Booklets
IDENTIFIED WITH BIBLICAL PENTECOST, ITS PRESENT BOOM STATE HAS BEEN HARMLESSLY TRANSFORMING TRADITIONAL CHURCHES
CHURCH TRANSITIONS FROM JESUS'
TIME TO TODAY
Jesus founded an entity through many statements and instructions both expressed and implied, and instructions that we become overcomers (see below). Overcoming was central to his ministry, and is the key element in his church. However, neither Catholic nor traditional Protestant churches practiced these instructions until relatively recently, and not fully today. Nonstandard, the church Jesus founded is not a typical church in today's sense. It demised at Constantine (Jesus had predicted "night" for works - - Jn. 9:4), but resurrected in the Los Angeles Area or Azusa Street revival. Our thought only slowly accepts the emerging of Jesus' founded church. We will gradually see much more form and substance, with members more aware, cohesive and capable. It is a living relationship between Jesus in his spiritual state at the head under the infinite Father in which we live, move and have our spiritual being hid (to "natural" eyes) in Christ - - making "one" divine package (Jn. 17:20-23). Jesus' earthly followers who are toiling in material (not spiritual) life and under the carnal mind's sentence of death to happen at some point, can work their way up into realizing the spiritual creation, or Kingdom, and higher identity in Spirit's image.
Below are some of the founding statements.
Acts 1:4,5,8 (Early Christian Ordainments).
Mark 16:15 ("Great Commission").
John 14:12; Mark 16:17-18; Matthew 10:7-8 (instructions to heal).
Matthew 16:15-18 (founding on Peter's perception of Jesus' spiritual
identity and what this meant for humankind, not on "flesh and
blood" - - see also Jn. 6:54, 60-61, 63, 67-68).
Matthew 28:19-20 (with us always).
Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:4, 7 (more instructions to be overcomers - - leading to evil's end at Revelation 21:4, 7).
See below other references, plus the several fellowship statements below - - one by Jesus, the others by followers.
John 17:20-23 (Jesus telling us of the oneness fellowship with him and with the Father).
I Corinthians 1:9 (where we're called to the "fellowship of his Son"). Philippians 1:5 (where Paul speaks of "your fellowship in the gospel").
Philippians 3:10 (the "fellowship of his sufferings").
I John 1:3 ("that ye...may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ").
Daniel 2:44 (as to the establishment by Jesus in his time, of the Kingdom on earth by his overcoming of the world - - the founding or foundation which is to be filled out later by him and us - - essentially his church).
Two churches, not the same
Two churches are involved in the early period - - Jesus' power-Christian direct worship church under him (he said he was with us always*), and the stratified indirect-worship intermedial-layered church that gradually came into being and which - - by its indirectness - - filtered out works of overcoming of evil (which works require direct encounter in the Bible pattern for best results).
The slowly-emerging second church, in the sense of its formalism - - not in the sense of its many inspired people and those with lifetimes of helping others, and its bringing forward of the Bible - - was retrofitted back over the Early church, obscuring it, and claiming Peter as a Pope instead of as the foundation man of Jesus' church (due to his awareness of Jesus' spiritual being).
*Note: There is discussion, of course, of what "alway" or "always" means, but I believe it means Jesus was and is with us always in his spiritual state, but we might not see it. Christ followed Moses (I Cor. 10:4), Jesus personally knew Abraham and vice versa (Jn. 8:56-58), and knew David, and vice versa (Mat. 22:41-45). Also present (in its spiritual state or "hid" - - Mat. 13:44 - - Jesus told us) was the Kingdom. So it's a matter of seeing what's here already (Mat. 13:15). Indirect worship accepted a separation, with rituals giving spot and temporary connectings. The "rapture" (I Thes. 4:16, 17) would appear to be the realization by individuals or groups at any time - - and also in a predicted group event - - of Jesus in his spiritual state right here as "always" (and realization of our higher selves in the image of Spirit in our spiritual state "hid with Christ" in him - - Col. 3:3-4). At present, we're letting the Kingdom - - always here - - to come into our thought right here. We're not going to go anywhere, but instead work in "Thy Kingdom come." The "rapture" equips us to be better harvest workers right here. So put on work (not vacation) clothes, because in your higher consciousness "with the Lord" forever, there'll be heavy lifting right here until evil's end.
CHURCH TRANSITIONS FROM
JESUS TILL NOW
We begin with the Early Christian nearly-300-year period before "night" (Jn. 9:4), but it is hampered by scarcity of information. Still, despite these lacks, and differences among historians, major elements and trends, and enough specifics, can be identified. Too, Rome had some records.
