Val Lee's Weblog

Val Lee's Writings

The Emerging Church—What it is

The Emerging Church Facts

Please watch these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGSQjtWTpaw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkhq0R0TIyM
The hippie-like emerging church is moving in power and its philosophies are being slyly introduced into so-called Biblical Christianity. It actually has been reaching in and taking hold for many years. This is a demonic movement that has loomed out of hell. It has no problems with satanism, New Age, Catholicism, Episcopalism, etc. It also covets diversity and affirming mandates. It seems anything goes.

As I write my Revelation commentaries, I can see the church slowly entering the religious realm that will someday fight against the Christ of the Bible—who is completely chaste, pure, undefiled, harmless, separated from sinners and made higher than the heavens; Hebrews 7:26. This emergent, ecumenical religious body, foreseen in Revelation, will be he heathenistic, worshipping countless false gods as Israel did in her apostasy being documented in the books of Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. Israel was condemned for displaying more false gods than the pagan nations that surrounded her. The church seems headed in that same direction.

The church today wants to mirror a Hollywood mentality. It is the avenue that unveils every new contemporary way. Even Christians will turn to it to see how they should be acting, what they should be wearing and what new lingo should be flowing from their lips.

It is no wonder the church wants all people coming in its doors to see a new look—a Christianity that implements the best of productions…videos that entertain more than they preach convicting truth if any truth is presented.

The church of today relishes explaining Christ to an audience that loves the satanic sensual realm, people who love mystical (demonic) books and movies with “sexy” included. Today’s contemporary church presents an apostate Jesus for all to enjoy. The true Jesus Christ hates Hollywood’s worldly productions. He hates the fact the church desires to imitate this state-of-the-art fanfare. He hates the fact pastors want to refer to the entrainment business in their sermons in a positive way. These so-called men of God want to use television programs and movies to get a point across while attempting to entertain at the same time. They want to be one with their entertaining-loving congregation. They do not want to be different. They do not truly fear and tremble before God.

The LORD hates all sin and He hates this realm that does not uplift His holy name with His holy, innocent and pure ways.

The church does not present a Christ who was despised and hated of men. A Christ who was the song of drunkards and the object of gossip because He taught holy righteousness and separation; Psalm 69:12f. Jesus Christ was not a Hollywood star nor was He a rock star nor did He desire to be. He walked the hated road of separation. He was totally separated from man’s desires for fame and popularity. His kingdom was not of this nasty world.

Many believers are into pornography and movies that show skin. Today’s church attendees relish the thought that everyone can come to church as they are. Many men (including pastors and teachers) of the church like women dressing provocatively. They like a bit of cleavage showing and it shows in most every church today. It wasn’t that long ago that such a thing was viewed as disgraceful.

Our churches need Biblical change not emergent change. Fellowships need to throw out the false Jesus of sensuality, and move in the true Christ of holy righteousness. The Christ of innocent chastity.

For churches to make a positive change, pastors and leaders need to follow all the instructions for the church structure, exhibited in the books of Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter, Jude, Ephesians, etc. They must focus on the true Jesus Christ who never lies nor does His holy, inerrant provided Word.

They must throw off the emergent social mandates. He calls churches to preach, teach the Word, evangelize, pray, perform communion, minister and to humbly sing hymns and spiritual songs. God made the church simple. He does not call for community incentives to raise money through silly fundraisers. All church monies are simply to be collected from those who give cheerfully on the first day of the week.

Adding to the church mandates is pharisaical. Christ condemned the religious leaders as they added their own traditions to Scripture. Pastors feel they have to add program upon program. When one program fizzes out, they add another. And every silly program has to have a theme to catch the attention of a floating congregation. Getting back to the simple commands is the only answer no matter the dwindling congregation. Actually, it would probably become most blessed if every way was followed.

It is not about numbers; however, it is about evangelism and the harvest is plentiful. But it is not man who gives the increase it is God. Remember Christ did not need any rock group and fun comedians. It is totally blasphemous to imagine such a thing. He never implemented music as he spoke nor did the apostles. He left no example to entertain and leave an audience in awe. We are to follow His example totally, not man’s, not Hollywood, and not the emerging church exampled.

The church is a complicated socialized structure of the emergent mindset. It is in trendy “conversation” with the world, when it is to be alienated from the world. We are strangers and aliens on this earth. The church is not to mingle in the social stream of a community church. The church is not of the community of men, it is of the realm of God alone. We are to be separate from satan’s children. We are the called out ones. We are not one flowing river of social reform. We are not a “village” of one-mindedness with the globe. We do not engage in “peer to peer” dialog with those who have not been born again. We have nothing in common with the unsaved outside of normal life behaviors. Our true family is of the true saints, not those who curse our Savior. Satan is the father of blasphemes and the nations that blaspheme Christ, being made clear in Revelation chapter 13. The emerging church is a blasphemous church that will manufacture more strength when satan moves to center stage on a gigantic scale when the apocalypse reaches nearer.

We should not want to partake of the contemporary experience. We are called to the ambassador role in total humility. We are not to conform to the culture that surrounds as if we were one in the same. Our calling is not humanitarianism, it is evangelism.

May the apostate emerging church wake-up and reach upward for truth.

