Changes

[[Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)|Introduction(Main article)]]

:“The “'''The L<small>ORD</small> ''' your God will raise up to you a Prophet from among you, of your brothersbrethren, like me. You shall listen to him. This is according to all that you desired of '''the L<small>ORD</small> ''' your God in Horeb in the day of the Assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again '''the L<small>ORD</small> ''' my God’s voice, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I not die.’ '''The L<small>ORD</small> ''' said to me, ‘They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brothersbrethren, like you. I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.’&nbsp;”)

He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of '''the Lord''',’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”

:Dr.&nbsp;Lightfoot (a Protestant) discusses in detail the ''Epiphanian'', the ''Helvidian'', and the ''Hieronymian'' ("hahy-er-''uh''-<big>'''nim'''</big>-ee-''uh''n" = [[Jerome]] / Jeromian / Ieromian) theories of the relationship of the brothers brethren of the Lord.

Therefore when '''the Lord ''' knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more followers, more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples), when Jesus heard that John was delivered up, he left Judea and departed into Galilee.

:“I have given to you one portion above your brothersbrethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.”

:“The Spirit of '''the Lord ''' is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to proclaim release to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, to deliver those who are crushed, and to proclaim the acceptable year of '''the Lord'''.”

Passing along by the [http://bibleatlas.org/full/sea_of_galilee.htm sea of Galilee], walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon, two brothersbrethren''':''' Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.

Going on a little farther from there, he saw two other brothersbrethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother, who were also in the boat mending the nets; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets. Immediately he called them, and immediately they left the boat and their father; they left their father, Zebedee, in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him, and followed him.

:“ ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to '''the Lord ''' your vows,’

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree cannot produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. '''Every tree that does not grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.''' Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who '''says''' to me, ‘Lord‘'''Lord, Lord,'''’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who '''does''' the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord‘'''Lord, Lord, ''' did we not prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’ Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, [[Antinomianism|you who work iniquity]].’

Behold, a leper came to him and worshiped him, saying, “Lord“'''Lord''', if you will it, you can make me clean.”

:Conservative Christian believers who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God expressed in human language believe that the Bible does not lie or contradict itself, because God the Author cannot lie or deny Himself. Compare<br> [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16-17&version=RSVCE '''2 Timothy 3:16-17''' "all scripture is inspired by God"]; <br>[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+1%3A2&version=RSVCE '''Titus 1:2''' "God, who cannot lie"]; <br>[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A35&version=RSVCE '''John 10:35''' "scripture cannot be broken"]. <br>Apparent contradictions in the Bible cannot simply be ignored in hope that no one will notice and the problem will go away ([[Cafeteria Christianity]]). For some Bible readers the apparent dilemma finally becomes unavoidable, and the apparently inescapable difficulties seen can become a real crisis of faith. These apparent contradictions disappear when read within the context of the whole of the Bible, within the whole history of the understanding (mind) of the community of the whole body of Christ. This is what is called the ''[[sensus fidelium]]'', the "sense of the faithful", according to discernment of the truth contained in divine revelation. It is not identical with the meaning of what is called a consensus of the majority based on [[Public Opinion Poll|polls]] of public [[opinion]]. See [[Apostolic succession]] (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, etc.). Catholics in addition to this also have recourse to the [[Magisterium]]. Protestants look to the Reformation tradition based on the principles of the ''[[Five Solas]]''.

<span style=color:red><big><big><big>'''W'''</big></big></big></span>hen he entered again into [http://bibleatlas.org/full/capernaum.htm Capernaum] after some days, when he came into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking him, and saying, “Lord“'''Lord''', my servant lies in the house paralyzed, grievously tormented.”

The centurion answered, “Lord“'''Lord''', I am not worthy for you to come under my roof. Just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am also a man under authority, having under myself soldiers. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and tell another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and tell my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

When they had done this, they caught a great multitude of fish, and their net was breaking. They beckoned to their partners in the other boat, that they should come and help them. They came, and filled both boats, so that they began to sink. But Simon Peter, when he saw it, fell down at Jesus’s knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, '''Lord'''.”

Another of his followers said to him, “Lord“'''Lord''', allow me first to go and bury my father.”

Behold, a violent storm came up on the sea, so much that the boat was covered with the waves, but he was asleep. They came to him, and woke him up, saying, “Save us, Lord'''Lord!''' We are dying'''!'''”

On one of those days, he was Teaching; and there were Pharisees and Teachers of the law sitting by, who had come out of every village of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem. The power of '''the Lord ''' was with him to heal them. Behold, men brought a paralyzed man on a cot, and they sought to bring him in to lay before Jesus. Not finding a way to bring him in because of the multitude, they went up to the housetop, and let him down through the tiles with his cot into the middle before Jesus. Seeing their faith, he said to him, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”

They told him, “Yes, '''Lord'''.”

Jesus went about all the cities and the villages''',''' Teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing every disease and every sickness among the people. But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them, because they were harassed and scattered, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his followers, “The harvest indeed is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Pray therefore that '''the Lord ''' of the harvest will send out laborers into his harvest.”

:Because of the centurion's military duty to immediately obey without question those in command over him, he acknowledges the effective power of genuine authority. He is saying that he recognizes the legitimate, powerful authority of Christ as a commander and lord to command even nature in matters of sickness and health. Roman respect for the nonpolitical, extra-legal, power of ''auctoritas'' is evident. <br> —See [http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Auctoritas/en-en/ '''Auctoritas''' (dictionary.sensagent.com)]. <br> Through a parallel the [[analogy]] of his own obligation to willingly obey without hesitation those in authority over him, and of the duty of those under him to likewise obey his own commands, he expresses his confidence in the legitimacy of the evident authority of the Anointed One, and the effective power of His word of command. It is entirely natural to him that authority should be obeyed. That : that is the way of things and the proper order of nature. He is fully persuaded that whatever Jesus commands will be immediately obeyed, because in his eyes Jesus has the obvious dignity of full authority, ''innately'', in and of Himself (''auctoritas''), to command obedience to his word(''auctoritas''). And just as by analogy a lowlylow-ranking private in military service would feel overwhelmed and unworthy of a visit by the Chief Commanding General of the Armed Forces of the United States of America in response to his petition for help, this Roman centurion declares that he is not worthy to receive Jesus under his roof. This is the same language of proper military form used by a Roman general in humble response to the emperor who announces his favor with a proposed visit to his home. Jesus responds that he has not found in Israel this kind of ready acknowledgement of the obligation of obedience to the will of God and of himself as the One sent by God. As God, the Son of God, Jesus is greatly pleased by his the Roman's admirable faith in Him. As a man himself, being fully human, and especially as a Jew, Jesus acknowledges the marvel of the Roman pagan's unquestioning belief in his authority as one sent from the God of Israel.

:See also the parallel New Testament passages regarding legitimately ordained human authority: :*[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A1-10&version=RSVCE Romans 13:1-10]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A13-23&version=RSVCE 1 Peter 2:13-23]; :*[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23%3A1-3&version=RSVCE Matthew 23:1-3]; :*[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+13%3A17&version=RSVCE Hebrews 13:17]; :*[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+5%3A18-20&version=RSVCE 2&nbsp;Corinthians 5:18-20 "''ambassadors for Christ''"]. <br> —See [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambassador '''Ambassador''' definition (merriam-webster.com)]

:Matthew 8:1010a:"'''''marveled'''''—'''έθαύμασε''' ''ethaumase''"—not in the sense of that the Lord Jesus was suddenly shocked, surprised, astonished or amazed at the man's faith, as if this "caught Him off guard", as if Jesus was totally unaware of the faith in the man's heart before that moment, but . Jesus rather "'''admired'''" his "'''marvelous'''", free expression of faith in Him as "''highly commendable''", "''profoundly impressive''", an "admirable example" to others, as an instructive practical expression to his followers of "praiseworthy confidence", to be heeded and learned from, and. It was, in fact, an act of faith most delightfully pleasing personally to Himself as Lord, especially coming from a Gentile.

:"I have not found so great a faith". From this particular mention of faith in the New Testament, we may gather that ''faith, belief'' (as well as ''unbelief'') is in both the understanding and the will, . The Lord thus characterized the centurion's faith as being the result of deliberation and free choice; deliberation being . Deliberation is the province of the understanding; free choice, is the offspring of the will. This contradicts the firm doctrinal assertion of [[Calvinism]] that the soul has no free will to believe in the Lord, and that the gift of free will is bestowed solely on the elect alone. This requires a response based on the same inspired sacred scripture of the Bible which John Calvin cites as authoritative for the rule of faith and practice.

:Jesus is both God and man, divine and human. <br>As a man and a devout Jew, Jesus admired the centurion's marvelous faith in his authority. <br>As God, Jesus was well-pleased with the centurion's faith in him. (See Luke 23:39-43) <br> In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit testifies that God can indeed be delighted and pleased with admirable men of faith and obedience who freely choose to honor Him with truth and good works.This is evident in the words of the following scripture passages:

:In his ''Institutes of Christian Religion'' '''[[John Calvin]]''' teaches that man cannot please God, that they human souls have no free will to choose to do what is pleasing to Him, for it is God alone who does in man whatever is pleasing to him : ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A13&version=RSVCE Philippians 2:13]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+9%3A24&version=RSVCE Jeremiah 9:24]). :If human beings have no [[free will]] to choose to do either good or evil they cannot of themselves merit either praise or blame, for according to Calvinist doctrine they cannot choose to do otherwise; . ''of Of themselves'' they men and women can neither please nor displease God, though by nature they are displeasing to Him, and therefore . Therefore they have no personal moral responsibility for what they do and what they fail to do. Those who actually do good by the irresistible, sovereign grace of God's [[Predestination|election]] cannot of themselves merit praiseas if they of their own free will choose to do good, for they only do what good He wills by his sovereign pleasure alone. ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17%3A10&version=RSVCE Luke 17:10]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A13&version=RSVCE Philippians 2:13]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4%3A11&version=KJV Revelation 4:11 KJV "for thy pleasure"]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4%3A11&version=RSVCE Revelation 4:11 "by thy will"]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9%3A18-19&version=RSVCE Romans 9:18-19]). They have no free will. :Calvin reasons that if men are "dead in trespasses and sins" they are spiritual corpses, and a corpse has no will to decide to do anything, good or bad. ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A1-3&version=RSVCE Ephesians 2:1-3]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+115%3A17&version=RSVCE Psalm 115:17]; compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+9%3A4-10&version=RSVCE Ecclesiastes 9:4-10]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1%3A10&version=RSVCE Jude 10]). They :Calvinists reason that souls only act by instinct as irrational animals. They are dead in trespasses and sins. They Because they have no free will. Those , the logical conclusion is that those who displease Him by nature cannot merit any blame or personal responsibilityfor what they do by instinct, for they are by nature deprived of the grace of God , a sanctifying grace which in strict justice He is not obligated to bestow, and sovereignly withholds from most of them, in order to allow them to fulfill without any interference their inherently self-destructive destiny, being by nature "children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). They , for they have no free will. For this very reason Jesus could should not have been amazed or astonished by the faith of the centurion—that is, if the man had no free will. Calvin adamantly insists that Jesus is the divine Son of God. He knew all men and what is in man. Calvin insists that Jesus is fully divine, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The fulness of Deity was, is, and ever shall be in Him. The Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of Jesus, the only one who knows the Father, for all that the Father has, Jesus has. He is in the Father and the Father is in him.