Bible writers and a few non-canonical writers of course give us information. The most prominent secular writer was Josephus. Born AD 37, he lived in the Early Christian period, and wrote prodigiously in the 70s and 90s. Eusebius - - Bishop of Caesarea - - wrote much later around 300 until his death in 339, and was a friend of Constantine (who took over Christianity after 312). Eusebius found a shortage of specifics but plenty of legends true, false, and mixed. Even secular national and city records and archaeological discoveries don't yield enough data original or confirming - - but some exists.
Apostolic early leadership
After Jesus' ascension, the apostles were naturally elevated to informal chief positions in the early assemblies and groups of assemblies (mainly house churches).
The apostles moved about, starting other groups and strengthening the flocks.
They were not a clergy class, just lay leaders appointed by the followers.
In that apostolic time, according to many scholars, there was a high sense of Christ's imminent return with his kingdom (indicated for example in the disciples' question to Jesus in Acts 1:6, "Wilt thou at this time restore...the kingdom to Israel?"). In that atmosphere, organization didn't seem too important, since all would soon be in the kingdom. But as time and apostles passed, thought changed to Jesus' possible long-term absence instead of his soon-coming.
Legitimacy, authority, permanence, continuit
At the start, legitimacy was a concern. Jesus had apparently authorized Peter, but since one apostle couldn't be everywhere at once, many assumed that any apostle was authorized to set up and oversee assemblies (while others were unsure on this point).
The second concern was simply how to maintain permanence and continuity. After the apostles, who was to be in charge?
The third concern was of course the Roman Empire, which aimed at ending any legitimacy, authority, permanence or continuity.
Assemblies of laypeople only
As we all know, the early formation was "assembly," and all were laypeople - - there was no clergy class. In contrast, the much-later formal Catholic organization grew in the centuries after Constantine, to become the most centralized and "monarchical episcopacy" (monarchy-like hierarchical) church in all history by the time of the Reformation.
Lay churches were democratic in that they elected their leaders. When the clergy class began to manifest, it was self-perpetuating, and also made the rules, because it supposedly was closer to God.
In the lay period were lay leaders, lay elders who were also called presbyters, and lay deacons. All at this stage were laypeople. The lay leader of a single house church or other assembly might be called a bishop, but was a lay bishop, not in the hierarchal sense - - and might set up and tend other assemblies.
We also need to note what might have been occurring even at an early date in Christianity in the city of Rome in contrast to the Middle East, Greece, and Africa. Some say from the start, others say later, Rome had some kind of growing priesthood evidenced by what is sometimes called a priestly-bishop concept (in contrast to the purely lay bishop concept).
The formal Catholic Church is based on Peter in Rome - - and Peter as a pope or head of a hierarchical type structure. But neither Peter as pope nor the hierarchical concept was there at the start of Early Christianity (not even conceived of), and didn't appear (opinions vary) for a long time. Nonetheless, centuries after Peter, the hierarchical factors, having consolidated, were retrofitted, obscuring for history Jesus' Early Church (which is now reasserting itself after Azusa Street).
Founding on Peter
There's the church catholic (lowercase c for universal) and the formal Catholic Church (capital C).
The church (lowercase c or universal) was founded by Jesus on Peter's perception of Jesus as spiritual, teaching spiritual identity for all. (Read again Matthew 16:15-18, and John 1:12-13.)
"Flesh and blood" hadn't revealed (Mat. 16:17) what Peter saw that caused Jesus to found the church upon him. Therefore I believe from Scripture that Jesus' church was founded on perception of spiritual identity and being.
This founding - - whether recognized as such or not, and whether the people recognize on what Jesus founded his church or not - - is growing today after its reappearance at Azusa Street. It is in many people and new groups dedicated to it, also inside most traditional church groups, and many Messianic Jews.
This direct-worship power-Christianity or power-Judeo-Christianity is destined to work in conjunction with Deity to end all evil as in Revelation 21:4, 7.
When writers of the early period use the term "catholic" it is in the sense of universal, not the formal Catholic Church which didn't exist until after Constantine, and not even then for a while.
Lay bishops (presbyter-bishops) and priest-class bishops
The earliest bishop concept in the Middle Eastern, Greek, and African churches was simply the lay bishop idea - - a lay minister (called in some places a presbyter-bishop) of only a single assembly or a few. These lay leader-"bishops" helped set up groups, and routinely visited and strengthened them.
