eating meat that was considered unclean by the Torah. He asserts that there is no man inherently unclean by the nature of creation, that the old laws built to protect the Israelites do not apply the same way to the Christian church or the world they live in after Christ. In addition, Paul says in Galatians 3:26-29 “for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Meaning that in God’s eyes there is no distinction between mankind, because we are all made in his image (Genesis 1:27) and further made whole through our unity in Christ. Therefore sexual orientation isn’t something that God would use against his children, since he doesn’t perceive human gender or distinction, only his spirit in them.

#christianity #lgbtqia #queer #idk guys- I’m in no way a theologian just someone with acces to scriptures and the internet #who had a personal crisis that led to almost two years of depression and nearly a decade of self hate #and then a spiritual revival that saw me getting closer to God #because I felt I was ‘allowed’ to

[sabakos]

Other historical-critical conspiracy theories I think are probably true but can't prove:

Moses is not only not a historical person (not controversial), but the entire Joseph-Moses tradition is post-exilic. Isaac and Jacob are unrelated hero cult figures, and Abraham was invented as a syncretism after the fall of the "Northern" Kingdom.

The original readership of the two works that make up the Quran did not think they originated from Muhammad, who was a military leader. The person who wrote the more homiletic suras was aware of Christian doctrine but hadn't read the bible.

No one who wrote any of the Christian Gospels had ever been to Judea. The Marcionite versions of the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Luke are the originals. No one who wrote any part of the New Testament could read or speak Aramaic, and Jesus didn't speak Greek, so none of it originates with him. Pontius Pilate killed Jesus because he wanted to.

Every extra-scriptural tradition corresponding to the above three religions is pure fiction that was invented for doctrinal reasons, none of which originates from any oral tradition.

The mystery plant mention in the Vedic rituals called "Soma" is ephedra and the only reason this isn't obvious is that the Samaveda traditions originated in a place where ephedra actually grows rather than in India. It's also a stimulant which may not be compatible with the later traditions about it but fits the Vedas themselves just fine.

Prior to Adi Sankara, nobody thought of the upanishads as constituting a single body of literature. The "astika" schools are a post hoc categorization that was applied to a heterogeneous corpus of much earlier literature based on what happened to survive.

The gymnosophists that Alexander the Great encountered in india aren't Jains or Buddhists and don't correspond to any other coherent religious or philosophical group we would recognize either, none of which formally existed yet. Buddhism was formalized with the founding of the Maurya Empire, and Jainism as a coherent entity is much later.

The Homeridae were called that because they were initially formed from the sons of captives taken in war. Homer is a back-formation that was invented when the initial etymology was lost.

The Athenians greatly revised the Iliad and Odyssey for use in the Panathenaic festival to emphasize Athenian traditions, especially in the Odyssey. Most manuscripts of these poems that the Alexandrian librarians used to compile their editions originated from Athens, which means ours do too.

The philosophical dialogue format originates from Ancient Greek tragedy, which itself originates from the performances of the Homeric poems in the Panathenaea. It didn't catch on outside Athens, and fell out of favor even there as most philosophy students in the Hellenistic period were literate.

Plato's immediate successors, Speusippus, Xenocrates and Polemo, greatly revised and edited many of Plato's dialogues prior to publication. Only the 15 works cited by Aristophanes of Byzantium were initially intended by themfor wider publication. Much of the received text of these dialogues is unmarked commentary, which explains the stylometric and doctrinal differences. The other dialogues weren't published until Sulla sacked Athens.

Whoever wrote Aristotle's "esoteric" works, it wasn't him, and the reason that the later peripatetics, even the ones who knew him well, don't refer to these works is they weren't aware of any such texts by Aristotle.

Origen the Christian philosopher and Plotinus the founder of Neoplatonism were both taught by the same Ammonius of Alexandria, and the reason that Porphyry mentions an "Origen the Pagan" as one of Ammonius Saccas' students, while Origen claims his teacher was a Christian named Ammonius is that Origen lied about being a Christian.

[santmat]

Vegetarian Christianity: No Fishes With Their Loaves - Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcast 

The earliest references to the story of Jesus Feeding the Five Thousand do not include any mentions of fish, only bread. The early church father Irenaeus, writing between 180 and 188 AD, does not say anything at all about the fish, only bread in connection with this Miraculous Feeding of the Multitude as if the gospels he was reading at the time didn't include anything about fishes with the loaves. The historian Eusebius, Arnobius, and several other early Christian writings also never include anything about "fishes" with the loaves, only the loaves, only the bread. It was originally an account about people being given bread. This has lead to some, including Keith Akers, author of the book, The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity (also see his wonderful scholarly book, Disciples), to conclude that the making of this popular miracle story into a fish tale must have taken place sometime after Irenaeus and 188 AD. After that date must be when the final edit took place, when fish got added to the story about the Feeding of the Five Thousand, transforming it into the more familiar Sunday School version people are acquainted with. Today, we examine the case of the missing fish, as well as textual variations between different manuscripts of the New Testament, including the spectacular example of a vegetarian saying of Jesus present in the Old Syriac-Aramaic Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke but not present in the Greek manuscripts. This is another installment in a series of podcasts documenting the vegetarianism of the original Jesus Movement, also known as the Ebionites, Nasoraeans, grandchildren of the Essenes, Hebrew Christians, The Apostles, the Disciples, Christianity-Before-Paul: the folks in the early church Paul was arguing with about diet, including James the Just of Jerusalem.

