The Law of Church and State Balance

The Law of Church and State Balance:
Where the Church fails, the State appropriates for itself. And vice versa.

When the Church fails to feed the poor, the State appropriates that.

When the Church fails to provide healthcare (most hospitals were started by churches which is why hospitals have Baptist, Methodist, etc in their names) the State appropriates that.

When the Church fails to be unselfishly united materially like in Acts, the State appropriates socialism and communism.

But also this works the other way throughout history.

What Stuff Make Up The Spirit And The Spiritual Are: An Assertion

I've been developing this thought quite a bit, and hinted it here before, but this my assertion:

There is no distinction between the spiritual and other categories of immaterial (words, abstraction, math, logic, laws, but not limited to those)

Or to put it in another way:

The same stuff that makes words, abstraction, math, logic, laws, etc. immaterial is the same stuff spirit is made out of.

Or to put it in another way:

Spirit = words, abstraction, math, logic, laws

What about where spirit seems to interact with physical?

Well, all physical stuff have an abstract structure, so a physical manifestation of a spirit is simply molding that abstract structure to its physical equivalent.

What is a spirit, then?

A spirit is a personality/person in hidden in abstraction. (The devil in the details)

We can see this in fiction a lot, for example, Death is personified as a Grim Reaper, while we all know death doesn't really look like that, because death is abstract.... or does he?

We know death manifests as a being in Revelation, so an abstract concept personified.

Etc. You can make your own logical conclusions/questions with it.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Inaugurated Eschatology VS Dispensationalism (Quick, Unformatted Take)

About 'INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY':

(contrasted with Dispensationalism, and Covenant Theology)

1. It emphasises that the COMPLETION of Israel's national-story has now been inaugurated - in Jesus - in two phases: 1st coming/2nd coming - already/not yet - inauguration/consummation - salvation now/Day of Salvation future - Messiah's resurrection/our resurrection - new creation begun/new creation completed)

In Old Testament times national-Israel were granted a glimpse of a story of hope, resurrection, regathering, removal of sin, judgment of evil-tyranny, salvation, redemption, putting creation to rights, 'new creation' and God's presence.

The gospel was the announcement that that hoped-for plan had now been inaugurated - in Israel, and for Israel, first of all - for the benefit of the whole world - in a new and real sense, although its final rollout still awaits Messiah's second coming.

(While Dispensationalism sees a discontinuity between the gospel and Israel's hope; and Covenant Theology struggles to define ancient Israel ethnically).

2. Meanwhile, tribulation and persecution is ever-present. But Christ will come!

(While Dispensationalism emphasises a period of special Tribulation immediately before a Third Coming.)

3. Israel's promise and vocation was carried out by the Holy One of Israel, son of David, Abraham and Jacob - in Israel, for Israel first, and for the benefit of the whole world: but only Israelites who were 'in the Messiah' by faith received the promise, then also Greeks - and together they are called 'Messiah's body' - 'the Church' (the 'church' which, at its inception was in Jerusalem and was all-Jewish) - and all this is the exact scenario foreseen in the Old Testament.

(While Dispensationalism separates Israel from the Messiah's Body, the Church; and Covenant Theology minimises the ethnic and geographical historical order in which God's purpose unfolded.)

4. There is One (triune) God - one way of salvation - one people of God - one future

(While Dispensationalism sees two distinct peoples of God; and Covenant Theology minimises the custodial role played by national-Israel until the promise came.)

5. A Historical-critical 'storied-worldview' hermeneutic is used, as demonstrated in the New Testament writings.

(While Dispensationalism touts an always-literal hermeneutic but actually doesn't adhere to it especially in statements made in prose in the New Testament; and Covenant Theology can tend to over-spiritualise everything without acknowledging the role that ethnic/national Israel had as custodians of the coming-blessing.)

6. The Old Testament vision of a Temple and river was intended in part to inspire the building of the second temple - and there was a carrying-out of that commandment in a measure at the return from captivity - but there was also a transcending heavenly, spiritual, Christ-centred, gospel-shaped, new-creation, eternal reality prefigured by all of that, which has now been fulfilled as intended, in Jesus, in two phases: kingdom now/not yet.

Jesus, John, Paul and Peter each spoke of the temple and/or river in a Christ-centred, gospel-shaped, body-of Christ/Church way, and both made the statement that a physical temple and pilgrimages to Jerusalem are no longer required. And Paul stated that animal-sacrifices aren't the future.