All was in the lay realm, but the clergy-class concept was creeping in.
The idea of a clergy class and an episcopacy (or government by bishops) was growing. Some say Christianity early in Rome, or maybe as late as the 200s, had the idea of a rudimentary hierarchical structure with a priest-class bishop and the idea that he and the assembly in Rome had power over nearby assemblies (see The Lives of the Popes, Michael J. Walsh, Editor). The idea of a priest-class bishop having power over other churches obviously grew greatly over time!
The idea (whether in practice early or circa 200) of such a structured system inevitably had to seep out from Rome into the Middle East, Greece and Africa, or emerge out there on its own. (Probably it's rooted deep in our human nature.)
In any event, the clergy-class structural idea began to take form in Early Churchdom. The human mind loves pyramidal organization, and leaders will claim it. Even when nonexistent, groups create de facto pyramids (which can be useful if limited and democratic). They will even appoint a de facto clergy class, despite the reduction in individual power in the congregation that comes with it.
A clergy class and system gradually grew within Early Christianity.
(That Rome's bishop had power over all assemblies was still far off.)
However, the clergy-class system steadily appeared within Early Christianity.
The local pyramid grew into the pyramidal structure over groups, and eventually into the pyramidal structure over all Christianity.
The growing pyramidal concept with layers, a clergy class and rituals based on Jesus' absence was indirect worship. As these came into place, Christian power waned, because direct worship had put the power in power-Christianity.
Divine healings or other beneficial changes occur when the followers directly encounter, and work in conjunction with, the divine. That's the "Bible pattern" seen throughout Scripture.
Effects don't occur easily with intermedial layers of rituals, persons, or even beliefs in between, because the followers don't directly present their identity and situations to be changed. Christian power was the number one thing identifying Early Christianity. As indirectness increased, power diminished, vanished.
Under the pyramidal system, the power was being filtered - - even filtered out.
(But intermedial concepts have some value, giving seekers a temporary place.)
Hierarchical system from Judaism and military as well as Roman assembly?
Some believe the source of the hierarchical structure which appeared in Early Christianity, was the millenniums-old Jewish clergy-laity system accepted in the region. Where seen in Early Christianity, this was known as "Judaization."
(Of course, Christianity's roots were in the Jewish religious structure which had both clergy and laity. Moreover, the Jews had been a theocracy where part of the time the civil government was the religious structure. And when not, religion and government were so woven together as to amount to theocracy, or at the very least, the government was heavily influenced by the religion.)
Another influence towards the pyramidal structure appears to have come from the system of the Roman Army.
The pyramid had always been the method of organizing everything social, military, religious, governmental, commercial and familial.
The episcopacy or hierarchical structure in assemblies began mildly, but leaders soon had power, and an "office," so to speak.
This helped administration, but soon the ministry was also placed under the authority of the structure for appointment of ministers and regulation of message and activity - - removed from the individual-Christian-in-action.
Jesus' said believers - - all Christians - - would do his works (Jn. 14:12), a thing missing in general Christianity. It comes with directness (and where it appears today, ordinary worshipers show more power than clergies of 50 years ago).
A clergy or priest class was appearing. In time, it self-perpetuated - - departing entirely (gradually over centuries) from democratic appointing.
And all this expanded slowly, but much later, exploded into control.
The shift to a mode of clergy class and laity
Influences leading to two levels caused a progressive shift from laypeople-only to the developing laity-and-clergy-class mode.
It's probable that by the mid-100s, a very basic, not elaborate, two-level clergy-and-laity system was accepted widely, and by the mid-200s was in place. Still, with groups of churches widely scattered, there was no central church or authority (which would come later).
The unthinkable
From mild origins, the door opened to the unthinkable - - a priesthood in the Day-of-Pentecost Holy Ghost direct-worship ambience.
The central church concept budding
With the distances (Italy, Turkey called Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa west to Carthage) and the intermittent periods of persecution, this body couldn't have united or been uniform. But the idea of a central church and system was budding. Circa 250, Cyprian at Carthage wrote about "one church" (probably considered also by others).
The most central unity was of course built around Jesus - - mainly the past and future, but not the present. Followers believed he was absent, although he had said he was with them always (which had to mean in his spiritual state - - see previous Note). (To see him "as he is" - - I John 3:2 - - presumably in his spiritual state, we have to change, and change even more after we see him.) But present or absent, the basic unity was of course around him. (Although post-biblical churches and theologies are usually based on Jesus' absence, there are varying degrees of the sense of divine Presence in many prayerful situations.)