Vegetarian Christianity: No Fishes With Their Loaves - Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcast - Listen and/or Download @:

https://traffic.libsyn.com/spiritualawakeningradio/No_Fishes_With_the_Loaves.mp3

@ the Podcast Website With Buttons That Go To All the Popular Podcast APPS - Wherever You Follow Podcasts:

https://SpiritualAwakeningRadio.libsyn.com/vegetarian-christianity-no-fishes-with-their-loaves

@ Apple Podcasts:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/vegetarian-christianity-no-fishes-with-their-loaves/id1477577384?i=1000633969339

@ Spotify:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5t7LWvpTRl51ztPA8FUBpP

@ Audible & Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Awakening-Radio/dp/B08K561DZJ

https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ca7918b0-4005-4724-a2e5-b27f51ecdba6/episodes/548b25f0-5652-4450-af4d-78a430af7140/spiritual-awakening-radio-vegetarian-christianity-no-fishes-with-their-loaves

@ Wherever You Subscribe and Follow Podcasts - At Your Favorite Podcast APP Just Do a Search for "Spiritual Awakening Radio" -  (Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Amazon, Audible, PodBean, Podcast APP, Overcast, Jio Saavan, iHeart Radio, Podcast Addict, Gaana, CastBox, etc...): 

https://linktr.ee/SpiritualAwakeningRadio

In Divine Love (Bhakti), Light, and Sound, At the Feet of the Masters,

James Bean

Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcasts

Sant Mat Satsang Podcasts

Sant Mat Radhasoami

A Satsang Without Walls

https://www.SpiritualAwakeningRadio.com

#vegan #go vegan #veganism #veg #vegetarian #vegetarianism #feeding of the five thousand #early christianity #christianity #podcasts #spiritual awakening radio

[deservedgrace]

Hey! Regarding your last post that you reblogged Id highly suggest learning more about Christian appropriation and bastardization of Jewish texts and the accidentally antisemitic implications of talking about how cruel the Christian god is and then going to only quote examples of bastardized Jewish texts. Judaism has an extremely long and very rich history of arguing, debating, and struggling with our texts and the potentially problematic material within them as well as there being many many Jews who do not believe in the "bible" (Tanakh) being a literal account of of events that literally happened. And while as an extremely traumatized exvangelical myself I do understand where posts like this come from and the place of hurt they come from I think it's also extremely important to unpack the amount of Christian supersessionism, Christian Supremacy, and Antisemitism that's embedded in what we were taught and how we were taught to view the world and ensure we aren't further perpetuating that.

hi there,

i appreciate your message and the reminder. i agree, antisemitism is an issue with the ex christian community and we all, myself included, need to work at dismantling it. i'm very aware that what we know as the old testament was stolen, and that the christian interpretation and even the way that christians go about interpreting and implementing that text is incredibly different to how Judaism does it.

but i'm also really hesitant to say that the solution is to not discuss the christian interpretation and implementation and talk about the harm it does.

admittedly, if i had written that post myself i would have either taken out the old testament things altogether or worded it to be more clear, but the context of the post and my blog is an ex christian criticizing the christian interpretation and the harm that it has caused. it is a criticism OF that bastardization. it is a criticism of claiming that an all perfect, all knowing, all loving god exists in the first place, criticism that he would say and command these things, criticism that christians accept and perpetuate that, and criticism that christians expect blind faith regarding that and refuse any debate about it, which are completely antithetical to Judaism as i understand it.

in addition, much of the post you're talking about references the new testament (luke 14:26, matthew 8:22, matthew 10:34) as well, but you may have been hyperbolic and/or referencing other posts.

i can empathize that seeing a post referencing those texts might feel uneasy but, for myself at least, any criticism of the OT i have is very much criticizing the way christians use it to harm and does not speak on Judaism. it is not something i'm familiar enough with to feel comfortable making comments on.

maybe that's not enough. idk. feel free to send another message. but i think unpacking and calling out harmful christian narratives is important, and some of those narratives come from the christian interpretation of those texts.

#apologies for taking a bit to get back. i've been dealing with health issues and didn't have the energy to respond #thank you for being kind in your message. i would have understood if you weren't

[fvirytips]

OK.. But where's the proof..?

I get it. We are humans. We love and breathe facts. If something doesn't have proven evidence, we don't believe it. And I get it, I don't believe things that don't have evidence, too! But Jesus is the exception. I have faith. Even if I struggle, I have some. And maybe you are less faithful or more, but evidence would help you feel more.. encouraged?

