The Isaiah/Jesus-Liberal Theology of the Real Liberal Christian Church is new, but it was in the beginning.
It was there with God in the beginning. The summation of the law of God is the New Commandment. It too was there in the beginning with God. Greater things than the signs of Jesus are to occur, because Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected and ascended back to God from where he came, from where he was from the beginning. Those greater things were also there in the beginning with God. God knew about them then. Therefore, we are saying new things but at the same time we aren't. They are new to people's ears. They are new to people's hearts. They are though ways of saying the New Commandment. The New Commandment says the Isaiah/Jesus-Liberal Theological position. It isn't a new doctrine. It is the original doctrine being revealed to those who will accept it. It does displace false doctrine that is human tradition—exactly the hypocrisy that was the human tradition against which Jesus taught.
Moses's followers fell away. Moses predicted it. He also predicted Jesus's coming. Jesus's followers have fallen away, clearly. Jesus predicted it. Of course Jesus defined his true followers as those who don't fall away, which is right. Moses certainly would have grasped that definition. He knew that those who had followed him who would end up falling away really weren't on the exact track. Something within them was steering them off course all along. They weren't really purged is the answer. The residue of falsehood was with them.
Feeding the lambs and sheep is feeding the lambs and sheep
Not doing it is not doing what Jesus said to do. Feeding the lambs and sheep has never been the focus of the mainstream churches after Jerusalem. It has never been the focus of mainstream Pauline Christianity. If that theological tradition is right, why has it never focused on the commandment? How can it be right and not do what Christ said to do? The answer is that it can't be right. It has to be off somewhere; otherwise, it would not have failed to bring forth the feeding of the lambs and sheep even within the Church flock. This is inescapable logic in the mundane and divine. It is the indication of the pattern of falling away.
Why do preachers rail against this?
Their ministries are built on the tradition that hasn't and will never bring forth but will rather retard the love to bring forth so long as it isn't rejected by the people. It will be rejected, because the people do end up bringing forth through God.
The human tradition that those preachers teach as the precept of God retards the love that Jesus said his followers are to manifest in the world, to make incarnate in themselves, to show the fruit, the tangible results, just as the results of Jesus's faith in God were shown in absolutely tangible results. Even the hardest core atheist scientists would have had no choice but to acknowledge those results. The Pharisees didn't deny that miracles were occurring. They just hated righteousness, because it would foil their greedy system. It would bring the people together. They hated the Holy Spirit that blows the believers together. They love the one who attacks the shepherd to scatter the flock so the lambs and sheep may be more easily devoured, led astray. That Pharisaic spirit still exists and still attacks shepherds who call for feeding the lambs and sheep.
Why do preachers rail against this? They receive their mundane bread and butter off that system that is their tradition that retards others from receiving. Those preachers fear the implications of the truth and scramble to convince their followers not to see the light of truth. They scramble to keep their followers in the darkness of half-truths at best.
Those preachers know that if their followers turn to doing the deeds of bringing forth the feeding of the lambs and sheep in flesh and spirit, those preachers will be left behind or will be forced to concede and go along. Either way, those hardhearted preachers in sheep's clothing see themselves as having to give and share what they don't feel compelled to give and share now. They wouldn't be able to rationalize their selfishness and get away with it in front of the people. They would no longer be the chiefest among the flock, lording it over them and being the one to whom others minister (receiving the lion's share of the collection and offering way beyond necessity and well into excess, even though they call themselves minister or pastor or some such name and claim to be serving the whole fold of Jesus).
- Ask them why your congregation (those with whom you do your fellowshipping as it as so often come to be called) are not to collectively give and share all and feed the lambs and sheep.
- Ask them why you all aren't to give and share all as the Commons of Christianity, as the first Apostles, the original disciples of Jesus, did in Jerusalem.
- Ask them why so much of the emphasis of the assembly is placed on things that have nothing to do with bringing forth.
- Ask them if not bringing forth is righteous. They will at best selectively quote Paul and avoid Jesus.
- Ask them how to reconcile their selected quotes of Paul with the words of Jesus to bring forth.
- Ask them if we are always to turn the other cheek. Then ask them whether or not we are ever physically to fight.
Many will show you the door. If you persist, they will show you their horns. They will become exasperated at their inability to answer you. They will become fearful that more and more of the flock will come to see through the hypocrisy they preach. Fear not though. The truth sets us free.
If any preacher is confounded
If any preacher is confounded and can never give you anything but a confused answer, he or she is as those were who were seen in the main as being wise when Jesus spoke. Those so-called wise (but foolish ones) didn't have the New Commandment written on their hearts and wouldn't accept it and do it and neither do the preachers who have no answers that aren't hypocritical and that directly contradict the words of Jesus Christ.
God is the source and deserves all the credit
When Jesus gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan and when he called upon the rich to give up unrighteous mammon and to give and share all to raise the poor, he didn't lump himself in with the Nimrod spirit of human apart from God as the architect. He was always reminding us that God is the source and deserves all the credit as such. It is true. We agree with Jesus. We know of nothing Jesus did or said with which we disagree. The Christian Commons is not a new Tower of Babel. The Christian Commons is the Tower of Babel turned on its head so to speak. The chiefest Christian is the lowliest servant. With everyone rightly wanting to be the best Christian he or she can be, who in the flock will go without or be neglected? This is Jesus's vision from God and revealed to us by Jesus if we have been given what it takes to see it and follow through.
To say that we are to accept the status quo (doing nothing that will overtly change it) is to deny the instruction from Jesus to feed the lambs and sheep. Feeding them will be a huge change. The status quo will be radically altered. The spirit of the people will be altered at the root from fractured-self-centeredness that is the satanic to whole-self-centeredness that is Godly.
Just look at your preacher's surroundings relative to the worst off of your congregation, and ask yourself if Jesus would have lived that way. He didn't do it. He didn't accept money into the disciples' common treasury (one purse) with the view of setting up his disciples or himself in material excess while the lambs and sheep had insufficient. That's why his original disciples knew that Christians would put their wealth into the common (one) purse and that each Christian would be given as really needed (not as greedily wanted). That is not what the preachers of tradition preach. They preach falsehood instead. They make themselves false shepherds—wolves in sheep's clothing.
All or nothing
Look, it's all or nothing here. The shepherd has the flock share the pasture in peace with every sheep and lamb having equal grazing rights and with none storing up grass for himself to the private exclusion of the others in the flock or that shepherd fails.
Walk away from anyone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus Christ who disagrees with this. Shake the dust from your feet. He or she is working for self and cares for the things of this worldly world of the dark prince to whom he bows down and worships in his heart so he may have his share in the worldly kingdom apart from God's desire for his children.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)