Hi, Pastor John:

You were teaching us lately, from the Father and Son book, that no one knew Jesus until God revealed him at Pentecost. I had a thought, “but what about the Centurion?” The KJV reads in Matthew 27:54,

Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, ‘Truly this was the Son of God.’”

I looked up your translations and read these scriptures.

Matthew 27:54:

Now, when the centurion and those guarding Jesus with him saw the earthquake and the otherthings that happened, they were stricken with great fear and said, ‘This really was a son of God!’”

Mark 15:39 reads:

Now, when the centurion, who had been standing in front of him, saw him cry out like this and give up the spirit, he said, ‘Truly, this man was the son of a god.’”

In Luke, the centurion was calling Jesus righteous; nothing about calling Jesus a god. And in John, there is no mention of a centurion saying anything (that I read).

In our Greek class we are learning our articles, “a” and “the”. If the translations used the definite article “the”, then it would sound and give the impression that the Centurion knew Jesus as the son of God, instead of a son of one of the god’s. Just knowing one small word such as the correct article to use can change the whole scene. It brought more value and validity to our reading. No one knew “The” Son, until “The” God revealed him and “The” Life of God entered into men [on the day of Pentecost]. “No one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the holy Ghost” and “from the abundance of the heart the mouth doth also speak.” We can truly say “Jesus is Lord” and truly know that from our hearts only if our hearts have been changed by the love of God; “For the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost”. I love articles; “they are your friend” as Mounce says. It seems as though you can’t use the definite article [and confess “the” Son], unless your heart knows God.) It was good looking up these scriptures.

The readings have been so good; hope to see everyone, soon.

Billy
===============

That’s right, Billy.

When we get to Chapter 6 of the Father and Son book, you will see the following section (not proofed or edited yet), if you have not already read it:

A Son of God, Not the Son of God

When Jesus came up on the bank of the Jordan after being baptized, John the Baptist must have been deeply impressed when he heard the Voice from heaven say, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3:16-17; Mk. 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22). At the same time, however, John (and whoever else heard that Voice) could only have thought that God was speaking of Mary’s son, for the pre-existent Son of whom God was really speaking was still unknown. The Son of God was not revealed just because he came to earth; “he came unto his own, and his own received him not” (Jn. 1:11). The Son was revealed only after he returned to heaven and the Spirit was sent back to give us the kind of life we needed in order to know him. As for Satan, hearing God express pleasure in Jesus as a son may have impressed him, too, but it would not have intimidated him. Satan himself was a “son of God”, and he believed that God was even better pleased with him, too.

By the time of Jesus, the title, “son of God”, or “sons of God”, had long been in use as a name for heavenly beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).

Heavenly creatures and many on earth in Jesus’ time understood “son of God” to be a mere figure of speech, a way to express God’s “fatherhood” over His creatures. God Himself used the phrase figuratively (Mal. 1:6). None of heaven’s creatures, however, and no one in Israel with any wisdom and scriptural knowledge, believed that God really had a Son. Such a thing, they would have thought, was beneath God’s dignity.

Of course, many ancient Gentiles believed the myths concerning gods and goddesses literally begetting earthly sons and daughters.

The Gentile king, Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 3:25), did not say that the fourth man in the fiery furnace looked “like the Son of God”, as translators usually have it. Instead, he said what others in his time would have said, had they seen that mysterious fourth man walking about in the blazing furnace; to wit, that the fourth man looked “like a son of a god.”

For another example, the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus, when awestruck at the unnatural darkness and the earthquake which attended Jesus’ death, responded exactly as Nebuchadnezzar did, and exactly as we would expect of those who lived before the knowledge of the Son of God was revealed at Pentecost,

Matthew 27:

54. When the centurion and those who were with him guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and those other things happen, they were very afraid, saying, ‘This man really was a son of God!’”

Most Church translators have those Romans saying, “This man really was the Son of God”, but that is not what the Romans said. Nor is it what the Greek text of the Bible says. Churchmen know about the Son of God, and their mistranslation of what the Roman soldiers said leaves the impression that the ancient Romans knew about the Son of God, too. They most certainly did not. No one did. Paul pointed out the obvious fact that if they had known God’s Son, they would not have crucified him (1Cor. 2:7-8).

In the verses below, virtually every translation of the New Testament produced by churchmen quotes Satan as calling Jesus, “the Son of God”, as if Satan knew of God’s pre-existent Son. Technically speaking, that translation is possible, but again, “the” is missing in the Greek text, and given the universal ignorance of the Son’s existence at that time, that fact of biblical Greek should be taken more seriously by translators. Satan had no knowledge of the Son of God; therefore, it is beyond all question that “a son of God” instead of “the Son of God” is what Satan actually said.