So here's evidence - scientific, historic, and religious - that Jesus existed.

Firstly, his crown of thorns that he wore in his crucifixion still exists! It's in France currently. You may be wondering, how on Earth did the crown get from Jerusalem to France? Well, I was confused too, but let's see how!

It's quite a long story, but let's start from the beginning. After Jesus' crucifixion, the crown was taken to be displayed on the Basilica of Mount Zion, a hill just outside Jerusalem. At some point, it was transferred to Byzantine (an ancient Greek colony) where several thorns were removed. After that, Justinian the Great (Emperoro of the Byzantine Empire gave a thorn to Saint Germain, Bishop of Paris.

But that's not where it ends.

Some years later, Irene of Athens, a Byzantine Empress, sent Charles the Great (the Holy Roman Emperor) several thorns. But then he gave the thorns away to many people, and two of those people were Charles the Bald (who was quite the opposite of bald..) and Hugh the Great.

Some of the thorns we're sent to Euprope, which got in the hands of the French King and there we go!

Historian Flavius

Flavius was born not too long after Jesus' crucifixion. He wrote a book called "Jewish Antiquities," and Jesus is mentioned in there twice. Note that he wasn't a follower of Jesus, so he couldn't have been biased.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus who is called Messiah.”

Another passage is: “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. This describes Jesus exactly!

Archaeology

No archaeological finding has disproved the New Testament, and Luke’s gospel has proven especially accurate, with references to geographical and cultural landmarks later confirmed by archaeological discoveries. -credit

Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls, a vast trove of parchment and papyrus documents found in a cave in Israel in the 1940s, were written sometime between 150 B.C. and A.D. 70. In one place, the scrolls refer to a “teacher of righteousness.” Some say that teacher is Jesus. -credit

#jesusisking #jesusitrustinyou #lord jesus christ #christian bible #godbless #jesuslovesyou #faith in jesus #jesus loves us #jesus #jesusiscoming #godislove #word of god #faith in god #godisgood #god #christian quotes #christian blog #christian living #christiangirl #christian inspiration #christian motivation

[freebiblestudies]

Line Upon Line Lesson 026: Like Father, Like Son

Genesis 26:7 - And the men of the place asked about his wife. And he said, “She is my sister”; for he was afraid to say, “She is my wife,” because he thought, “lest the men of the place kill me for Rebekah, because she is beautiful to behold.”

Did you get a sense of deja vu when you read the passage?  Abraham showed the same lack of faith in God…twice (Genesis 12:11-13; 20:11).  Wouldn’t Abraham have recounted these stories with his son Isaac?  Shouldn’t Isaac have learned from his father’s mistakes?

Let’s read together John 1:12 and 1 John 3:2.

There are many references in the New Testament about God having children.  However, there is nothing in the Bible about God having grandchildren.  Why is that?

Let’s read together Ezekiel 14:12-20; Psalm 105:6; Isaiah 41:8; Luke 3:8; and John 8:31-59.

The passage in Ezekiel informs us Daniel, Noah, and Job were righteous individuals.  However, they could not save anyone through their righteousness.   Their faith in God could only save them individually.

The Jews in the time of Jesus believed they were the chosen people of God.  However, Jesus told them their biological lineage could not save them.  They must have a personal relationship with God to be considered children of God.

Let’s read Proverbs 3:5-6; Proverbs 24:16; Isaiah 41:10;  2 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 2:10; and James 4:8.

Isaac had to develop his own relationship with God.  He had to embark on his own personal journey of faith.  Like Abraham, Isaac was going to have moments where his faith waned.  Isaac was going to make mistakes.  It didn’t matter how many times Isaac fell.  He just needed to get up and keep walking with God.  His faith in God would grow and his relationship with God would deepen.

Let’s read together John 5:39 and Acts 17:11.

Friend, while it is important to hear the word of God, it means nothing if we do not apply it in our lives.  We need to give our lives to Jesus and follow Him wherever he leads us.  Confess all your sins, turn away from them, and repent.  Keep walking with Jesus.  You will be surprised to see how much your relationship with Him will grow stronger and more intimate.

#bible study #line upon line #Genesis 26:7

[officialyourdailyinspiration]

Shining Light Tells the Good Story 19:10 (Jesus has come to Seek and Save the Lost)

The True Human Being has come to find the ones who have lost their way and guide them back again to the good road. — Luke 19:10 | First Nations Version (FNV-NT) First Nations Version: New Testament ©2023 Rain Ministries, a non-profit 501© and an Arizona Corporation. Cross References: Ezekiel 34:12; Matthew 18:11; John 3:17; 1 Timothy 1:15

#Jesus #seek #save #lost #mission #Luke 19:10 #Gospel of Luke #New Testament #FNV-NT #First Nations Version: New Testament Bible #Rain Ministries