(Dispensationalism insists on two future temples, and animal sacrifices, but inconsistently to their own hermeneutic claim that it will be for a memorial not for sin as Ezekiel had foreseen.)

Debunking:

Okay, finally someone explains what this is. So thus I will debunk it from a position of Dispensationalism.

1. "While Dispensationalism sees a discontinuity between the gospel and Israel's hope"

The discontinuity is not from the gospels, but PAULINE EPISTLES. Romans 11 talks about Israel as a separate entity.

The idea of already/not yet is not unique to inaugurated eschatology, however, Dispensationalism determines that the “already” is a type and a shadow, and that the “not yet” is the absolute.

2. Dispensationalism does not deny there are tribulations today. It just emphasizes there is a GREAT tribulation, correct. But the Bible describes it that way as a FUTURE EVENT.

Matthew 24:21

“For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”

3. The problem with this is that Messiah CANNOT be Israel's body. Why?

Because it says Israel is the WIFE of God the Father, and the Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ, the Son.

The types conflict. That's literally saying Jesus will marry the equivalent of His mother (Revelation 12). Many types in the Bible show the Church to be Gentile, Song of Solomon Shulamite, Moses' Ethiopian wives, Joseph's Gentile wife, etc.

No one denies Jesus went to the Jews first. But He clearly states He will go to the Gentiles the same way Jonah went to Nineveh, Solomon went to the Queen of Sheba, and Elijah to Namaan - NONE of those Gentiles joined Israel. So thus, the Church.

Inaugurated Eschatology breaks the types set forth in the Bible.

4. The divisions are stated right here:

1 Corinthians 10:32

“Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:”

Abraham is the father of MANY nations. So putting everyone in Israel defeats that, plus the Church is called a separate nation from Israel by Paul in Romans

The desire to just have one people of God is against Scripture. God seeks to have unity in division, like a Trinity. God's unity does not mean abolishing division, but divisions working together.

The divisions are also important in eternity, New Jerusalem is given to the Church (Jerusalem was first Gentile before David took it over), the Earth is given to Israel as priests (Hosea), and the stars are given to the Gentile nations (Deuteronomy).

5. Sure, dispensationalists are sometimes inconsistent with the literal hermeneutic, but consistently applied, it is the only theological system to make correct prophetic predictions, such as Israel being a nation in 1945. And if you show examples, I will debunk them (or correct a previous dispensationalist who was too afraid to take it to its logical conclusion).

6. Only inconsistent mainstream dispensationalists claim it will be for a memorial. So not really a jab at dispensationalism, but inconsistent dispensationalists.

As for two temples, that was already present in the gospels. Jesus was the TEMPLE OF HIS BODY standing in front of ISRAEL's TEMPLE.

John 2:19-21

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Ghosts Are Real, Spirits of the Dead, And They're Not (Just) Devils/Demons

Hot take:
Ghosts are real, as in spirits of the dead, and not (just) devils/demons.

Reasoning:

#1

First, we must dissuade the idea that earth and hell are separate and don't overlap. Why?

We know there are three heavens, sky, space, and the abode of God.

Similarly, there are three hells, sheol/hades, gehenna, tartarus.

We know the first heaven, the sky, intersects earth, so what prevents the first hell from intersecting with earth?

Nothing. We get a clue on what the first hell is, sheol, grave. GRAVE. Graves intersect with earth.

This takes care of man appointed once, the judgment. If hell intersects with earth, then the dead are in judgment.

#2

Bible commands against divination of the dead.

Why would the Bible command against something that doesn't exist, and not say that is the actual reason why not to do it?

It doesn't say divination of the dead is not allowed because it is impossible or that they don't exist. (In fact, the reasoning is the same for commands against horoscope, it says not to look at the stars because the heathen are dismayed at them, not that it doesn't exist)

Also, don't twist this as me saying we should contact ghosts or whatever. Yeah, don't.

#3

The encounter with my namesake Samuel the prophet by Saul and the witch of Endor.

Nowhere in the passage does it actually say it was impossible for Samuel to come up. The reasoning is often convoluted to try to explain away the encounter, like saying it was God who did it (God is not present in the text), or it was a devil impostor (except it gave a prophecy that came true).

#4

Jesus appearing as a resurrected in front of the disciples and them mistaking Him for a spirit, He did not say, "lol, dead spirits don't walk the earth, guys", He said, a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Why didn't' He settle it once and for all?

