You are herePlease say Hello to me!

Please say Hello to me!

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 16 December 2007

This weekend I went to see Will Smith’s new movie I Am Legend. It is a story about the last man left alive on Earth, and his struggle with loneliness and identity crisis. It is also a story, I believe, about God, relationships, love and altruism, and whether we like it or not, many such stories told by men have theological implications affecting the hearts and minds of audiences, so they open doors for interesting conversations into who we are, why we are here and what our ultimate purpose may be.But the movie only illustrates something I have been speaking about for a while now, namely that value to our existence only comes from the relationships we create and maintain with those around us. In other words the qualities of relationships we have with each other largely determine the quality of our existence and the purpose for our very existence. This of course also applies to our Creator.

As we all read about and learn more about the story of creation and the fall, we get the idea that God was under no requirement to create us, but he did and even more, he did so in order to have a relationship of sorts with us humans. Josephus observed that relationships were the foundation of human creation when he said that before Eve was created, Adam had no “society, for there was no such created...”[1] Consequently Eve was created for Adam; but their sin and disobedience of God ultimately broke off the creation-creator relationship with the Creator only occasionally saying hello to the creation below.

But those hellos were also messages of hope, that someday God will reconcile humanity back to himself by sending a redeemer, one who would make it possible again for man to walk in God’s presence. In Luke, the message of hope materialized when an angel told some shepherds “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all of the people, for today in the city of David there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord.”[2]

The good news of joy and reconciliation was a universal one, for all of those in need of a savior, namely all mankind. The Creator is finally stepping forward and providing a solution to bridge the gap and resolve the lack of relationships issue which has been plaguing mankind from the beginning. A lonely humanity is finally provided with an opportunity to be able to spend time and walk with God once again, to be back into the Garden of Eden as it once was.

In this context, the importance of eschatology becomes quite obvious. In the book of Revelation, John has a vision of his future where a new city called New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. The city is called New Jerusalem because the old Jerusalem was destroyed in year A.D. 70. The old temple, or tabernacle, where God “lived” or where God was “present” was destroyed at the same time, and God was no longer limited by the walls of this temple. During his vision, John hears a voice which says “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them…”[3]

It appears that God’s desire for relationships drives His actions, just as our longing for relationships drives our decisions and actions, and having been made in His image, this should not come as a surprise to us. What does come as a surprise is the idea that a certain understanding of theology (whatever the understanding may be) overrides the importance of relationships. The suggestion exists within Christianity that God may perhaps even shun believers out of His presence as a result of understanding certain theological points differently than others. In essence, those kinds of suggestions in fact imply that the academic study of Christian theology carries more weight in the definition of the creation-creator relationship than the redemptive work of Christ does.

I am here to repeat the good news given in Luke 2: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men![4] Your relationship with your Creator is not subject to the judgment of another human being, to some theological construct or academic methodology; the baseline for the relationship has been defined over 2,000 years ago when the good news for all people was given. God is here, now and longs to be connected with you.

In I am Legend, the last man left alive on earth was so lonely that he arranged several mannequins around a video rental store he visited daily. Speaking with those mannequins allowed him to experience a pseudo relationship with them because he lacked any other. But when he was truly distressed and needed someone to speak with, when he needed a genuine relationship, he kept begging one of the mannequins: Please say hello to me! Please say hello to me! PLEASE SAY HELLO TO ME!

And there was no answer.

Or faith, our lives are about relationships. Our existence is not about theology, academics or even eschatology. I would even say that it is not about the Bible. It is simply about bridging a connection with the person who created us and allowing him to again say hello to us.

And maybe we can turn around and repeat his hello to those around us longing to hear it.

[1] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Ch.1.1

[2] Luke 2:10,NASB

[3] Revelation 21:3, NASB

[4] Luke 2:14, KJV

Ed's picture

I don't need to mention any names, but you know who I am referring to when I talk about the attacker on your blog about this post. What I found ironic, and would have posted it there, but you closed the topic, was that in spite of his claims to ignore you, etc., he was, in essence, hollering to the masses "Please say hello to me!"

You mentioned it at one point, that hardly anyone frequents his own website anymore. Former associates are disassociating themselves from him and his inflammatory rhetoric. I find it prophetically ironic that, in his attempt to be relevant still, he posted on a topic entitled "Please say hello to me!"