:This point must be [[Reiteration|reiterated]]. According to the [[Calvinism|Calvinist]] doctrine of election nothing good that men do could possibly cause him surprise or amazement or admiration for any reason; for . For according to this doctrine the Lord Jesus would already know that they are acting solely according to the sovereign choice of the irresistible grace of God's election, and they cannot do otherwise. Nothing good is done by the dead will of man: "there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Romans 3:12). The glory belongs to God alone. The doctrine of election in Calvinist theology is not based on whether the predestined elect evidently manifests the habitual practice of good or evil. What one does, either good or bad, has absolutely no bearing whatever on the Calvinist doctrine of election. Good works are evidence of the operative grace of the sovereign Lord God "who alone is good", but they are not [[ipso facto]] therefore an infallible sign of the Irresistible Grace of Election unto Salvation and Eternal life in Heaven. See [https://jesusisworthy1.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/calvins-view-of-the-trinity-2/ '''Jesus is Worthy - Calvin's View of the Trinity''', J. Wesley Carpenter (jesusisworthy1.wordpress.com)]<br>Compare '''[[Eternal security (salvation)]]''' and '''[[Fatalism]]'''.

:'''[[Jacobus Arminius|Jakob Hermanszoon]]''' ([[Arminianism]]) opposed this view in favor of the reality of free will in man. He is among those believers who hold that God is pleased when his creatures, who by nature He has made capable of choosing either good or evil, freely choose to act righteously, even when they are pressured by circumstance or the [[deceit]] of [[specious reasoning]] to choose evil. (Compare '''[[Job]]'''.)<br> Whoever says that God is not delighted with people that He has seen within the body of the fallen human community as being truly worthy of praise, and admirable in His sight—because of their willing righteousness in freely choosing Him and seeking to do His Will, by voluntarily not resisting the available assistance of His grace—whoever says that God is not delighted with them, does not know the Bible, and contradicts the Scriptures. See [https://www.biblegatewayccel.comorg/passageccel/?search=Jeremiah+9%3A24&version=RSVCE calvin/institutes.toc.html John Calvin, '''Jeremiah 9:24''Institutes of the Christian Religion']; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A24&version=RSVCE '''Mark 12:24'''(ccel.org).]

:Their freely chosen path of righteousness pleases the Lord, but their deeds of righteousness and goodness cannot '''[[ipso factoJacobus Arminius|Jakob Harmenszoon]]'' ' ([[Arminianism]]) opposed this view in favor of themselves save them from the death merited by the collective guilt reality of the human race descended from guilty Adam ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+49%3A7-15&version=RSVCE Psalm 49:7-15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom+2%3A23-24&version=RSVCE Wisdom 2:23-24free will]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5%3A12-19&version=RSVCE Romans 5:12-19]; [https://www.biblegatewayin man.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9%3A14-28&version=RSVCE Hebrews 9:14-28 "to save He is among those Christian (and Jewish) believers who hold that God is pleased when the human creature made in His Own Image acts righteously. They are eagerly waiting for him"persuaded from their reading of the scriptures that God has sovereignly made man capable by nature of choosing either good or evil and therefore human beings are able to freely choose the good, even when they are pressured by circumstance or the [[deceit])] of [[specious reasoning]] to choose evil. (Compare '''[[PelagianismJob]]'''.)

:The Calvinist view of Arminian Protestants are convinced that God is delighted with people that He has [[original sinOmniscience|omnisciently]] is analogous to seen within the pagan idea body of "bad blood", which holds that the (rumored) guilt of an entire family or clan or tribe or ethnic groupfallen human community struggling to do right, with a long-established reputation for inherent (inherited) criminalwho defend justice and truthfulness, social, religious wicked behaviorand are therefore regarded by Him as being truly worthy of praise, belongs even to those innocent individuals who and admirable in contradiction His sight. They see the Lord as pleased with them because of their heritage have actually demonstrated consistently that they themselves fundamentally differ willing righteousness in character from freely choosing Him and seeking to do His Will, by voluntarily not resisting the bad reputation available assistance of His grace. They insist from their own reading of the Bible as a whole family or tribe, by actions that are actually law-abiding, innocent, and morally righteous, and whoever says that they themselves as individuals do God is not personally deserve to be charged delighted with having the same wickedevident deeds of righteousness in man, guilty character as the rest of their people. However good they seem scripture bearing witness to bethem, is someone who does not know the Bible, their good deeds are unjustly rejected as utterly worthless and [[Hypocrites|hypocritical]]contradicts the Scriptures. They are judged automatically guilty of being ''inherently'' bad because of their association with grieve over the name and bloodline influence of those scholars who by their family and people. And whatever good they do and have done personally, commentaries and books promote the evidence Calvinist doctrine of their own good deedsIrresistible Grace, and their obvious personal characterLimited Atonement, in clearly having no part personally in the guilt Total Depravity of what their forebears or their own parents, brothersman, sisters and relatives have done, still does not absolve them of the inherent guilt denial of having "bad blood"Free Will, in what they claim is an opposition to the eyes evident doctrine of "decent, law-abiding Christians". Even their infants and children are judged guilty "from the womb"Bible by turning the truth of scripture into a lie. <br> (Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+58%3A3-4&version=RSVCE Psalm 58:3-4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+1%3A4&version=RSVCE Isaiah 1:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+139%3A22-233A24&version=RSVCE '''Jeremiah 13:22-23]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+18&version=RSVCE Ezekiel 18]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+9%3A3-19&version=RSVCE Daniel 9:3-1924''']; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=EzraMark+912%3A6-153A24&version=RSVCE Ezra 9'''Mark 12:6-1524'''].)

:If the centurion had no According to Arminian Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox, mankind—Adam—both men and women, have free will to exercise faith in the word . Their freely chosen path of Jesus (Matthew 8:10-12)righteousness pleases the Lord, his faith was no marvel worthy but their deeds of admiration or praise. Calvinist doctrine maintains that all glory belongs to God alone. Therefore the centurion righteousness and goodness cannot ''of himself[[ipso facto]]'' of themselves save them from the death merited by the collective guilt of the whole human race as heirs truly descended from guilty Adam the father of all mankind who by birth bear his name and his nature as man (Hebrew, '''has no faith'adam''). He is not responsible. He has no free will. It is a gift, an offer he can't refuse. According to Calvin, irresistible grace. He can neither accept it nor refuse it. He merits neither praise nor blame for what he does. Jesus, who is God the Son, as God, already knows what is in man. He is therefore represented as marveling at what God the Father has done, the Father whom the Son alone truly knows ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=LukeGenesis+105%3A223A1-2&version=RSVCE Luke 10Genesis 5:22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2%3A11-16&version=RSVCE 1 Corinthians 2:11-16]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=RomansPsalms+849%3A9&version=RSVCE Romans 8:9]). Jesus is thus seen marveling, not at the faith of the centurion, but at what the Father has sovereignly done with the centurion by his divine will, the Father he fully knows'''!''' ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+5%3A193A7-2015&version=RSVCE John 5Psalm 49:197-2015]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JohnWisdom+142%3A103A23-1124&version=RSVCE 14Wisdom 2:1023-1124]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JohnRomans+25%3A253A12-19&version=RSVCE John 2Romans 5:2512-19]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+49%3A133A14-1428&version=RSVCE Hebrews 49:1314-1428 "to save those who are eagerly waiting for him"]). The centurion therefore is not personally responsible for the faith he expresses, if he has no free will, for then God alone would be responsible. The real wonder, then, would not be the faith expressed by the centurion, but that Jesus marveled'''!''' <br> Most Christian believers conclude that the Calvinist position, based on "proof texts" that man has no free will to exercise a praiseworthy faith in him, is fundamentally a contradiction of the Bible as a whole (:Compare [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|Proof textingPelagianism]]).