#5

The testimonies of atheists and other unbelievers in the deathbed. Many instances of atheists and others crying out they are in hell just before death. That is an example of intersection of hell and earth, even if just spiritual.

#6

The reports of ghosts themselves. Ghosts are often reported to be in a loop of suffering. This would make sense if they are in hell while also on earth.

This does not prevent the fact that the devils/demons can disguise themselves as ghosts, they can. But I highly doubt most reported instances are all devils/demons.

The Spirit Case: Cambridge Edition KJV vs PCE 1900 KJV (Matthew Verschuur, Bible Protector)

Which edition of the KJV is correct? I checked most Cambridge edition KJV I could get my hands on, and every one has the word recommendations of Matthew Verschuur EXCEPT these following two verses.

A Standard Pure Cambridge Edition KJV:

Spirit capitalized.

And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Acts 11:28 KJV

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:8 KJV

Pure Cambridge Edition 1900 (Bible Protector/Matthew Verschuur) KJV:

Spirit now lowercase.

And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Acts 11:28 KJV

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:8 KJV

Reasoning given for the change:

http://bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90&sid=d475d5aba668e1060a2b01991c0515de

"1 John 5:6 is talking about two earthly elements, water and blood. The “Spirit” is clearly the Holy Ghost. Thus, the Holy Ghost’s witness in verse 6 about Christ, His record in Heaven in verse 7, must be understood to also link to His outworking in the heart of man (called “spirit”) in verses 8 and 9."

I have to disagree with the above reasoning.

Verse 7 is about the Persons of the Trinity acting as people. Verse 8 are all things, and does not exclude the Spirit capitalized as verse 6 is calls the Holy Spirit an "IT", a THING.

As an additional fact, Holy Ghost is never referred to as an it, only the Spirit. Holy Ghost is referred as "he".

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And IT is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1 John 5:6 KJV

Verse 9 states it is the witness of God being greater. 

Acts 11, I'm not so sure of. But the PCE 1900 defender is very Pentecostal, so it must be cautioned that they may be rationalizing the text to fit their beliefs.

One possible Acts 11:28 Spirit is capitalized is that all mentions of "by" with "Spirit" in the New Testament are all capitalized, except for the following verse:

That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2 Thessalonians 2:2 KJV

This spirit seems to be a false spirit, as it troubled.

Acts 11:28 did come to pass, it says there on the verse:

"which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar."

So it was a true prophecy, unlike the troublemaking II Thess. 2 spirit.

The deity of certain words is always a main point of contention in many translation debates. 

I'm not say Mr. Verschuur made his own revision, but rather, that this edition is one that fits his beliefs, and thus needs to be contested.

Edit:

I have since changed my beliefs regarding this, and I am more in favor with the lower "s" case for spirit. May or may do an updated blog post. However, some of the reasoning still stands, especially with the Pentecostal belief part.

Edit 2:

My case for the lowercase spirit relies more on the fact that the witness of men verse means these are all parts of man, water (flesh), blood (soul), and spirit. Another is understanding that lowercase spirit refers to the Son when compared to the Father and Holy Ghost. Jesus's spirit being on earth fits the verse.

https://www.purecambridgetext.com/post/2017/09/07/the-seven-spirits-of-carnal-man

" I John 5:8 is not dealing with the Holy Spirit or an inward working of God as verse 6 is in the same passage.  It is not dealing with the Holy Ghost, the third person of the trinity as verse 7 is.  It is discussing the personal spirit of Jesus Christ that was yielded up from an earthen vessel of flesh at the same time that that flesh yielded water and blood.  When the centurion saw those things he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God", Mark 15:39.    The Apostle John had just given a trinity of proofs that Jesus is the Son of God.  It is proven in the inward parts of believers, Verse 6, it is proven in heavenly witness, verse 7, and it is proven by the earthly witnesses.  Scrivener emasculated the whole passage.  

       Every time the personal spirit of Jesus Christ is referred to in the gospels it is a small "s" spirit, Mark 2:8, Mark 8:12, Luke 2:40, Luke 10:21, Luke 23:46, John 11:33, John 13:21.  That is the spirit of I John 5:8 until Scrivener's lead is followed.  The next proof text for the modern day correctors is the Oxford Text.  Oxford is wrong in every other place it differs from the Cambridge.  Look at Joshua 19:2, Nahum 3:16 or Mark 1:12.  Why don't they follow Oxford's lead there?"

However, I must admit, verse 6 having "Spirit" does shake often when one reads the passage again with fresh eyes with the change in mind.