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Virgil's picture

Ed, you are absolutely right. All of us need relationships and cry for others to say hello to us; some more than others, and I can see the irony in your observation. I never really asked for anyone's visits on my blog or here yet people continue to come. Compare the success of this site with the others out there that promote hate and separation, and you'll know what people want: to have someone say hello and be listened to. PP has always been about that.

As I always do around holiday time, I will post the web site statistics for 2007 so keep an eye out for the post :)

SuperSoulFighter's picture

PP has so much value in this regard, Virgil. It is a n excellent interaction location in our "virtual world", today. It is about more than simple theological dialogue. Involvement here necessitates an openness to discovery about ourselves and each other. And that is the essence of relationship.

I, for one, deeply appreciate this site for this reason among many others. Thanks for your great work in maintaining and moderating PP, Virgil, and for this timely article.

JM

Virgil's picture

Thanks John - the site is made by the readers and you guys who contribute :) It's just a stage allowing everyone to interact, and I am glad it became that rather than a place to just tell people what they need to think and how to think it.

flannery0's picture

Most excellent thoughts, Virgil!

One thing that you have done especially well here is to show the inherent connectivity between the restoration of the relationship between us and our Creator, and our relationships to one another; it is *because* we have been restored to communion with God that we live out that restored communion on the horizontal plane.

As you pointed out so well, the problem with a so-called "theology" for its own sake, outside of the context of relationships, is that it ignores the *life* which a true theology would result in. In other words, a theology which ignores relationship, or results in an "I don't need anyone else in order to know God" mentality, is pretty much proof that the "theology" is false. One obvious reason: truth and mercy are intrinsically linked in Scripture. They are inseparable. Mercy can't be seen or known or experienced outside of the context of relationships; therefore truth cannot be known outside of the context of relationships. We should think more about why our restored relationship to God is called "face to face." Then the significance of our relationships with one another in our pursuit of "theology" would be undeniable.

Tami

Virgil's picture

Tami, again..said better than I could have. Notice that both truth and mercy can't stand apart from people...we as thinking, rational persons make truth and mercy really matter. Without people/persons they would both be irrelevant..they would not even matter.

tom-g's picture

Hey Virgil,

The power of these huggy kissy, touchy feely, personal human emotional relationships that rationally make truth and mercy happen. Is this a new take off on "The Word of Faith" that I haven't seen before? Now, it is what we speak as a result of these emotional personal human relationships that is the rationality and power that makes truth and mercy happen?

I have always thought that what was relevant and rational and really mattered was my relationship to God, not my relationship to other people. In fact, I have been of the understanding that I must be rationally prepared to give up these personal human emotional relationships to experience the truth and mercy of God, and if I did not I would not be worthy to obtain the truth and mercy of God.

Tom

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

I would echo what others have, Tom, that a balance of love for God is and must be demonstrated with a love toward people, i.e, no solitary love for God exists. The epistles of John make that overly clear, as cited below.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

1Jo 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

1Jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not [other people, obviously] knoweth not God; for God is love.

1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

1Jo 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

1Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

2Jo 5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

tom-g's picture

Chris,

I have already responded to Tami and thanked her for her clarification with which I also agree.

If you agree with her clarification, your response does not so indicate as evidenced by your phrase "demonstrated with a love toward people."

Your ambiguous use of the word "people" was clarified in these responses to mean the people of God, the community of believers. Our love for God is demonstrated by our love for our brethren, our fellow believers in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Tom

chrisliv's picture

Yeah, Tom,

I'm glad you mentioned that. But I think your tendency of trying to narrow love only toward "believers" is not biblical and logically leads to a "Bad Samaritan" example. See Luke 10:

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

It's not an all-or-nothing matter.

I think it is a matter of primacy, though.

The verses I cited from John's epistles were mostly talking about the primacy of Christians demonstrating their love toward their fellow Christian "brethren" in the Body of Christ. But John was also citing and importing the more inclusive teaching of Christ in the Gospels:

"For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another." 1John 3:11

Christ taught that Christians must also show love to their "neighbors" [the Samaritan example] and even to their "enemies":

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Mat. 5:44

All three of those (brethren, neighbors, and enemies) are classes of "people" which the Bible commands Christians to love.

But, I agree that the primacy of love should be directed toward the "Brethren", as Christ said:

"By this shall all men [non-brethren] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another [the brethren]." John 13:35

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

tom-g's picture

Chris,

I do not serve on the many youth and caregiver committees that I do, including the board of directors and its many committees of our 300 bed hospital, all for no pay, to not understand the love of friend and neighbor according to the flesh.