:The Calvinist view of [[original sin]] is analogous to the pagan idea of "bad blood". The doctrine of "bad blood" holds that the (rumored) guilt of an entire family or clan or tribe or ethnic group belongs even to innocent individuals who by birth alone are members of their racial or ethnic community. The guilt of an entire family, clan, tribe, ethnic group or nation with a long-established reputation for inherent (inherited) criminal, social, religious wicked behavior, is held to belong by nature even to those innocent individuals who in contradiction of their heritage have actually demonstrated consistently that they themselves fundamentally differ in character from the bad reputation of their own whole family or tribe. They may have actually demostrated by their own personal actions that they are actually law-abiding, innocent, and morally righteous, and that they themselves as individuals do not personally deserve to be charged with having the same wicked, guilty character as the rest of their people. But however good they seem to be, because of the doctrine of "bad blood", their good deeds and evident individual character are unjustly rejected as utterly worthless and [[Hypocrites|hypocritical]]. They are judged automatically guilty of being ''inherently'' bad because of their association with the name and bloodline of their family and people. They belong to them. They are irrevocably branded as one of them by name and nature and instinct. "Sooner or later, bad blood will out." It is inevitable. The enormous, indelible guilt of an entire people for the unforgettably monstrous outrage of unfathomable evil that they committed against all purity and goodness and decency cannot simply be overlooked, wiped out and forgotten as if it never happened. It remains. A few individuals cannot erase that wound. Every one of them is a reminder of the horror. The presence of even one of them in the community is an offense, an outrage against decency. And whatever good they do and have done personally, and the evidence of their own good deeds, and their obvious personal character in both manner and speech, in clearly having no part personally in the guilt of what their forebears or their own parents, brethren, sisters and relatives have done, this still does not absolve them of the inherent guilt of having "bad blood" in the eyes of "decent, law-abiding Christians". Even their infants and children are judged guilty "from the womb". They have the name, they have the guilt. Popular dramas set in 19th century America (such as [[Westerns]]) frequently illustrate the dynamic of various [[prejudice]]s regarding "bad blood". See [[Racism]] and [[Xenophobia]]. ::(Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+58%3A3-4&version=RSVCE Psalm 58:3-4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+1%3A4&version=RSVCE Isaiah 1:4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+13%3A22-23&version=RSVCE Jeremiah 13:22-23]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+18&version=RSVCE Ezekiel 18]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+9%3A3-19&version=RSVCE Daniel 9:3-19]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra+9%3A6-15&version=RSVCE Ezra 9:6-15].) :The doctrine of [[original sin]] asserts that every descendant of Adam has inherited his guilt. Proof is seen in the fact that all human beings die because of the guilt of that sin. (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:17-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Calvin reasons that spiritual death means the spiritual power of will in mankind is dead: as a corpse has no life and no freedom of will, so mankind, dead in trespasses and sin has no spiritual life (Ephesians 2:1-3; Ecclesiastes 9:10); and as the will of any corpse is dead, so Calvin reasons that it logically follows that a spiritual corpse has no life and therefore no will. A criminal convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death and summarily executed no longer has any will to appeal to the court and remains a guilty corpse with no free will. But Calvin's reasoning contains a fatal flaw that contradicts the Bible.  :If the centurion had no free will to exercise faith in the word of Jesus (Matthew 8:10-12), then his faith was no marvel worthy of admiration or praise by the incarnate Lord. Calvinist doctrine maintains that all glory belongs to God alone. Therefore the centurion, ''of himself'', '''has no faith'''. He is not personally responsible for his faith if he has no free will. It is a gift, an offer he can't refuse. According to Calvin, irresistible grace. He can neither accept it nor refuse it. He merits neither praise nor blame for what he does or for the faith he has in Jesus. Jesus, who is God the Son, as God, already knows what is in man. The Calvinist interpretation of the Gospel represents the Lord as illogically marveling at what God the Father does by the Spirit, the Father whom the Son alone truly knows intimately, whom God cannot possibly surprise or astonish, he who is "in the bosom of the Father" John 1:18; 7:29; 14:11; John 5:19-46. ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A22&version=RSVCE Luke 10:22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2%3A11-16&version=RSVCE 1 Corinthians 2:11-16]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A9&version=RSVCE Romans 8:9]). :According to the interpretive theology of Calvinism, Jesus is thus seen marveling, not at the faith of the centurion, but at what the Father has sovereignly done with the centurion by his divine will, the Father Whom he so fully knows'''!''' ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+5%3A19-20&version=RSVCE John 5:19-20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A10-11&version=RSVCE 14:10-11]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A25&version=RSVCE John 2:25]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4%3A13-14&version=RSVCE Hebrews 4:13-14]). :If the centurion who approached Jesus has no free will, he is therefore not personally responsible for the faith he expresses, and he merits neither credit nor praise, for then God alone would be responsible, and Jesus would instead be praising himself and the Father in him and he in the Father, to whom alone glory belongs, not the centurion. The real wonder, then, if the centurion has no free will, would not be the faith expressed by the centurion, but that Jesus marveled at that faith'''!''' But if the man has free will, and is freely expressing his own personal confident trust in Christ of his own free will, by the enabling gift of God and his willing consent to the influence of that gift, which he freely embraces, he does merit praise from the Lord for his marvelous faith in personally responding to that gift. :Most Christian believers conclude that the Calvinist position, based on "proof texts" that man has no free will to exercise a praiseworthy faith in him, is fundamentally a contradiction of the Bible as a whole ([[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|Proof texting]]). See for example ::Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:14-24; Psalm 25:12; Proverbs 1:28-30; Isaiah 1:2; 7:15-16; 56:4-5; 65:12; Ezekiel chapter 18; Malachi 1:6-14; John 5:14; 7:17; Hebrews 6:4-6; James 2:12; 5:19-20; 2 Peter 2:20-22; 3:14. :See [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius?show=worksBy '''Works by Jacobus Arminius''' (ccel.org)]. :Compare the official Catholic ("papist") doctrine on free will: :*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm '''''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' (CCC), Part Three Life in Christ, Section One Man's Vocation Life in the Spirit, Chapter One The Dignity of the Human Person, Article 3 Man's Freedom''' (scborromeo.org)]. :Compare the Orthodox understanding of free will::*[http://orthodoxyinfo.org/AzkoulFreeWill.htm '''On the Faith - An Introduction to the Orthodox Christian Understanding of Free Will''', By Father Michael Azkoul (orthodoxyinfo.org)]:*[http://saintandrewgoc.org/home/2014/7/7/the-free-will-of-man-according-to-the-holy-orthodox-christia.html '''The Free Will of Man According to the Holy Orthodox Christian Church''' - St. Andrew Greek Orthodox Church (saintandrewgoc.org)]:*[https://carm.org/quotes-orthodox-church-fall-grace '''Orthodox Church Quotes on Fall, Free Will, Good Works, Grace''', by Matt Slick - Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (carm.org)] :The Gospel says that Jesus "'''marveled'''" Greek '''έθαύμασε''' ''e'''thauma'''se'' / '''έθαύμασεν''' ''e'''thauma'''sen''—See [https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=nkjv&strongs=g2296 Strong's number ''2296'' '''θαυμάζω''' ''thaumazō''] to wonder; by implication, to admire, to have in admiration, to marvel, to wonder at; from [https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2295 ''2295'' '''θαῦμα''' ''thauma'':—admiration]. <br> Jesus admired the centurion's faith.

:In the ordinary realm of human experience, there are people of extraordinary abilities, whose careers span decades, who are a constant marvel and source of admiration. We Over time we are not entirely surprisedat their admirable abilities, knowing what we can probably expect of them, but we are still amazed and we sincerely do admire them, and we marvel. Jesus was not suddenly astonished by the centurion's faith, as if he did not know his heart and was unexpectedly surprised at something entirely new; he understandably appreciated, admired and marveled at this kind of confident faith. It was a faith freely expressed, an act of free will, the . The Roman centurion, with his own personal moral responsibility for having freely chosen—without any irresistible spiritual compulsion or influence sovereignly imposed on him from above without his consent—freely choosing chose to have complete faith in Jesus and the power of his word. This is ''Marvelous! Wonderful! Admirable!'' In And in the face of willful resistance by the leading elders, priests, scribes and Pharisees of the Jews, by contrast, his freely offered faith is ''Refreshing! Consoling!''

:It If it is true that the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. It , it is also true that those on whom his irrevocable gifts and calling have been bestowed can reject them. He has not withdrawn them. They have withdrawn themselves. No According to his word no one can take them out of his hand hand—but they can choose to depart. ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A27-30&version=RSVCE John 10:27-30]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A38-39&version=RSVCE Romans 8:38-39]), :but they can choose to depart ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A31&version=RSVCE John 8:31]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A1-6&version=RSVCE 15:1-6]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+1%3A6-7&version=RSVCE Galatians 1:6-7]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10%3A35-39&version=RSVCE Hebrews 10:35-39]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2%3A5&version=RSVCE Revelation 2:5], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2%3A10&version=RSVCE 10], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2%3A25-26&version=RSVCE 25-26]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3%3A2-3&version=RSVCE 3:2-3], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3%3A15-19&version=RSVCE 15-19]).

::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A17&version=RSVCE 2&nbsp;Peter 3:17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+10%3A12&version=RSVCE 1&nbsp;Corinthians 10:12]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A45-51&version=RSVCE Matthew 24:45-51]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A4-6&version=RSVCE John 15:4-6]). :Calvinism teaches the doctrine that the elect cannot fall away. If this is true, which it would mean that such warnings are unnecessary and superfluous; and . And if it is also true that those not elected unto salvation, whom he sovereignly allows to perish, are naturally not saved, which then it would mean that such warnings are futile, and likewise superfluous. Warnings in either case would therefore make no sense whatever, because they would absolutely make no difference. And by taking all scripture together in context, the Calvinist doctrine of election leads the conservative Bible believer to the logical conclusion that the Bible as a consistently unified whole of divine revelation does not support Calvinism.

:Against this Thus, against Calvinist doctrine, sacred scripture teaches that it is possible to please God with admirably marvelous faith, a gift freely accepted in the heart and soul and mind, not refused. And while '''[[Arminianism]] ''' teaches the doctrine that one who has been saved by grace can fall away, it also maintains that once one has fallen away from the truth it is impossible to restore that soul again. Against this doctrine too, sacred scripture teaches that the soul fallen away can be brought back and saved. ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5%3A19-20&version=KJV James 5:19-20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5%3A16&version=KJV 1 John 5:16 - the ]—the "mortal sin" mentioned here meaning [[suicide]], as distinct from the "blasphemy not forgiven in this world or the world to come". Compare commentaries on [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/12-32.htm Matthew 12:32] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/9-18.htm Romans 9:18].):And where The same kind of misinterpretation of the Bible is found in the (Protestant) doctrine of '''[[Traditionalism]] ''' which denies that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel (. This doctrine is based on an interpretation of [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10%3A14-15&version=KJV Romans 10:14-15])as applying strictly to individuals, against and never to whole communities as in the days of the preaching of the apostles to whole assemblies of people who gathered to hear them, and converted by the thousands, hundreds and tens, with their families and children together, accepting Jesus Christ as the Savior sent by God to free them from their sins and cleanse their souls. Against this Traditionalism doctrine also—the doctrine that regeneration only follows hearing and responding to the Gospel—against this doctrine many cite what they have traditionally interpreted as Bible support for salvation through being "[[Baptism|baptized]] into Christ" through the "washing of water with the word" , and the fact that "even infants were brought to him to be blessed" and he received them, saying "Forbid them not", so that even infants without understanding can receive in their souls the blessing of salvation through baptism into Christ, and that this has always been the "tradition" by "word" as handed down from the apostles of the Lord, that whole "households" and "all their families" with all "your children" were baptized.::('''KJV—''' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+6%3A3-11&version=KJV Romans 6:3-11]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3%3A21&version=KJV 1 Peter 3:21]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10%3A19-22&version=KJV Hebrews 10:19-22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+22%3A16&version=KJV Acts 22:16]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A25-27&version=KJV Ephesians 5:25-27]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A39&version=KJV Acts 2:39]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+11%3A14&version=KJV 11:14]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+16%3A15&version=KJV 16:15], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+16%3A31&version=KJV 31], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+16%3A33&version=KJV 33]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+18%3A8&version=KJV 18:8]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A15-17&version=KJV Luke 18:15-17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+2%3A13-15&version=KJV 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+13%3A17&version=KJV Hebrews 13:17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2%3A2&version=KJV 2 Timothy 2:2], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2%3A23-25&version=KJV 23-25]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ActsJude+1%3A3&version=KJV Jude 3]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A393A14-18&version=KJV Acts 2Peter 3:3914-18]. —''Especially'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+22%3A9-10&version=KJV Psalms 22:9-10]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ActsPsalms+1158%3A143A3&version=KJV 1158:143]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ActsPsalms+1671%3A153A6&version=KJV 1671:156], ; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ActsJeremiah+161%3A313A5&version=KJV 31Jeremiah 1:5]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A41&version=KJV Luke 1:41], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ActsLuke+161%3A333A44&version=KJV 3344]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1817%3A83A27-28&version=KJV 18Acts 17:27-28]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A26&version=KJV Romans 8:26]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+1%3A15&version=KJV Galatians 1:15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A9&version=KJV 2 Peter 3:9]):See the following articles regarding "household salvation" and "infant baptism"::*[https://www.compellingtruth.org/household-salvation.html '''Is household salvation biblical?''' (compellingtruth.org)] <br> — the writer says no.:*[http://netbiblestudy.com/00_cartimages/householdsalvation.pdf '''Household Salvation''' (netbiblestudy.com)] pdf — Testimonies of the [[Saint Ambrose|Bishop of Milan]] regarding Saint Monica mother of [[Saint Augustine]], Catherine Booth wife of William Booth founder of the [[Salvation Army]], [[Jonathan Edwards]], Dr. A.J. Gordon, founder of [[Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary|The Gordon Bible Theological Seminary]], and examples of other households unnamed, two mothers, a father converted to Christ, and his son. <br> — the writer says yes.:*[https://www.gotquestions.org/household-salvation.html '''What does the Bible say about household salvation?''' (gotquestions.org)] <br> — the writer says no.:*[https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism '''Infant baptism''' (catholic.com)] <br> [https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism '''Early teachings on infant baptism''' (catholic.com)] quotes from [[Irenaeus of Lyons|Irenaeus]] (A.D.189), Hippolytus (215), [[Origen]] (248), Cyprian of Carthage (253), [[Gregory of Nazianzus|Gregory of Nazianz]] (388), [[John Chrysostom]] (388), [[Saint Augustine|Augustine]] (400, 488, 412), Council of Carthage V (401), Council of Mileum (416) <br> — the ancient sources say yes.:See especially '''[[Great Apostasy]]'''. :"I have not found so great a faith, not even in Israel". Commentaries are divided on the speculative possibility that the centurion (Matthew 8:5-10) may have been the first Gentile convert to manifest saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. See [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/8-10.htm multiple commentaries on Matthew 8:10]. :Not one of the whole nation of Israel had manifested such ready acceptance of the obvious evidence of Jesus' authority being from God as did the Roman centurion. This included even Jesus' own disciples and apostles personally drawn by Him from among the Jews. Even Nathanael was hesitant when first told about Jesus. And Thomas refused to believe what he was told without evidence he could see and touch. Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10%3A1-11%3A18&version=RSVCE Acts 10:1–11:18] where even Peter and the other apostles and the brethren (believing Jews) had '''not believed''' the Gentiles could repent, but afterward did believe. In contrast to the unbelief of the Jewish Christians who believed in Jesus, Cornelius and his friends and his whole household had immediately accepted Peter's words about Jesus as Lord and Savior—the Holy Spirit fell on them and they too spoke in tongues, as a sign to Peter and the brethren with him that God had also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life'''!''' The [[Great Commission]] to the apostles to "go into all the whole world" to make disciples of "all nations" implicitly included making the Gentiles disciples and baptizing them. ::(Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:45-48; John 20:21-23; Acts 1:7-8), :The apostles had not yet understood this, thinking that Jesus meant all Jews throughout the world, and therefore they themselves had '''not believed''' that God has granted even to the Gentiles repentance unto life, until they were shown by revelation of the Holy Spirit and His falling on them with the sign of [[Speaking in tongues|tongues]]. "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not" 1&nbsp;Corinthians 14:22 (KJV). ::Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+18%3A25-26&version=RSVCE '''Acts 18:25-26'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+19%3A1-7&version=RSVCE '''19:1-7''']. :It is possible to have true belief and yet still need further instruction to correct the defect of [[Ignorance|ignorant]] unbelief, like the apostles themselves in the beginning. Tongues are therefore evidence of ignorant unbelief among believers who have true faith in Christ, but an incomplete and ignorant faith, who nevertheless still need correction and further instruction in the faith about things they do not yet believe, and perhaps have never heard before, but things which are part of the full Gospel. According to St. Paul, speaking in tongues will not convince outsiders and those without faith, who are unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:23-25), but [[prophecy]] will: "if all prophesy...the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you." (RSVCE) (See [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+5%3A20&version=RSVCE 2 Corinthians 5:20].)

