LESSONS OF HISTORY    TO INDEX

 

Why a Commentary?

Is a commentary on the Scriptures really necessary?   My answer to that question is - No.  For in the first place, the Scriptures did not come by the interpretation of man, nor does it allow man's interpretation, but as it reveals itself, or. is revealed only by the Holy Spirit.

Much of what is written in the Scriptures is in parables with the intend to give knowledge to the wise, and to withhold the same from the foolish.  For to have knowledge as such is a privilege, since again knowledge leads to life, wherefore to them that abuse the same that privilege is withheld.   

As therefore to the wise the Scriptures are an open book, what need do they have of a commentary?  And by the same token since to the scholars (the unwise that is), the Scriptures are a closed book who will go forth to write a commentary for them - as to open a closed book, or to close it even more for them? 

There are those who have written whole commentaries on every part of the Scriptures, and why did they do so?  They must have thought that everyone is as ignorant as they were, and needed once again to explain what the Scriptures already clearly explained.  Or, since the book was closed to them and their colleagues with them, they thought to explain it for them, to open what cannot be opened, the blind teaching the blind.  

Wherefore also rather than clarifying the Scriptures these commentators did more to corrupt them, which of course is mostly for and to themselves since the wise know better.  This is readily seen, for their errors are not few, and their words instantly confess their ignorance in the understanding of the Scriptures.  Bible commentaries are but for the stupid, and for the condemned.

The proverb says that although a man be great in knowledge, and perfect in oratory, yet he that is truly wise knows wherein they fail.  For the wise of God see through the words of the best orator, and also know what is in a word.  It then was God’s good pleasure to grant me this understanding, to know what is in a word, and to see through the words of men, knowing also of what spirit they are spoken. 

The Scriptures then being for the wise and for the foolish, for the wise to understanding, and for the foolish to their destruction, or judgment as one might say, consequently it is not fitting that the unwise should comprehend what is only for the wise to comprehend.  Wherefore to write a commentary - to teach the unwise the things that are of the wise - is in effect a crime, a sin against God and the children of God  (if one knows what I mean as to what is in a word). 

And why should it be so that the unwise should not be given to comprehend the Scriptures?  They are not worthy of that heavenly gift, since they elected to deny God in the words that He spoke.  And to use a recent example of how desperately corrupt the mind of man is, and how hypocritical man can be.

A multi-millionaire was said to have made a public apology, because so he said; he had offended just about every group there is.  Then the report continues; "The Atlanta based media mogul - who grew up as a fundamentalist Christian and once planned to be a missionary - explained that he could not reconcile the concept of an all powerful God with so much suffering on earth.  He said; that he rejected the idea of heaven because "streets of gold and so forth turns me off." 

Note thus the mind of folly, for while he claims that streets of gold turn him off, he certainly paved his streets with gold, which did not turn him off.  Such men are not worthy that understanding of the Scriptures should be awarded them.  Except of the law and the general message of the Scripture that shall convict them of their deeds as being sin.  And as such the judgment by which they shall come to realize and confess that they are justly condemned and sent to destruction.

And so why should I embark upon a commentary of sort?  If I provide food for the wise, will not the unwise, also having access to it, read the same to eat from the table which is for the wise only?  Yes this is true, but here are two things to consider.  In the first place, because the unwise have access to my words, therefore I do not explain quite everything, or in quite the words in which I would speak if I were speaking to only the wise.  Secondly, even when I do speak things that I would never consider speaking to the unwise, it does, not necessarily mean - that although the food is on the table, that they are able to eat of it. 

For behold for example these remaining books of the Scriptures, most of which is for the ears and eyes of the wise only.  And yet through all these years more of the unwise have read them than the wise.  These unwise in fact have gone through them with a fine tooth-comb and yet in all that they have not understood it, but on the contrary they became still more ignorant by the same. 

And so you see that for the good all things are good and serve to their salvation, but for the unwise all things are bad and serve to their destruction.  For just as a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear any good fruit.  Both good and bad things are harmful to the unwise, for so also spoke the Holy Spirit in a proverb.  “For even their very life, their very being is harmful to them since they elected to be unwise.” 

For to hear to the word of God is wise, while to reject it is unwise and labels a man as unwise.  And without God or His Word there is no life, wherefore rejection of God is automatic destruction.  Would you give someone your plate of food if he demeans you for it as less than food for dogs, and curses the plate and food on it?  After he has told you in so many words that he would not touch what you are eating, would you proceed to give it him for food? 

