#though i cant deny some of the arguments made in favor of that interpretation are compelling | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

How Are Republicans Responding To Impeachment

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-are-republicans-responding-to-impeachment/

How Are Republicans Responding To Impeachment

House Prosecutor Cites Former Republican Expert Witness In Pro

IMPEACHMENT RESPONSE: House Republicans Respond To Democrats Impeachment Hopes

A House impeachment manager cited professor Jonathan Turley, who had appeared as a Republican witness during Trump’s first impeachment battle, as part of the prosecution’s argument in favor of holding the former president on trial.

Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., quoted Turley’s assertion in a past study on the executive branch that “resignation from office does not prevent trial on articles of impeachment.”

Neguse also quoted Turley’s writing in a 1999 article on impeachment, where the professor approvingly quoted 18th century statesman Edmund Burke’s declaration that “no man in no circumstance, can escape the account, which he owes to the laws of his country.”

Turley in recent weeks, however, has argued that“the planned;impeachment trial;is at odds with the language of the Constitution, which expressly states that removal of a president is the primary purpose of such a trial.”

Turley had appeared before the House as Republicans’ expert witness in 2019, as part of the proceedings related to Trump’s first impeachment. Kevin Breuninger

If Biden Doesnt Resign Which He Wont Where Does Gop Rhetoric Go From Here

From a technical standpoint, the first time that Donald Trump faced an impeachment effort came in May 2017. Then, Rep. Al Green demanded that the House of Representatives charge Trump with obstruction of justice related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The immediate predicate for Greens call was the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey early that month. But over the course of the year, the impeachment articles expanded to include a broad range of actions by the then-president, constituting a set of high misdemeanors.

That December, the House voted on Greens aggregated charges. It was tabled by a 364-to-58 vote. More than twice as many Democrats voted against the measure as voted for it. But it was doomed anyway; Republicans had control of the chamber, and they werent likely to acquiesce to an impeachment effort, no matter how robust. When Green tried again in 2018, the outcome was the same.

The impeachment effort, many claimed, was just a continuation of the Russia investigation itself, an attempt to undo what the electoral college made possible: a Trump presidency.

The two-thirds requirement in the Senate for convicting Trump meant that there was little chance he would actually be removed from office, and he wasnt. But there was a warning that accompanied the Republican response to the impeachment: Do it to us, and well do it to you.

Impeach Biden and all that, one owner said. You know, kind of turn the tables.

If Trump Goes Unpunished Well Have No One To Blame But Ourselves

Representative Jamie Raskin argued that Trumps actions on January 6, were a culmination of the presidents actions, not an aberration from them. He described how Trump encouraged violence against his political enemies for years, and even continued attacking Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer following a foiled plot to kidnap her in the weeks before the 2020 election.

My dear colleagues, is there any political leader in this room who believes that if he is ever allowed by the Senate to get back into the Oval Office, Donald Trump would stop inciting violence to get his way? Raskin asked. Would you bet the lives of more police officers on that? Would you bet the safety of your family on that? Would you bet the future of your democracy on that?

Raskin noted that even after the January 6 attack, Trump declared his conduct totally appropriate.

So, if he gets back into office and it happens again, well have no one to blame but ourselves, he said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin asks senators if they believe Donald Trump would stop inciting violence if he was allowed back into the Oval Office:Would you bet the lives of more police officers on that? Would you bet the future of your democracy on that?

The Recount

You May Like: Are There Any Republicans Running Against Donald Trump

Trump’s Attorneys Close Out Their Case

As he started out his closing statement, Trump attorney Michael van der Veen said the former president’s team does not stipulate the truthfulness of the statement from Jaime Herrea Beutler.;

Van der Veen then resorted to attacking the House impeachment managers, falsely claiming they never mentioned the Constitution and distorted evidence.;

Van der Veen insisted that no one could have interpreted Mr. Trump’s January 6 speech as anything other than peaceful. He also suggested that some of the people who attacked the Capitol were already at the Capitol when Mr. Trump was speaking.;

He claimed the protesters “hijacked” the event for their own purposes, even though those who stormed the Capitol have identified themselves as Trump supporters.;

Van der Veen said the entire impeachment has been a “charade” from beginning to end.

“You do not have to indulge the impeachment lust, the dishonesty and the hypocrisy,” van der Veen said.;

Trump Impeachment Trial Verdict: How Senators Voted

Coons said he favors a Sept. 11-style commission to probe further into Trump’s actions leading up to and on the day of the Capitol attack.

“There’s still more evidence that the American people need and deserve to hear,” he said. “The 9/11 Commission is a way to make sure that we secure the Capitol going forward, and that we lay bare the record of just how responsible and how abjectly and violating of his constitutional oath President Trump really was.”

Trump’s role in the party

The Senate vote raises further questions about Trump’s role in the Republican Party going forward.

In a statement after the verdict, Trump said: “Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an ally of the former president, told Fox News Sunday that he had spoken with Trump, and that he’s eager to help the GOP win the House and Senate back in 2022.

But Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who was one of seven Republicans who broke ranks with their party in voting to convict the former president, told ABC’s This Week that Trump’s “force wanes” in the GOP.