In Him who warns of every wayward way taught in the church today,

Val Lee (It is my heart to follow the apostles’ example.  For many walk according to what they think or have experienced or what others think or have experienced. This hurts my heart and such actions made Paul and the other apostles weep. We are to walk according to their example and teachings without questioning; 1 Corinthians 11:1, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Peter 3:2 and Jude 17. Those who do not are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is their destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is their shame, who set their minds on earth things; Philippians 3:17-19)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

Wickipedia edited:

The emerging church (sometimes referred to as the emergent movement) is a Christian movement of the late 20th and early 21st century that crosses a number of theological boundaries: participants can be described as evangelical, post-evangelical, liberal, post-liberal, charismatic, neocharismatic (both Pentecostal and charismatic) and post-charismatic. Participants seek to live their faith in what they believe to be a “postmodern” (meaning after the modernist movement. A style and concept in the arts characterized by distrust of theories and ideologies and by the drawing of attention to conventions) society—a new cultural society. Proponents of this movement call it a “conversation” to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints and its commitment to dialogue.

The emerging church favors the use of simple story and narrative not strong Scriptural charging. Members of the movement often place a high value on good works or social activism, sometimes including missional living or new monasticism (commune or monastery). Many emergents emphasize the here and now.

Some have noted a difference between the terms “emerging” and “Emergent.” Whilst emerging is a wider, informal, church-based, global movement, Emergent refers to an official organization, the Emergent Village, associated with Brian McLaren, and has also been called the “Emergent stream.”

Emerging churches can be found throughout the globe, predominantly in North America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa. Some attend local independent churches or house church labeled “emerging” while others worship in traditional Christian denominations.

Dr. Stuart Murray states:
It will bring together the most helpful of the old and best of the new, blending the dynamic of a personal Gospel with the compassion of social concern. It will find its ministry being expressed by a whole people, wherein the distinction between clergy and laity will be that of function, not of status or hierarchical division. In the emerging Church, due emphasis will be placed on both theological rootage and contemporary experience, on celebration in worship and involvement in social concerns, on faith and feeling, reason and prayer, conversion and continuity, the personal and the conceptual.

The emerging church seeks a post-Christendom approach to being church and mission through: renouncing imperialistic approaches to language and cultural imposition; making ‘truth claims’ with humility and respect; overcoming the public/private dichotomy; moving church from the center to the margins; moving from a place of privilege in society to one voice amongst many; a transition from control to witness, maintenance to mission and institution to movement.

In the face of criticism, some in the emerging church respond that this it is important to attempt a “both and” approach to redemptive and incarnational theologies. Some Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are perceived as “overly redemptive” and therefore in danger of condemning people by communicating the Good News in aggressive and angry ways. A more loving and affirming approach is proposed in the context of post-modernity where distrust may occur in response to power claims. It is suggested that this can form the basis of a constructive engagement with twenty-first century post-industrial western cultures. According to Ian Mobsby, the suggestion that the emerging church is mainly focused on deconstruction and the rejection of current forms of church should itself be rejected.

The emerging church is a response to the perceived influence of modernism in Western Christianity. As some sociologists commented on a cultural shift that they believed to correspond to postmodern ways of perceiving reality in the late 20th century, some Christians began to advocate changes within the church in response. These Christians saw the contemporary church as being culturally bound to modernism. They changed their practices to relate to the new cultural situation. Emerging Christians began to challenge the modern church on issues such as: institutional structures, systematic theology, propositional teaching methods, a perceived preoccupation with buildings, an attractional understanding of mission, professional clergy, and a perceived preoccupation with the political process and unhelpful jargon (“Christian-ese”).

As a result, some in the emerging church believe it is necessary to deconstruct modern Christian dogma. One way this happens is by engaging in dialogue, rather than proclaiming a predigested message, believing that this leads people to Jesus through the Holy Spirit on their own terms. Many in the movement embrace the missiology that drives the movement in an effort to be like Christ and make disciples by being a good example. The emerging church movement contains a great diversity in beliefs and practices, although some have adopted a preoccupation with sacred rituals, good works, and political and social activism. Much of the Emerging Church movement have also adopted the approach to evangelism which stressed peer-to-peer dialogue rather than dogmatic proclamation and proselytizing.

A plurality of Scriptural interpretations is acknowledged in the emerging church movement. Participants in the movement exhibit a particular concern for the effect of the modern reader’s cultural context on the act of interpretation echoing the ideas of postmodern thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish.

Therefore a narrative approach to Scripture, and history are emphasized in some emerging churches over exegetical and dogmatic approaches (such as that found in systematic theology and systematic exegesis), which are often viewed as reductionist. Others embrace a multiplicity of approaches.

Some leaders in the movement publicly welcome open discussion with other religions regarding the definition of Christian faith. Others in the movement label the practice differently, calling the interfaith dialog a means to share their narratives as they learn from the narratives of others. Some Emerging Church Christians believe there are radically diverse perspectives within Christianity that are valuable for humanity to progress toward truth and a better resulting relationship with God, and that these different perspectives deserve Christian charity rather than condemnation.

The movement appropriates set theory as a means of understanding a basic change in the way the Christian church thinks about itself as a group. Set theory is a concept in mathematics that allows an understanding of what numbers belong to a group, or set. A bounded set would describe a group with clear “in” and “out” definitions of membership. The Christian church has largely organized itself as a bounded set, those who share the same beliefs and values are in the set and those who disagree are outside.

The centered set does not limit membership to pre-conceived boundaries. Instead a centered set is conditioned on a centered point. Membership is contingent on those who are moving toward that point. Elements moving toward a particular point are part of the set, but elements moving away from that point are not. As a centered-set Christian membership would be dependent on moving toward the central point of Jesus. A Christian is then defined by their focus and movement toward Christ rather than a limited set of shared beliefs and values. John Wimber utilized the centered set understanding of membership in his Vineyard Churches. The centered set theory of Christian Churches came largely from missional anthropologist Paul Hiebert. The centered set understanding of membership allows for a clear vision of the focal point, the ability to move toward that point without being tied down to smaller diversions, a sense of total egalitarianism with respect for differing opinions, and an authority moved from individual members to the existing center.