Matthew 4:3: 

When the Tempter came to him, he said, Since you are a [not the] son of God, command that these stones be turned into bread.’”

. . .5. “Then the Accuser carried him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple;
6. and he said to him, ‘Since you are a son of God, throw yourself down. . . .’”

Luke is the only other Gospel to record Satan’s words, and he agrees with Matthew:

Luke 4:

3. And the Accuser said to him, ‘Since you are a son of God, tell this stone to become a loaf of bread.’”
. . .

9. “Then he brought him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and he said to him, ‘Since you are a son of God, throw yourself down. . . .’”

Before the day of Pentecost, even men and women of great faith and power were not considered “sons of God”; yet, even if some of them had been called “sons of God”, Satan would have esteemed the very best of them to be unworthy of comparison with him. He had no rivals in heaven or earth, as he saw it, including Jesus, even though he knew that great things had been spoken of Jesus by the prophets and that God had caused Mary to conceive him. Miracles are the norm in heaven; Satan had seen many of them over the millennia. His knowledge of Mary’s miraculous conception does not mean he knew that God was preparing a temple for His hidden Son to possess. But their knowing that God would literally be the Father of Mary’s child helps us understand why Gabriel announced to Mary that her baby would be called “a son of God” (not “the Son of God” as Church translators usually have it).

Luke 1:

31. [Gabriel said to Mary] Behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call his name Jesus.

32. He will be great, and he will be called a son of the Highest. The Lord will give him the throne of David his father.”

….

 34. “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How will this be, since I do not know a man?’”

35. “And the angel answered and said to her, ‘God’s holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you. Therefore, that holy thing which is born will be called a son of God.’”

Gabriel did not explain to Mary, because he did not know, that one day her baby boy would grow up to become the temple of the pre-existent, hidden Son of God. Gabriel’s calling Mary’s son “a son of the Highest” and “a son of God” did nothing to reveal to her or anyone else that in the beginning, God had created a Son in His image and that through His Son, everything else had been created.

==========

John,

  The concept that no one knew the Son before Pentecost seems to be hard for us to keep near and dear to our heart. The scriptures really have to be expounded on to take this in or it doesn’t seem plausible. 
  After reading this I was contemplating if Satan knows even now or understands who the Son is.  

Wendell

==========

Hi Wendell, 

Satan does not know the Father and the Son.  He can’t.  Most probably, Satan feels misunderstood and mistreated.  I have wondered many times if he thinks God rejected him and exalted Jesus instead because Jesus slandered him to God and others.  Jesus certainly said some bad things about Satan while here among us.  The thing is, though, that everything Jesus said was true, even if Satan does not think so.

 jdc 

==========

John,
 That really makes you fearful and be compassionate, God is not mocked.  Would be I could always remember your words: “What God does to a person is enough.”
  It brings back words the Lord spoke to me when being ridiculed and made fun of for no reason by a group of people at work one day, and I asked the Lord why. He told me, “They have rejected my council.”  It instantly made me prayerful for those that had abused me, and my thoughts were corrected.

 Wendell

Name = Derek S
Location = Dalton, GA

Question/Comments = First of all I will introduce myself. I am a friend of Brad C. (in California), I live in North Georgia. Brad has lifted me up in the spirit many times throughout the last few years. I met Brad on an online discussion about Jesus is not God 😉 He was the only one that ever acknowledge my words as truth. So I gave him my number almost 3 years ago and the rest is history. He invited me to watch the online meetings. So I have a question about chapter 1?

What about Jesus as a child?

[Luk 2:49 KJV]

 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?

Do you not think this should be in the gospel of Luke? I ask because this verse doesn’t line up with the Spirit of Jesus coming exactly at the baptism by John. Even Jesus’s own words to John are astoundingly different than this idea right before John baptizes Him. Before the Spirit descends upon Him [Jesus].
===============

Hi, Derek. Thank you for writing.
You will remember that James said, “The body without the spirit is dead.” This tells us that Jesus had a spirit before the holy Spirit came upon him after he was baptized; otherwise, he would have been dead. It wasn’t the spirit of Jesus that came upon him; he already had his human spirit. It was God’s Son from heaven, in spirit, that came upon him.
I deal with the issue of Jesus’ sense of closeness, as a child, with God in the book. Keep watching Justin TV, and we will get to that.
===============

[Mat 3:15 KJV]

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

So I find this “suddenly” part to be unnecessary to point out. Give the “Christians” one reason to call you false and they will. We must be diligent about writing the truth from the Holy Spirit.

I will point out that Jesus’s physical body is always traced through Joseph to David and thus ultimately to Abraham. This is important to mention.