Cassidy is facing backlash in Louisiana over his vote, including the state GOP voting to unanimously censure him. But he says people want to hold their leaders accountable and that’s what his vote to convict was based on.

toggle caption

Recommended Reading: How Many Senate Seats Do The Republicans Have

Biden On Trump Acquittal: ‘the Substance Of The Charge Is Not In Dispute’

“We had no need to call any witnesses at the end of the trial because, as all Americans believed at that moment, the evidence was overwhelming,” she said in an interview Sunday with NPR’s Weekend Edition.

The Senate voted 57-43, which included seven Republicans, to hold Trump guilty on the impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection. But that was short of the two-thirds, or 67 votes, needed to convict him.

“I know that people have a lot of angst and they can’t believe that the Senate did what they did. But what we needed were senators, more senators with spines, not more witnesses,” Plaskett said.

She said the House managers wanted to enter into the record the statement of Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., about a conversation Beutler had with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., regarding a call he had with Trump on Jan. 6.

After an agreement was reached to read Herrera Beutler’s statement into the record, Plaskett says, there was no need to call her as a witness.

“Individuals do not come to the Senate floor, raise their hand and testify. Individuals are depositioned, videotaped, and that tape is then played before the Senate,” Plaskett said.

“We wanted the testimony and the statement of our colleague Jaime Herrera Beutler, who is a tremendous patriot to put herself out there. And we were able to get that,” she said.

Plaskett denied that she and other House managers were pressured by Senate Democrats not to call witnesses.

Trumps Failure To Discourage Election Violence

ED KILGORE: Again and again, the House impeachment managers are stressing that Trump had an affirmative obligation under his oath of office to stop threats of violence related to his efforts to reverse the election returns. Obviously he failed to do that on more occasions than you can count, whether or not you accept the evidence showing he actively encouraged the Capitol attacks. He knew the attacks were imminent or likely, and that these were people who regarded themselves as his cavalry. So why did he never say a discouraging word? Its a hard question for Trumps attorneys to answer.

Recommended Reading: Why Do Republicans Want To Get Rid Of The Epa

How The Seven Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump Later Explained Their Decisions

The evidence is compelling that President Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection against a coequal branch of government and that the charge rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, said Senator Richard Burr, who is retiring at the end of his term in 2022.

Senator Bill Cassidy said he voted guilty because thats what Trump was, and that Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person.

Instead of preventing a dangerous situation, President Trump created one, explained Senator Susan Collins, referencing how primed the January 6 crowd of Trump supporters was for violence. And rather than defend the Constitutional transfer of power, he incited an insurrection with the purpose of preventing that transfer of power from occurring.

Explained Senator Lisa Murkowski: If I cant say what I believe that our president should stand for, then why should I ask Alaskans to stand with me?

Senator Mitt Romney said the House managers proved their case, adding that Trump incited an insurrection despite the obvious and well known threats of violence that day. President Trump also violated his oath of office by failing to protect the Capitol, the vice president, and others in the Capitol. Each and every one of these conclusions compels me to support conviction.

Previously Unheard Audio Introduced

House Republicans respond to articles of impeachment l ABC News

ED KILGORE: Plaskett just played previously unreleased audio of Capitol Hill police in full panic as the mob broke down the security perimeter and injured officers, and then video of hand-to-hand combat between police and rioters. Shes using a model of the Capitol to show the mobs progress towards the House and Senate chambers where Congress was reviewing electoral vote objections by Trump allies.

Using new security footage, Plaskett shows the mob breaking through the windows from inside the Capitol, noting some of the first rioters through the breech were in full tactical armors and/or riot shields. She then pauses in the video evidence to draw a parallel between the attacks and September 11. I would note myself that on 9/11 I was standing on Pennsylvania Avenue SE and watched members of Congress walk away from the Capitol in scenes echoed by the January 6 evacuation.

Also Check: How Many Senate Seats Did The Republicans Pick Up

Republican Search For Response

Many Republicans appear to have made up their minds that they won’t vote to convict Trump, but they have struggled to find a consistent way to respond to the Democrats’ emotional case.

Many Republican senators weren’t at their desks for parts of the day’s presentation, and a pool reporter spotted Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., at his desk appearing to write in the names of countries on a blank map of Asia.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said the Democrats’ presentation Thursday wasn’t compelling. “Today was not connecting the dots,” he said.

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., said, “Very political today.”

NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Trump attorney David Schoen stepped out for a time to do an interview with Fox News. He said he felt confident that he wasn’t missing anything.

“It’s more of the same thing. They’re showing the same repetitive videos,” Schoen said.

Schoen called the managers’ use of videos of the attack “offensive,” a charge Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., had made on Wednesday night.

“I think they’re making a movie, you know. They haven’t in any way tied it to Donald Trump. I think its offensive, quite frankly. It’s an antithesis the healing process to continue to show the tragedy that happened here that Donald Trump has condemned, and I think it tears at the American people, quite frankly,” Schoen said.

Schoen said they discussed “procedure.”

House Managers Rest Their Case

Representative Jamie Raskin wrapped up House Democrats case against Trump, saying the evidence clearly shows that he laid the groundwork for the Capitol riot throughout his presidency, instigated the attack in the days leading up to January 6, and then showed no remorse once it happened.