Authenticity and Conversation

The movement favors the sharing of experiences via testimonies, prayer, group recitation, sharing meals and other communal practices, which they believe are more personal and sincere than propositional presentations of the Gospel. Teachers in the Emerging Church tend to view the Bible and its stories through a lens which they believe finds significance and meaning for their community’s social and personal stories rather than for the purpose of finding cross-cultural, propositional absolutes regarding salvation and conduct.

The emerging church claims they are creating a safe environment for those with opinions ordinarily rejected within modern conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Non-critical, interfaith dialog is preferred over dogmatically-driven evangelism in the movement. Story and narrative replaces the dogmatic:
The relationship between words and images has changed in contemporary culture. In a post-foundational world, it is the power of the image that takes us to the text. The bible is no longer a principal source of morality, functioning as a rulebook. The gradualism of postmodernity has transformed the text into a guide, a source of spirituality, in which the power of the story as but on potential moral reference point has superseded the didactic. Thus the meaning of the Good Samaritan is more important than the Ten Commandments – even assuming that the latter could be remembered in any detail by anyone. Into this mileau the image speaks with power.

Those in the movement do not engage in aggressive apologetics or confrontational evangelism in the traditional sense, preferring to encourage the freedom to discover truth through conversation and relationships with the Christian community.

Missional living

Participants in this movement assert that the incarnation of Christ informs their theology, believing that as God entered the world in human form, adherents enter (individually and communally) into the context around them, aiming to transform that culture through local involvement in it. This holistic involvement may take many forms, including social activism, hospitality, and acts of kindness. This beneficent involvement in culture is part of what is called “missional living.

This approach leads to their focus on temporal and social issues, as opposed to a perceived Evangelical overemphasis on eternal salvation. Drawing on research and models of contextual theology, Mobsby asserts that the Emerging Church is using different models of contextual theology to Conservative Evangelicals. Conservative Evangelical Churches tend to use a ‘translation’ model of contextual theology, (which has been criticized for being colonialist and having a very low opinion of culture and humanity), where the Emerging Church tends to use a ‘synthetic’ or ‘transcendent’ model of contextual theology. The Emerging Church has charged many Conservative Evangelical Churches of withdrawal from involvement from contextual mission and seeking contextualisation of the gospel.

Advertisements

June 14, 2009 Posted by | apocalypse, Apostasy, Bible, Christianity, Evangelism, Israel, Religion, Scripture, Theology, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

President Obama Thoughts and Video Link

Under Winter’s Illuminated Skies

I recently shot this south of Boise

Today on the MSN home page, someone wrote in response to this sad day that we must worship God not Obama. President Obama wants laws made lenient for those suspected as terrorists and have been arrested as lawbreakers. He wants to exercise more power than the average president has maintained. We must closely listen to this man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. We must pray for our new government leader as Scripture commands and respect him, come what may. We know who rules President Obama and that he is putty in the hands of God. God has disciplined many wayward nations through ruthless dictators. I am not saying President Obama will become a ruthless dictator, but there is that slight possibility.

Crowds are immense today, possibly over 3 million, for Obama who states we need a new Declaration of Independence: “What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives — from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry — an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels.” “What is required,” Obama added, “is the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed.” Obama’s angels are not of God, as Obama believes in murdering children before and after they are born according to the desires of the mother. Satan is the father of all murders. Obama denies and mocks the Scriptures so we know that his angels are demons. God’s angels delivered the first five Books in the Bible—the Pentateuch. Thou shalt not kill is stated in the Pentateuch and in other places in the Word of God. The Word of God also states that no Bible author wrote on his own accord. Every Bible author scribed the Words of God. Many twist and turn the Word of God so they can live their lives according to what they think or have experienced. They also feed on the experiences and thoughts of others and do not simply rest in the verse by verse teaching of the Bible, which is the only inspired and true book in this world.

The patriotic video link below should be viewed in all schools…and by all Americans. Take the time to watch this video; you will see where we might be headed. Very powerful and factual. This should be required viewing in every school in America……..unfortunately, our educational system would never allow it… But most of all, every senator, congressman, governor and every other public servant should be compelled to view this video and recite the text thereof, before taking the oath of office………………. http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Val Lee  

January 20, 2009 Posted by | Abortion, Christianity, News, Obama, President Obama, Scripture, Uncategorized | | Leave a comment

Mary Did You Know? Mary Knew a Lot!

 

Star of Wonder, Star of Light

 The Christmas Story

The Christmas story is recorded in the books of Luke and Matthew. A woman by the name of Mary is presented to us in chapter one of these books. She is surrounded in miraculous happenings—never previously experienced nor envisioned on the earth.

The most renowned of the miraculous, is she, a pure virgin, who has walked in all chaste behavior, was called to bear a Son by the power of the Most High. Her child would walk as Almighty God Himself on the earth, and would be called the “Son of God;” Luke 1:35.

