The Movement

Every movement, organization, or crusade has a mission.

Without a mission, the movement is seemingly put on pause. 

The Bible discusses the movement of the living God’s chief apostle. That “crusade” is understood from how it says, “I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house,” Isaiah 42:6,7. 

The Bible says that this messenger, along with liberating prisoners and healing the blind, is to be given for a covenant of “light.” Is this true? Was the man to become, or to be transformed into a literal covenant? We find our answers by contrasting certain verses:

“Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people,” Isaiah 51:4. 

“For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life,” Proverbs 6:23. 

“…by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many,” Isaiah 53:11. 

“…he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles…the isles shall wait for his law,” Isaiah 42:1-4.

These verses allow us to understand the context behind the Bible alluding to or saying that “one” is given for a covenant. In reality, it is not the man that is to be taken for a covenant, but rather the “law,” the “knowledge,” or the “commandment” that is to come from his mouth. The living God has given no man as a covenant, but rather a specific philosophy from that man. 

The Bible makes a clear separation between that man and that man’s understanding. Our traditional religious or theological culture unlawfully and falsely combines the two, leading us to believe that the man is the understanding and that the understanding is the man. This confusion contributes to a legend that the man is more than a man, even like as it was said of Daniel, “I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee,” Daniel 4:9. 

Why is this present review relevant? Why is it well to separate the fact of the man’s mission from the fiction of the religious tradition emboldening his aura? Why is it important to know the man’a actual movement and to learn how to disassociate the person from the theological theory forced upon that mission? Why does this matter? 

How would you feel if, after you led an intellectual and philosophical movement, your actual cause found itself hidden by an intention given to you by history writers? How would you feel if you, after having died for a cause deeply touching your heart, had your reason for willingly sacrificing yourself turned into something grossly far and contrary from your concern? This is what happened, more than 2000 years ago, to the living God’s chief apostle. 

Mission matters. Fact matters. Reality matters. The man’s actual cause means much to our conversation’s  growth and development. It means much because our devotional experience is to mirror that man’s philosophical and devotional movement. 

This man taught the living God’s “good will.” That “good will” is a commandment or a “law” of devotional wellbeing. We owe it to our conversation’s thoughts and feelings to let it know the experience intended for it. This is why understanding the actual man’s movement matters. This is why he said, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death,” John 8:52. 

Remember The Actual Intention

Do you remember how it says, “…and on earth peace, good will toward men”? Luke 2:14

Do you remember how it also says, “I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end”? Jeremiah 29:11

Do you remember how it again says, “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you”? Isaiah 66:13

We know or remember how the Bible says these things, but it’s kind of trippy when actually thinking about how they are to be fulfilled. Holding John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 to be true, that God is a Spirit and that a spirit does not have flesh and blood, perceiving the fulfillment of these verses becomes tricky, and also a bit "funny."

Because, how is comfort supposed to be given from what can't physically comfort? What “good will” to mankind is supposed to come from what isn't a member of mankind? What kind of peace is supposed to come from what cannot know the feeling of a natural form of peace? What kind of thoughts can something that isn't flesh and blood have for what is flesh and blood?

See, we don't think about the actual reality of what the Bible is saying, but associate its words with what we have heard or have been taught. Because, as I'm looking at these verses, should I be unfamiliar with the context of the Bible's language, I don't understand the “peace” a spirit has for me. Should I apply what I "know" to this concern, I find myself going off in thought and imagining an understanding of what "peace" or "good will" is given by a spirit. Who knows, then, where my thoughts will end up, or what belief I will generate, when forcing an ideology from what I associate with the Bible's words.

I'm bringing this up because I'd like to draw attention to a particular question: How should a spirit comfort? Having no flesh and blood, what kind of "peace," "comfort," "expectation," and "good will" can the living God give? The answer cannot be natural, or flesh-based; where is the natural or flesh-based body of God? Why should something having no natural body think to naturally comfort? Inserting general or popular traditional theology into the issue, the issue has many solutions, but when drawing only on the Bible, there is only one answer.

The answer to the question is "righteousness." Only "righteousness" solves the issue of "peace" and "comfort" coming from that Spirit. This "righteousness" is "the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man," Titus 3:4. This "kindness" is "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but...by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," Titus 3:5.

Paul is schooling his reader on the living God's will. My blog post on November 16, 2022 quoted a passage from the book of Matthew, where the author's main character advised his hearer's faith to transcend the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Their righteousness is found in their continued service to handwritten religious tradition, which the author's main character cites as being a false manner of devotion. I'm stepping back into that past blog post, and into what was covered, because "righteousness," as a concept within the Bible, is not what we think.