:Not one of the whole nation of Israel had manifested such ready acceptance of the obvious evidence Conservative Christian believers reject every interpretation of scripture [[Specious reasoning|speciously]] adduced by some [[Exegesis|exegetes]] as apparently demonstrating (to them) that Jesus' authority being from God in his human nature was not also aware with divine knowledge, as did the Roman centurion. This included even Jesus' own disciples and apostles personally drawn Prophet of God foretold by Him from among the JewsMoses ::([https://www. Even Nathanael was hesitant when first told about Jesusbiblegateway. And Thomas refused to believe what he was told without evidence he could see and touchcom/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+18%3A15-18&version=RSVCE Deuteronomy 18:15-18]; [https://www. Compare biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A19-28&version=RSVCE John 1:19-28]). <br>See for example [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ActsJohn+106%3A13A5-6&version=RSVCE John 6:5-6]; also [https://biblehub.com/multi/john/2-25.htm John 2:25]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/john/1-47.htm 1:47]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/john/6-61.htm 6:61], [https://biblehub.com/multi/john/6-64.htm 64]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/mark/2-8.htm 13:11]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/mark/2-8.htm Mark 2:8]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/9-4.htm Matthew 9:4]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/12-25.htm 12:25]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/luke/5-22.htm Luke 5:22]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/luke/6-8.htm 6:8]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/luke/9-47.htm 9:47]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/luke/11-17.htm 11:17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4%3A183A13-14&version=RSVCE Acts 10Hebrews 4:1–11:1813-14] where even Peter and ). :On the other apostles and basis of the brethren (believing Jews) had '''not believed''' whole context of the Gentiles could repentBible, but afterward did believe; while Cornelius and his friends and his whole household had immediately accepted Peter's words about the conservative Christian [[Exegesis|exegete]] can confidently say that Jesus was neither "astonished" nor "amazed" as Lord and Savior—the Holy Spirit fell on them and they too spoke in tongues, as a sign to Peter and he nevertheless "marveled" at the brethren with him that God had also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life'''!''centurion' s faith and "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe notadmired" 1&nbsp;Corinthians 14:22 (KJV)it.

:Conservative Christian believers reject every interpretation Translators who seek to defend the doctrine of scripture [[Specious reasoning|speciously]] adduced by some [[Exegesis|exegetes]] as apparently demonstrating that Jesus in his human nature was not also aware with ' divinity and fulness of divine knowledge as the Prophet of God foretold by Moses consciousness ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=DeuteronomyColossians+181%3A15-183A19&version=RSVCE Deuteronomy 18Colossians 1:15-1819]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JohnColossians+12%3A19-283A3&version=RSVCE John 12:19-283]). <br>See for example , [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JohnColossians+62%3A5-63A9&version=RSVCE John 6:5-6]; also [https://biblehub.com/multi/john/2-25.htm John 2:259]; [https), ://biblehub.com/multi/john/1-47.htm 1:47]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/john/6-61.htm 6:61]and bearing in mind the texts cited above (and others), carefully read the Greek text of the New Testament according to the technical meanings of the actual vocabulary, syntax and grammar of the Greek language, and what is termed the [https://biblehubwww.com/multi/john/6-64.htm 64]; [https://biblehubthoughtco.com/multi/mark/2semantic-8.htm 13:11]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/mark/2field-8.htm Mark 2:8]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/9analysis-4.htm Matthew 9:41691935 "semantical field" (the ''lexical'' context or thesaurus) of relevant words]; , by choosing allowable readings (translations) of them in favor of this truth (see [https://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/12-25.htm 12:25]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/luke/5-22.htm Luke 5:22Dynamic equivalence]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/luke/6-8.htm 6:8]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/luke/9-47.htm 9:47]; [https://biblehub.com/multi/luke/11-17.htm 11:17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4%3A13-14&version=RSVCE Hebrews 4:13-14]. He was neither "astonished" nor "amazed" as he "marveled" at ), readings which are consistent with the centurion's whole context of the Bible and the Christian faith and "admired" it, claiming to be bound by the meaning of the text.

:Translators who seek to defend the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and fulness of divine consciousness ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+1%3A19&version=RSVCE Colossians 1:19]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A3&version=RSVCE 2:3]disagree, [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A9&version=RSVCE 2:9]), bearing in mind the texts cited above (and others), read the Greek text of the New Testament according to who prefer interpretive readings permitted by the technical meanings of the actual vocabulary, syntax and grammar of the particular Greek language, and what is termed words according to the "semantical field" (of the ''lexical'' context or Greek [[Lexicon|lexicon (dictionary, thesaurus)]]) of relevant words, by choosing instead allowable readings (translation) definitions that they know would strongly imply to their readers that Jesus had no divine knowledge of them what is in favor the heart of this truth (see people—translators and exegetes who [[Dynamic equivalencePrejudice|prejudicially]]) which ''reject'' allowed interpretive lexical readings with [[connotation]]s that ''do'' support divine consciousness in Jesus, because they believe Jesus had no divine knowledge—such translators are consistent with the whole context of the Bible and not seeking to defend Him or the Christian faith, claiming to be . They too claim that they are bound by the meaning of the text([[confirmation bias]]). [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A17-18&version=RSVCE 2 Peter 3:17-18].

:Translators who disagree, and prefer interpretive readings permitted by the technical meanings See [https://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/8-10.htm multiple versions of particular Greek words according to the Greek [[Lexicon|lexicon Matthew 8:10]. <br> (dictionary, thesaurus)]], by choosing allowable definitions that they know would strongly imply to their readers that Jesus had no divine knowledge of what is in Note the heart of peopleinteresting but minor difference between texts: <br> '''ἐθαύμασε''' ethoumase, translators and exegetes who [[Prejudice|prejudicially]] <br> ''reject'ἐθαύμασεν' allowed interpretive lexical readings with [[connotation]]s that do support divine consciousness in Jesus, are not seeking to defend Him or the Christian faith, claiming that they are bound by the meaning of the text ([[confirmation bias]]'' ethoumasen.). <br>Compare [https://www.biblegatewaybiblehub.com/passagecommentaries/?search=2+Peter+3%3A17matthew/8-18&version=RSVCE 2 Peter 310.htm multiple commentaries on Matthew 8:17-1810].

