Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Three Stewards Whose Lord Was A Capitalist ... One Disliked Capitalists

Now, don't faint on me ...

The Law of Sowing and Reaping:
"...Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Gal.6:7. 

Jesus illustrates good and bad 
Stewardship  in Matt. 25:14-2

Here is Jesus' "righteous" plan for investing your money, life or spiritual gifts to the best possible gain, benefit or harvest. Jesus never once used an evil or flawed example (parable), of which God did not approve, to illustrate a spiritual truth. This "inspired" parable, about our investing, was given to His disciples as an example of what He expects of all of His Stewards, and everyone is a Steward. It is akin to the law of sowing and reaping, whether it be money, spiritual gifts or the way we spend our lives. There is a definite economic, as well as a primary, spiritual lesson here.

For the kingdom of heaven IS AS a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods

(This illustration alludes to our Lord's giving or lending spiritual gifts, talents, abilities and resources as well as the Great Commission, to His disciples just prior to His final ascending departure back into heaven).

And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. (Each of us has a different level of ability within various talents).
Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. That is called "Free Enterprise Investing".
If these were silver shekel talents this man would have been responsible for investing a fortune of his master's money.  That much money is called Capital.
A capitalist is a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade or finance industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism. The mass production factory system was created by 19th century capitalists.

And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 

But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. (Unused talents, time, spiritual gifts, money and other resources)

After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. (Second Coming of our Lord in the day accounting ... reckoning).

And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have  gained  
beside them five talents more. That is called "profit".

His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 

He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed(
Accused his Master of Capitalism)

And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 

His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: ( His Master Confirmed he was a Capitalist)

Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers (interest), and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury  (Interest).  Matt. 25:14-27.


So, for heaven's sake, stop criticizing, out of jealousy,  people who work for their income and invest it wisely for gain or profit. The same goes for jealous criticism of those who invest their spiritual gifts or lives for spiritual increase. Each of us has talents and spiritual gifts differing from those of others. Use your gifts, talents, time and treasure to the best advantage... wisely, for the Lord who loaned them to you expecting you to invest them for Him. RB

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Most Christian Leaders Believe Trump Would Keep His Word

I believe Trump is a worldly guy who relates more to Christians than to antiChristian, Socialist Democrats and would keep his word and do his best to live up to what he proposes he would do as President. If he does not get the Evangelical vote, Clinton/Kaine will extend the Obama left turn "change" and antiChristian attacks on us right up to the door of the of The Tribulation. Think and Pray before you decide not to vote. RB

From Western Journalism

Dobson: Electing Trump to the White House ‘Would Unleash Christian Activists’

"... Christians have been deprived of their rights ..."

Christian activist Dr. James Dobson believes that a Donald Trump presidency “would unleash Christian activists to fight for their beliefs.”
Writing on the website WND, Dobson recounted a June meeting in which he met with Trump and other Christian leaders at Trump Tower in New York City.
At the meeting, he told Trump, “Our Supreme Court has struck down Bible reading in schools and even prohibited prayer to an unidentified God. Then, they banned the posting of the Ten Commandments on bulletin boards. From there, the limitation on religious liberties has become even more egregious,” he wrote.
“Most recently, President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been referring to ‘freedom of worship,’ rather than ‘freedom of religion.’ Do you understand their motive? They are suggesting that Americans are free to worship in their churches and synagogues, but not in the public square,” he told Trump.
He said that Trump responded by calling it an “outrage that Christians have been deprived of their rights to speak openly on behalf of the values and principles in which they believe.”
Dobson noted that Trump criticized the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 piece of tax code that bans political participation by churches, as well as other tax-exempt not-for-profit groups. The amendment was supported by then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson, D-Texas.
Dobson said Trump’s promise to overturn the amendment “would have a great impact on Washington because it would unleash Christian activists to fight for their beliefs.”
Trump has kept faith with the ministers with whom he met. The Republican platform includes a plank to abolish the amendment.
“We’re going to get rid of that horrible Johnson amendment and we’re going to let evangelicals, we’re going to let Christians and Jews and people of religion talk without being afraid to talk,” Trump said last month.
Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University, has said that eliminating the amendment “is almost as important for Christians as the appointment of Supreme Court justices.”