One unifying sense came from fierce persecution off and on by the Roman Empire (even though many groups didn't know all other groups or locations). Conferences and travelers helped share information.
Bit by bit, church-organization types of unity were added:
First, the budding religious hierarchy discussed earlier.
Second, as part of that, regional conferences were organized and held beyond the merely local. Synods, or conferences, possibly in the 100s but definitely in the 200s, discussed theological positions, published statements, and advanced church growth. From these came various theological themes and positions with advocates gathering around them.
Third, the mysterious idea that Rome's bishop, with control of assemblies near Rome, also had a type of special influence over many others. This later expanded to not only influence but control over all other bishops and assemblies. That idea is said to have been first put forth (very mildly, it would appear) by Clement c. 88 to c. 97, who (see Lives of the Popes) wrote letters to, for example, the Corinthian church in the name of "the Church of God which sojourns at Rome."
Some reasons for the presumed authority of Rome included of course Jesus' statement to Peter (but see "Founding on Peter," pp. 66-67), also Peter's grave being in Rome, and his blood having consecrated the ground. Also a factor in the claimed authority over others was that Peter was the first bishop of Rome (but that was in the Early Christian ministerial and lay sense, and never in a hierarchical sense). (Peter apparently also didn't found the assembly at Rome, it being there when he came, hence some speak of earlier leaders, even lay bishops.)
Fourth in the gradually-appearing organizational scene, was the writing of Cyprian of Carthage about 250 on unity. This was said by some to have set forth the impending new organizational structure, calling it (although not yet really defined) the church, presumably over all Christianity, and extending it back to Peter. His thoughts may have jelled after a synod or conference earlier.
Cyprian's effect on consolidation is vague in some sources, but Anchor Atlas of World History says Cyprian presented a "hierarchical constitution," at least the idea, in which the "Church" - - capital C - - "eliminated" the "democratic principle of leadership." Ouch.
Jaroslav Pelikan appears to believe that historians gave too much weight to Cyprian's not-really-important remarks; nonetheless, he cites Cyprian's title, Unity of the Church, as if we might want to dig in deeper for ourselves.
Paul Maier's Eusebius mentions Cyprian only in other contexts.
Steady formalization and centralization
The general direction was clear, but no one could have foreseen Constantine.
(Constantine after 312 gave water to the budding formal concepts. Most of Catholicism came much later. As for "Rome" the Empire - - not church - - it had kept Early Christian "Rome" underground and powerless. Even after becoming the de facto Empire church under Constantine, Christianity couldn't operate in Rome. To avoid conflict with the Senate and Rome's institutionalized gods and goddesses many, Constantine settled himself and the elevated Christianity far to the east in his modestly-renamed "Constantinople."
The Western Roman Empire fell in 476, long after Constantine's 339 death, while his Eastern Rome continued until 1453.)
Christian power waned, then vanished
The Empire wanted no power in the hands of the people, whereas Jesus had said the people would do his works (Jn. 14:12).
The Empire's mindset, not permitting any other kingdom or king, and refusing to allow questioning or rebuking of its evil ways, was brutally opposed to Christian power. Then Christianity's power-activism - - already declining - - was tamed partly with the stated or implied promise of no more persecution.
And as mentioned earlier, the steady formalization with intermedial levels and indirect worship, blocked the power-giving direct worship. In the new structure, power over evil was left out.
Thus, a combination of factors before, during, and in the centuries after Constantine, killed the Early Christian Church (where the Empire's initial concentration just on killing people had failed).
After Constantine essentially made Christianity the state (or Empire) church in the decades after 312, the growing formalization and centralization, which had been seeking a home, finally found it.
Constantine in 325 called the Council of Nicaea to produce some uniformity in the by-then non-persecuted and rapidly-growing Christian body which he had embraced. (Some say his embrace was religious, others say political, still others say some of each - - but he certainly saw Christianity as a political asset.)
Reading about Constantine and Nicaea (for instance in Christian History magazine, which devoted an entire issue to Nicaea), one sees he was not a man for wide-ranging theological freedoms and discussion, but for rules or legislation that would assure stabilization, uniformity and control. He wished Christianity to be relatively unchanging in his undemocratic Empire which viewed any changes as disturbing or even as uprisings.
Christian populations were but a small part of the not-big overall populations. "Cities" were often just towns or villages. World population in Jesus' time is estimated at only 200 million, Christianity in AD 150 or 200 in the low tens of thousands. Distances were great, travel slow. All this meant that when a synod or council was convened with dozens or hundreds of church representatives, to obtain an acceptable uniform document, the result was then - - at least from 325 Nicaea on - - "set in cement." This was so for councils over many later centuries.