:See Many Bible commentators do not actually believe that the eyewitness narrative text of the [[The Gospels|Four Gospels]] in the Bible is true. They do not believe the promise of Jesus in [https://biblehubwww.biblegateway.com/multipassage/matthew?search=John+14%3A26&version=RSVCE John 14:26] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16%3A13-14&version=RSVCE 16:13-14] ("''forever''"—"''into all truth''"). This is evident in the undeniable fact that many of them are convinced that Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10relate the same incident.htm multiple versions They are not the same. ''Just because two similar narratives sound the same does not prove they are the same''. Such an unfounded, [[Specious reasoning|speciously reasoned]], ''[[a priori]] (taken for granted), [[ipso facto]]'' assumption is responsible for [[Ignorance|ignorant]] assertions of unresolvable discrepancies which immediately call into question the truthful reliability of [[the Gospel]], discrepancies that do not in fact exist. (See [[Confirmation bias]].) The conservative Bible scholar who takes the text seriously is sensitive to factual details related in the narrative. In Matthew 8:5-13 "a centurion came forward to him" in person. In Luke 7:2-10a centurion "sent to him elders of the Jews" in his place. These two statements are [[Contradiction|contradictory]]: if the reader and interpreter assumes that both passages ''must'' be relating ''the same identical event'', then they cannot both be factually true. <br> Note If the minor text of the Bible is true, and factual, and worthy of belief, then both Matthew and Luke are true, and factual, and worthy of belief, and Matthew and Luke are relating separate events. The promise of Jesus in [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A26&version=RSVCE John 14:26] is operative here for the conservative [[Biblical Exegesis|biblical exegete]] who believes in [[Biblical inerrancy]]. Difference in narrated details demonstrates difference of event. Moreover, in placing the accounts of the four Gospels side by side, with the assumption that they are all four in chronological order, in placing the accounts side by side as being in chronological order, the account of the healing of a centurion's servant related in Luke appears as a later occurrence than the account of the healing of a centurion's servant related in Matthew, and there is no reason to see any discrepancy between textsthem. This approach is against the assertion of [[Papias]] related by [[Eusebius]] that not all the Gospels are related in order of sequence (''Ecclesiastical History'', Book III, chapter 39). One of the primary purposes of this ''Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)'' is to demonstrate that there is no contradiction or discrepancy in the scriptures of the Bible. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+1%3A16-21&version=RSVCE '''2 Peter 1:16-21''']. Compare [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|Proof texting]].<br/small>  "'''ἐθαύμασεI have not found so great a <big>''faith' '</big>'''" <small>:Matthew 8:10b:The Bible frequently shows that [[faith]] in God is similar to confident expectation (Christian [[hope]]) relating to [[belief]], and that personal faith can affect the fulfilment of the Lord's answer to prayer. "How can God enter in if with doubt we shut him out?" According to the word of Jesus himself, the granting of many of the prayers or petitions for healing presented to him ("I pray thee, I beg of thee, I beseech thee") were dependent solely on the faith of the individual who prayed him to respond to their petition for help ([[Prayer]] and [[Intercession]]). God had made the outcome of his sovereignly willed answers to prayer contingent on our faith alone—"according to ''ἐθαύμασεν'your''' faith" the Father's Will ''will'' be done.<br>Compare '''''If''''' you open the door to Him, '''your faith''' will make possible the response which is only awaiting your '''''[https://biblehubwww.merriam-webster.com/commentaries/matthewdictionary/fiat fiat]''''' to be done, your consent, to be granted. The centurion's express faith (Matthew 8:8) was his ''fiat'' that the Lord's will be done. This doctrine of free will so clearly evident in the Bible absolutely repudiates the [[Calvinism|Calvinist doctrine]] of Irresistible Grace which absolutely denies free will in the souls of men and women, and is thus completely against (''anti-10'') the teaching of Christ as found in the Bible—it is "anti"-Christ.htm multiple commentaries The doctrine of free will in man appears to the Calvinist to deny the absolute sovereignty of God alone as God, by falsely attributing divine power to human faith independent of God, thus making God helplessly subject to human will as supreme, utterly dependent on the consent or ''fiat'' of the creature, instead of the will of God—a doctrine of [[idolatry]]. A "''literalist''" reading of the Bible presents the [[scandal]]ous doctrine that it is human faith alone that heals and works wonders, not God. Does not God's word say that the faith of individuals is the cause? ::"Your faith has made you whole"—he does not say "God has made you whole." ::"Your faith has saved you"—he does not say "God has saved you (''or'') I have saved you". :This example demonstrates that a literalistic "proof texting" of the scriptures alone (''[[sola scriptura]]'') based solely on the words of the text alone is a false and unreliable method of [[exegesis]], which leads only to controversy, and is the reason it has always been and still is the main tool of [[heresy]]. (Compare the hair-splitting distinctions of Jewish [[Pilpul]] and the deviant subtleties of [[Casuistry]].) The literalist claims to be "enchained by the scripture", as the firm basis for his assertions, as [[Jan Hus]] and [[Martin Luther]] also firmly and unswervingly maintained, but only as long as other particular Bible texts do not also by a likewise literalist reading also inescapably contradict the literalist's conclusions and proof texts. Conservative Christians believe firmly that the Bible cannot contradict itself. The abundance of biblical texts already presented here in demonstration, attests to the doctrine of operative personal free will in man and faith as a free expression of the evidently biblical doctrine of free will in man. ''Therefore'' faith is in the will to choose to '''believe in''' and '''consent''' to the willing help of the sovereign God, while faith does not of itself possess the power to directly cause the effect that the Lord himself stands so ready to effect as an act of divine love the moment real faith in him is present. Faith itself is a divine gift of God, according to the majority of Christian theologians. [[Pelagianism]] fundamentally denies that man needs such help, having the ability to come to an intelligent understanding of faith in what is not seen, independent of God's grace. And since according to the Bible God is not willing that any should perish (2&nbsp;Peter 3:9) it seems completely reasonable to believe that the gift of faith is universally available to all mankind, to "whosoever will", to all who choose in their soul to not resist it, but freely accept it (see [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A17&version=KJV '''Revelation 22:17''' KJV]). Thus, whoever has the gift of divine faith has not willed to reject it. Calvinism denies that faith is available to all, that it is only given to those elect whom God has chosen from all eternity to believe in him, those whom he foreknew would believe. According to the doctrine of [[Biblical inerrancy]], a truly Biblical doctrine does not contradict the Bible. The doctrine that each person is personally and morally responsible for freely accepting or rejecting the divine gift of faith in God and in authorized ambassadors sent by him is therefore consistently and completely consonant with the context of the whole as being according to the mind of Christ through the Spirit of the Lord. See [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|Proof text]]. Compare the following undeniable Bible texts::*Revelation 3:20:*Matthew 9:22, 29:*Matthew 15:28:*Matthew 17:20:*Matthew 21:22:*Mark 4:40:*Mark 5:34:*Mark 10:52:*Luke 7:9, 50:*Luke 8:48:*Luke 17:19:*Luke 18:42-43:*Acts 3:16:*Acts 14:9-10].:*Colossians 2:4:*Jude 20-21:*1 Timothy 6:3-5:*2 Timothy 2:14, 23-26:*2 Timothy 3:3-4:

:This was Peter's wife's mother, his Peter's mother-in-law, not "''Jesus' wife's mother''", as if he Jesus had a mother-in-law. Jesus had no wife.<br>The structure of Greek grammar does not point to Jesus but to Peter having the wife whose mother was sick. Moreover, it was Peter's house they entered, not Jesus' house.<br>Compare ''[[The Da Vinci Code]]''.  :See the [http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/8-1114.htm interlinear text of Matthew 8:1114] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/8-1114.htm multiple commentaries on Matthew 8:1114]. <br> Compare ''[[The Da Vinci Code]]''.

:Matthew 8:11b14b

:"'''obey'''". The centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 had acknowledged by faith the reality of the obedience of nature to the word of Jesus. Here again nature obeys. Throughout this ''Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)'' the words "'''obey'''" and "'''obedience'''" are consistently highlighted with boldface emphasis. The issue of obedience to proper authority , and the obedience of faith in God and what God has ordained, is fundamental to the an understanding of righteousness and godliness, [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A16&version=RSVCE 1&nbsp;Timothy 3:16] "[[religion]], [[piety]]" (Greek [https://biblehub.com/greek/2150.htm ''eusebia'']), as revealed within the whole context of the Bible.  :Obedience is an act of the will. If man, male and female, has no free will, disobedience to the will of God is not possible, for according to that doctrine they only act according to their nature, "and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed" Jude 10 (RSVCE). Human beings can choose to disobey. That is why faith and obedience without the coercion of fear and pain are free acts of the will. The will of men can be enslaved in bondage to the will of Satan and the coercion of evil individuals through fear of death. Hebrews 2:15.<br>See the article '''[[Free will]]'''.

:''First'' Matthew 9:2-8, "And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, they brought to him a '''paralytic''', lying on his bed." (The crowd is not mentioned, a house is not mentioned)—"Take heart, '''my son'''; your sins are forgiven." <br>''Second'' Mark 2:1b-12, "It was reported that he was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them. And they came, bringing to him a '''paralytic ''' carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they '''removed the roof ''' above him"—"'''My son''', your sins are forgiven." <br>''Third'' Luke 5:17-26, "On one of those days, as he was teaching, there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was with him to heal. And behold, men were bringing on a bed a man who was '''paralyzed''',...they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed '''through the tiles ''' into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith he said, "'''Man''', your sins are forgiven you."

:The faith of the men who brought a paralytic to Jesus was visible and active: "He saw their faith". In each passage of this Bible narrative, men showed their faith by what they did, by the working of their faith. These Bible passages illustrate the doctrine of James 2:14-26, ''in particular'' [http://biblehub.com/multi/james/2-24.htm '''James 2:24'''] <br> "'''You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone'''". <br> The same doctrine is found in <br> [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A14-18&version=RSVCE 1 John 3:14-18] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=RSVCE Matthew 25:31-46], <br> also [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A10&version=RSVCE Ephesians 2:10]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A12-13&version=RSVCE Philippians 2:12-13] ; and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=EphesiansJeremiah+29%3A103A24&version=RSVCE Ephesians 2Jeremiah 9:1024].

:Matthew 9:9 the 9—the name "Matthew", and <br>Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27 the 27—the name "Levi" 

:The account of Matthew is not here combined with the account of Levi as a redacted text. The account of '''Matthew ''' is here given first as a separate narrative. And both Both accounts of '''Levi ''' in Mark and Luke are redacted as into onenarrative, as a subsequent episode. Textually, the two similar narratives, "Matthew" and "Levi", differ enough to justify presenting both as separate episodes.  :If Levi the son of Alphaeus was ''not'' Matthew (who is never called "the son of Alphaeus"), the fact that the name of Levi the son of Alphaeus is not among the listing of the Twelve, possibly indicates that Levi was among those who left Jesus when the Lord spoke of his flesh and his blood as real food and real drink (John 6:60-66). "Levi son of Alphaeus" may have been the brother of James the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve (not the brother of James and John the sons of Zebedee). Or he may be in fact the same man, both "Levi" the son of Alphaeus and "James" the son of Alphaeus, being called by either name. He would thus be the apostle, [[St. James the Less]], who, like Matthew himself, was a tax collector. Similarly, the apostle Judas son of James, is also called [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A3&version=KJV Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus] (see [https://biblehub.com/matthew/10-3.htm parallel versions of Matthew 10:3]; [https://biblehub.com/mark/3-18.htm Mark 3:18]; [https://biblehub.com/luke/6-16.htm Luke 6:16]; [https://biblehub.com/acts/1-13.htm Acts 1:13]).<br>Tax collectors were held to be unclean traitors to their fellow Jews. Calling ''any'' tax collector to be a disciple was a profoundly significant act in the eyes of the Jews, and shocking to the scribes and Pharisees. If the tax collector Levi son of Alphaeus is James son of Alphaeus, Jesus called two of them. :This proposal is speculative only, and most significantly it disregards the most ancient tradition which unquestioningly attributes both names of Levi and Matthew to St. Matthew the Evangelist.  :While the speculation that Levi son of Alphaeus is not Matthew but James son of Alphaeus does not appear to directly affect biblical doctrine, and for that reason seems inconsequential and harmless, it does reject the ancient tradition of the understanding of the consistent mind of the church over a period of almost two thousand years. This is potentially dangerous. Such novel exegeses as this one at first glance seems to be, however clever, attractive and reasonable they may seem to be, should ''always'' be treated with extreme caution. The biblical exegete suddenly taken with what seems to him or her to be the novelty of a brilliant light of revolutionary insight (which this is not) must weigh carefully the possibility that those ancients closest to the time of the apostles had a tradition of information no longer accessible to us nineteen hundred and fifty years after the fact. Knowledge of the extant ancient writings of the early Christian church leaders following after the apostles is a fundamental requisite for a valid biblical hermeneutic of the original Gospel of the Lord. A military analogy holds that a new second lieutenant may have the theory and rank to command a platoon, but the thoroughly experienced veteran sergeant major with decades of service under him has the solid practical expertise in the field that the new lieutenant would be a fool to ignore if he wants to keep his troops alive and earn their respect. :The original developer and contributor of this encyclopedic feature, ''Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)'' rejects the speculation he has presented here that Levi son of Alphaeus is probably ''not'' Matthew the apostle. According to further additional research it is not exactly new. It is deliberately presented here solely as an instructive example of jumping to a [[Specious reasoning|specious conclusion]] without doing more thorough background research. The original contributor's ''complete rejection'' of the conclusion he has presented here in this feature regarding the identity of Levi son of Alphaeus is an entirely reasonable rejection, firmly based on the solid foundation of the expert [[opinion]]s of highly qualified, carefully reasoned professional researchers in the field of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)]]. Compare [[Peer review]].