[Rom 1:3 KJV]

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

[2Ti 2:8 KJV]

8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

God is a spirit, He begets spirits

[Jhn 3:6 KJV]

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

[Jhn 4:24 KJV]

24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

===============

I think you have made an important point here, one that I will now stress a little more in the book than I have done heretofore.
Your comments help me see the value of those NT genealogies of Jesus.
===============

In the flesh Jesus was Joseph’s son.
===============

Legally, perhaps, but not physically. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.
===============

In the spirit He is God’s own beloved Son. When Jesus’s physical body was baptized, His ministry begin. He first was in the wilderness and then He began to minister to the lost sheep of Israel for 3 and half years. This is the first half of the last week spoken of in Daniel 9.
===============

It certainly does appear that way.
===============

When they killed Jesus that was the abomination of desolation.
===============

That’s a mistake, but we can talk about it another time.
===============

So for the timing to line up, he was in ministry for 3 and half years but I don’t understand why it matters to point out the exact moment Jesus’s own spirit left Heaven, as if it wasn’t God’s son the whole time?
===============

Jesus’ spirit never left heaven because it was never there. His spirit was human and was in him from birth, here on earth.
===============

Jesus was the second Adam because he was a second tester. He was the Son of God. He was place into Adam’s genealogy through Mary (Joseph) and put to death by a tree by the Jews. Sin came into the world through a tree (the tree of knowledge and evil). And Jesus died on a tree (He submitted Himself to our curse).
===============

That’s an interesting insight. Thanks.
===============

Yet He was the very source of all life itself (God, His Father gave Him the authority to create everything, because God is wise). Therefore death could have no hold on Him. I believe Jesus knew exactly what it was like to be a human. He experienced it all. Birth and death. He was born of water, through Mary (Joseph-David-Abraham-Adam), and born of blood through the resurrection of death, and born of the spirit through God birthing Him before time.

[1Jo 5:6-7 KJV]

6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I would love to meet all of these wonderful brothers and sisters on the video. My God bless you all!

Love,
Derek S.
===============

Thank you for writing, Derek. If Jesus lets us meet you someday, we will be thankful for it.

God bless,
Pastor John

Hi John,

A few weeks ago I had a dream, and in the dream, the most important part to me was when I heard a voice say, “Gird up your loins”. I really felt like the spirit was saying this.

Last night, I heard a man quote that biblical phrase in the documentary we all watched last night, “Captivated”. I just would like to hear what you say this phrase meant when in times past it was spoken. I feel like the documentary last night was well worth seeing, and I am praying that Jesus will help us with moderation in all things.

Thank you,
Caroline
===============

Hi Caroline:

The way the man described it last night was right. Ancient, robe-wearing people had to tie up (“gird up”) their robes around their waist so that their legs would be free to run. It was a phrased used for ordinary people, not athletes. Athletes in the Ancient Greek culture did not wear any clothing at all when they competed, whether in races or other forms of athletic contests.

Then, the phrase,”Gird up the loins of your mind” means, basically, “Get ready to work!”

jdc

 I can’t figure him out! I don’t get it!

I have this KJV “Expositor’s Study Bible,” with verbose verse-by verse explanations by brother Jimmy Swaggart.
Someone gave it to me a long while ago. I sometimes go to it to see his point of view, and evaluate it against what I feel in the Spirit.

Aaaaagghhh! I am totally exasperated by this poor, confused brother.
How can a man who is precisely right about the New Birth—for all the right reasons—be so off the mark with “saved”, and “water baptism”, and “Church”?!!

Most annoying of all is his repetitive, vehement insistence that “the object of a believer’s faith must be THE CROSS and ONLY the Cross”. This statement continues to completely baffle me. EVERY time that phrase comes up (and it’s way too often in his footnotes interspersed between the text), my Spirit winces. It doesn’t sound right. It doesn’t feel right.

I have continually asked God, with earnest prayer, to reveal to me WHY Jimmy Swaggart says that; and why it’s wrong. (I simply cannot understand his point at all, whether or not it’s true or false. How can one put their faith in that object, when that object merely served to kill the Lord, and Jesus’ sacrifice took place later, in heaven, before the Father, who accepted it, and then sent back the SPIRIT to guide us into all truth, empowering us to live holy lives?) The only right answer (I think) is that our faith ought to be in the power of God, via the holy ghost, and not in the wooden tree that tortured Jesus. It’s what occurred beyond the Cross that makes the difference! Isn’t it?