If we travel backward a few verses and read Luke 1:30, we recognize Mary is a woman whom God has been watching, a remarkable girl, who is precious in His eyes. She has proven herself to be godly—for she has “found favor with God.” The LORD knows she is an equipped, discerning woman of faith up to this task.  God crafted her in her mother’s womb for this calling. (Psalm 139)

This exclusive message came to Mary through the angel Gabriel. She, no doubt, knew of Gabriel through Scripture. It was the angel Gabriel who revealed the promised Messiah in Daniel 9:21f. The message proclaimed to Mary regards Christ’s millennial rule upon the earth, as future King. Nothing is stated here regarding the church age. Mary, being a Jew, knew of Messiah’s future reign and this is what the angelic message addressed. This delivery delves into the fact, Christ is born of the seed of David—Mary was a descendant through David’s son, Nathan; Luke 3:23f. I find this ever so interesting, knowing the Messianic rule is what we now look towards, when His righteousness rules the earth for a thousand years; Revelation chapter 20, Zechariah chapter 14, Psalms chapter 2, etc. (One of the reasons I believe Mary found favor with God, is she knew the Scriptures and applied them. She loved the written Word, and we will see this as we move further into the unraveling events. Mary knew a lot!)

Mary, being told, she as a virgin, is to give birth to God’s Son, is a hard pill to swallow. Therefore, Gabriel informs Mary of her relative, Elizabeth; verse 36. She knew her relative was old and past child-bearing age; yet, she too was to miraculously give birth. Mary was not alone in this time of miraculous works. Gabriel reminds Mary, “Nothing is impossible with God,” verse 37, concerning Elizabeth’s astonishing conception. Mary is totally assured of God’s power to perform mighty works of allowing a woman to bear past her time.

She recognizes that such a tremendous miracle didn’t cease with Sarah, Abraham’s wife, as disclosed in the book of Genesis. A similar statement of assurance was given to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18:14, where God asked, “Is anything two difficult for the LORD?” The God of yesteryears is the God of today. We must not walk in smallness of faith. Faith is the glorious victory in overcoming all doubt.

God ministered to Mary with just the right prescription. He knows how to heal any Scriptural doubting we may hold. He can move beyond what we ask or think.

God opened the way of comfort for Mary through Elizabeth so she would not feel alone in this unusual situation that could prove to be most embarrassing. God is all able to bring people into our lives who can assist us through the deep roaring seas of tribulation where we need faith and endurance to face today and tomorrow. We also know as Christians that no person can minister to us like the Lord, as 1 Peter 5:7 discloses. He oversees every one of His children as a guiding Father who is omnipotently superior to any earthly father … this is why we cast all our cares upon Him.

There may be times when God will separate us from others so we can learn total dependence upon Him. I have been here and I know how important this lonely painful lesson is. No matter what our circumstances, we can always personally feel His presence, as we seek Him through prayer and the Scriptures that hold all the answers.

Verse 38 is most remarkable, revealing Mary’s total heart of submission … so unlike Elizabeth’s husband. Though Zacharias was godly, he lacked the submission and faith found in Mary. Mary replies to Gabriel, “May it be done according to your word.” This is what we all should say when it comes to applying God’s Word! We are not to be women’s libbers of the progressives, but women who love all the inerrant Bible and long to apply it without question. What a witness for us to keep in mind. We must not walk in smallness of faith.

Mary most likely held great excitement in her heart knowing she was the fulfillment of prophecy. She was the virgin spoken of in Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” Mary was the woman whom every young Jewish maiden desired to be. The one to bring God, in man form; rightly set, at the right time, on His revolving, sinful, lost globe. This is too incomprehensibly miraculous for us to totally grasp.

Mary’s quick response in faith to Gabriel’s words concerning Elizabeth, displayed she held no doubts concerning what God could do. She arose to travel to Judah, in a hurry; verse 39.

The details involving Gabriel’s next task is found in Matthew 1:16-25. This involves Joseph’s part in the holy advent of Christ’s birth. In Matthew 1:16 Joseph is called Mary’s husband. This is before Gabriel came to Joseph with the miraculous news. This is because they were married in decision, but had not joined together—being united under one roof through consummation. The engagement period in Israel represented a marital vow, not to be broken, unless adultery occurred. We see from John chapter 2, that the Jews engaged in wedding celebrations and Mary and Joseph had not partaken in their own.

(Many will say Jesus was mocked for being illegitimate by the religious leaders as seen in John 8:41. I do not believe this; I believe the Pharisees were just trying to justify themselves before Christ by relaying they did not come from an act of fornication. They did not live where Jesus lived nor desired to go to this mocked land of Nazareth. They seemed to assume He was born in Nazareth, observing they called Him a Nazarene, therefore they were quite ignorant. The religious leaders are unlearned regarding His birth which occurred around 30 years previous in Bethlehem and of the miracles surrounding it … proving Him to be God-man. Never do we witness this discussed among them; actually the opposite, as exposed in John 7:41-42. Here the people state Jesus was born in Galilee, owning no key to the knowledge of the Christmas story of His Bethlehem birth.

If Jesus was known as being of fornication, why was the family completely welcomed into the Jerusalem temple after Jesus’ birth? Why weren’t Mary and Joseph ridiculed and put out? Instead Jesus Christ was highly praised as the promised Messiah! This temple time included miraculous prophecies regarding Christ, and Mary was the subject of one of them. Plus, Mary was completely respected by Zacharias the priest, Elizabeth’s husband, who served in this temple. He knew of the miraculous, virgin conception of Christ.

Jesus, as an infant, was transported to Egypt by His parents as Herod wanted Jesus dead; and, of course, so did satan. God’s directives came by way of two dreams to guide the paths of this young family. Both dreams were angelic warnings. The first cautioned regarding Herod’s murderous plan to eliminate Jesus; whereby, they were instructed to flee to Egypt and stay until the LORD directed their return. The second angelic warning proceeded Herod’s death, when Joseph was directed to return to Israel but not the Judea area, where Herod’s vile son reigned in his stead. The religious leaders never kept tabs on this unknown infant, though phenomenal happenings surrounded His life.