Jaroslav Pelikan the Christian historian reveals that the claimed uniformity of opinion in various councils was mythological, because under the surface, opinions raged in all directions. Decisions were hammered out by closing minds and shutting out discussion, rather than by opening things up as we like to do in the modern era. No one was allowed to "rock the boat." The religion that entered a new phase of development from Nicaea forward - - as almost all religion in history - - wasn't famed for "democracy in action."
The demise and resurrection of the Early Church
The death of the Early Church and Early Christianity confirmed Jesus' prophecy of "night" for works of his Father (Jn. 9:4). But nothing Jesus founded could remain dead. The Early Church entity resurrected at Azusa Street, and - - with the Early Christianity which had been reappearing for decades - - shot out worldwide in the effort to obey more of Jesus' interrupted instructions in Acts 1:8. It continues strongly today. As mentioned earlier, much more form and substance will emerge.
The Western Church after the fall of Rome or the Western Empire
What happened after the fall of Rome in 476? The Western Christian church in Rome continued, taking on existence as a small state among other small states in Italy. It developed over a very long period of time, expanding sometimes by war. When much later woven with European governments, it became a major physical power. It was the only Christian church, and considered to have the Kingdom authority, and even the ability to keep one's soul out of heaven or plunge it into hell forever. Leaders usually conformed to it.
(As we all know, the Church over time in effect chose many kings, influenced governments, had religious officials present at events of state, gave or withheld permissions about key marriages - - all under claimed powers both specific and unstated. Monarchs - - usually church members - - deferred, making a European near-theocracy. The bulk of this power and development came between the times of friend Charlemagne, d. 814, and opponents Luther and Henry VIII in the 1500s.)
(Note: In addition to fear of excommunication from the only church around, and fear of the ability to rule up or down on one's soul regarding both here and hereafter, there was also the fear of religious and secular police, dungeons, torture, and rigged courts collaborating with the Church, disposing of, or neutralizing, troublesome personages high and low.)
To refocus on pre-300, Lives of the Popes tells us that the dates of the first popes are inexact until the 200s. The people were actually simply bishops of the Roman assembly, just like the bishops of other assemblies, but somehow while the others were lay bishops or transitioning into status as clergy-class bishops, it is somehow assumed - - accurately or not - - that Rome's bishop was a "priestly bishop." Furthermore, there was the indistinct mystical concept that Rome's clergy-class bishop had influence and control first of area assemblies, later of regional, still later of all. Peter was a lay bishop. The entire clergy-class or pope concept from the formalizing Catholic Church - - over many centuries after Constantine - - is a retrofit onto him and onto Jesus' founded church and Early Christianity. But since a clergy-class had made a start in much of Early Christianity,
the false assumption was easier to make, and has stuck until now.
In some Catholic history, the first pope is shown in early lists as Linus, maybe picked by Peter and Paul (but as a lay bishop, not in status as a pope, which concept hadn't developed, and which title didn't even come until perhaps 298).
Continuing with one list of bishops of Rome - - considered in Catholic Church retrofit to have been popes, and presumed thereby to have had the clergy-class status and the mystical authority over some or all others - - at the time of Sixtus, the sixth, the list didn't even show Peter (according to Lives of the Popes).
In one account, a bishop of Rome first being called pope was in a 298 reference to Marcellinus as "papa." (But it isn't the title of pope these paragraphs are especially interested in, but the status-concept local and Christianity-wide.)
We read of Pope Siricus in the late 300s, champion of celibacy for clergy, who apparently began with wives of his own. Yet despite his new doctrine, we read that Innocent I in the early 400s was the son of the prior pope, Anastasius I.
(Most Mariology came much later.)
With Innocent III in the late 1100s calling himself the Vicar of Christ, the concept moved up from being a stand-in for Christ to being the full representative on earth (with variations in perceptions and use - - but a major shift had occurred).
(The "vicar" title in Catholic and Protestant churches comes from "vicarious," relating - - in degrees from mild pastoral up to total - - to earthly representation.)
The formal Catholic Church was retrofitted back over the Early Church, when actually they are two different churches, systems, ideas and forms of worship.
Jesus' church was centered on divine healing and other evidences of divine power and the overcoming of evil, while the other in effect didn't have such works for more than 1,500 years after the demise of Early Christianity at Constantine.