Raskin quoted from Thomas Paine, urging senators to use common sense when deciding whether to convict.

Senators, America, we need to exercise our common sense about what happened, he said. Lets not get caught up in a lot of outlandish lawyers theories here. Exercise your common sense about what just took place in our country.

Raskin concluded: Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, but we have this saving consolation: The more difficult the struggle, the more glorious in the end will be our victory. Good luck in your deliberations.

Raskin closes with this Thomas Paine quote: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us: that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

Aaron Rupar

You May Like: How Many House Seats Were Won By Republicans

After Raskin Says He Wants To Call Rep Herrera Beutler Senate Votes 55

The impeachment trial took a dramatic turn on Saturday. Lead House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin opened the days proceedings by referencing Friday nights news reports that Trump and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy got into a shouting match on the phone while the Capitol riot was underway, and that during that conversation, Trump had not just refused to call off the rioters, but tried to leverage the riot to his benefit. In light of that news, Raskin said House managers wanted to call Washington State Representative Herrera Beutler the impeachment-supporting GOP congresswoman who had confirmed the call happened and said she had contemporaneous notes recording the details as a witness.

Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen opposed the request, and threatened to call for countless witnesses himself and drag out the trial as much as possible:

van der Veen explains that if House managers want witnesses, then “I’m going to need at least, over 100 depositions””Do not handcuff me by limiting the number of witnesses I can have,” he angrily says. “We should close this case out today.”

Aaron Rupar

It also led to this embarrassing moment:

“That’s the way it works, folks … I don’t know why you’re laughing … there’s nothing laughable here” — the Senate chamber breaks out in laughter after van der Veen threatens to depose Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris not by Zoom, but in his office in Philadelphia

Aaron Rupar

Regardless, Senator Lindsey Graham made the same threat:

Gop Officials Were Moved By Democrats’ Arguments But Have Not Disclosed Whether They Will Convict Former President

Find your bookmarks in yourIndependent Premium section, under my profile

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, among six GOP senators who broke from the party to vote to proceed with Donald Trump‘s impeachment trial, said video footage from the Capitol insurrection showed “insurrectionists that tried to object to the peaceful transfer of power”.

“That should give anyone who loves our republic great pause,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

House impeachment managers on the second day of the former president’s impeachment trial included a comprehensive video timeline, aided by previously unreleased surveillance footage and police audio, revealing the scale of the assault on the Capitol on 6 January, and how close lawmakers and their staff came to violence.

Impeachment managers linked the former president’s months-long attempt to undermine election results as he courted violence from his supporters, exploding into a deadly insurrection fuelled by his false claims of voter fraud and conspiracy theories.

David Schoen and Bruce Castor: Who are Donald Trumps defense team?

The footage “reinforces my belief that it was a terrible day for our country, and that there’s no doubt that it was an attempt to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes”, said Senator Susan Collins, among Republicans who are expected to vote to convict the former president for inciting the insurrection during a joint session of Congress to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Read Also: Can Republicans Vote In The Nevada Caucus

Rep Neguse Takes Over

ED KILGORE: The second impeachment manager to appear, Joe Neguse of Colorado, is going into the precedents supporting the constitutionality of an impeachment trial after its target has left office. The most important is the trial of former Secretary of War William Belknap, impeached for corruption in 1876. Belknap resigned in order to avoid an impeachment and a trial, the House impeached him and the Senate went ahead with a full trial .

The Trump Team Unveils Their Own Video

ED KILGORE: Schoen attempted to offer an equivalent to the House managers videos of January 6: a cavalcade of images of Democratic pols calling for Trumps impeachment prior to his actual impeachment in 2019.;The overwhelming majority of these images were of non-white Democrats, which probably had some Trump fans watching at home saying Uh Huh,

Don’t Miss: What Are The Republicans Saying About Impeachment

Seven Republican Rebels Who Voted To Convict Feel Trumpists’ Fury

didnt want to cut him off. He made a Faustian bargain with them. And thats whats coming to the Republican party, Emanuel added. 1932 … was the last time a party that is the Republicans lost the presidency, the Senate and the House. Thats how far back you go for this moment in time to have a corresponding point in history.

The Gop Senators Likely To Vote For Trump’s Conviction

Republican response to Trump impeachment articles

Senators say as many as a half-dozen GOP lawmakers could vote with Democrats to convict former President TrumpDonald TrumpWalensky says ‘now is the time’ to tackle gun violence: reportBanks fights Jan. 6 committee effort to seek lawmaker recordsBiden to raise pay for federal employees effective Jan. 1.MORE for inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6 after the powerful presentations by impeachment managers, including chilling footage of the attack on the Capitol.

That would not be enough to secure a conviction of Trump, something that would require at least 17 Republican votes assuming every Democrat in the chamber votes to impeach. But it would be the largest bipartisan Senate majority in history for a presidential impeachment vote.

Heres a look at the six GOP votes seen as being in play.

Willard Mitt RomneyMitt Romney was right: Too many Americans are dependent on government Democrats sound alarm over loss in Connecticut suburbsLawmakers flooded with calls for help on Afghanistan exitMORE

Romney is viewed as a lock to vote for Trumps conviction after he was the only Republican senator to vote to remove Trump from office after his first impeachment trial last year.