The Playground Game of Charge

This is basically a rock-paper-scissors type game but with different rules and moves. We played it all the time as a child in elementary school. I'm pretty sure we invented it.

The Basic Game:

You move your fist like when you do rock-paper-scissors, and then do a move. However, the moves are different. Moves consists of Charge moves, Attack moves, and Defense moves. You also say the name of the move when doing said move. You win when an attack move "hits" an vulnerable opponent, usually Charging. Same moves usually cancel out each other. If no one wins, repeat until one wins.

Basic Moves:

Charge: Charge. Say "Charge!". Put your arms in a muscle flexing position. This gives you a charge to be able to Shoot a Fireball. You use up one Charge per Fireball, and use  three Charges per Teleport. You may bank on Charges as long you can keep count of them. If both do Fireball, both cancel out.

Shield: Defense. Say "Shield!". Cross your arms in front of you like an X to block a Shot (Fireball). This renders the Shot ineffective. You do not need a Charge to use the Shield. But it is not advisable to Shield infinitely as allowing your opponent to get 3 Charges and Teleport behind you will kill you.

Shot: Attack. You must have a previous unused Charge to use Shot. Say "Shoot!". "Fireball" also works. Put your palms together and extend them out as if making a dragon breathing out a fireball from your hands. A Fireball kills someone who is in Charge.  A Fireball is blocked by Shield. A Fireball does not hit someone who has Teleported behind you. This uses up your previous Charge.

Teleport: Attack. If you have 3 or more Charges, you may use Teleport. Say "Teleport!". Put your index and middle finger like a gun and put it on your forehead. Teleport kills opponents in Charge, Shield, and Shot (as it Teleports behind you). If both Teleport, nothing happens as it is canceled out. This uses up 3 Charges.

The Teleport ensures the game will not go on indefinitely unless both opponents do infinite Shields.

Optional Rules:

Three Lives or Health.

Maximum of 3 (or so) Charges. 

Add more House Rules as you wish.

Optional Moves:

Shieldbreaker: Attack move that uses 2 Charges. Yell "Shieldbreaker"! Kills Shield as well as Charge, but not Teleport. You may do a sword slash move. Two Shieldbreakers cancel out. A Shieldbreaker and Fireball cancel out.

Backstab: Attack move that uses 1 Charge. Defeats only Teleport, but is vulnerable to all other Attack moves, and does not do anything to other Defense and Charge moves. Backstab cancels out Backstab.

Absorb: Defense and Charge move that uses up 3 Charges and absorbs opponent Attack move Charges. A Fireball gives 1 Charge, Teleport 3 Charges, etc. If there are no opponent Attack moves, 3 Charges are drained. (This allows an attack to the next turn).

Super Shield: Like Shield but cancels out Shieldbreaker, and uses up a Charge.

Make up new moves as you wish. Make sure they are balanced.

Why Frank Lodgson's Statement on the NASB is Valid

"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"

- Frank Logsdon

Audio Recording: https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/logsdon-repudiates-nasb.html

https://www.defendproclaimthefaith.org/dr_frank_logsdon.html

Lockman Foundation Statement:

The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950’s following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman’s death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered “co-founder” of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions — once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an “inspirational thought.”

Mr. Logsdon last wrote to Mr. Lockman in fall of 1973 that he was moving to Florida. Mr. Lockman replied that he was surprised and saddened by his decision to leave the area. Mr. Lockman passed away in January of 1974, and no further correspondence was exchanged between Frank Logsdon and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago.

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8 (NASB)

The assumption here is that Lodgson's statements have no validity as he was not part of the board of directors, which means he had no official capacity at all.

But as someone who is very used to not working with "official capacity", I find this statement ridiculous. A lot of times there are influencers and leaders who for some reason or another are not part of the official list of people involved, sometimes because they want no credit or other valid reasons, but sometimes with sinister agendas, yet wield massive influence, even sometimes the most influence, over a project. An unofficial or undocumented capacity does not mean no capacity at all.

Notice the Lockman Foundation does not directly contradict Lodgson's statements of interviewing translators, rather he just did not have the official capacity to hire or incur expenses.

Now, I find it interesting the statement does not say he did not write the preface, just the forward. The preface is signed "Editorial Board, The Lockman Foundation". Who wrote it then? And could have Mr. Lodgson ghost written it? 

My aim at this post is not to prove Lodgson's statement true, just valid, even in light of the Lockman foundation statement. And it is valid.