So likewise the unwise are not worthy to comprehend the secrets of God by which the humble and the meek are brought to salvation.  And much less should they be served with the secrets of God that God has forbidden to be served to them, saying to us "Keep My secret, secret you who are kept by it".  And "Keep holy that which is holy".  And "Do not throw your pearls before the swine".  And; "Wisdom is for the wise." 

A commentary then may be to help those that are weak in understanding to lend strength.  But the same can only come from those that are true teachers of the word, from those that of the Lord are endowed to teach His word.  And these are not many, nor have there been many, the great majority were either hirelings more interested in their own belly, or serpents who became teachers for the express purpose to poison the flock, to rob them of their eyesight as well as their goods and their life

History writers

The history writer Will Durant said; "Moralist are bad history writers."  With these words however he convicted himself as a bad history writer, since he is a moralist more than those whom he labels moralist.  For those who both love and keep the law, he demeans as moralist himself not comprehending the factual contents of the word, for with it he means to convey; Not - law-abider, but - law-perverters, as such who go beyond the law, that go further than the law. 

Meanwhile he does not realize that there is no such thing as to go beyond the law, or further than the law.  For no matter how perfect a person may be, he shall barely begin to fulfill the law, how then shall even the best among men come beyond it? 

But to the blind it is so that when one actually takes to uphold the law, he is labeled a moralist, as one who is perverting their view of the law.  Then again there are those that take the metaphor of a spiritual sentiment in literal terms, and that person is labeled a moralist or a fanatic, as one who drives the law to extremes.  But the law cannot be driven in either direction.  For such persons in taking the spiritual sentence to the flesh, are not obeying the law, but rather corrupting it, they are not keeping it to extremes - but flaunting it.

If one will not eat the flesh of swine because the law says to eat only those that chew the cud and part the hoof, yet he lives gathering gold, and speaks only of what he may gather for his days on this earth.  That man is flaunting the law, and a hypocrite as well.  For while in one he proclaims to be upholding the law, in the other he flaunts the one same law.  He takes the metaphor in literal terms not to eat the flesh of swine, but in the same literal terms he gathers gold, thus presenting himself the hypocrite. 

If now a man despises this life and looks for the life to come (parting the hoof), and takes counsel from the word of God (chew the cud), but also eats pork, that man is fulfilling the law, and there is nothing against him.  Or if another does like the former, but contrary to the former he will not eat pork, be it out of fear for the law, or out of respect, that person also upholds the law and will not be judged.  He may be weak in knowledge, yes, but nonetheless upholds the law. 

But then if this last person is told of, and educated in the will of God, as He gave to Peter after His resurrection, commanding us that we shall not call unholy what God has called holy.  And this last person continues to abstain from the swine because he labels it unholy, then that person flaunts the law.  Not necessarily the first law, but the latter, in striving against God to call unclean what God sanctified as clean.  He therefore who fulfills the spiritual law, and at the same time eats meat without guilt, or that abstains from certain meats simply because he has no taste for it, that person is acting according to the law. 

No one is a moralist except he that flaunts the law, or, as some have nicknamed the law "morals".  Yet if you who keep the morals, the right law, are labeled moralists, accept it with thanks, for with that you heap hot coals on their head.  For they who thus speak to you, are only labeling themselves, and accordingly condemning themselves, something they will come to realize most perfectly in the day of judgment.  Then O how sorry they will be for having called you a moralist, realizing that with these words they spoke their own destruction. 

This Will Durant despises the word of God, while at the same time he claims to honor it.  And the sharper the truth of God is laid out to him, the more hateful he becomes against it.  Yet he considers himself a very moral person, but then we fully expect this of such persons.  He condemns moralist, or law-abiding people as good writers of history, since of course they write history with a view to law and justice, justifying the righteous and condemning the ungodly acts of men.  For he being a true moralist, a true law perverter, (putting the cart in his own lap) he writes history justifying the ungodly acts, and condemning the righteous words and acts of those that speak and act righteously. 

And so history is written in two ways depending on who is writing, or in three ways, for there are certain history writers who in fact write history as it is - not justifying or condemning anything one way or the other.  Will Durant then is not in this third category, nor am I in that category.  I belong to the first; he belongs to the second.  And to name one that may be ranked in the last category we could name the Jewish historian Josephus that lived in the first century AD.  Or the writer of the first book of Maccabees, as merely recalling the events, while the writer of the second book of Maccabees adds the beauty of right judgment to it.

Augustines.