None of that however is in any way the expression of God's love and mercy for the unbeliever. The good Samaritan that you allude to was not a gentile but of Israel. I know of no NT person or picture of any NT person that expresses God's love and mercy in any way other than through the preaching of the gospel of Christ. Paul's collection was not for the unbeliever anywhere but for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

If there could be one synthesized message in the NT on this subject it would be to let the dead take care of the dead, but let the body of Christ love and take care of their brethren, their fellow members in the body, that Christ loved and gave himself for.

Tom

chef's picture

So Tom, it sounds like you and RiversofEden4 [on the forum]are on the same page*, is this so?

Actually, the sameritan was a mongrel just as Ephraim and Manasseh were.

See Ya,
Chef Tony

*meaning that all Gentiles in the NT are uncircumcised Israelites and not other ethnicities.

Chef Tony

tom-g's picture

Hey CT,

I don't think I am aware of the term mongrel. In any case, an Israelite of the flesh, whether circumcised or not, is by definition a descendant of the "Fathers"; Abraham; Isaac; and Jacob (Israel).

Ephesians denies of the gentiles what Romans affirms of Israelites. Therefore I would have to respectfully disagree with your definition of a gentile.

Tom

chef's picture

Tom, Mongrel just means "mix breed".

As far a the definition of gentile, you may respectully disagree, but it is not my definition. It is RiversOfEden4's [on the forum] definition, too wich I dissagree also, respectfully of course :)

Please elaborate on your statement : "...Ephesians denies of the gentiles what Romans affirms of Israelites...", if you have time. Thanks Tom.

Chef Tony

Chef Tony

tom-g's picture

Thanks for your reply Chef Tony,

I have always maintained that in any honest serious discussion you can not progress beyond the point at which you digress. Since all discussion (argument) is discursive, that is the building of precept upon precept, line upon line, so that when one precept is not agreed upon all further agreement would be in dispute. I do not know much of what Rivers says, but I think I would disagree with his first precept.

As to your question, let me say that a primary axiom of deductive reasoning (logic) is "Dictum DE Omni", which says that everything that is said to be true of a whole thing is said to also be true of all of the parts of that whole thing.

Such would be the case in Romans chapter nine in which seven properties are said to be true of all Israel. Therefore if any person is to be identified as an Israelite then all of those seven properties would also be true of that one person.

One of the three laws that govern all valid reasoning is the "Law of Identity". This law says that if something is said to be true it is necessarily and always true. Therefore the seven properties that define an Israelite were true from the time they originated and they were true when Paul defined them in Romans and they were true when Paul wrote Ephesians.

Another axiom of deductive reasoning (logic) is: "Two things both of which are the same to a third thing are the same to each other" and its contradiction: "Two things, one of which is the same and one of which is not the same to a third thing, are not the same to each other." These axioms as you can see are the foundation truths of the "Syllogism" and its five theorems that must be observed for a thing to be necessarily and certainly true.

When Paul in Ephesians chapter two is speaking to those who were gentiles before their membership in the church, he claims certain things that were not true of them at that time.

Foremost is his claim that Israelites and gentiles were two different classes of men with a wall of separation between them. This claim establishes that Israelites and gentiles were not one whole thing but two separate things and therefore what was said to be true of Israel was not said to be true of a gentile.

Paul then elaborates upon this logical axiom when he says that the wall of separation that kept them from being one man, and not two different men, was broken down in Christ and the seven properties of an Israelite were fulfilled and done away with through Christ. Thus that which prevented two things (Israelites and gentiles) from being the same to a third thing (Christ) was abolished and they were now both one new man in Christ.

Thus Paul earnestly beseeches the Ephesians in chapter four to walk worthy of this unity of one new man. Paul specifically identifies the seven things that now unite them in contrast to the seven things that were a wall of separation between them; 1) One body; 2) One spirit; 3) One hope of your calling; 4) One Lord; 5) One faith; 6) One baptism; and seventh but not last 7) One God and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Thus based upon the truth of scripture as confirmed by the laws of grammar and logic, I respectfully disagreed with the statement that gentiles were at any time also Israelites.

Tom

chef's picture

Hi Tom, I sent you an email to your PP mail. Please let me know if you recieved it:

kontoya@earthlink.net

Thanks,
Chef Tony

Chef Tony

davo's picture

chef: *meaning that all Gentiles in the NT are uncircumcised Israelites and not other ethnicities.