Saturday, August 20, 2016

There Will Never Be Another Time Or Chance To Do This One Glorious Thing

When you awaken one day ... a way over there
At the end of the Valley of the Shadow of death
When opportunity for obedience, love and care
Have passed away with your last fleeting breath

All you ever accomplished or failed to do
Is now lost in the past and forever forgotten
Except by those few who really knew you
And He by whom you were once begotten

Life was given and flew to its lonely, final end
What is done is done, sealed in God's eternal scroll
Too late to forgive, repent, amend or pretend
So love, serve and walk with Christ, as your life's goal

For there will never be another time or chance to do so. RB

"Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decisionfor the day 
of the LORD is near in the valley of decision." Joel 3:14.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

(Series 2) Roman Senator/Historian, Tacitus, Wrote About Christ, Christians And Nero

Again I point out the unreasonable fact that many of the same unbelievers who swear America was not founded primarily by Christians, no matter the historical record, also swear that Jesus Christ never really existed... no matter the historical record. So here's another Historian unbeliever giving testimony shortly after Historian Josephus wrote of "Christ" in the first century, and that shortly after the Gospel Mark dated around 70AD

Rom.14:11 "For it is written (Isa.45:23), As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

The historian, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, was a non-Christian, Roman Senator
who recorded certain facts about Jesus Christ and Christians in his works.

In The Fire of Rome, by Karl von Piloty, 1861, says according to Tacitus, the Roman Emperor, Nero, targeted Christians as those responsible for the burning of Rome. The Roman historian and senator, Tacitus, referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written around AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day conflagration of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Historian Ronald Mellor has stated that The Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing". Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (1) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (2) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (3) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.

The Annals passage (15.44), which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis, follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD.
The key part of the passage reads as follows (translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876):
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Jud├Ža, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty. An immense multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of firing the city, as of their hatred against mankind.
Tacitus then describes the torture of Christians. The exact cause of the fire remains uncertain, but much of the population of Rome suspected that Emperor Nero had started the fire himself. To divert attention from himself, Nero accused the Christians of starting the fire and persecuted them, making this the first documented confrontation between Christians and the authorities in Rome. Tacitus never accused Nero of playing the lyre while Rome burned – that statement came from Cassius Dio, who died in the 3rd century. But Tacitus did suggest that Nero used the Christians as scapegoats.

Copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, written in Latin, which are held in the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy. It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th century and at Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving copy of th passage describing Christians.  (Tacitus' opinion is that of a non-Christian, Roman Senator. RB)

Much of the information in this post is taken from Wikipedia.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

(Series 1) First Century Romano-Jewish Historian, Josephus, Wrote About Jesus

Many of the same unbelievers who swear America was not founded primarily by Christians, no matter the historical record, also swear that Jesus Christ never really existed..... no matter the historical record. So here is what a first century, unbelieving historian wrote about Jesus, His brother, James, and John Baptist.

Rom.14:11 "For it is written (Isa.45:23), As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." 

The existence of Jesus Christ and Early Christians is not just recorded in the Bible, but is confirmed by non-Christian historical records soon after Christ's crucifixion.

A page from a 1466 copy of Antiquities of the Jews  the extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD (nearly 25 years after the first known Gospel, Mark, dated around 70 AD), ....includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.
in Book 18, Chapter 3, v.3 of the Antiquities, there is a passage that states that "Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate".

Josephus also wrote this of James the brother of Jesus "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, and thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months....

Josephus also wrote in Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, that "The stoning of James the brother of Jesus" was "by order of Ananus ben Ananus, a Herodian-era High Priest". The James referred to in this passage is most likely James the first bishop of Jerusalem who is also called James the Just in Christian literature, and to whom the Epistle of James has been attributed. The passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts. The context of the passage is the period following the death of Porcius Festus, and the journey to Alexandria by Lucceius Albinus, the new Roman Procurator of Judea, who held that position from 62 AD to 64 AD. Because Albinus' journey to Alexandria had to have concluded no later than the summer of 62 AD, the date of James' death can be assigned with some certainty to around that year. The 2nd century chronicler Hegesippus also left an account of the death of James, and while the details he provides diverge from those of Josephus, the two accounts share similar elements. Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"....Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.

Josephus also made reference to John the Baptist. "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death." In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, Chapter 5, 2) Josephus refers to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist by order of Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and Perea. The context of this reference is the 36 AD defeat of Herod Antipas in his conflict with Aretas IV of Nabatea, which the Jews of the time attributed to misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John. Almost all modern scholars consider this passage to be authentic in its entirety.... Because the death of John also appears prominently in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the chronology of the gospels and the dates for the ministry of Jesus. While this passage is the only reference to John the Baptist outside the New Testament, it is widely seen by most scholars as confirming the historicity of the baptisms that John performed. While both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and the motive. The gospels present this as a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias in defiance of Jewish law (as in Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18); Josephus refers to it as a pre-emptive measure by Herod to quell a possible uprising. The difference in these two versions of Herod's reasons for killing John do not conflict and could both have been true. While Josephus identifies the location of the imprisonment of John as Machaerus, southeast of the mouth of the Jordan river, the gospels mention no location for the place where John was imprisoned. According to other historical accounts Machaerus was rebuilt by Herod the Great around 30 BC and then passed to Herod Antipas. The 36 AD date of the conflict with Aretas IV (mentioned by Josephus) is consistent with the approximate date of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias estimated by other historical methods. Matthew and Mark were giving an account based on eye witnesses,and from a moral view, and at the time of John the Baptist's execution. Whereas, Josephus wrote from a political view, and years later. At any rate, very little of secular history, recorded by faulty humans, is broadly inclusive or totally accurate, but "All scripture is given by inspiration of God ...." 2 Tim.3:16.