When the people from Christ’s hometown speak of Him, they say isn’t this “the Carpenter’s son” and “his mother called Mary;” Matthew 13:55-56. They do not state, this is Jesus, the son of Mary, and we do not know who His father is. Additionally, the religious leaders were not shy, and would have made open declarations of His illegitimate birth. They were always attempting to pin something on the Savior and this would have been a significant disclosure. This, of course, would have brought scorn to Mary too; yet, nowhere do we note her being treated disrespectfully.)

Only God knows the timetable on all the nativity events perfectly. No time, in hours is actually provided concerning Mary leaving for Judah and the time needed in preparation. It is possible that she married Joseph before her departure. The Holy Spirit was to overshadow her and it seems she would not depart until she knew for sure she was pregnant through this miraculous way. God wanted Mary to enter into the marriage covenant so she would not suffer disgrace as an unmarried  woman with child within. The LORD graciously sent Gabriel to Joseph, being He totally cared for the ordained plight of this godly daughter of Israel. Joseph, somewhere in this story, obeyed God and took Mary for his wife. We see in Scripture, Joseph did not desire her disgraced as well.

Mary left her home to go and be with one of kindred spirit. Elizabeth was family, united with God and phenomenally pregnant. Mary knew Elizabeth had an open heart and home, and she could go there any time and be received in love.

God spoke the way through Gabriel or she would not have known of God’s other little baby miracle in fetal development. Isn’t it interesting that God chose to have John born of a woman whom Mary loved and respected. … an actual relative?

I sincerely believe that Mary’s family stayed with Elizabeth when they came to Jerusalem for the various feasts of holy days. They probably thought it an honor to stay with a priest who served in the temple. Mary seemed to know Elizabeth well, acknowledging there seemed to be no question concerning her going to her home unannounced.

Elizabeth was into her six month with her miracle child at this time. John was six months older than his cousin Christ Jesus. Why did it happen like this? Perhaps so Elizabeth could encourage and minister to Mary. At least, this is what I believe. She was a godly older woman who could comfort this young gal holding a child within through an act of God.

Mary is reassured she is loved when she is welcomed by Elizabeth and John. This is wondrous fulfilled prophecy we read in verse 41. Remember, Gabriel informed Zacharias that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit while in Elizabeth’s womb. John leaped in the womb when Mary arrived. What a small bundle of large comfort for Mary. This certainly reveals the ways of God, fully beyond grasping.

I wonder if Mary and Elizabeth studied the Old Testament passages together concerning the Messiah since they were both aware what Mary was caring the fulfilled prophecy—the Messiah. Elizabeth was impregnated with the Messiah’s forerunner.

Mary knew the Scriptures well and she may have already held all the passages in her heart concerning the Christmas promise. She was a knowledgeable woman who rested in God’s Holy Scriptures. In Hebrew, Messiah means “anointed one.” Christ translated means “anointed one.” Jesus or Joshua means “savior.” Christ Jesus equates “Anointed Savior.” God is the only holy Anointed One, never being subject to sin. Many have been anointed to perform God’s will in Scripture such as prophets, priests and kings, but they were not holy Anointed God. Our “Anointed Savior” is the only one who can cleanse us from our sin by His precious blood.

Obviously, God has revealed much to Elizabeth, seeing she knows Mary is carrying her LORD God; verse 43. She also knows Mary responded with belief when the angel came to her, verse 45, as she declares, “Blessed is she who believes what was spoken to her by the Lord.” What is humorous about all this, is her godly, priestly husband did not and she knows it! She is excited to have one in her midst who did not question the messenger from God Almighty. Now … don’t get me wrong; I have no doubt, Elizabeth was a godly, submissive wife who did fully respect and love the man God gave her. Their marital relationship certainly was preordained of God, corresponding Sarah and Abraham’s.

Verse 46 introduces Mary’s psalm, her exaltation of God in canticle form. She rejoices in the LORD, her Savior, as His humble bond slave. We learn from this verse, Mary walked in the absence of pride and arrogance. She was filled with godly, humble attributes.

Mary also was given insight to know, every generation will count her blessed and isn’t that what Christmas is much about? The knowledge of her privilege of birthing God Himself is going forth into every new generation, being highlighted every nativity season.

She continues in offering praise for the attributes of God—His omnipotence (being all-powerful), His omniscience (being all-knowing) and His omnipresence (being everywhere present). This involves Him performing great and mighty acts as overseer of all. She mentions His holiness and mercy that stretch from generation to generation. She includes His ability to scatter the proud and to bring rulers down. She stresses His ways of exalting the humble ones and bringing food to the hungry, while sending the rich away empty-handed. She concludes with the fact He is well able to assist Israel and stay faithful to her descendants.

What does this tell us of Mary? Well, … that she was an intelligent, educated lady. She knew the Word of God. She sought to memorize it as she quotes Old Testament passages, many from the Psalms. People state, women from this era were untaught and stupid. Mary reveals just the opposite. She obviously grew up in a home where God was revered by her mother and father. She was instructed in the Word of God thoroughly. This should not surprise, as we witness the wisdom of Elizabeth who was her relative. Elizabeth was clearly intelligent and educated too. This type of fervent caliber was probably evidenced throughout Mary’s family. Mary was reared to be a godly, wise woman. Many women in the Old and New Testament were wise and intelligent; some held mighty power.

Mary stayed with Elizabeth three months. This means Mary probably stayed for the birth of John, as Elizabeth was into her sixth month of pregnancy when Mary traveled to see her. She had to come a distance, approximately 100 miles. There were no cars and paved thoroughfares then, so more time must be added to John’s womb incubation. Elizabeth may have been incubating John for six and half months when Mary arrived.