Unfortunately, for an argument that does carry "some" weight ROE4 undermines it in his dogmatism; the text below is a case in point where his all or nothing approach is made a nonsense of – too bad he unlike Tom, will not step out from the back waters of the forums and put his arguments up for closer scrutiny; I wonder why???

Lk :25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’

How these "kings of the Gentiles" could be spun into being uncircumcised Israelites would be an interesting feat.

davo

davo's picture

Excellent stuff Chris --

Gal 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, ESPECIALLY to those who are of the household of faith.

davo

chrisliv's picture

Yeah, Davo,

That single verse in Galatians says it perfectly.

Some people seem to need more of a foundational argument. But, sadly, some may not even accept the words from the Master (Christ) Himself.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

flannery0's picture

Tom,

What I have come to see since seeing the fulfillment of God's promises, is that they are fulfilled in a "covenant community" or "corporate body" (not to push any buttons) context. And only in that context. You see this everywhere in the theology of Paul. He didn't separate himself (or his salvation) from the covenant community. I grew up hearing the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" and it is only recently that I have come to see how unbiblical that is.

You wrote:

"I must be rationally prepared to give up these personal human emotional relationships to experience the truth and mercy of God"

And I would respond by saying that it is not possible to experience the mercy of God in your life apart from your relationship with God's people. Mercy is experienced through continual reciprocity. Mercy is the proof of Kingdom life. We are "fit together" as a holy temple. One temple. "Now the tabernacle of God is with men." Many men, but ONE tabernacle. We experience His presence in our communion with other members of His body. There is no other context for it.

Tami

tom-g's picture

Tami,

I thank you very much for clarifying this question, and I can only say that I concur completely with your response.

Our relationships and communion is with fellow members of the covenantal community of God's people who share our like faith and unbelievers are not part of any truth or mercy of God outside of our common community of faith.

It is necessary to keep this truth foremost in our communication so that unbelievers are not given any possibility of thinking they are in any way a part of that community of believers in the kingdom of God.

Thank you,
Tom

Starlight's picture

Matt 22:37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' [ 38 THIS IS THE FIRST AND GREATEST COMMANDMENT. 39 And the second is like it: 'LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS HANG ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS."

1 Cor 13:13 And now these three remain: FAITH, HOPE AND LOVE. But the GREATEST OF THESE IS LOVE.

Ed's picture

Exactly! This is what happened with me and Calvinism - I have never rejected God's sovereignty, but it is only within the context of relationship that His sovereignty makes intellectual sense. He did all this for us as a collective, and me as an individual. That's mind-boggling, and it gives me a great assurance of His unconditional love for me and you (since you are my friend, that blesses me too). Predestination/Sovereignty, in the context of relationship, is a sweet thing. Theologically, for the sake of theological precision, it is repugnant (it creates things like endless torment, reprobation, etc.).

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Virgil,

Good stuff.

I just thought of the movie Castaway with Tom Hanks as I read. The Wilson volleyball turned "companion" was quite the feat. Sermon material, in fact, for me on the next Sunday.

Enjoyed it,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

chrisliv's picture

Hey, Tim,

I know this is off-topic, but while you're here, I want to tell you that I recently found a good article on your website about the anti-statist Covenant of Marriage. I like the first sentence especially well, "We live in a statist culture."

http://www.truthinliving.org/index.php?pr=Marriage_Covenant

I don't know if it was you who actually wrote it, but have you ever submitted it to PP for posting?

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Chris,

It is off-topic. I did write this a few years ago. It is the marriage covenant document that my wife and I used in 1995.

Here is something else I wrote on the topic:

http://www.truthinliving.org/index.php?pr=A_Letter_to_Rachel

FWIW, my views are not quite as dogmatic as yours, and I doubt if you would agree with my (positive) view of the proper role of the civil magistrate.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

tom-g's picture

Hey Tim,

I realize this is off the subject but in your response you indicate your "views are not quite as dogmatic". I would honestly like to better understand you. Did you mean contradictory or partially?

I know where the anti statism philosophy originated and who its disciples have been, that is why I ask.

Thanks,
Tom

chrisliv's picture

Yeah, Tom,

I'm guessing that Tim's "dogmatic" comment is intended to show that my endorsement of his one anti-statist Marriage article is to warn people that he is not in agreement with my more anarchistic Christian views.

I don't blame him for that.

And I certainly don't want anyone to construe Tim's dogmatic and positive view of a coercive and violent organization, known as the State, to be ascribed to me just because I like his single article.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Starlight's picture

Chris,

I think Tom meant to lovingly reply that Joseph and Mary’s submission to the Roman census decree may present a problematic image of obedience in relation to your beliefs concerning the state.