Previously unreleased security footage played on the second day of the trial showed Romney narrowly missed walking into a crowd of angry rioters thanks to the quick thinking of Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, who redirected Romney away from the violent crowd as it marched toward the chamber.

You May Like: When Is The Last Time Republicans Controlled Congress

0 notes

johnchiarello · 5 years

Text

Corinthians 13-14

Blog- www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com

Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

Youtube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber

Other sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/links-to-my-sites-updated-10-2018/

Cloud links- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

Youtube Playlist- https://ccoutreach87.com/youtube-playlist/

[Links to all my sites at the bottom of this post]

NOTE- Every so often some of my sites think I am Spam- or a Bot- I am not. My name is John Chiarello and I post original content [all videos and text are by me]. I do share my past posts from my other sites- but it is not spam- Thank you- John.

1ST CORINTHIANS 13:1 ‘THOUGH I SPEAK WITH THE TONGUES OF MEN AND OF ANGELS, AND HAVE NOT LOVE, I AM BECOME AS SOUNDING BRASS OR A TINKLING SYMBOL’ Over the years I have seen how the church can ‘have a voice-make noise’ without actually effecting change. Last night I watched some Martin Luther King stuff. Without ‘sucking up for political purposes’ I must admit that Martin is at the top of my list of personal heroes. Martin spoke with a revolutionary purpose in mind, he was not ‘delivering sermons’. One time I spoke at a friends church, I only spoke for around 15 minutes [much like my radio show] and the pastor said ‘no wonder John doesn’t have a church/ preach regularly, you have to at least speak for 45 minutes’ [something like that]. Though after the message I had good comments from the people, the sincere pastor felt like we didn’t ‘put the time in’ in order to fulfill the Sunday morning practice of ‘church’. Were did we get our modern sermon from? [The actual format]. If you go to Bible College you can take a course called ‘homiletics’ this course will teach you the structure of speaking and putting a message together. If you study Greek rhetoric you will find that this science existed in the Greek intellectual world before Christians embraced it [the actual format and structure taught in homiletics comes right out of the Greek system of rhetoric, to the tee!]. I find it funny how many modern pastors seem to measure a persons degree of ‘being scriptural’ by this measuring rod. ‘Well brother, didn’t they preach in scripture’ you bet they did. We see Jesus reading from the scroll in the synagogue. Paul and Peter were master ‘preachers’ if you will [though Paul himself was no ‘golden tongue’] basically the biblical concept of preaching/teaching was more of a spontaneous thing. It’s certainly not wrong to borrow the sermon from the Greeks [which we did do] but we don’t want to fall into some mindset that sees modern ministry [pastoral] as being a professional speaker. Here Paul says there is a danger of believers becoming like ‘sounding brass and tinkling symbols’ we can lose the reality of simple communication. We also can lose the prophetic edge of speaking into society over issues of justice. If we become too mundane and ‘professional’ then the world simply views us as another program to simply pass over when clicking the remote. Both Martin Luther King and Charles Finney were known for their social activism. One of the charges [actually true] made against them was that they held to liberal theological positions. Finney was effected by the higher criticism of his day [the trend in the universities to deny the supernatural elements of scripture] he embraced certain doctrines that could be viewed as heretical [things on the atonement and mans sinful nature]. King’s critics make note of the fact that he also accepted certain types of bible interpretation that viewed some of the miraculous stories as ‘myth’ [not fake, but simple allegorical stories that were not literal but simply meant to convey a spiritual theme]. Things like Jonah and the whale, or Ballams talking donkey [or the talking snake in the garden!] Some intellectual brothers view these stories this way. Is there any validity to these views? Actually yes. I personally hold the ‘literal’ view with stuff like this, but ‘literal’ does not mean the bible does not contain different styles of writing. You do have poetry, allegory, symbol and other types or forms of grammar in scripture. Even the strong literal brothers will contradict themselves when they fully accept the ‘Lamb on the throne’ as not being a literal Lamb! [or when they interpret the scorpion like demons in Revelation as Black Hawk helicopters] So scripture does use allegory and symbol. But why did Luther and Finney associate with the more liberal trends in theology? I feel it was because of the strong anti social gospel that the fundamentalists embraced. The more conservative thinkers who rejected the liberal trends in teaching, would also reject social activism. Luther and Finney simply gravitated towards those who were like minded in their concern to speak into society. Basically they didn’t just want to be theologically correct [though they might have been in some of there views] but they wanted to be able to effect change in society. They wanted to be more than just a tinkling symbol that could tickle your ears.