Swaggart backs up his argument, voraciously, by stating “the source of everything that a believer needs is found entirely in the Cross, and in Christ crucified. If our faith is in anything else, it’s a deception from the devil; a false doctrine. . . and the holy Spirit will not help us.” Only by placing our faith and trust entirely “in the finished work of the Cross” gives the Holy Spirit the liberty to work in our lives on our behalf. He goes on to assert that “the Cross is the only means by which a sinner can be saved, and the only means by which a Christian can walk in victory.” But, even if that were true— HOW do you put your faith in an object that merely tortured and killed the Savior?! First I want to understand Swaggart’s point, then refute it with spiritual truth; but I can’t!

He also writes this: “That’s why Paul kept using the phrase, “in Christ”. .. over and over. The phrase refers to what Jesus did at the Cross.”

No it doesn’t. It refers to those who are born of the Spirit; those who have been crucified with Christ by Spirit baptism, becoming in Him through a spiritual transformation. Am I wrong?!

John, would you take a few minutes to clarify whether or not I am correct or whether I need correcting?

And please tell me what Christians such as Jimmy Swaggart mean when they proclaim such a doctrine?

And. . . Where did they go off the track?

brad
===============

Hi Brad.

There is no pleasure, is there, in trying to make sense out of the senseless doctrines of Christianity? If Jesus had been hacked to death with an ax, would Christian ministers then teach that the only hope of mankind is to put our faith in an ax?

I must disagree with your comment about Brother Swaggart is “precisely right” in his doctrine of the new birth. I know that is not the case. Anyone who teaches sinners to “repeat after me, and get saved” cannot possibly be teaching the truth about the new birth. A person is not born again until Jesus baptizes him into his body with the holy ghost (1Cor. 12:13), with the evidence of speaking in tongues (or “stammering lips”). Brother Swaggart does not teach that.

Pray for him. He is very confused. As for explaining to me what such misguided teachers mean when they say what they say, I simply cannot. The only thing I feel confident of is that they think they are telling the truth, and we should ask God to help them do it, the way He has helped us.

As for where ministers “got off track”, well, the perversion of the faith of Christ began while the apostles still lived, and it has gone downhill since then, just as Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others foretold would happen (2Tim. 3:13). And here we are, trying to help God’s children who are deceived by false teachings. The only thing they feel confident of is that what we are telling them cannot possibly be the truth. Their teachers have assured them of that.

Pastor John

Pastor John:

I love this [your explanation about fasting]. In the New Testament they ask Jesus why he and his disciples didn’t fast.
=========

Yes, and that is because Jesus was teaching his disciples to fast God’s way, as described in Isaiah 58.
=========

You said Isaiah 58 has nothing to do with food. So what is meant by the one in the New Testament? Is it also hungry for him?
=========

Yes. If you read Isaiah 58, then you saw that God’s description of a true fast included no mention of doing without food.
That is the New Testament form of fasting, the one Jesus sent the Spirit to enable us to keep.
=========

And how did you know it had nothing to do with food?
=========

What indication do we have that God accepts men’s willful abstaining from food, when He said “Is not this the fast that I have chosen?”, and then in His description, says nothing about refusing food. Strong-willed men can fast themselves to death for one of their vain causes, and some have done so. But without the holy ghost, nothing men do counts for anything in heaven. Paul said that without the love of God, which is poured out into our hearts by the holy ghost, even giving our bodies to be burned will benefit us none at all (1Cor. 13). How much less will it profit us, then, to decide that we will not eat?
=========

Don’t laugh at me I am learning. I am on a fast now. Thought i was. I thought it was staying away from food and a time to seek the Lord.

Star
=========

God is good, Star, and He knows how little we understand about His ways until he reveals Himself to us.
Your determination to do without food means nothing to God, but your desire to seek Him and to please Him means very much. He loves you. That is why He put it in your heart to ask these questions.

Pastor John

==========

Fasting

January 25, 2013

Hi Pastor John,

Hope everyone is well! I am writing to ask your advice on something (again ). I have been wondering about fasting. Did that stop when everything began to be done in the spirit? I know some of the saints have spoke of fasting to get an answer to prayer, why do people fast? Are there many forms of fasting? I do not feel led to fast but at this point I will do whatever it takes to reach God. How does God feel about fasting?

I feel like a 5-year-old, asking so many questions at once. I’m sorry for that, but I really have no idea how fasting fits into the truth.

Thank You
Beth
=========

Hi Beth.

My Uncle Joe said it best: “Fasting is when you get so hungry [for God] that you don’t eat.”
Fasting by your own will power or understanding will get you nowhere with God. My father said that to truly fast means that to have your mind on God to such an extent that He makes you forget about food. God’s fast, the one He has chosen (Isa. 58), has nothing whatsoever to do with food.

Pastor John