"On the fruit is the tree known."  If then Augustine was truly a Christian shall be known on the fruits that he has borne.   Just because he wrote a lot and that his writing survived the centuries, does not make him a Christian.  Nor because that which he wrote corresponded with the scripture shall it make him a Christian.  For anyone can quote the Scriptures, or copy the words thereof, or teach concerning it. 

But when one writes a lot, he speaks more than just quotations, and in these things can be seen the "heart" of the person.  I now have not read much of his writings, wherefore I do not know in what instances in his words he excels or fails.  From the historical record however it seems that part of his word may confirm the Scriptures. (stolen goods)

But there appear to be some thorns. For though a man appears to be mostly good and partially evil, the good may not be reckoned him, since of course that which seemed good, came of an evil heart.  Take for example chapters 33 through 37 of the book of Job, and in reading them you might come to say that Elihu spoke many good things.  And shall he be justified for that knowledge in him?  No, quite the contrary, for because of that very speech he was condemned.  The words in these chapters are not the words of a right spirit, but from the tomb of deceit.  They are an insult, wherefore also the Lord condemned Elihu, yet He forgave the three friends of Job who spoke previously even though their speech also had errors. 

Is then Augustine one with errors who notwithstanding these was justified?  Or, was he of a different nature, of a world not leading to salvation?  Was Augustine not one who condoned that abominable order of monks, which yet remains to this day?  For what he in fact condoned was a sect contrary to the call of God, a sect to find salvation in works rather than faith.  And as it came to be - leeches to live from the blood of the people under a cloak that is strange and alien to the calling of God. 

For since when did God institute such a thing for one to put himself in seclusion from the human race among which he was to glorify his Maker by showing love to his neighbor?  And to abstain from the good gifts of the hand of the Lord to serve one to his physical needs - shall that be after Godliness?  Or tell me; what possible purpose do these monks serve, or these nuns tucked away in guarded places, living like beggars supported from the revenues collected from the honest hard working people? Granted also the fact that many supported themselves.

As then at the start these monks were not servants in or at the church, but rather a sect denying the very norm of the church, the church in its own further corruption took them on, and elevated many as teachers and bishops, acting as though they were an integral part of the church in the heading thereof.  And so the church in effect took on the devil to lead them, and it is so with these to this day.

Monks and nuns, a worthless sect of persons to deceive the mind of man.  For they imagine that heaven can be earned by physical humiliation, (the very germ or virus to infect and destroy the Grace that was and is the one and only health to salvation).  This then in effect was, or became nothing more than a debauchery of their bodies.  They imagined that heaven was earned by a ritual, a ritual that drove them to the debauchery of their bodies, which itself is a crime. 

For God made man giving him a good body, and He made woman so that man should not be alone, but that He should praise God for his very mate.  Since therefore there were many women not having husbands, an un-natural state for them, and not according to the will of God, these monks avowed abstinence depriving the women of their God given rights, for which they earned their damnation.  And for themselves they renounced the law that God placed on their bodies, as well as on their hearts and minds, and so multiplied their torment upon themselves.

In that essence therefore they did not love their neighbor, but cursed the same, nor did they uphold the law of God, but scorned it, as if they could live in perfection contrary to the power of God.  In every respect therefore these were vain, living by oppression, oppressing themselves as well as the women that were forced to sleep alone. 

And in addition to these criminal acts, they made a mockery of the word of God, and of the faith, and of Christ Jesus, and of God the Father.  Putting their hands to heaven in effect saying, the Lord does not know what is right for salvation, but we know.  For by this ritual and debauchery of our bodies, and by our oppression, and drinking the blood of man, we shall inherit salvation, and rule in heaven.

Such are the things, which became of what Augustine saw as a Christian thing to do.  But was it that way in his days?  For note how I said "became" of, etc.  I am in this century knowing what became of that which originally served as a means to house and serve the poor and needy in the Christian faith.  And how shall I condemn that, which was originally good, by the evil that became of it?

The original church had the name of Catholic, meaning, Universal, or at least so we are purported to believe.  And now these many centuries later the devil having completely taken over that original name-stay, and the true Christians having left it - for these many centuries already, I have come to the point to announce that it is a disgrace to be known by that term.  

And thus to hold to the term Christian rather than Catholic.  But I will not sensor anyone for claiming themselves true, or holy Catholics.   But you are my sworn enemy, and most loathsome of all to me to hold by the term of roman catholic, for that term is the equal of the devil and all serpentine vermin.

And so what am I to say of Augustine?   The Lord who knows the hearts of all men will reveal the same.

Jerome.