(1002)1ST CORINTHIANS 13: 2-3 ‘and though I have the gift of prophecy [Pentecostal, prophetic expressions] and understand all mysteries and all knowledge [Orthodox, Reformed, intellectual creedal churches] and though I have all faith that I could remove mountains [the Faith camp] and have not charity [Agape- love] I am nothing’. Whew! Thank God us mission/outreach type guys are not in there. ‘And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor [ouch] and have not love it profits nothing’. I love the various expressions of the church, I feed from the Reformed brothers teaching, Love reading and studying Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I of course favor the outreach/hands on type ministries, but according to this text we can have all these things and still be missing the mark. Our intellectual type brothers are engaging the culture and defending the faith, but without love we don’t even put a dent in the culture. The apologists are great at refuting the new atheists, to be honest about it the Christian intellectuals are head and shoulders above the atheists [Craig Lane and men like him] but I have noticed that we don’t really change that many minds even when all the proof is on our side. And I cant tell you how many well meaning missions and soup kitchens I have been too, but often times there is a disconnect between the people being served and the ‘servers’. You get the feeling sometimes that the well meaning helpers are simply punching a time card. We all need to reevaluate our motives. People can tell when we are in ‘ministry’ for the love of the business. Or for the self glory and adulation that comes with our service. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they truly were in it for the recognition of men. They wanted others to see that they were ‘successful in the ministry’ so they could receive recognition in public. Paul tells the Romans ‘he that shows mercy, let him do it with love [cheerfully]’. It’s easy to fall into a rut and simply be functioning out of a sense of duty. Now duty can be a good thing, there are times where we just need people to report for duty! [The harvest is plenteous, but the workers are few] but we need to examine ourselves and make sure we are functioning out of the Love of God. Often times the various ministries and expressions of the church are simply God ordained ‘places’ where we can connect with people. As we interact with the lost world, lets do our best to win the arguments, give proof for the legitimacy of Christianity. Combat false ideas and mindsets that are imbedded in our culture, but lets leave room for the other side to get in with us. Understand that they have a ‘missing piece’ [Augustine’s hole in the heart] and we are the only ones that can show them how to fill it.

(1003)CORINTHIANS 13:4-10 Okay, what exactly is this love that we need? Paul has told us that all religious activity apart from it is vain. Paul here simply gives us a picture of the way it acts. You can read this section and substitute your name for the word love ‘love puts up with stuff and is kind’ ‘John puts up with stuff and is kind’ [ouch] ‘It does not boast or show off’. ‘It does not seek its own benefit’ a ‘what’s in it for me’ type mentality. Love is being just like Jesus. James tells us ‘if you fulfill the royal law of scripture, you do well’. The law is to love thy neighbor as yourself. Paul also shows us why love outshines the other gifts of tongues and prophesy and knowledge. He says ‘we know in part, prophesy in part. But when we are made perfect and mature at the appearing of Christ the partial gifts will no longer be distinguishable. Only love will rule’ [my paraphrase] I find it interesting that Paul says knowledge itself will cease. Will actual knowledge cease? What exactly is ‘knowledge’? When we use this term in society what we usually mean is the degree of ones learning/education compared to someone else. If you have a masters and I have a high school diploma, we see a difference. We measure knowledge by the amount we have as compared to others. Now, at Christ’s appearing when we all ‘shall know, even as we are known’ this fine distinction will ‘pass away’. We still will have knowledge, but as a tool that we use to measure one another, it will cease. It wont make a difference how much of the ‘knowledge pie’ [know in part] you possess, at that time everyone one will have ‘all pie’. Knowledge is a funny thing, our understanding of it has developed thru the centuries. During the enlightenment era the concept of ‘what does it even mean to know’ was tackled. One of the famous sayings was ‘I know/think, therefore I am’ [Descartes? Hey, I forget sometimes] the study of ‘how we learn/know things’ is called epistemology. The enlightenment produced a way to approach knowledge that can be called ‘modernism’ mans modern way of knowing stuff. In essence, there exists real truth that a person can know and learn. There is/was a challenge to this mode of thought. Many in the Emergent church movement would grasp on to another theory of ‘knowing’ loosely defined as being in the category of ‘post modernism’. Some challenged the actual ability to know a thing. The emphasis is on who is actually viewing/learning the thing. The terms ‘metta- narrative’ are sometimes used to describe this dynamic. There is some truth to the fact that our context, who we are and where we are coming from, can shape the actual stuff learned. But the question is ‘does our perspective actually change the thing, make it real or not’. Some in the field of Cosmology have grasped on to this post modern theory and have surmised that the very act of human beings studying and examining a thing can in and of itself cause the thing ‘to be’. You can see how this theory would be helpful to the atheist. ‘Where did every thing come from?’ ‘it is a result of human kind’s thoughts and inquiry’ [Ouch]. This sounds a lot like the metaphysical cults that espouse that reality is a product of what you think, confess. That man has the power to create reality simply by the act of studying a thing. Well this is of course a challenge to the truth of God. Jesus and the Cross aren’t ‘real’ because men ‘put their mind to them’. They are real whether or not man ever thought about them. ‘Let God be true, but every man a liar’ Romans. Paul tells us that all these varying degrees of knowledge will some day ‘pass away’. We will all stand before a self existent God and give an account of our lives. This day is coming whether you ‘think about it or not’.