It would make sense that Mary stayed a short time following the birth to assist. Since Elizabeth’s relatives, (of course, Mary’s relatives as well) rejoiced with her at the birth of John; verse 58, it is possible that Mary’s mom traveled down to celebrate, and then took her daughter back to Nazareth. However, it must be noted nothing is stated concerning Mary’s mother and father being participants during this maternal time. Only God knows if they were presently alive. We do know Mary had one or more siblings as her sister, Mary, (holding the same name) was at the tree of crucifixion when Christ died for all; John 19:25. She was the wife of Clopas or Cleopas, and Jesus appeared to His uncle, Cleopas and possibly His Aunt Mary, too, following the resurrection as disclosed in Luke 24:13f. I personally believe He appeared to both His aunt and uncle when they beckoned Him to come into their home. (We must acknowledge Christ had a remarkable, loving  family, all courtesy of God’s miraculous hand. This family was full of miracle blessings.)

The wonders of this entire setting of miracles are completely beyond what we can grasp in our finite minds. There is so much going on behind the scenes of this astonishing true tale.

We note at the beginning of chapter two of Luke, a census was to be taken “of all the inhabited earth.” What a span to cover! This was orchestrated by Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus. Rome was the ruling empire at this time and it oppressed Israel who looked toward a Messiah that would deliver her. God had another plan, however. Messiah would not rule Israel or the world until much later, when He would return a second time. Christ will, at that time, bring forth His fiery wrath upon sinful man beyond what we can even begin to comprehend until it is actually unleashed. Mary and the Jewish population were aware of Messiah’s coming judgment and the establishment of His kingdom; whereby, He will rule with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken; Psalm 2:7-9, Revelation 2:26-27, etc. The Jewry could not comprehend His first arrival as a servant and brutal death for the sins of mankind. God did bless Mary with the prophetical information of her Savior’s death, so disclosed to her through Simeon. Simeon explained to her, a sword would pierce her own soul (Luke 2:35); but she did not take it to heart until it actually was thrust through—her tender soul, broken in two at Golgotha.

It is interesting to note, verses 34-35 were only directed to Mary, not Joseph. Joseph passed on sometime before Christ began His ministry. Verses 36-38 speak of godly Anna, a pure, modest woman who after being widowed, spent her life serving the LORD. And God blessed her with prophecy, as well, concerning Jesus the Messiah, whom she was able to behold in infant form.

We see three women in this story, whom we can imitate, when it comes to chaste, pure, holy behavior—these who were solely dedicated to the LORD.

Looking further into the census situation, we read in Luke 2:3, everyone had to register in their own city—the city within the tribe of their heritage. If you turn in your Bible, to the back, in the map area, you should locate a map of the divided land of Israel. It will show you the divisions according to the 12 tribes of Jacob, minus Joseph and Levi, but including Joseph’s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim … much too much to go into now. There was a designated city for each tribe to register. (If you have no detailed Bible maps regarding the land division, you can locate maps on the Internet.)

Joseph and Mary were of the tribe of Judah, so Mary had to return to this southern area of Israel again. Remember this is the general location where Elizabeth and Zacharias lived. Mary traveled from Nazareth with Joseph to a different city, this time—Bethlehem, just south of Jerusalem. Elizabeth obviously did not reside in Bethlehem, as they had to locate a place to stay.

We do not know for sure, but Elizabeth and Zacharias may have visited Mary and Joseph after Christ’s birth, since Jerusalem and Bethlehem were close in proximity. Remember the temple was in Jerusalem where Zacharias served as a priest though they lived somewhere outside of this area. He obviously had to travel home when not officially ministering in the temple; Luke 1:23.

In verse 6, we observe that Mary gave birth to Jesus in a lowly manger area or in a type of primitive barn where the animals were lodged as there was no room in the inn for this exclusive couple. Jesus lived a life of a humble servant for mankind, and there was no better way to represent this but through this lowly birth that shone as the bright light, leading the wisemen to His location.

Christ’s growing up years with Jude, James and His other half brothers and sisters are silent; they are not revealed to us as God saw no significance in us knowing of these.

Christ placing Himself in this family is fulfilled prophecy, acknowledging Joseph would have been on the throne reigning as king and not holding a simple carpenter position if the kingly line of David had not been made void at the time of the Babylonian captivity. When Babylon invaded Judah, this ended the Davidic line of the reigning kings. According to the Davidic lineage, Christ had the right to the throne of David through Joseph, being his first-born son—adoptively speaking that is. Joseph’s family ancestry traced back to David is disclosed in Matthew chapter 1. As Joseph’s first born, Christ would have reigned as king, succeeding Joseph. (See Luke 1:32, Revelation 5:5 & 22:16 and Isaiah 9:7, concerning the prophecies of the Davidic Messiah.)

As God, the Creator of all—Colossians 1:13-19, Christ holds the right to the throne in all aspects.

Viewing Elizabeth’s age, she could have been Mary’s blood aunt. Both Elizabeth and Zacharias were of the line of Aaron, the priestly line; Luke 1:5. Zacharias was “of the division of Abijah.” The Abijah line was of Aaron which we confirm through reading 1 Chronicles 24:1-10. Ezekiel 44:22 states a priest can only marry a virgin or a widow of a priest. It was very important that a priest and his wife be above reproach—they represented the righteousness and holiness of God.