Balaam was a prophet of the Lord, yet he was not saved, God blessed Israel through the mouth of Balaam, yet Balaam himself did not partake of these blessings.  He himself said; "The wise and understanding will remember my words that when I cursed I perished, but though I blessed I was not blessed." 

I now have remembered his words, and they made an impression on me whereby all the more I fear the Lord.  If now I were to choose between Balaam and Jerome, I would take Balaam before Jerome.  I know that the evil counsel of Balaam was great, to station well-endowed women naked and with gold before the sons of Jacob so as to trap them in the clutches of hell. 

Jerome then (so it is reported) is one of those of whom Paul spoke; giving heed to doctrines of demons, forbidding marriage, or, irrational animals as Peter classified them.  Jerome, (as it is recorded) saw the leeches, the monks, as were they the best, or the only real Christians.

For Paul above all commanded marriage, and only, and I repeat "only" if one was so formed of God to have no desire in marriage, or; that his life persecution and on the go, would make it a hardship.  And to judge for himself if he might not rather devote himself to the cause for which he was called, rather than to take a wife, and have double concern, and double duties. 

The priests then shall hardly fit such a picture, for in the first place the fact that they visit the whorehouses proves that they are in need of a woman.  Secondly, they are under no persecution, nor under any devotion wherein marriage would be a hardship.  They in no way compare to Paul.  What then is willing, or not willing in an individual is one thing, but to forbid marriage is outright mockery and defiance against God.  And to preach or promote abstinence is blasphemy, the act of an irrational animal, the pleasure and stupidity of a demon. 

These things now as I have taught Augustine and Jerome should have understood from the teaching of Paul and of Peter.  Every other God-fearing person understood it that way, why then did not they if indeed they were saints?  Who then were these that labeled them as saints?  It were such who clothed themselves with a rank that does not even exist in the kingdom of God, to call themselves archbishops and popes. 

Sexual desire now, and the act that comes by it, is one of the least understood, and the reason it falls in such great ignorance among men is because of the law.  For the law is wisdom, and where it is not understood, there is ignorance, and where it is flaunted, there is the guilt that together with ignorance makes that relation in man (which is most beautiful) a vile thing.  For the law sanctions lawful relations, which in their purity are most beautiful and gratifying, and a sweet savor to the Lord.  For as such, in the righteous, they are a praise and thank-offering to the Lord.

Since however the Lord created more than one man, and more than one woman, and every man is a separate entity having his rights and dignity with all other men, it is vile when one man infringes upon another, to remove his rights from him, or to defile his person.  Thus the law forbids for any one man to defile the body of another man.  But because the hearts of men are evil, they lust after the privacy of what belongs to another man.  In other words, they who do so, have no regard for love or honor of themselves either or that of any other man, and freely lust after lawless desire.

Searching the years.

My intend here was to investigate and speak on persons of renown throughout the last nineteen centuries of history.  And thus I searched the record to behold the case in general and what laborers of true grid there were, and who they might be.  And to see how many from among Gentiles may have attained to the promise to inherit the same.

The record of Gentiles then, in safeguarding the treasure of the Lord, is indeed a dark page.  Not even Israel strove so strenuously, nor so violently to impute to them the word.  No few wars and heated debates have raged concerning so few words, and yet did they gain very little to themselves in comparison to Israel.  For the choice of the Lord was Jacob and his descendants, and as many as rebelled and lost out in Israel, thus many were taken out of Gentiles, for the Lord wished to fill the measure of His first-fruit, and accordingly He filled it. 

The first centuries having passed it appeared as if silence and darkness came upon the earth, until the reformation in which the dark clouds subsided to allow some sunlight to pass, and again reassembled to obscure the light of the Sun.  And as for the reformers, as also others both before and after them, many a good things have been done, and also ignorance held its domain. 

The Lord spoke saying; "The harvest is great, but laborers are few".  And this is more a prophecy of what was to be then the general statement as most assume it.  And to more properly define what I mean, and what was, and was not, or will be, and will not be, I should speak to you of

Reward and reward.

The Lord spoke saying, To reward everyone according to their deeds, good for good, and bad for bad.  And so also it was that I said that Hell has as many plateaus' as there are people in it.  And as for heaven, there also are the greater and smaller.  A reward then, may run short of life in heaven to instead receive a hell not as severe as some others, for it is also spoken of - a greater judgment to come to some.

"Those on My right, so said the Lord, shall receive greater favor than those on My left."  For again the Preacher said; "Whatsoever one will of life or of death, that he will receive."  And Clement, the bishop, and disciple of Peter, also understood this.  That striving for Godliness is good - even if they should run short of the goal to attain to the life in heaven, as he said; "That if they attain not to it, to at least come as close as possible to it."