(1004)CORINTHIANS 13:11-13 WHEN I WAS A CHILD I UNDERSTOOD AND THOUGHT AND SPOKE LIKE A CHILD, BUT WHEN I GREW UP I PUT THOSE THINGS BEHIND ME- Paul shows us that we presently see and understand things thru ‘a glass’. God gives us insight and glimpses into Divine truth, but we need mercy because we all have limited sight. Over the years I know I have ruffled some feathers. Whether it be our teaching on what the church is, tithing, end times stuff. How New Testament believers should view the nationalistic promises made to Israel under the Old Covenant. I have found that the problem usually isn’t solved by simply proving something from scripture. For instance someone might become convinced by an ‘avalanche’ of information, they might actually see what I am saying. They can even articulate it to a degree [sometimes better than me!] but at the end of the day the answer to the problem is we all need to ‘grow up’. We need an overall change in the way we view things thru a legalistic lens. For instance, the tithe issue. Over the years I have taught the concept that believers are not under this law. Those of you who have read this site for any length of time know this. But I have also taught that it is fine to put 10% of your money into the offering on Sunday. It’s okay to support those who ‘labor among us’. But there are also many examples in the New Testament warning Gods leaders to not be in it for the money. Now, if we took seriously the mandate in Malachi to tithe. If we want to actually bind the believer’s conscience in this way ‘how are you robbing God? By not bringing in the tithes!’ Then we need to also look at the context. Israel as a nation was mandated to ‘tithe’ of their goods [not money] in three ways. They gave to support the Levites, also for the poor, and then they gave a tithe for religious feasts. In essence this ‘tithe’ was a total of around 30 % of their annual income, not 10%! [This by the way is right around what I spend on a monthly basis for the ministry stuff I do]. So, if we were telling people ‘you are going to be cursed if you don’t pay 10%’ we are actually misreading this verse. Also, how many believers think they are going to be cursed if they don’t ‘tithe to the poor’? Most modern preaching on the tithe simply puts it in the category of the Sunday offering. Most of this type of giving goes to support salaries, building upkeep, light bills, insurance for staff. I could go on and on. A very minute portion of this money [in general] goes to the poor. Certainly not a third! Also the portion that went to the Levites could not be used to purchase anything that would be owned by the Levite. They were forbidden to own any type of personal inheritance as Levitical priests. How often does the modern concept of tithing include this? The whole point is if we are going to bind peoples consciences in this way [which we shouldn’t] then we need to make sure we are at least teaching it right! Why bring this up? This is simply a good example of what Paul is saying. ‘When I understood in a limited way, I spoke and acted in a limited way’. The answer to the problem is simply ‘becoming mature in our thinking and speaking’. Recently I read an article from a U.S. congressman, he was speaking about the situation between Israel and Palestine. He sided with a military interpretation of the Old Testament promise to Abraham to ‘posses the land’ and used that to influence his political activism for war. How ‘mature’ is this type of thinking? Did any of the JEWISH apostles do this? No. So instead of trying to ‘crisis manage’ every single doctrinal problem, we really need to mature on an overall basis and view these doctrines thru the paradigm of Jesus and his life and work. Are we imitating his ethos when we do these things? Was this the primary message and life of Jesus when he walked the earth? How did he respond to Roman oppression and unjust govt.? Did he advocate military action in defense of the promises of God made to the nation of Israel? If we as the 21st century church do not ‘rightly divide’ these things, then we are of all men ‘most miserable’ [1st Corinthians 15].

