Death

It is impossible to reference the movement of the living God’s chief apostle without mentioning how it says, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.”

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, written after the destruction of Jerusalem is, in one context, written from the perspective of a mind taking those events, and their then underlying philosophical and prophetic stance, into consideration. In another context, their narratives, built upon many other narrative manuscripts, are written to support the traditional belief of those former manuscripts. In yet another context, underneath all of their prevailing contexts, rests the original structure of their tale, a structure built upon philosophy.  

Historically, prior to the gospels having a narrative, no narrative existed. The story of a resurrection and an ascension, the stories of healings, the stories concerning the birth of the main character, did not exist within the writings of the movement’s original assembly. What did exist were lines of sayings, or a record of wisdom, explaining an understanding that later writers of the narrative styled, “The kingdom of God.” 

What is the “kingdom of God”? It says, “It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened,” Luke 13.21. What does this mean? It says, ”The kingdom of God is within you,” Luke 17:21. What is ‘leaven’? It says, “… he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees,” Matthew 16:12. 

Before all of the stories connected to the narrative within the gospels existed, only parables and wise sayings existed. These sayings explained the definition of the “kingdom of God.” Because a parable must be understood according to the illustration rehearsed, “leaven,” for example, according to the scriptures, is but “doctrine.” “The kingdom of God” is, in reality, an inward experience where the living God’s doctrine is rising up inside of the conversation. 

The living God’s chief apostle preached the rising up of the living God’s doctrine within the conversation. This “rising up,” or “resurrection,” is the regeneration taught by the new covenant promise. It says, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people,” Jeremiah 31:33.

Strip the narrative from the “saying” within them and we have what the man taught. The man taught a saying that, when observed, didn’t lead to “death.” What is this “death”? Because the “kingdom” is not literal, but is an experience occurring within, it is fair to conclude that the “death” referenced also isn’t literal, but is an experience occurring within. 

I’ve spent time, in past blog posts, writing about the definition of “righteousness,” because there is a righteousness that is defined as “death.” This “death” is found in the saying, “That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven,” Matthew 5:20. 

The righteousness referenced is highlighted in the saying, “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition,” Mark 7:9. The righteousness mentioned is the “death” that is referenced; the “death” referenced is traditional religion, or is traditional religious law. Said plainly, “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law,” 1 Corinthians 15:56. 

To the Bible, “sin” and “death” is defined as the philosophy of the religious law. Why is this important to know? It is important to know because it says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,” Galatians 3:13. 

The narrative of a demigod dying and rising for the sins of humanity is, according to the Bible, a false narrative. This is not, according to Bible language and context, what the Bible teaches. What the Bible teaches is that “sin” is the traditional religious law, and that if taking confidence on the crucifixion, then the conversation takes confidence on the fact of an illustration highlighting the traditional religious law as “sin” and as “death.”

If attentive to the “kingdom of God,” the conversation will not know “death” because it will learn to refrain from it. The “saying” encouraging the conversation to refrain from “death” is the doctrine of “the kingdom of God,” which doctrine, when found within the heart of the conversation, will cause a great resurrection in devotional thought and feeling. 

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.