Elizabeth and Mary’s chaste and dedicated attributes should be taught to young girls. They were not flirtatious and immodest, but shamefaced. Joseph and Zacharias’ chaste, dedicated, loving, and sacrificial attributes should be taught to young men.

God recognized this exceptional couple, Zacharias and Elizabeth, held obedient hearts for Him alone. They walked blamelessly, not allowing the world to influence them in any evil manner; Luke 1:6.

Christ would have received priestly blood from this family line of Mary’s. Remember Christ was king, priest and prophet on earth. God appointed prophets; therefore, it was not an inherited calling. Of course, Christ is God and therefore our priest by all authority, which is the only true and eternal power. Christ is priest according to the order of Melchizedek because He has no beginning or end; Hebrews 7:9f. He is our only priest because He is omnipotent God; therefore, there is no need for a blood-inherited vocation.

We see God the Father’s great love in putting Christ in a family that was probably the most devoted to Him in all the Holy Land. God the Father made sure His Son was loved, protected and heard His truths. This would, of course, have been Christ’s truths as well. Christ moved in the Old Testament as part of the Godhead, teaching His Word, which godly men recorded.

May your Christmas be filled only with the truths of God’s Word, nothing worldly, nothing false, nothing that takes away from the moral chastity of this event that compares to none other.

Val Lee  (1 John 5:10-13—the Bible)   paradise

(Photo © Val J. Lee)

December 1, 2008 Posted by | Christmas, Manger Story, Mary and Joseph, Mary Did You Know? Mary Knew a Lot!, Religion, Scripture, Uncategorized | , , , | Leave a comment

NIV Bible Beware

NIV Bible Heresy:

Buyer beware! The NIV Bible translation leaves out “begotten” that is in the Greek manuscripts. You find this blasphemous omission occurs in John 3:16, 3:18, 1:14 and 1:18—Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.” Begotten is in the original Greek, but removed as so not to offend. Even the Hindu god worshipper, Gandhi, stated he could accept Jesus as God’s son, but not the only begotten Son of God. He stated Krishna is the only begotten son of God. I have researched Greek concordances. “Begotten” is never held in question. It was placed in the original manuscripts.

Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, a literary critic on the NIV translation is an open feminist lesbian/homosexual. Her name is listed in the translation information. In the Episcopal magazine, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, “My homosexuality has always been a part of me…” The man appointed as the Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Translation Committee was Dr. Marten Woudstra, who was a homosexual, deceased 1990. The word “sodomite” was removed for the NIV. It is stated in Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7. The NIV, in I Corinthians 6:9, states the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. An accurate translation from the ancient Greek manuscripts will state “effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”

Hundreds of words and phrases were removed from the Word of God by NIV translators. The “Godhead” in the NIV was completely removed from the Word of God. All the following words have been omitted from the NIV: Propitiation, regeneration, mercyseat, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Messiah, infallible, et cetera. The word “sodomite” is completely gone, as are the words: fornication, carnal, effeminate, vanity, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit.

The NIV omitted thousands of words. It completely omitted the Hebrew word “Hades” (The very hot place of torment.) from the Old Testament where it is stated 31 times and replaced it with “grave.” In the New Testament, it removed it 9 times. The “Lake of Fire” or “hell” is the final judgment for unbelievers, following the white throne judgement.

According to Wikipedia.org, the New International Bible (NIV) printed by Zondervan is the most popular Bible version today. Zondervan Publishers does not reveal they are OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.

Http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Zondervan-Corporation-Company-History.HTML

The New International Version failed to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts. Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV committee wrote: “Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”

God says regarding such statements that His Word cannot be added to or subtracted from. We find the LORD stating this in various portions of Scripture. Biblical truth is not according to what man thinks or has experienced. The Word of God uncensored is the only truth. It never changes with time or culture. God never changes. Even if an angel from heaven preaches another gospel, that is contrary to the Word of God, he is not to be believed as he is cursed; Galatians 1:8.

We all must be cautious, as most new Bible versions are heretical. Many even remove “Holy” from the term “Holy Spirit.” this is done deliberately to teach people it can be any spirit. We live in very sad apostate days. Please check your versions carefully. Do you own any heretical versions that need to be placed in your round file?

Val Lee (1 John 5:10-13—the Bible)  paradise

___________________

Report by Mr. Michael Penfold

“It was during a series of research phone calls to Dr. Blair that I first confirmed the fact of Dr. Woudstra’s homosexuality. Blair and Dr. Woudstra were friends. Dr. Woudstra had been on the mailing list of Evangelicals Concerned, Inc. (a gay and lesbian organizationhttp://www.ecinc.org/ ) from its inception, and although he had no formal ties with ECI, on one of his many trips to New York he called in and had tea with Dr. Blair. Dr Blair told me that Dr. Woudstra shared the viewpoint of ECI that lifelong ‘loving monogamous relationships’ between gay men or women were acceptable to God. He believed that there was nothing in the Old Testament (his special area of technical expertise) that corresponded to ‘homosexual orientation’. The ‘sodomy’ of the OT simply involved temple rites and gang rape (Gen 19). Lesbian, Virginia Mollenkott, (who also worked on the NIV) and Dr. Blair make very similar liberal statements regarding the translation of the NIV. Dr. Blair clearly stated to me on the phone on 23rd September 1997 that Dr. Woudstra, a lifelong bachelor, was a homosexual. He intimated that other members of the NIV translation committee were also quietly supportive of ECI, but he was not able to tell me who they were (for obvious reasons). He later called them ‘bigger’ names than Dr. Woudstra.”