It is not as simple as many have made it out to be, a sharp cut between life or death.  For while in fact that signpost is a standard, there are measures of both life and death as well, with all of which leaning towards life, to be of and in the grace of God.  The more closely a man lives to the word and will of God, the better a life he will procure for himself, for the Lord having said; "Every good deed will be rewarded," you can be sure He will keep His word. 

Reward, and reward then, is as I previously mentioned.  For he who intents to gain entry into the kingdom of heaven must needs reach toward the perfection that the Lord requires.  This perfection now is not at all difficult to attain to, even though it is called "perfection".  If however you decide and consent that this perfection cannot be reached, then you will not attain unto it either.

When anyone tells you that perfection in Godliness is impossible in this age, know him for a liar and an enemy of God and Godliness.  For this the Lord Himself said; that no one shall attain to the kingdom lest he be perfected thereto.

For now let me draw your attention to what is required in order that our reward may be of such degree to gain entry into the kingdom of heaven.  For what is the standard of the Lord?  You believe, yes, and you are alive, yes, but in fact you are dead, for so spoke the Lord  "I did not find your works perfect" before My Father".  Therefore lest you take on perfection in the works that lead to salvation, you fail to measure up.

Attempt to jump a breach in a pavement of which the bottom cannot be seen.  If you shall not be perfect in your sprinting and your consequent leverage to come fully across, you shall perish.  For even an inch short of the goal will cause you to fall in the same bottomless deep in which all those many others - being blind - simply walk into.  Therefore, blind, or eyesight, faith, or no faith, the kingdom is not for the light-hearted.

For again the Lord said; "you have patience and endurance, and you test the spirits, and many other good things.  Yet said the Lord; He will take your lamp-stand from you, if you do not measure up, if you do not repent, seeing you have lost your first love, the good love.  You have become dulled and seared, and as such you will never make it across that breach.  And with how many other examples did not the Lord point out how He desires perfection, setting a standard?

Lukewarm, and be spewed out, or as to Thyatira, who might almost be called perfect, yet were deficient, tolerating false prophets.  For just as you do this day, for however perfect you may be, or think yourself to be, how dare you tolerate one like this Billy Graham, that false prophet?  I say to you, have all the faith of God that you will, and be perfect in everything, yet if you will condone him, and look on him as a virtue of God, you have not began to know perfection, nor what is in the will of God.

To thus find those in the centuries of the past who might have measured up to the standard by which the Lord Jesus Christ judges all those who shall enter into life by Him, who shall I name?  Ever since the apostles and their disciples at first, what name may be given?  I tell you I do not know their names, not because they are not, for there are many, but their names, except for those recorded as martyrs, are not in man's records.

These many of which I speak whose names I know not, are those from among the people, the common folks as it may be said.  And few of laborers, for the Lord Himself prophesied, that of laborers there would be very few, while of the sheep they would not be few.

And so now cry and weep O you shepherds, and all you hirelings, for the only Shepherd that the people have known was the Lord Himself, and His laborers which He sent out, were like one here and one there, very few in different places, and different times.  The Lord certainly did not choose the noted ones of the earth, nor those with powers, but rather the poor, and humble.  Drawing them secretly out from among men to make them kings and rulers over rulers and kings.

Accordingly it was that I did not see any heads in all these many throughout all these years, for while there are many shepherds and teachers of renown, whose names are recorded, and whose writings continue to this day, who shall we name?  I do not wish to be accused of false judgment.  But of course the shepherds will not judge as I have judged, since accordingly they would condemn themselves - they being in the number and the profession of them that are to be exterminated.

It is of course not new that no heads are to be found among the Gentiles, since the Lord spoke by the prophet; that every ruler would come out of Israel, tent peg, and post as well.  Accordingly, while salvation did fall unto the Gentiles along with Israel no high echelon was to come of them, which the Lord procured in Israel.  And while there may be an exception, this is not altogether in the horn of Gentiles.  

Reward, and reward.  "I will give to each of you as your works deserves."  So spoke the Lord.  And as for me, I am not interested in what this or that church or religion or faction teaches or sanctions or condemns.  Nor does their history or their present doctrine interest me, nor will I debate regarding their foolish trivialities, and their vain ignorance, for I serve only the Lord that has sent me.  Whosoever will hear me, will be blessed, and whosoever departs from the word, which was delivered to us, will pay the price for it. 