:If Levi Consider the son example of Alphaeus was Martin Luther''not'' Matthew (who is never called s documented claim that he himself "the son of Alphaeus"), the fact that the name of Levi the son of Alphaeus is not among a doctor above all the listing of the Twelve, possibly indicates that Levi was among those who left Jesus when the Lord spoke of his flesh and his blood as real food and real drink (John 6:60-66). This Levi son of Alphaeus may have been the brother of James the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve. Or he may be doctors in fact the same man, Popedom"Levi" the son of Alphaeus (scripture scholars and "James" the son of Alphaeus, being called by either name, the apostle ([[St. James the Less]]biblical theologians and ecclesiastical historians), who, like Matthew himself, was a tax collector. Similarly, the apostle Judas son of James, is also called <br> —''from'' [httpshttp://www.biblegatewaybible-researcher.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A3&version=KJV Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus] luther01.html '''Open Letter On Translating By Martin Luther''', 1530. Translated from "Ein sendbrief D.M. Luthers, Von Dolmetzschen und Fürbit der heiligenn" in ''Dr. Martin Luthers Werk'' (see [httpsWeimar://biblehub.com/matthew/10Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1909) Band 30, Teil II, pages 632-3646 Revised and annotated by Michael D.htm parallel versions of Matthew 10:3Marlowe, June 2003]; [https://biblehubStoddard J.com/mark/3-18Rebuilding a Lost Faith.htm Mark 3:18]; [https://biblehub1922, pages.com/luke/6101-16.htm Luke 6:16]102; [https://biblehubsee also Luther M.com/acts/1-13Amic.htm Acts Discussion, 1:13]), 127.<br>Tax collectors were held Luther was steadfastly unconvinced by every attempt to be unclean traitors to their fellow Jewspersuade him, even from scripture, that he was wrong. Calling ''any'' tax collector to be a disciple His defenders declare that he was a profoundly significant act in the eyes right. His detractors represent him as at best an example of the Jews, [[Invincible ignorance]] and shocking to the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus called two of them[[Specious reasoning]].

:Three These texts present three criticisms of Jesus and his disciples, by three distinct groups, in three different settings:

:A conservative textual critic takes the weight of the collective textual witnesses as trustworthy and reliable, in ''every detail'' as recounted in the Gospels, according to Jesus' promise in [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A26&version=RSVCE John 14:26] ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+12%3A6&version=RSVCE Psalm 12:6]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+18%3A30&version=RSVCE 18:30]); and holds as a principle that similarity of narrative does not necessarily prove identity of event''':''' ''just because it sounds the same does not mean it is the same''.

:Cultivated grapes that are ripe and still on the vine already contain alcohol in trace amounts naturally, about one-tenth of one percent, similar to the amount in fresh-squeezed orange juice, and a naturally occurring yeast is always present on the outside of the skins of unbroken grapes. If the skin of the grape is even slightly broken, this natural yeast will begin to cause a mild fermentation of the juice within the berry, and the grape berry containing the resultant new wine will be considered to contain a blessing. <br> "As the new wine is found in the cluster, and ''one'' saith, Destroy it not; '''for a blessing ''is'' in it: … '''" [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/65-8.htm Isaiah&nbsp;65:8]. (''boldface emphasis added'')<br>Grape juice that has been ''[[Pasteurization|pasteurized]]'', killing any naturally occurring yeast and allowing the trace amounts of natural alcohol present in the fruit to dissipate harmlessly, will not ferment ''if kept sterile'', and thus pasteurized grape juice contains no alcohol. <br>In the heat of the ordinary climate in Palestine, a few hours after grapes with the skins have been pressed and the unpasteurized juice with its own natural yeast is stored in pitch-lined clay jars in unrefrigerated rooms, an unavoidable natural process of fermentation begins to change it into wine. After 12 to 24 hours the alcohol content of the stored grape juice ranges from 1 to 3 percent, similar to that of mild beer, due to the natural fermentation action of the yeast of the grapeskins included in the press of the grapes. There is a profound difference between the juice of grapes turning into wine, and spoiled and rotten grape juice and rotten grapes and the juice that happens to come out of them when they are stripped off the vine and discarded to be burned later. They have an unmistakably rotten smell that is utterly unlike the aroma of grape juice being turned into wine by proper natural fermentation.

:New wineskins are flexible, moderately-sized new leather pouches or bags , usually whole animal skins, sewn very tightly together (KJV leather "bottles"), which, when filled with this newly fermenting grape juice in its second phase and carefully sealed, can expand and distend as the gas of the second phase of fermentation is produced and held by the tightly sealed leather "bottle", eventually turning the new wine into "old", with a higher alcohol content of 12 to 18 percent. Once stretched by this fermentation process, the leftover old wineskins , as completely suitable containers for "old wine", are no longer flexible and cannot expand any more, and the increasing gas pressure from the remaining phase of fermentation of another batch of new wine put into them and tightly sealed would burst them. Compare Acts 2:12-15. From this passage and others, it is clearly evident that when Jesus refers to "new wine" and "burst" wineskins or "bottles" he is not speaking of unfermented grape juice.

:See [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hastings/dict2/Page_824.html '''''Hastings Bible Dictionary''''' (1909) p. 824 "'''WINE'''"(ccel.org)].

:The issue is controverted. The Greek word '''οινος''' "''oinos''" (literally, "wine") means simply "the fruit of the vine", an expression similar to the phrase "the fruits of our labors". Ordinarily, the generic phrase "fruit of the vine" generally means "all products of the vine"([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+6%3A1-4&version=RSVCE '''Numbers 6:1-4''']). This includes preserves, raisins, jams, jellies, syrups and all grape-derived beverages, together with the whole spectrum of products of viniculture, all the way from immediately pressed fresh grape juice to carefully refined alcoholic wines derived from fermented grape juice, including what we know today as brandy. (See [[Alcoholic drink]].)

:'''''Against''''' this generally all-inclusive meaning of "the fruit of the vine", [[Fundamentalism|Christian Fundamentalist]] doctrine clearly teaches that wine in the modern sense of an alcoholic drink was not a common drink, especially among the Jews, and that contrary to popular belief, ''[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connoisseur '''connoisseurs'''] of grape juice]'' (as distinct from the average ordinary person) actively sought to stop it from fermenting, and in fact had five different methods available to them to accomplish this. Fundamentalist Christian doctrine firmly asserts that Jesus never used, and in particular that He did not produce in the miracle at Cana, any wine that had any potentially intoxicating properties,

:*and because he absolutely would never promote the sin of drunkenness in the celebration of a wedding feast by providing drunken guests with more than 100 gallons of ''intoxicating'' wine, as distinctly different from ''non-intoxicating'' new wine (John 2:1-11). :The fundamentalist position is clear, that : the very use of wine with ''any'' degree of alcoholic content would therefore immediately constitute a sin of drunkenness the moment it touched the lips, "''the fatal first step''". ::('''KJV texts—''' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9%3A20-27&version=KJV Genesis 9:20-27]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+10%3A9-10&version=KJV Leviticus 10:9-10]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+13%3A4&version=KJV Judges 13:4], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+13%3A7&version=KJV 7], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+13%3A14&version=KJV 14]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+1%3A13-16&version=KJV 1&nbsp;Samuel 1:13-16]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+4%3A16-17&version=KJV Proverbs 4:16-17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+20%3A1&version=KJV 20:1]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+23%3A20&version=KJV 23:20], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+23%3A29-35&version=KJV 29-35]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+31%3A1-7&version=KJV 31:1-7]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+5%3A11&version=KJV Isaiah 5:11], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+5%3A22-23&version=KJV 22-23]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+28%3A7-8&version=KJV 28:7-8]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+35%3A5-8&version=KJV Jeremiah 35:5-8]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+44%3A21&version=KJV Ezekiel 44:21]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+1%3A8-20&version=KJV Daniel 1:8-20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+4%3A11&version=KJV Hosea 4:11]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Habakkuk+2%3A5&version=KJV Habakkuk 2:5KJV]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Habakkuk+2%3A5&version=RSVCE Habakkuk 2:5 RSVCE] [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Maccabees+15%3A39&version=RSVCE 2&nbsp;Maccabees 15:39]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A13-15&version=KJV Acts 2:13-15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14%3A21&version=KJV Romans 14:21]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A18&version=KJV Ephesians 5:18]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A2-3&version=KJV 1&nbsp;Timothy 3:2-3], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A8-9&version=KJV 8-9]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+1%3A7&version=KJV Titus 1:7]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+2%3A3&version=KJV 2:3]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+4%3A3-5&version=KJV 1&nbsp;Peter 4:3-5]),:The fundamentalist conclusion, that the sin of drunkenness is inextricably linked to wine, leading '''''always''''' to poverty, crime, disease, insanity and death, is the basis of the doctrine that the production of alcoholic wine by the sinless Jesus would have involved him in providing immediate opportunity for serious sin. Christian fundamentalists who demand total abstinence teach that what Jesus miraculously produced was fresh grape juice, "the best wine, the good wine", and they assert that no Jew ever got drunk on the wine provided at any Jewish marriage feast, and that being "full of new wine" did not mean being drunk with alcohol but only "full to satiety" (satiated, filled to the full, fully satisfied, unable to consume any more). No one ever became drunk by drinking too much grape juice. (However, grape juice consumed in excessively large amounts does have a strongly laxative effect, usually resulting in episodes of diarrhea.)