“Righteousness” appears in two forms: the first, a service to handwritten religious routine; the second, the "kindness" offered by the living God.

The first type of righteousness, according to the Bible, is false. It is false because the conversation receives its understanding from a conscience outside of its experience, becoming a slave to that outside conscience. The living God's righteousness is contrary to this position, giving to the conversation its lost liberty in thought, in feeling, in action, and in behavior. This is why it says, "To proclaim liberty to the captives,” Isaiah 61:1.

The gospel, or the good news, is not one's hope on a dying and reviving demigod to share, whether present or in the future, the same nature as that dying and reviving demigod; to the Bible this makes no sense. To the Bible, the "good news" is the living God's "good will," which "will" is a "kindness" not to the individual person, but to the individual conversation. The conversation is to be liberated from a false manner of devotion; this is the kingdom and the righteousness of God, and when hearing or learning it from the Bible, due to our institutionalized understanding, it is most definitely trippy.

I'm saying all of this so that you, my reader, can put "spirit" into perspective, and in putting "spirit" into perspective, you can then pursue the "peace," the "comfort," and the "good will" that the Bible intends. There is more to our experience than what we have been taught and what we think we know. Truth be told, there is no knowledge or understanding on Bible; religious "ology" is our natural spiritual foundation. The promised "expectation" is liberation from the shackles of "ology" to claim a devotional conversation similar to the living God's devotional character. This, when studying the Bible, should be our only concern.

Care For Your Faith

How weird would it be to see a car driving on the ground without any wheels? We see the car moving. We hear the sound of it moving. But there are no wheels.

How weird would it be to see people swimming in a pool that has no water? These people are swimming. They are doing all of the swimming motions. These people are even diving into the pool. They are laughing, smiling, and behaving as though they are swimming and are having fun. But they are in an empty pool and are floating in the air. They are swimming in complete nothingness.

Trippy right? This is the kind of scene our devotional conversation, when it begins its journey, entertains.

We don't know it, but our conversation, when first conceived, is swimming in a pool of nothingness and is moving without wheels. Our conversation is moving, but it is moving without right control. It is because the character of our faith moves without right control that the Bible encourages us to ask our self a simple question: "Why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?" 1 Corinthians 10:29

The mind inspiring the Bible's philosophy would have us understand that no other conscience should guide our conversation's conscience. The ideal experience for our conversation is it possessing an atmosphere where no conception, drawn from outside of it, rules its temperament, feeling, expression, or behavior.

The Bible's number one concern is that our conversation learns how to walk on its own. This is why it says, "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" Mark 2:9

The proper context of this scene is not of an individual talking to and mysteriously bettering another individual plagued with leprosy. This is a scene explaining the essence of a philosophy entering into the heart of a diseased conversation and encouraging that conversation to live on its own.

Are you leprous? If you are, then we may say that only if having literal leprosy, or a literal malady, can what you are reading benefit you. And where is the healer of leprosy? Where is the healer of literal disease? Can you find him? Can you go to them right now if you wanted? If you call, will they come to you quickly? If you are not diseased, but take a trip to a place where diseased people are, if you call this healer from the book of Mark, will they show up?

This healer healed only 1. the sick 2. the sick only in and around the land of the Jews 3. when he was alive. Do you fit the qualifications to presently receive the physical rejuvenation here spoken of? I definitely do adopt an ignorant tone in what I am saying, but should we hold what we are reading to a literal context, we do miss the point, that what is written is stated to give the reader an idea of what is truly to be healed.

Do we trust that "God is a Spirit"? John 4:24. Do we trust that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones"? Luke 24:39. If we trust these things, then we ought to trust that what we review in the scriptures is not primarily written for any physical thing, but for an inward benefit. What is to walk is not the leprous human being, but rather the leprous devotional conversation.

The living God will heal that nature closest in association. What is closest in association to the living God is the spirit of our mind. This is why it says, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," John 3:6, and, “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind,” Ephesians 4:23.

Our task is to add consciousness to our conversation. Our task is to have our conversation bettered. Is it such a wrong thing to let the Creator create our conversation anew? Is it such a wrong thing to actually learn that our denominationally supported conversation is erroneous? Are we truly content with the aimless direction of a scripted religious conversation? If you are tuning in to this post, I know you are not content. Take care of your faith so that your faith can take care of you.