This post will be followed by a second in a series of two. The second concerns
the historian, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a non-Christian, Roman Senator who recorded certain facts about Jesus Christ and Christians in his works shortly after Josephus' record. RB

Much of this post was taken from Wickipedia Encyclopedia

Monday, August 15, 2016

The One Thing Catholics Are More Right On Than Protestants

The brightest star in the Catholic sky is not the virgin Mary, the literal blood and body theory of Communion, the Priest's Confessional, the universality of the Catholic church, the Pope's holiness or claim to be the "Vicar of Christ" and the "Successor of the Apostle Peter". The thing they seem to be more right on than Protestants is the "sanctity of life" and the "right to life" of unborn babies. Even though this particular Pope seems capable of downplaying the travesty of abortion as he has so compromised other historical standards of his church, Catholics, in general, are usually strong advocates of the right to life of every baby. Their strong stand here has been unwavering unlike many protestants. They are at least as firm on this doctrine as Baptists... who are not Protestant.
(True Baptists were never part of the church of Rome, so never exited it in "Protest"). RB

From OneNewsNow
'Church teaching' made Judge Napolitano pro-life
Judge Andrew Napolitano maintains that his strong pro-life stance is based in more than his strict constructionist view of the United States Constitution – it is firmly rooted in the teachings he learned at church.
The judicial analyst who proclaims to be a “traditionalist Roman Catholic” is confident that his biblical foundation is consistent with the U.S. Constitution when it comes to abortion – unlike the many justices who have served in the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) over the past several decades.
“The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence is such a horrific hodgepodge,” Napolitano told ReasonMagazine Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie in a recent interview.
But even though the 1973 landmark SCOTUS decision Roe v. Wade has been the rule of the land in America for more than 40 years, Napolitano expressed that he is “pleasantly surprised” about the number of small-government constitutionalists who also ascribe to his biblical view on abortion.
Reasoning vs. rationalization
The legal expert maintained that both biology and the jurisprudence of the Founding Fathers call upon every level of government to protect the sanctity of human life not just at birth … but from the moment of conception.
Napolitano also argued that former SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s “infamous” contention – that abortion is a constitutional right upon which states may not impose an “undue burden” – is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.
“She just made that up out of whole cloth,” the conservative judge asserted. “It’s not used in any other area of human behavior.”
He maintains that the progressive mindset on abortion is rooted in the human desire to try and justify sin and excuse one from having any moral accountability for his or her actions.
“[Legal scholars’ pro-abortion reasoning is] nothing but a political canard intended to please the Left, who want to have sex without responsibility – without the natural consequences of it,” Napolitano insists. “There is no moral justification for killing a child in the womb.”
A mere growth or a real life?
During the interview, Gillespie – an advocate of abortion-on-demand – questioned Napolitano’s pro-life stance.
“When does the clump of cells become a child or is accorded personhood as a legal concept?” the Left-leaning editor asked. “Is it from the moment of conception?”
Napolitano was quick to respond by bringing up preborn children’s DNA and unique individuality within the womb from the initial joining of cells.
“The protection of the law is required from the moment of conception,” the pro-life judge answered Gillespie. “The only moral goal and activity of government is to protect natural rights.”
In addition, Napolitano stressed that innocent and vulnerable preborn children have inalienable rights the second they are conceived.
“The greatest natural right is the right to live,” the pro-family advocate continued. “The government’s obligation is to protect that.”
Wisdom firmly rooted
While Napolitano considers some of his views to be libertarian in nature, he professes that his mindset on many social issues is rooted not only in his religious beliefs, but in scientifically observable phenomena and sound legal scholarship.
“My opposition to abortion is not only because of Church teaching, but also because of a rational examination of the baby growing in the womb and a belief in the non-aggression principle,” the legal scholar shared.
The legal principles Napolitano mentions are universal tenets of jurisprudence.
“[By the non-aggressive principle, Napolitano is referring to] a cornerstone of small-government doctrine, which holds that it is wrong to initiate force against an innocent party,” LifeSiteNews explained. “While he supports the principle of subsidiarity – the Thomist notion that all government should be carried out by the lowest level of government possible because it is closest to the people – he would favor the federal government’s intervention in state affairs in order to protect life.”
Napolitano’s views on abortion are rare among libertarians and their presidential nominee, New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson – an advocate of abortion-on-demand and opponent of conscience rights for Christian business owners. The social conservative judge used an example that is not used or mentioned by most libertarians to state his case.