:The apostles on the day of Pentecost were accused of being drunk, of being "full of new wine", because each one of the crowd of devout Jews in Jerusalem there from 16 nations, coming together, confounded and amazed because of the sound, heard them each in their own languages loudly telling the mighty works of God (Acts 2:13-15). It seemed to some of them that no sober man would act that way unless he was really inebriated.  :No one ever became drunk by drinking too much grape juice. No one exhibits eccentric or disoriented public behavior as a reaction to drinking too much freshly squeezed grape juice. (However, grape juice consumed in excessively large amounts does have a strongly laxative effect, usually resulting in episodes of diarrhea.) :Consider the relevance of Luke 5:39 to John 2:9-10 and Hosea 4:11

:See, e.g.for example, the following articles::*[https://ia802605.us.archive.org/5/items/oinosdiscussiono00fieliala/oinosdiscussiono00fieliala_bw.pdf "'''Oinos: a discussion of the Bible wine question'''," by Leon C. Field (1883)], 178 pages (ia802605.<br>Also the online article us.archive.org)]:*[http://www.orgsites.com/ky/jesusfirst/_pgg9.php3 '''Jesus And Wine?'''(orgsites.com)]<br>:Both of these discussions are in (partial) contradiction of facts cited in ''Hastings Bible Dictionary'' entry "WINE" above.

:This doctrine asserted by Leon C. Fields that "new wine" in the Bible "''always''" means only non-intoxicating "freshly squeezed grape juice" containing no alcoholic content whatever, is a [[falsehood]] that contradicts the teaching of the Bible, the same Bible which clearly demonstrates that drinking an excess of new wine does produce drunkenness, that new wine "takes away reason". See again Acts 2:13-15 and Hosea 4:11 and those other texts already cited above which specifically mention new wine. While the charge of drunkenness hurled by some of the crowd in [[mockery]] at the behavior of the apostles was not true, it is clear from the context that drunkenness was commonly attributed to the consumption of too much new wine.

:"The Son of man comes eating and drinking and they say, Behold a glutton and a drunkard". " Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34. A public figure who is seen drinking wine with some minimal or moderate alcoholic content might be called a drunkard and a wine-bibber by his detractors and critics, but not one who is seen strictly drinking only freshly-squeezed grape juice instead of wine. No disgrace of drunkenness is attributed to drinking only unfermented grape juice. Excess consumption of food including nonintoxicating beverages is called gluttony, but never drunkenness.

:Compare the refuting arguments in the following two articles::*[http://www.churchhistory101.com/docs/Wine-Ancient-World.pdf '''Wine in the Ancient World Part 1''', R. A. Baker, Ph.D. Ecclesiastical History (churchhistory101.com/docs/Wine-Ancient-World.pdf)]

::—(Leon C. Field, ''Oinos: a discussion of the Bible wine question'' 18531883, pages 76-79).

::" 'Christ never made a drop of alcoholic wine in the grape. In the whole realm of living nature he has never once created an atom of alcohol. That destructive spirit is nowhere a product of nature. Alcohol is a purely artificial product, obtained only by carefully carried out chemical methods. It exists nowhere in nature,' says Dr. Niel Carmichael. <br> "Dr. Eichardson describes alcohol as 'an artificial product devised by man for his purposes.' Similar is the testimony of Sir Humphrey Davy, Liebig, Chapital and Turner. <br> "If Jesus did make an alcoholic substance on this occasion, as Chancellor Crosby, Dr. Moore, and Professor Bumstead would have us believe that he did, then the act was without a parallel in creation." <br>—(''Oinos: A discussion of the Bible wine question'' 18531883, pages 54-55)

:On the night of His Last Supper, Jesus expressly commanded, "'''Do this''', as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me" 1 Corinthians 11:25 (''boldface emphasis added''). We know of no Christian church where, in the ritual of Christian communion, the chief presiding leader, brother, minister, elder, pastor, priest or bishop, takes up a cluster of ripe grapes, and in the presence of the congregation squeezes the fresh grape juice into the cup of blessing that we receive ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+10%3A16&version=KJV 1&nbsp;Corinthians 10:16]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A23=-29&version=KJV 11:23-29]).

:There have been anecdotal accounts Leon C. Field in print and online ''Oinos: a discussion of rare occasions when ordinary grape juice purchased by a the Bible wine question'' quotes documented early church, or provided free records that do mention cases of cost by a local farmer from his grapevines''emergency'', has been prepared a few hours in advance when wine is unavailable for the celebration of the worship serviceLord's Supper, and inadvertently left uncovered indoors on a hot day without air conditioning, and when tasted later documentary accounts which authorize by permission that fresh grapes squeezed into the congregation at cup of blessing by the moment president of communionthe assembly, it has been discovered to have slightly fermentedor that new wine, to may be used for the embarrassment of [[Eucharist]]. But these accounts always relate this authorized practice as the preparers and exception, not the amusement of the pastor and the congregation, who usually forgive what is understandably accepted as an accident. This inadvertently gave them a taste of new winenormal rule.

:Field's discussion cites and quotes ''There have been anecdotal accounts in opposition to his total abstinence position'' abundant evidence put forth by established anthropologists, historians, biblical scholars print and Hebrew and Greek textual critics, who maintain that the normal Bible meaning online of "wine" is the form of drink that varies in alcoholic content and is potentially intoxicating rare occasions when abused ordinary grape juice purchased by ''excessive'' indulgence. ''He dismisses them''a church, in favor or provided free of every permissible exception they allow which supports cost by a local farmer who has extracted and stored pasteurized homemade grape juice from his argument that the ordinary wine in the ancient Middle East and among the Jews of Palestine was ''invariably non-intoxicating and non-alcoholic''own cultivated grapevines, while ignoring every assertion that the ordinary wine was normally intoxicating and alcoholic has been prepared a few hours in content (an example advance of [[Confirmation bias]]; compare the [[Straw man fallacy]]). His citations of scripture are consequently very selective. Those passages which show wine as a blessingworship service, and inadvertently left uncovered indoors on a comforting benefit created hot day without air conditioning. When tasted later by God as a good for mankind, and as a foretaste of the richness and exhilarating joy of congregation at the coming Kingdom moment of God under the authority and rule of the King Messiahcommunion, are always reinterpreted by Field it has been discovered to ''exclude'' the possibility of the image [[Typology|type]] of the ecstasy of spiritual intoxication and cheerful joy caused by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+9%3A13&version=KJV Judges 9:13]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+10%3A5-6&version=KJV 1&nbsp;Samuel 10:5-6]have become slightly fermented, [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+10%3A10-12&version=KJV 10-12]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+16%3A13&version=KJV 16:13]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+104%3A14-15&version=KJV Psalm 104:14-15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+25%3A6&version=KJV Isaiah 25:6]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+9%3A17&version=KJV Matthew 9:17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A44&version=KJV 13:44]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A21&version=KJV 25:21]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+2%3A22&version=KJV Mark 2:22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A46-47&version=KJV Luke 1:46-47]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5%3A37-39&version=KJV 5:37-39]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A22-24&version=KJV 15:22-24], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A32&version=KJV 32]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A1-11&version=KJV John 2:1-11]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4%3A13-14&version=KJV 4:13-14]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7%3A37-39&version=KJV 7:37-39]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A1-8&version=KJV 15:1-8]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14%3A14-19&version=KJV 1&nbsp;Corinthians 14:14-19]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A22&version=KJV Galatians 5:22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A15-20&version=KJV Ephesians 5:15-20 "be not '''drunken''' with wine", he does not say "do not drink wine"]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A4-5&version=KJV 1&nbsp;Timothy 4:4-5]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1%3A12&version=KJV Jude 12]). :Leon Field in his 1883 published paper ''Oinos: A discussion of the Bible wine question'' constantly refers to alcohol as a "stimulant", when in fact it was already known to the 19th century international medical establishment of his day as a "depressant" embarrassment of the central nervous system (not meaning "depressing"). Rarely does Fields clarify for his readers that he means that wine '''''invariably''' (always)'' "'''stimulates'''" the baser passions of lust preparers and aggression by suppressing (depressing) inhibitions, insisting instead that it is a stimulant, and always an evil one, a '''poison''' having utterly no redeeming qualities whatever. Even the mildest state amusement of cheerfulness and exhilaration produced from as little as 1 ounce of wine is presented as physiological proof of poisoning, of a genuinely existing poisoned condition manifesting as the earliest stage of actual drunkenness in which the soul is utterly lost pastor and '''''cannot''''' be saved—'''''not even Jesus Christ Savior''''' (Greek [http://biblehub.com/greek/4990.htm ''Σωτήρ'' "Soter" Savior]) '''''can save that soul !''''' Against the interpretation of the majority of modern scriptural scholars, a state of ''non-salvation'', Greek ''άσωτία'' "asotia"congregation, who usually forgive what is here predicated of ''οίνος'' "onios", wineunderstandably accepted as an accident.::"Drunkenness in all its stages is This inadvertently gave them a state taste of insalvableness. It is a condition in which one not only ''is'' not, but ''can'' not be saved. We believe, however, that this passage predicates ''άσωτία'' of ''οίνος''. We understand very well that this is not the interpretation of the majority of modern expositors." (Field, ''Oinos: the Bible new wine question'', page 118):He dismisses as a [[Great Apostasy|pagan corruption and departure from the pure Gospel of Christ]] the traditional usage of wine in the celebration of the [[Eucharist]] in the ancient [[Apostolic succession|Apostolic]] Orthodox and Catholic Churches as irrelevant (ordinary 100% grape wine is used, having a natural 3 to 12 percent alcohol content only).<br> Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+2%3A15&version=KJV 2&nbsp;Thessalonians 2:15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+1%3A3-4&version=KJV 2&nbsp;Peter 1:3-4].