I shall hardly qualify for a history writer, for it does not interest me in the least what particular corruption one or the other may have taught.  My measure is by the word of God, and whosoever does not measure up to it, shall fall unto me, and the same will be ground to powder.  For it was also to this end that I was sent, that I might behold, and measure the court, and behold what was to fall unto me, and who would be free of me.  

While then some teach to find you a better place in hell, - if at least they do that much for you - I seek nothing less than the perfection, which leads to eternal life, and if this seems a painful road to you, consider also the great difference in the end-reward.

Wisdom.

The beginning of wisdom is - get wisdom, and whatever you get - get insight."  The very rich are the poor of the earth, their riches convicts them as thieves, for he that has overmuch steals, and he that is overpaid curses his neighbor.  The truly rich are they who gather insight; he that loves wisdom and searches after her, for is not life more than all goods?  And with life comes ­inheritance of goods. 

These words however are senseless in this generation that measures everything by dollars and cents, and it is in vain to teach them wisdom or understanding, for just as a broken vessel cannot hold water neither can they hold knowledge.  But while they pleasure in their own conceit, I for me wish to search for understanding wherever I may find the same.

For the Lord appointed me a guardianship of the world, and who can perform the duties of such an office lest foremost manifold wisdom be granted him?  And what is most admirable in a ruler is compassion as well as exactness in justice, and the justice that I love is the justice of God, and the compassion He so readily shows. 

So it is that I look at the examples of the past, to learn from them also.  Not to judge the men in the examples as much as to educate myself in what is most wise and just and to apply myself to the same.  The Lord gave Egypt a number of good and loving rulers, the Pharaoh in the days of Joseph was not at all a tyrant, and he was blessed of Jacob.  And yet as fair and as just or as good as this king of Egypt was, did not Joseph suffer unjustly in prison?  And was not also the butler for a while unjustly in prison?  How was it then that the king did not inquire more diligently so that none of his subjects might suffer unjustly? 

Or that king that went so easily along with the deceit of Haman to destroy the Jews, what was in his mind to partake with men so carelessly?  And as for compassion, did he bother to understand the mind of Queen Esther?  Did it even cross his mind that she may have been brought under compulsion?  Where O king was your manliness, your grace as a prince? 

Nebuchadnez'zar loved Daniel, and knew the power of God, and yet he spoke amiss.  And even Solomon in all his wisdom, knowing that the kingdom was divided in him, still went forth attempting to prevent it.  Why then O my dear friend did you go forth while in your wisdom you knew it was futile? 

And so I am reminded where it says; "even in His holy ones He finds errors, and; what shepherd is able to stand before Him?"  For O the Lord is holy, and truly God, and I know that I am guilty of the same hasty judgments, which all the more presses on me to be ever so much more careful!  For O how I hated it, and myself, when I found that I had made a hasty judgment, I was given wrong information, true, but again I did not inquire into the facts with due diligence.  All the while I had so told myself never at all to make any unjust judgment, or to err.

For if I am to make fools of the wise, I had better myself not err, since no doubt the least of my error would be built to the high heaven.  Moreover, being a prince of the Lord, and walking in His name, and priding myself in Him, my shame also reflects upon the name of my Lord. 

Right justice now is not measured by any comparison to the injustice of the many rulers of this earth, even though the multitude will come to adore the sons of God for their mercy in comparison to the oppression by which they were treated of men.  But as a still more perfect light measures light, so my heart searches for the perfection of what is just.  And to acquire (receive that is), the utmost love and grace from the father of all compassion by which I may rule those many that He has given unto my store. 

And so I ponder; why did not Pharaoh, or so many other rulers, put themselves more personally into it to see to the exact justice of all their subjects?  Were they too many to look into more personally?  That sentiment may seem logical to many, but not at all so to me, I refuse to accept such ill excuse, and will not harbor it in any fashion.  For what shall that be to me seeing the multitudes into my hand are utterly endless?  Shall I not duly care for even the least of them? 

And pack yourselves away you miserable hypocrites who say that perfection in such cannot be attained by any ruler, seeing he is one while his subjects are many.  You disgust me with such speech, for although I am only one and my subjects many, yet have I not my post of the Lord?  And is it not He who rules by me in His Holy Spirit with me?  How then shall He who is all things greater not be perfectly able to care for the least, omitting nothing?  

As is His desire, so is my desire, for I have fallen in love with the Lord.  For just as He cares in His greatness for the least thing of the least, so I am in love with His greatness to in all things be after His image, to perform justice as He judges, and to have compassion as He has compassion. 