“If the federal government is preventing a butcher from killing a baby, that’s a good thing for the federal government to do,” the traditionalist asserted. “If the states were to look the other way while butchers destroyed babies in the womb and the federal government didn’t do anything about it, it would be violating its obligation under the Fifth Amendment to make sure that life, liberty and property are not taken without due process.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano maintains that his strong pro-life stance is based in more than his strict constructionist view of the United States Constitution – it is firmly rooted in the teachings he learned at church.
The judicial analyst who proclaims to be a “traditionalist Roman Catholic” is confident that his biblical foundation is consistent with the U.S. Constitution when it comes to abortion – unlike the many justices who have served in the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) over the past several decades.
“The Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence is such a horrific hodgepodge,” Napolitano told ReasonMagazine Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie in a recent interview.
But even though the 1973 landmark SCOTUS decision Roe v. Wade has been the rule of the land in America for more than 40 years, Napolitano expressed that he is “pleasantly surprised” about the number of small-government constitutionalists who also ascribe to his biblical view on abortion.
Reasoning vs. rationalization
The legal expert maintained that both biology and the jurisprudence of the Founding Fathers call upon every level of government to protect the sanctity of human life not just at birth … but from the moment of conception.
Napolitano also argued that former SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s “infamous” contention – that abortion is a constitutional right upon which states may not impose an “undue burden” – is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.
“She just made that up out of whole cloth,” the conservative judge asserted. “It’s not used in any other area of human behavior.”
He maintains that the progressive mindset on abortion is rooted in the human desire to try and justify sin and excuse one from having any moral accountability for his or her actions.
“[Legal scholars’ pro-abortion reasoning is] nothing but a political canard intended to please the Left, who want to have sex without responsibility – without the natural consequences of it,” Napolitano insists. “There is no moral justification for killing a child in the womb.”
A mere growth or a real life?
During the interview, Gillespie – an advocate of abortion-on-demand – questioned Napolitano’s pro-life stance.
“When does the clump of cells become a child or is accorded personhood as a legal concept?” the Left-leaning editor asked. “Is it from the moment of conception?”
Napolitano was quick to respond by bringing up preborn children’s DNA and unique individuality within the womb from the initial joining of cells.
“The protection of the law is required from the moment of conception,” the pro-life judge answered Gillespie. “The only moral goal and activity of government is to protect natural rights.”
In addition, Napolitano stressed that innocent and vulnerable preborn children have inalienable rights the second they are conceived.
“The greatest natural right is the right to live,” the pro-family advocate continued. “The government’s obligation is to protect that.”
Wisdom firmly rooted
While Napolitano considers some of his views to be libertarian in nature, he professes that his mindset on many social issues is rooted not only in his religious beliefs, but in scientifically observable phenomena and sound legal scholarship.
“My opposition to abortion is not only because of Church teaching, but also because of a rational examination of the baby growing in the womb and a belief in the non-aggression principle,” the legal scholar shared.
The legal principles Napolitano mentions are universal tenets of jurisprudence.
“[By the non-aggressive principle, Napolitano is referring to] a cornerstone of small-government doctrine, which holds that it is wrong to initiate force against an innocent party,” LifeSiteNews explained. “While he supports the principle of subsidiarity – the Thomist notion that all government should be carried out by the lowest level of government possible because it is closest to the people – he would favor the federal government’s intervention in state affairs in order to protect life.”
Napolitano’s views on abortion are rare among libertarians and their presidential nominee, New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson – an advocate of abortion-on-demand and opponent of conscience rights for Christian business owners. The social conservative judge used an example that is not used or mentioned by most libertarians to state his case.

“If the federal government is preventing a butcher from killing a baby, that’s a good thing for the federal government to do,” the traditionalist asserted. “If the states were to look the other way while butchers destroyed babies in the womb and the federal government didn’t do anything about it, it would be violating its obligation under the Fifth Amendment to make sure that life, liberty and property are not taken without due process.”
____________________________________
I really like this guy, Napolitano. He is a strong Constitutionalist and real American. RB