Jesus' church - - not a typical organization - - was centered on direct spiritual encounter, with resultant healing and related benefits (in the Bible pattern).
The resurrected Early Church and modern Early Christianity (based in Acts 1:8) will add the Matthew or Kingdom ordainments Jesus also taught, fill out on earth as in heaven, and help us overcome the world even as he had overcome it.
Under Jesus' direct headship, his church and modern Early Christianity have emerged in forms based both in Acts 1:8 and Matthew 10:7-8, in independency, in new denominations, and inside traditional Denominations. Many Jews who believe in Bible powers have connected with forms of this church.
I predict that most Christian denominations will adopt Jesus' Early Christianity or split into forms accepting and forms resisting. And that his Matthew or Kingdom healing ordainments will be used more, as part of his full teachings being reiterated by the Holy Spirit in the present time (Jn. 16:12-15; 14:26).
Well, we'll see where all this goes.
Effects on today's churchdom
That which Jesus founded will transform the Catholic and Protestant churches and post-biblical theology - - harmlessly and beneficially.
The Spirit is on "all flesh" today (Joel 2:28, Acts 2:16-17, and John 14:26) - - the message and presence direct upon all. (The happenings on the biblical Pentecostal Day were a forerunner, not the "last days" - - Acts 2:16-17 - - and today's pre-last-days will include our increasing grasp of the full message Jesus taught but we couldn't "bear" in that time, which he promised would be taught by the Spirit.)
Since the new is direct contact and worship (as it was in the earliest of Early Christianity), the pyramidal, hierarchical, intermedial, indirect worship elements will continue to soften and fade, without harm to denominations (but some groups may resist, split off and intensify).
Realization of the divine presence obviates absence-based ritual Christianity, but do so in the benevolent manner of Jesus' ministry.
I've been in many meetings where people have experienced the presence of Jesus, heard many testimonies. I've had many personal encounters with him at least in a degree "as he is" (I Jn. 3:2) in his spiritual state. To me, he's very present in a spiritual sense, not human-form or fleshly. So I believe we are in an ongoing reappearance of Jesus - - actually, an ongoing awakening to him "as he is."
I don't foresee destabilization of denominations or the thought-structures of committed Christians. But I foresee change.
The "universal" church directly under the Spirit of God will put a smile on everyone's face.
It will retain the dedication and persistence, art and architecture, charity and upholding of high standards, of the best aspects of the church forms that brought us this far.
Several elements will be helpful for Early Christianity to fill out today with the power-capabilities in the hands of average followers, as Jesus ordained (Jn. 14:12 - - plus Acts 1:8; Mat. 10:7-8; Mk. 16:17-18; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:4, 7), and for it to be progressively possessed of more and more of his full message as reiterated by the Spirit (Jn. 16:12; 14:26), leading in time, and in conjunction with the divine, to the end of all evil (Rev. 21:4, 7).
First, we can realize Jesus is always present in his higher state.
Second, we can reinterpret Jesus' Cross and Resurrection to see and use his Victory not victimization - - his overcoming of all evil one time (II Tim. 1:10; Heb. 2:14-15), at-one (Jn. 17:20-23) with an all-good, all-powerful God. He bled to break our "prison" (Isa. 61:1; 42:7; Lk. 4:18). This Victory and breach in the walls enabled us to become overcomers as he instructed. Death is the enemy, and only the overcoming of it belongs in the center or anywhere in Christianity.
(Did Jesus' life work reinforce death or get rid of it one time to show us the way? - - II Tim. 1:10; Heb. 2:14-15.)
Third, we can seek and use Jesus' total teachings as reiterated by the Spirit "on all flesh," reaching individuals direct - - and with which we work direct, although we grasp only a little at a time.
We can put ourselves in his nonstandard Church which has resurrected, and seek more of its form, substance, and the activity. We can stay - - if so guided by the Spirit - - in an improving sense of our earthly denominations.
Fourth, we can orient on the Bible's mission to end all evil on earth.
This will mean proceeding through all upcoming world challenges (as predicted in Scripture) and all local and personal challenges, gaining knowledge and experience working in conjunction with the divine - - as part of that which puts an end to all evil by stages, and finally as in Revelation 21:4, 7.
© 2010 Karl Roebling. All Rights Reserved
Readers may download free any of the material for PERSONAL USE and limited handout, keeping the tag at the end, © 2010 Karl Roebling. If material is to be SOLD, or put into materials that are sold, except for brief excerpts for review purposes, first obtain © permission from
karl@karlroebling.com