And yes I know that no man is like God, and as to that effect, I am as Agur said, neither man nor as God, still, I desire to enact justice and compassion just as He does.  And while this, in the heights that I seek may be considered something too great and too lofty for a man to even ask for, yet I have good cause.  For did He not elect me of His Beloved?  And did He not point me an endless number of men to come to my store?  

How then shall I rule such a great number of creatures which He made in His love, lest also He grants me the wisdom and the compassion such as He has - to love and cherish them as He loves and cherishes them?  For then I shall be in His image, when I shall love each of them more than myself, and share their feelings and emotions, as were I their very selves. 

In wisdom it is said that even the best of judges will not always perform perfect judgment.  And yet as a prince, it is in my mind to impress on the judges within my realm, that they are not to make error, and to have compassion as He has compassion.  Am I then being too severe?  

Not so in my eyes, for by this the weight of their office shall rest on them.  For again, how is a man fit to judge his fellowman?  This is one office no man should want or desire for fear that he might harm even one of God's creature in a wrong judgment, and yet how many not only desire it, but will even kill for it? 

Some may wonder how or why ignorance is such a curse to me, wondering in themselves if I have forgotten that the heart is human.  But I have not forgotten, nor do I call the heart that is to rule or to judge, human.  For even as I spoke that a people cannot rule itself, nor a nation be led by mortal men, so neither can the human heart rule.  But only the hearts woven in the arms and in the blood of the Almighty Lord, since in Him alone is the capacity of these offices.

Luther.

Many are called, but few are chosen."  A statement that is thought to be understood by equally as many, but understood by only the few that are chosen.  O how many shall be surprised in the day of Judgment to discover that the elevator which they so surely thought would go upwards for them - will go down for them.  It is indeed a multitude that thinks to inherit the kingdom of heaven that instead will inherit the pains of being outcast thereof.  For the kingdom of heaven is in the perfection of the faith by which its citizens are called. 

And so when the multitude will see those many teachers and preachers of which they thought so much - to be cast along with them in the pains of hell, then these will come to glorify God saying.  "Surely, only God speaks truth, yea truly, truth is of the mouth of God only." 

What now shall I say of Luther, the pillar of the reformation, who strove with devils, and with the vulgar beasts of the earth?  Luther was neither first nor only to put the beasts of Rome to shame, for the people and the princes did equally so.  The fact that Rome and its so called clergy were nothing more than the lowest of animals was well expressed by many both before, during, and after Luther. 

By Luther however became again prominent - that salvation is by faith, and not by works, which in other words is said; Luther introduced Christ Jesus, into a world where only devils were known.  Yet how did Luther himself fare in this battle of good and evil?  For he who fights must fight the good fight, and follow the rules that are set for him.  

He who labors for a master follows the rules of the master, and if he does not follow the commands of his master, he will have no reward of his master no matter how well he labors, or even if he gives his life in the fight for it. 

The end does not justify the means.  Or let me put it to you another way.  For the Lord said expressly to me, tell My servant Zerubabel, not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit.  And let us add to this to say that; although I had all knowledge, but no love, I were nothing.  To preach salvation, and to preach the doctrines thereof correctly, is no justification for one's disregard or ignorance of the law.  For again, the law - is the law of love, it being summarized in this; to love God and one's neighbor, yes even one's enemies. 

Neither violence nor wrath is ever any excuse for any man, since God expressly said; Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.  And the preaching of violence is as the act thereof; both stand condemned before God. 

And so then I ask again; how does Luther himself fare in this battle, which he fought for faith?  Balaam blessed Israel, yet himself he was not blessed.  Greed was his error, or one of them anyway.  And while the love of money has been, and still is the only real god of just about every preacher, Luther was free of that idol.  Can we reprove Luther in where he said in regards to the Roman clergy; "I will curse and scold the scoundrels until I go to my grave, and never shall they have a civil word from me". 

I would say viper's breed, and to curse their deeds, but where he says; "Take women from their duties as housewives, and they are good for nothing".  In that respect you have made yourself good for nothing Luther, for he that scorns his nose scorns his face, and he that blinds his eye impairs himself.  And let no one tell me now as if such were the hives of the time and therefore justified, for indeed they were the atrocities of the time, and the ignorance of men and by no means knowledge or wisdom.

It now is said of Luther that he called upon all good Germans to drive out the wolves by force.  But this may be a false accusation when taken from the words where he said.  "It were better that every bishop were murdered, every foundation or cloister rooted out than that one soul should be destroyed, let alone that all souls should be lost for their worthless trumpery and idolatry."  For now comes the question if Luther spoke this as a point of example, or a drive to violence. 