(1006)CORINTHIANS 14:1-20 Lets deal a little with ‘Tongues’. I have written before on the various ways believers view this gift. Much has been taught over the years that can be seen as extreme from both camps [the Pentecostals and the non charismatics]. Is Paul speaking about the same gift as seen in Acts 2? If not, then does that mean the only legitimate ‘tongues’ are the Acts 2 expression? If a distinction is made, then Paul obviously put his stamp of approval on the second type of tongues by actually writing about it here! Ecstatic utterance was not exclusive to the early church. Paul earlier taught that the pagans engaged in this type of speech when worshipping false idols. This does not mean that true spiritual worship has no ecstatic type elements to it. The gifts themselves are seen as divinely inspired speech [the speaking ones]. Isaiah 8:1 says ‘TAKE A LARGE SCROLL AND WRITE ON IT WITH THE PEN OF A MAN’. God was telling Isaiah that he would use his actual writings as inspired instruments from him. Scripture also speaks of ‘the tongue of a ready writer’ we are called ‘living letters’ by Paul himself. Paul doesn’t challenge the legitimacy of this type of gift, but he does stress the importance of approaching all the gifts from a standpoint of unselfishness. If when the believers are gathered, they are all functioning in self edifying gifts, then they are making the same mistake that Paul rebuked earlier with the Lords table. The purpose of the gathering and gifts are for the building up of others and not for self gain. So Paul warns them of the selfish use of the gifts. He says it’s better to use Prophecy or Teaching because others can learn and grow. Some Pentecostal groups make a distinction between the prayer time and the ministry time. They practice tongues during corporate prayer and then treat ‘a tongue uttered’ during the service as something that needs interpretation. I see some merit to his, but it should be noted that here Paul does say ‘when you bless with the Spirit’ [prayer over a meal or something like it] that your prayer is fine, but still the other person doesn’t benefit. So Paul actually includes both ‘prayer tongues’ and ‘a word in tongues’ as needing to be tamped down during the public gathering. Of course we will see the teaching on private tongues as being fine, the point I am making is Paul includes ‘prayer tongues’ along with the other type. The main thrust of Paul’s teaching on Tongues is that the gift itself is legitimate [definitions of the gift vary!] but that all the gifts of the Spirit should be used unselfishly. ‘Well brother, Paul himself says it’s fine to pray in tongues to build yourself up! Got you now!’ well actually you don’t! ‘Building ones self up’ in a private setting can be considered beneficial to the overall corporate group. I just prayed/mediated for around an hour before writing, this was personal ‘self building’ for the purpose of corporate teaching. No matter where you personally come down on the various gifts of the Spirit, it is important to do all things with the benefit of others in mind. I hate to stick this example in here, but heck I just came up with it! Last night I was watching the news. I channel surf from CNN, MSNBC, FOX and even hit the PBS station every now and again [plus the big 3 networks]. Its still the first week of President Obama’s presidency and I couldn’t help but notice the unbelievable amount of ‘slobbering’ [yes, I borrowed it from Bernie Goldberg] that was taking place. I actually clicked the channel from Hannity to CNN. Hannity just finished talking about the embarrassing amount of gushing that the media were doing over Obama. As I clicked to Anderson Cooper, they were showing clips from the first media interview that Obama has given since being in office. It was a very good interview to an Arab language station. As Cooper was asking the reporters on their first thoughts of the interview, one actually said ‘it is so unbelievably outstanding that I am actually ‘giddy’. Now, I don’t subscribe to the Hannity/Limbaugh stuff 100%, but this really was too much. The media are putting such a high expectation on the poor man that no human being could possibly fulfill their image of the man. It was also reported that George [Stephanopoulos-?] actually cried during the inauguration. Of course Chris Matthews will go down in history for describing a ‘feeling going up his leg’ during coverage of an Obama speech. What’s wrong with this picture? I understand that the average white man feels self affirmed when he engages in public displays of support for Black advancement. I too like our President and do pray regularly for him. Not too long ago I met a black homeless friend, he actually has a little apartment but he was at the free mission so I sometimes refer to all these brothers as homeless. He was under the impression that I ran some type of ministry that took in money [I never take any offerings, for radio or anything else] so as I offered to by him some groceries and stuff, he kinda went a little overboard. I really didn’t have any ‘extra money’ but I bought it any way. I didn’t get mad or feel bad about it. I still see the brother every now and then and am still willing to help him. Now, is it better to show your love for the black man by publicly crying and gushing and describing sexual type feelings when listening to the new president speak, or to actually go out and find some black person in need and meet the need? I don’t want to get into the whole political scene at all, sometimes it gets me mad. I have actually ‘cussed’ [yes, I admit it] at the screen at times. [Little curse words, not the big ones!] The point being we all need to heed the admonition in scripture to show our love by our deeds and actions. To simply put on a public display for the world means very little.

(1007)CORINTHIANS 14:20-33 Paul instructs the church that when they are gathered together they should do things ‘decently and in order’. God is not the author of confusion. Notice the ‘order’ of the early church meeting. It is participatory in nature, those who give a word should take turns, those who give ‘a tongue’ need to let someone interpret. But there is no sense of ‘a pastoral speaking gift’ in this mix. Some teach that here Paul was giving directions to ‘the home group’ but they still had a regular ‘church service at the building’. This of course has no support at all from scripture or 1st century church history. Paul was simply telling ‘the church’ how to act when they met. I don’t see any hard and fast rules in which Paul is dictating some type of mandatory liturgy to the people. He is giving them some basic guidelines that are in keeping with the idea that God’s people are ‘a body’. He encourages open participation in the group. He shows how someone could be sharing and another who is ‘sitting by’ can also have a revelation. The idea is people grow and mature when they function. People become co-dependant when they simply observe. The modern church service for the most part has believers as spectators while one person speaks. While there are times where one person speaking/teaching is fine, what we have done is exalted this very limited format of ‘church’ and made it the criteria of what church is supposed to be. Note how Paul does allow for the gift of tongues to be used in the gathering, but only when there is an interpreter. He even ‘lifts’ an obscure verse from Isaiah that says God used ‘the languages of foreigners’ as a sign of judgment against unbelief. This verse has been used by the strong anti charismatic crowd to kind of say that the whole tongues thing is ‘of the devil’. Basically Paul was applying this Old Testament verse to show that when languages are spoken that people don’t understand, then unbelievers and judgment can be present. In Acts 2 there were those who said ‘what is this strange thing [tongues] are they drunk or what’. Yet others heard the ‘wonderful works of God’ in their native tongue. The lack of spiritual discernment among those who thought they were drunk was a sign showing their ignorance of Gods Spirit at work. Grant it, you could hardly blame them for thinking this, but the point Paul is making is that unknown languages being used in a setting where unbelievers can walk in does act as a sign of judgment. Paul wasn’t teaching that the gift of tongues was itself a false gift. I think this chapter is important for the present day because very few places in scripture actually deal with the way believers should meet. This chapter gives some of the basic guidelines of what our meetings should look like. I think we could all learn from the Corinthian experience.