Norm

chrisliv's picture

Well, Norm,

See if my response to Tom makes any sense to you.

Peace,
Christian

Starlight's picture

Chris,

I wasn't impressed with Tom's manner with you but I'm not impressed with your logic either.

Norm

chrisliv's picture

OK,

Fair enough, Norm.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

tom-g's picture

Chris,

i was asking Tim, which he is in no way required to answer, for my own understanding. I already know of your continued degrading of Christ and his gospel by falsely linking it to the gospel of anti Christ. Paul warned us of those ministers of evil who try to transform and pass themselves and their evil gospel off as ministers of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth than to speak of anarchistic views as being Christian.

How you must hate the biblical account of our Lord's mother, and father according to the flesh, voluntarily obeying the decree of the "coercive and violent State" by order of Caesar, to go to Bethlehem and be counted and to pay their taxes.

Their view was certainly not your anarchistic view and their view had the knowledge and cooperation and consent of God. That should give you a clear understanding of where your contradictory view originated.

Tom

chrisliv's picture

Gee, Tom,

For someone who prides himself as a logician, your arguments are very poor.

Mary, the "Lord's mother" is not the Example.

“When his family heard about this, they went to take charge {custody} of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” (Mark 3:21 NIV)

If we were to follow your logic, Tom, you would lead us all to believe that it's biblical to lock Christ up in an asylum, just because Christ's family is recorded as believing as much at one point in time.

The obvious nature of the State was as well-known to Christ, just as it is to any honest person today. And Christ stated the obvious, too:

"And he said unto them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But it shall not be so among you...'" Luke 22;25 & 26, Mat. 20;25 & 26, Mark 10:42 & 43.

State personnel "exercise" lordship and violence not derived from God. And the State is fraudulently "called" a benefactor.

Christ stated the obvious about the State to his Disciples, right before his impending execution by the State.

The State then, as it is now, was a shakedown and a scam.

He then went on to tell them not to use hostile State methods as the leaders in His Kingdom and New Society, separate from the State.

But the Church was corrupted in 313 AD, when it became a State Corporation under Caesar Constantine, via the Edict of Milan, and began participating in the State by killing for the State on the Roman battlefields.

Too bad, the Roman Empire was just about to fall apart in 313 AD. Constantine was very saavy to entice the Body of Christ to mingle itself with the Body of the State in order to extend its life committing perversities and atrocities with the State Clergy seated alongside the Caesars.

The funny thing about Idolatry is that the idolators don't know they're in Idolatry. They really believe they're serving God.

As someone has said, "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."

Or, as somebody said,

"The State calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime."

And, as someone else stated,

"The pattern is as old as human life. The new rulers use more and more force, more police, more soldiers, trying to enforce more efficient control, trying to make the planned economy work by piling regulations on regulations, decree on decree. The people are hungry and hungrier. And how does a man on this earth get butter? Doesn't the government give butter? But government does not produce food from the earth; Government is guns....Men in Government monopolize the necessary use of force....they are not milking cows. To get butter, they must use guns; they have nothing else to use."

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

tom-g's picture

Hey Chris, thank you for proving me right,

There will obviously be a place reserved for those who would so distort the Word as to claim that the twelve, who left all earthly ties and followed Him that they confessed was the Christ the only begotten Son of the living God, gave up everything and voluntarily followed a man they thought was a madman who should be locked up in an asylum!

Your corrupt and deceitful use of the word of God convicts you of your gospel of anti Christ, by even denying the very Lordship and Kingship of Christ. Since the very passages you falsely quote establish that Christ is to be their Lord and King in his earthly State and the apostles were to be the governors and ministers of his earthly State. You pervert by denying that both a Kingdom and a State has a King so that you can deceitfully argue your anti Christ anarchist gospel denouncing the validity of a Kingdom/State.

You simply dismiss the Nativity without comment since your gospel of anti Christ contradicts it. The voluntary obedience of Mary and Joseph to the decrees of the head of the State, Caesar, places the lie directly at your doorstep.

It would almost seem you have sworn a secret oath in your initiation, not to reveal the sources of your gospel of anti Christ, by your ambiguous references to "someone said". But you have almost slipped up and identified them with your references to "the planned economy", "guns and "butter". You are becoming careless Chris, your deception in promoting the gospel of anti Christ is beginning to be revealed.