I for example can very well say; that if you wish peace and harmony to come to the earth, you will have to exterminate every priest and minister and ruler.  Yet with that I do not mean that we should in fact do so, and I would be quick to add that this will in fact be done of the Lord in His time by His arm, and for us to be gentle and patiently wait for Him. 

The words then as I just spoke, and these as Luther spoke, are not in the right context for the sons of God, for in the first place, they are only half-truth.  For suppose we did so, who then would take their places if not others of the same?  Moreover, we would then ourselves be like unto them, and not be any the better.  

The point here is; we err when we ourselves seek to bring justice, or seek to procure righteousness.  When one calls himself a servant of the Lord then let him represent the Lord and His powers, and not seek human solutions. 

There are many things on which Luther can be commended, but also on which I shall not commend him, one of which was his ignorance of the Scriptures in respect to the Jews. Something contrary to the faith for which he strove so strongly.  Will one breakdown with the one hand what he builds with the other?  If so, he will have no building.  One cannot nurture a tree to bear fruit, and at the same time cut it down.

 What then of Luther?  Shall many have benefited from his strivings whereby the light of God came through the clouds, and he himself miss out on it?  Let me then caution you that the light was of God, and that He alone fought the battle, for what is man that he shall be of any service to God?  If not God lends him the power, to work by him, he is nothing. 

And so the Lord will reveal in His day which of those that strove in the faith - fought the good fight, and whom He did perfect, and who was not perfected to inherit His name.  For the salvation of God is in His election.   Whosoever therefore He has not elected to stand before Him, the same shall not ever stand before Him.  For He is God, and He only, and as He will so is His right.  Yet this does not give man the right to sin against Him, or to defraud or oppress his neighbor. 

For whether one is elected to stand in His service or not, we are all bound to His law of life, and He gave His only begotten Son not only for His elect, but for all men.  Seeing therefore He gave His life to redeem all men from death, we all should glorify Him, and extol Him for His mercy and compassion.  For our lives in one way or another are His, and by Him, and without Him none of us would have any being.  The very fact therefore that you are, is cause enough to extol Him and to Honor Him by keeping His law and His precepts.  

ROMAN IDOLATRY

Today we have what is called the roman catholic church. It however is not a church, nor even a religion, but the outright defiance against church and religion, it is no more than an extension of the pagan idolatry of the roman empire that existed even before the days of Christ upon the earth.  How therefore are these brutes to be called Christian when their origin was from before Christ?

And to insert the words of another in getting to the point, quote: "Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture."

"So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?"

"The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church.  While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus."

Simply said, the pagans of old from the days of Noah and his grandson Canaan going forward having come to an empire called the Romans with all its gods for idolatry, continued forward passed the time of Christ upon the earth for the space of about three centuries, when a change occurred. For all the time since Christ these pagans, Romans and otherwise persecuted the Christians, when by decree the faith of Christians was to be allowed.

But now there is a dilemma, for it is highly unlikely for the devil to come and accept the Christ. There is no such thing for the sons of perdition to accept the sons of God as either friends or equals to them. When therefore by decree the heathens in all their vile being are to accept Christians as free agents among them, what is wrong with these Christians?  They no doubt had deteriorated so much so as to make them acceptable to the lawless pagans.

And while not all Christians had deteriorated the persecution continued upon them, but the so called head source, primarily seated in Rome were anything but Christians.  And to continue their accursed origin of lawless paganism under a new heading, so that they might appear to be justified, in their secret effort to ruin whatever remains of the true Christians, they took on a so called name-stay of Christianity by replacing all their accursed idols with the names of saints, from which also came the Mary worship.

Accordingly they completely ignored Christ and all His teachings, and merely continued in their pagan worship, yet under a facade so as hopefully deceive any and all true Christians.  And if these would not obey their hypocrisy the persecution upon them would continue, as in fact it did, and so recorded in the records of history. 

When therefore in all of history was it ever legal to be a Christian?  When were they ever given freedom to pursue their faith? As long as you are only a Christian in name, you may live among us, but never be a Christian for real.  And that continues to this very day.  When for example I stood up as a real Christian in a so called church, they turned against me with a vehemence that the Romans emperors displayed in their time, and with a malice the likes of what the popes in all their times displayed.  

Had it been a century earlier they would have burned me at the stakes immediately.

What therefore in this day is new, if not as Solomon said; "There is nothing new under the sun." And since in this last century it seems as if persecution of the Christians has ceased, it is only because there are no Christians left to persecute, with the few remaining essentially being hidden. Nor do these churches, so called, have the power of kings as they used to have.