(1008) CORINTHIANS 14:34-40 ‘Let your women keep silent in the gathering, for it is not permitted for them to speak. If they have any questions let them ask their husbands at home’. As a practical matter, when me and my wife attend church, I bring one of those little note pads with me. You never know when your wife has a question! [This is a Joke! But now you can see why I don’t take offerings]. What is Paul saying here? In chapter 11, verse 5, he also told the women not to ‘prophesy’ with uncovered heads. Some think Paul is forbidding women to operate in the speaking gifts, specifically tongues. Here he seems to be addressing a specific issue at Corinth. He says ‘if they have questions let them ask their husbands’. It’s possible that the wives were interrupting the meetings, or taking an authoritative role that was beyond their calling. I already discussed how Corinth had a form of idolatry that incorporated ‘temple prostitution’. Paul did not want the churches to go the way of the culture at Corinth! Paul is not forbidding women in general to never ‘talk in church’. He closes this chapter with the admonition to do all things decently and in order. Paul has a special relationship with these believers. He spent quite a long time in their city [18 months] he launched another very effective ministry while at Corinth. Do you know what that was? He began his ‘writing ministry’ while at Corinth. He wrote his first 2 letters to the Thessalonians from the city. Paul was very hard on this church, but he did not yet challenge their basic identity as believers because of all their misgivings, he still treated them as Gods holy people. In the next chapter he will question whether or not ‘they are in the faith’. He will challenge them on their unbelief in the resurrection of Christ.

VERSES-

1Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

1Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

1Corinthians 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

1Corinthians 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

1Corinthians 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

1Corinthians 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

1Corinthians 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

1Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

1Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

1Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

1Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

1Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

1Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

1Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

1Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

1Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

1Corinthians 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

1Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

1Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

1Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

1Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

1Corinthians 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

1Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

1Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

1Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

1Corinthians 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

1Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

1Corinthians 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

1Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

1Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

1Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

1Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

1Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

1Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

1Corinthians 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

1Corinthians 14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

1Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

1Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

1Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

1Corinthians 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

1Corinthians 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

1Corinthians 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

1Corinthians 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

1Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

1Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1Corinthians 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1Corinthians 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

1Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

1Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

MY SITES

Active sites-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com [Main site]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

https://www.facebook.com/ccoutreach1/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel&eid=ARCo7sBBI_1fHMUwrHJbFUGf73C6FmpZxtgTcWET2gVwpdHCKmXSGxs6wyeA-qGCnbsr2ILaXqpd4ACt [my page]

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

http://ccoutreach87.webstarts.com/__blog.html?r=20171009095200

http://ccoutreach87-1.mozello.com/

https://ccoutreach87.site123.me/

http://ccoutreach87.wixsite.com/mysite

https://corpusoutreach.weebly.com/

http://ccoutreach87.strikingly.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

https://johnchiarello.webs.com/

https://vk.com/id533663718

Link sharing sites-

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.reddit.com/user/ccoutreach87

https://mix.com/jchiarello

https://trello.com/b/swhF9Vr8/ccoutreach87com

http://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/p/one-link_18.html [Link to past teaching]

Inactive- work in progress

http://ccoutreach87.webs.com/

https://sites.google.com/yahoo.com/ccoutreach87/home

http://johnchiarello.doodlekit.com/

http://corpus-christijohnchiarello.simplesite.com/

https://spark.adobe.com/page/6INKwX1tFT7WA/

Video sites [Can download my videos free of charge]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxWXKfaFDZrfNUzloSqg8Kg?view_as=subscriber beta

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYlLmUkKiB6VoWE9CB1UQew?view_as=subscriber ccoutreach87

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg?view_as=subscriber classic

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ccoutreach87/

https://vimeo.com/user85764413

https://www.dailymotion.com/ccoutreach87/videos

https://bit.tube/ccoutreach87

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/jsS961GkXUSn/

https://d.tube/c/ccoutreach

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QJ3MSF6ZqJpYS9Vzeg9ni5dP-yMcj3A7?usp=sharing

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0G_aInmCi8XUC-C

https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=kZ1sXP7ZardKGRUxFByiFYi667jeup7MD1Sy

https://mega.nz/#F!7WQCSIJR!-4v9-zUQRq4MIQbBfI2n4A

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/d43nhtrgysqg493/AAAlCszxZXJoRtk8UudtuR9ma?dl=0

https://ln.sync.com/dl/3e1f4c5e0/tcnm9p32-xiwe4nbu-zjbkitqj-4fvemf6m

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMg0MwmUCJ1XM3q9ui [Upload- unzipped- all teaching videos to 12-18 here]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos?lst=1779330793%3A1779330793%3A1546906912 [My Facebook videos]

https://www.instagram.com/john.chiarello/channel/

https://icedrive.net/dashboard/#/cloud

I no longer upload videos to this site- but there are many links to download here as well-

https://ccoutreach87.com/

Cloud sites- https://ccoutreach87.com/cloud-links-12-2018/

Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on- Copy text- download video links- make complete copies of my books/studies and posts- everything is copyrighted by me- I give permission for all to copy and share as much as you like- I just ask that nothing be sold. We live in an online world- yet- there is only one internet- meaning if it ever goes down- the only access to the teachings are what others have copied or downloaded- so feel free to copy and download as much as you want- it’s all free-

Note- I have many web sites- at times some question whether I’m a ‘bot’ because I do post a lot.

I am not a ‘bot’- I’m John- so please- if you are on the verge of deleting something- my contact email is [email protected] - contact me first- thank you- John

#God #Jesus #Bible #Christian #ccoutreach87

0 notes