{"id":3751,"date":"2012-06-17T22:32:20","date_gmt":"2012-06-18T02:32:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/?p=3751"},"modified":"2012-06-17T22:32:20","modified_gmt":"2012-06-18T02:32:20","slug":"in-the-words-of-jesus-part-355","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newagedevelopments.org\/blog\/2012\/06\/17\/in-the-words-of-jesus-part-355\/","title":{"rendered":"IN THE WORDS OF JESUS\u2013Part 355"},"content":{"rendered":"

Love is the Fulfilling of the Law<\/h2>\n

ON GOD; Part CXXXVIII<\/h2>\n
\n

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry , Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body<\/em>” (Romans 8:14-23).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As we have said so many times in our posts, there is a real dichotomy between the actual words and meanings of the Christ and His apostles and the various doctrines and dogmas that have been constructed from those words. Today, after more than 2000 years the majority of the churches still hold to these doctrines which were devised by men who struggled to understand the parables and the hidden meanings of the Master’s words and who, in a time of limited mental power or capacity, strong emotional tendencies, rampant superstition and a need to blend and appease so many different cultures, interpreted His words based for the most part on only the outer meanings. Perhaps in an effort to attract many people from many cultures into this new way to approach God as taught by the Master, His words were made to fit into a strange brew of worship and of ecclesiastical pomp,\u00a0neither\u00a0of which can be found in any of His teachings nor in the teachings of His apostles. \u00a0That the church still follows along in these ancient interpretations is of benefit only insofar as this continues to attract people to some\u00a0semblance\u00a0of recognition of God but for the many who can see beyond these interpretations, those who question their validity and those who stay away because they can no longer agree to be a part of the teachings of the churches on the superstition of heaven and hell and of the reign of Satan, there must arise some other and clearer way.<\/p>\n

We have also said many times that even those things said by the Master that seem clear to us today are still virtually ignored in favor to doctrine and in favor of the more liberal interpretations based on the writings of the Apostle Paul; interpretations that are based on misguided reliance on the doctrine of the church and not on the actual words that he wrote. There are some that believe that the apostle did a disservice to the Master in his writings and this may be to some extent True but for the most part, when read in the right Light, the words of the apostles are as they were intended to be; amplification of the words of the Master. We can see this dichotomy in His writing to the Romans which we have posted now for several days at the head of our essay; there is a depth to his words here that point us to the reality of Life itself but this depth is lost in a reliance on doctrine to interpret them. We should add here that the doctrines are not to be seen as wrong in their writing as those responsible were reacting as we see above; with a limited role of the mind as we know it today, energized by an emotional response and the superstitions that abounded in all parts of the original church. The Romans, the Greeks, the Coptic Egyptians and the Jews all had their own vision of God and of gods and there are scholars from each of these that have contributed to the doctrines established in the early church. Among these we have Tertullian and Augustine as Latin fathers from the Roman perspective; Iranaeus and Clement who came from the Greek perspective, another Clement of Alexandria and Origen were of the Egyptians* and, of course, the apostles themselves were Jews who each wrote from their own perspective as Jews. Except for the apostles themselves, the rest of these mentioned and the many others were new Christians over the first centuries of the Church and it is their writings, their negotiated doctrines, that still influence the teachings of today; many of these are considered as Saints but this too is a word that originates in the doctrines that they espoused. Many of their writings are available for those that desire to read the texts and the written\u00a0arguments\u00a0between them and there is a link below to them.**<\/p>\n

In our saying by Paul above there is much that we see in a contrary way to the visions of the commentators and the interpreters of the bible. While our view is contrary to the writers of these commentaries in most cases, there are occasions that we can agree with the understanding of one or another of them and we should note that there is at times much difference in what each of them may see. Overall however the commentaries are along the lines of the doctrines that were long ago established and changed some by the men of the Reformation who rebelled at the Roman Church’s view of things. This being said, let us look at some of Vincent’s comments on the sayings above along with our understanding. We choose Vincent here as he is one of our favorites insofar as he interprets the words themselves and generally without an eye toward doctrine in his writing except that in his longer comments on a word or a verse, we can see the effects of doctrine in his writing. Perhaps this is better said as Vincent not only views the doctrine but offers ideas on words and usage\u00a0that are beyond the scope of the doctrine itself. We pick here a few of the words and phrases from above the Vincent discusses in his text:<\/p>\n