Tom

chrisliv's picture

Tom,

Its in the Bible, and its a reality, whether you like it or not:

“When his family heard about this, they went to take charge {custody} of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” (Mark 3:21 NIV)

Your posts have degenerated into nothing more than ad hominems ascribing to me delusions of your own making:

"corrupt", "deceitful", "pervert", "denying", "gospel denouncing", "distort the Word", "dismiss the Nativity", "your anti Christ", "seem you have sworn a secret oath".

Since your objectivity is now completely shot, I'll wait for some new topic to interact with you, so long as you maintain some semblance of objectivity.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

tom-g's picture

Chris,

Again you prove the evil of your gospel of anti Christ. Mk. 3:21 is about his 12 disciples. your gospel says that these men first said he was the Christ the son of the living God, then they said he was mad and should be locked up in a mad house, then they said he was The Lord and knew all things and in Acts you say they were deluded about their understanding of the State.

Then you try to claim (MK. 3:31) that it was his mother Mary, the very woman who was chosen by God and who was told directly by God who the babe in her womb was, was one of those who claimed that Christ was mad and should be locked up in an asylum. Your evil words seem to have no boundaries in proclaiming your gospel of anti Christ.

If maintaining some semblance of objectivity by your definition means that I will ever refuse to refute the gospel of anti Christ you proclaim, then you will be in that place reserved for you before that happens.

I have predicted from the beginning that you would refuse to name the secretive sources and persons who created the gospel you preach and I have continually been proven correct.

You have continually refused to use scripture in the same way on the same topic that you distort.

You continually refuse to acknowledge that the Nativity account contradicts your anti Christ gospel.

It is interesting and instructive how you deflect any proof of your error by claiming the truth is delusional. I am a rank amateur at ad hominems, the real masters were the apostles Peter and Paul. Peter identified you much better then I could ever do in his second letter chapter 2, particularly 2:22.

Tom

chrisliv's picture

Tom,

What on earth are you talking about:

"I have predicted from the beginning that you would refuse to name the secretive sources and persons who created the gospel you preach..."

“When his family heard about this, they went to take charge {custody} of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” (Mark 3:21 NIV)

It's no secret. It's in the Bible. Mark wrote it down, from what he was obviously told by Peter.

Do you really think, "It would almost seem you have sworn a secret oath in your initiation, not to reveal the sources of your gospel of anti Christ...?"

If you're talking about those few quotes I cited from 19th and 20th century authors, their names are, Dresden James, Max Stirner, and Rose Wilder Lane.

So, I have now proven that your "prediction" was false.

Who cares what their names are?

I'm not part of an Illuminati Conspiracy, and no secret oaths have been taken, Tom.

Why don't you honestly try to refute what the quotes are actually stating, rather that try to assassinate the character of the authors.

Tom, I can only conclude that you're unable to challenge any argument that I've put forth, or that you're lazy, or that you're in denial, or that you're dishonest, or that you suffer from some combination of the four.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Windpressor's picture

*********

Yeah, if the state were altogether benign then no angelic visitations were necessary to inform Joseph to secretly move his family to Egypt and back.

g1

......

G-Juan Wind

plymouthrock's picture

Chris and Tim,

I asked Tim that same question when I first joined PP. It is a great article and true! Come on Tim, show us some love... ;)

And speaking of the value of relationships, I can actually remember crying (sort of, lol) when Wilson floated away in Castaway - even inanimate objects like volleyballs and mannequins hold relationship value when no human can be found.

plymouthrock!

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Rock,

I remember our conversation well. Here is something else I wrote a few years ago:

http://www.truthinliving.org/index.php?pr=A_Letter_to_Rachel

I have been known to randomly yell "Willlsssoooonnn" at various points in time when I have a challenging day at work. My hired hands usually figure out what I'm up to on the third or fourth time they hear.

Usually, it happens when I'm 25 feet up in the air and lost my sqeegie,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Virgil's picture

Tim, I forgot about Castaway. Similar lesson about relationships...great point!

chrisliv's picture

Hey,

Nice thoughts, Virgil.

I was curious about that movie plot, and I'm glad you didn't give too much away. Your comments brought The Castaway, with Tom Hanks, to mind, and also reminded me of what Mother Teresa reportedly told someone who wanted to help, by her saying to find someone (in Calcutta, presumably) who felt all alone and let them know that they're not.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Virgil's picture

Chris, good comments. I like what you said about mother Teresa.

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43