_____________

Regarding other Bible publications see: https://vallee7.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/bible-translation-facts%e2%80%94user-beware/

You can use this Strong’s Concordance website to research Greek and Hebrew Bible words: http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html  Simply put the book, chapter, verse or verses in the first search box and hit search. (Example: John 3:16-20, John 17) Your text will appear with the Greek or Hebrew corresponding numbers to the right of verse words, elevated and in blue.  Simply click on the number to research a word in its original language.

November 14, 2008 Posted by | Apostasy, Bible, Bible Commentary, Bible Versions, Christianity, Heresy, Religion, Scripture, Theology, Uncategorized | , | 7 Comments

The True William Wilberforce of Amazing Grace

 

William Wilberforce of Britain stood with strict Christian morality. He stood verbally strong against lewdness, sexually impurity, immodesty, drunkenness, foul language, indecent literature—everything contrary to our most innocent and undefiled Savior; Hebrews 7:26. 

 

Concerning the epitaph of William Wilberforce, I have admired all he sought in the name of his Savior. When he became a believer in 1785, he fought to end slavery, but suffered continually under the hand of liberal persecution.  Finally, England ceased its slavery trade in 1833, three days before his death and about 30 years before America followed suit, due mainly to his voice of influence.   

 

Val Lee  (Author of Cliques in the Church, Apostasy in the Church, and Queen Esther/Looming Holocaust—see Amazon.com. These books can also be read at https://vallee7.wordpress.com/. I also write and submit photos for Lee’s Birdwatching Adventures http://leesbird.com/ “Through the Looking Glass of Val Lee”)

  

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_108_2_Bayes.pdf

 

 William Wilberforce: His Impact on Nineteenth-Century Society Condensed

Churchman 108/2 1994

Jonathan Bayes

William Wilberforce is remembered today mainly for his long Parliamentary campaign for the abolition of the slave-trade. He look up the cause of Africa and the West Indian slaves in 1786, and the Act of Parliament for Abolition finally received the Royal Assent and became law on 25 March 1807.

 

Not that that was the end of the struggle. Wilberforce had always seen the abolition of trading in human beings as but the first step towards the ultimate goal of the outlawing of slavery itself. This objective was not attained until 1833. By then Wilberforce had been retired from the politics of Westminster for eight years, and had handed on to others the baton of the antislavery campaign. It was his joy to live just long enough to hear of the final success in the House of Commons of the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery. He died two days later.

 

His notoriety on nineteenth-century British society came not through his work on behalf of the slaves, but through the other great task to which he believed himself to be called of God. On Sunday, 28 October 1787 Wilberforce wrote in his diary: ‘God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners’, by which he meant the reform of the morals of Britain. The question of slavery, that he first voiced his personal concern to reform the morals of England.

 

Around the time when he was preparing his Bill concerning capital punishment, in 1786,Wilberforce read a book by Dr Joseph Woodward, entitled The History of the Society for the Reformation of Manners in 1692.

 

It was traditional for a new monarch to mark his accession to the throne by issuing a Proclamation for the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue, and for the Preventing of Vice, Profaneness, and Immorality.

 

At that time, corruption was rife at every rank of society. The well-to-do were notorious for their gambling, while, amongst the poorer classes, prostitution abounded. Drunkenness and foul talk were common lo all social strata.

In devising his plan to form a new Society for the Reformation of Manners, Wilberforce believed, as we have already noted, that the way to begin was by making the strict combatting of crime an effective deterrent. The Society was designed to raise the moral tone of the nation by clamping down on offences such as the publication of indecent or blasphemous literature, and the desecration of the Lord’s Day. In targeting such offences in particular, Wilberforce was giving expression to his conviction that the looseness of the nation’s morals arose from the religious apathy and skepticism

which prevailed amongst all classes. His plan was that his Society for the Reformation of Manners should serve to restore England to its Protestant faith, by standing against those moral offences which militated against Christianity. As a by-product, Wilberforce believed, there would follow a general moral improvement.

 

1787 the Preamble the King George III articulated his ‘inexpressible concern’ at ‘the rapid progress of impiety and licentiousness’, and at the deluge of ‘profaneness, immorality, and every kind of vice’, which had broken in upon this nation. He declared his royal purpose ‘to discountenance and punish all manner of vice, profaneness and immorality, in all persons, of whatsoever degree or quality, within this our realm.’

 

Wilberforce: Our dependence on our blessed Saviour, as alone the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God, . . . must be not merely formal and nominal, but real and substantial. . . . It is not an occasional invocation of His name, or a transient recognition of the authority, of Christ, that fills up the measure of the terms ‘believing in Jesus’. . . . We must be deeply conscious of our guilt and misery, heartily repenting of our sins, and firmly resolving to forsake them: and thus penitently flying for refuge to the hope set before us, we must found altogether on the merits of our crucified Redeemer our hopes of escape from their deserved punishment, and of deliverance from their enslaving power. This must be our first, our last, our only plea. The corollary of this view of salvation, Wilberforce goes on, is the recognition that real Christianity is a commitment which demands the totality of a person’s life, doing everything to the glory of God.

 

Wilberforce proclaims explicitly that nominal Christianity is not

Christianity, that the difference is not a trifling one, but that nominal Christianity lacks altogether the radical principle of Christianity, namely the remembrance that we are fallen creatures, born in sin and naturally depraved, and that we need to be born again to become Christians in a genuine sense. His final challenge is to realize that nominal Christianity in one generation will lead to absolute unbelief in the next.

 

October 30, 2008 Posted by | Amazing Grace, Christianity, England, Great Britain, Hate, Movies, Religion, Scripture, Sin, Slavery, Theology, Uncategorized, Willaim Wilberforce | , | 1 Comment