:Field's discussion cites and quotes, ''in opposition to his total abstinence position'', abundant evidence put forth by credibly established anthropologists, historians, biblical scholars and Hebrew and Greek textual critics, who maintain that the normal Bible meaning of "wine" is the form of drink that varies in alcoholic content and is potentially intoxicating when abused by ''excessive'' indulgence. ''He dismisses them'', in favor of every permissible exception they allow which supports his argument that the ordinary wine in the ancient Middle East and among the Jews of Palestine was ''invariably non-intoxicating and non-alcoholic'', while ignoring every verifiable assertion supported by abundant documentary evidence that the ordinary wine of the Jews in Palestine was normally intoxicating and alcoholic in content. This is an example of [[Confirmation bias]]. (Compare the [[Straw man fallacy]]). His citations of scripture are consequently very selective. Those passages which show wine as a blessing, and a comforting benefit created by God as a good for mankind, and as a foretaste of the richness and exhilarating joy of the coming Kingdom of God under the authority and rule of the King Messiah, are always reinterpreted by Field to ''exclude'' the image of wine as a [[Typology|type]] of the ecstasy of spiritual intoxication and cheerful joy caused by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit ::([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+9%3A13&version=KJV Judges 9:13 "wine which cheers gods and men"]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+104%3A14-15&version=KJV Psalm 104:14-15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+9%3A1-6&version=KJV Proverbs 9:1-6]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+31%3A35-37&version=DRA Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 31:35-37]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+25%3A6&version=KJV Isaiah 25:6]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+9%3A17&version=KJV Matthew 9:17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+2%3A22&version=KJV Mark 2:22]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1%3A46-47&version=KJV Luke 1:46-47]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5%3A37-39&version=KJV 5:37-39]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A22-24&version=KJV 15:22-24], [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A32&version=KJV 32]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A1-11&version=KJV John 2:1-11]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4%3A13-14&version=KJV 4:13-14]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7%3A37-39&version=KJV 7:37-39]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A1-8&version=KJV 15:1-8]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A22-23&version=KJV Galatians 5:22-23]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A15-20&version=KJV Ephesians 5:15-20 "be not '''drunken''' with wine", he does not say "do not drink wine"]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A4-5&version=KJV 1&nbsp;Timothy 4:4-5] with [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom+1%3A13-15&version=RSVCE Wisdom 1:13-15]; and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+1%3A3-4&version=KJV 2&nbsp;Peter 1:3-4]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+19%3A9&version=KJV Revelation 19:9]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A17&version=KJV 22:17]). :Leon Field in his 1883 published paper ''Oinos: A discussion of the Bible wine question'' constantly refers to alcohol as a "stimulant", when in fact it was already known to the 19th century international medical establishment of his day as a "depressant" of the central nervous system (not meaning "depressing"). Rarely does Fields clarify for his readers that he means that wine '''''invariably''' (always) "'''stimulates'''" '''the baser passions of lust and aggression by suppressing (depressing) inhibitions''''', insisting instead that it is a stimulant, and always an evil one, a '''poison''' having utterly no redeeming qualities whatever. Field asserts that even the mildest state of cheerfulness and exhilaration produced from as little as one ounce of wine is physiological proof of poisoning, a genuinely existing poisoned condition manifesting as the earliest stage of actual drunkenness in which the soul is immediately, now, at that very moment of mild inebriation, already, utterly lost and '''''cannot''''' be saved—'''''not even Jesus Christ Savior can save that soul !''''' (Greek [http://biblehub.com/greek/4990.htm ''Σωτήρ'' "Soter" Savior]) '''''— not even at the moment of repentance in the midst of an excessively immoderate drunken state of confusion and facing immediate death !''''' <br>(Recall the "[[good thief]]" on the cross, who was himself doubtlessly doped with the draught of myrrh and wine normally offered at the site of execution, Mark 15:23-27; Luke 23:39-43.)<br> Against the interpretation of the majority of modern scriptural scholars and theologians, Field says a state of ''non-salvation'', [https://biblehub.com/greek/810.htm Greek ''άσωτία'' "asotia"], is predicated of ''οίνος'' "onios", wine. He says,::"Drunkenness in all its stages is a state of insalvableness. It is a condition in which one not only ''is'' not, but ''can'' not be saved. We believe, however, that this passage predicates ''άσωτία'' of ''οίνος''. We understand very well that this is not the interpretation of the majority of modern expositors." (Leon C. Field, ''Oinos: the Bible wine question'', page 118, ''italic emphasis his''.):He concludes that even mildly alcoholic wine is ''per se'' sin (that wine in and of itself is intrinsically sin, not only its abuse, but wine itself is sin)<br>—''Oinos: the Bible wine question'', page 3, quoting Tayler Lewis, American Preface to the "Temperance Bible Commentary", pages xii, xiii. <br>He dismisses as a [[Great Apostasy|pagan corruption and departure from the pure Gospel of Christ]] the traditional usage of pure grape wine in the celebration of the [[Eucharist]] in the ancient [[Apostolic succession|Apostolic]] Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the [[Coptic Church]] and the [[Independent Eastern Churches]]. The ancient antiquity of their traditional use of wine is dismissed by him as wholly irrelevant (ordinary 100% grape wine is used, having a natural 3 to 12 percent alcohol content only).<br> Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+2%3A15&version=KJV 2&nbsp;Thessalonians 2:15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+1%3A3-4&version=KJV 2&nbsp;Peter 1:3-4]. :The greater majority of Christian apologists warn that the practice of abstinence itself can also be immoderate and extreme, that it can be taken too far, an excessive love of physical denial, a "[[gluttony]]" of self-deprivation to the point of physical and mental harm—being actually the opposite of temperance, which consists of humble moderation in all things—and in such cases is evidence of inhuman Satanic pride, [[Pharisees|pharisaically]] exalting one's self over others judged as justly condemned without mercy to hell for being moderately indulgent. Moderation by others in the use of wine is interpreted as a deadly spiritual compromise with gross moral corruption. It is condemned as a form of [[culpable negligence]] through careless moral and spiritual laxity, thus making them culpably guilty for their spiritual prudence of avoiding the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence and excessive self-mortification ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A9-14&version=RSVCE Luke 18:9-14]). See '''[[Envy]]'''. (Compare '''[[Syncretism]]'''.) :In contrast to fundamentalist warnings, those Christians who appeal to the Bible in accordance with their interpretation of the apostolic tradition, condemned by fundamentalists as the traditions of men and corrupt doctrines of devils (Matthew 15:6-9; 1 Timothy 4:1), claim that the true virtue of abstinence is not that a man or woman abstain altogether from wines with alcoholic content, but that he or she abstain from ''immoderate'' use of alcoholic drinks and all other things. Abstinence is understood as avoiding ''excessive'' indulgence in using the good things of creation wrongly, by avoiding any illicit perversion of their proper use into an improper use ( 1 Timothy 4:4-5]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom+1%3A12-15&version=RSVCE Wisdom 1:12-15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A1-4&version=KJV James 4:1-4]). The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion and Lutheran churches, for example, teach that common sense corroborates the consistent, historical human experience that wine, like food, sex, laughter, and dancing, is a good thing when appropriately enjoyed with sensibly responsible moderation in its proper time and context with respect for human dignity <br> ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A4-5&version=RSVCE 1 Timothy 4:4-5]; <br> [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+31%3A35-37&version=DRA Sirach 31:35-37 Douay], <br> [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+31%3A27-28&version=RSVCE Sirach 31:27-28 RSVCE]; <br> [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3%3A1-13&version=KJV Ecclesiastes 3:1-13]). :The representative Catholic doctrine of moderation, which is also held by many other professing Christians, is a doctrine ardently condemned on the Reformation interpretive principle of ''[[sola scriptura]]'' by Protestant Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian writers, who unhesitatingly warn of danger to the soul of man through the [[deceit]]ful compromise of moderation, a moderation which is condemned as a compromise with evil. The ancient traditional doctrine of prudent moderation, as rather an expression of the apostolic virtue of temperance, is clearly put forth as a reasonable, biblical and Christian practice by [[Christian apologetics|mainline Christian apologists]] in the following articles and sources available online::*[https://www.learnreligions.com/temperance-a-cardinal-virtue-542135 Temperance: A Cardinal Virtue. Moderation in All Things, by Scott P. Richert (learnreligions.com)]:*[https://catholicapologetics.org/moral/alcohol.htm Alcohol / Drunkenness (catholicapologetics.org)]:*[http://baltimore-catechism.com/lesson6.htm The Baltimore Catechism #3 (1885) Lesson 6~ Questions '''304-308''' (Baltimore-catechism.com)] ''scroll down the page to ''Q.304'' and following''.:*[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, paragraphs '''2289-2291''' (scborromeo.org)] ''scroll down the page to ''2289. :In 1 Corinthians 6:10 St. Paul clearly states that '''''drunkards''''' will not inherit the kingdom of God. He Yet drunkards are not mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-49 nor in Revelation 21:8, 27; 22:15. St. Paul says nothing about those who drink winein moderation. He even recommends "a little wine" for digestive troubles and other ailments 1&nbsp;Timothy 5:23. He does say, "Do not get '''''drunk''''' with wine, for that is debauchery" Ephesians 5:15-20 (RSVCE). Yet drunkards are He does '''''not mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-49 nor in Revelation 21:8''''' say, 27; 22:15"Do not drink wine. "

:Leon C. Field's assertion that strictly authentic Jewish rabbinical authority and the Torah absolutely forbids the use of any kind of fermented wine at Passover is false. The Torah forbids the '''''eating''''' of anything leavened during the feasts feast of Passover and of Unleavened Bread, and specifies nothing about wine, only that nothing leavened is to be found in their dwellings. This is normally understood in the [[Talmud]] to apply to grain and grain breads and grain products that may be freely eatenat any time outside of the season of Passover and Unleavened Bread, not to any liquids they drink ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12%3A1-51&version=RSVCE Exodus 12:1-51]). By extension, anything that included yeast obtained from any of the five forbidden grains , wheat, rye, oats, spelt, and millet, in the process of its manufacture is regarded as the product of leavening, and therefore as leavened. A distinction is made between "kosher wine" and "kosher for Passover wine". Ordinary "kosher wine" is fermented by using yeast from these five grains. But because the yeast used for producing specifically approved "kosher for Passover wine " is from yeast found on fruit and not from yeast found on the five grains that are forbidden at Passover, the rabbis thus allowed for the legitimate fermented production and enjoyment of kosher for Passover alcoholic wine at the Passover Seder as a sign of gladness and joy at the deliverance of the Lord ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+104%3A14-15&version=KJV Psalm 104:14-15]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+1014%3A103A22-26&version=KJV Deuteronomy 1014:1022-26]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+30%3A13-27&version=KJV 2&nbsp;Chronicles 30:13-27]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+29%3A38-42&version=KJV Exodus 29:38-42]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+2%3A11-13&version=KJV Leviticus 2:11-13]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+23%3A13&version=KJV 23:13]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+15%3A4-10&version=KJV Numbers 15:4-10]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+28%3A14&version=KJV 28:14]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+31%3A30-42&version=DRA Sirach 31:30-42 Douay]–[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+31%3A25-31&version=RSVCE 31:25-31 RSVCE]). See the following articles::*[http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/passover/passover-wine/kosher-for-passover-wine.html '''Kosher for Passover Wine ''' (angelfire.com)]

:*[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tractate-pesachim-chapter-10 '''Babylonian Talmud <nowiki>[BT]</nowiki>: Tractate Pesachim: Chapter 10: Regulations concerning the meal on the eve of Passover and the four cups of wine to be drunk with the meal''' (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)] —''this is an extensive document. Reading time about 2.5 hours''.<br> Potentially intoxicating alcoholic wine was understood in the Talmud as the ordinary wine of Passover, as seen in these two lines from [BT]&nbsp;''Pesachim'' 10: <br> "''&nbsp;'Nor shall a person have less than four cups of wine.' —''How can the rabbis order a thing which might involve danger? " (drunkenness). :In the first century at the time of Jesus, wedding feasts normally lasted 7 days, sometimes longer (for example, [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+24%3A52-55&version=RSVCE Genesis 24:52-55]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Tobit+8%3A19&version=RSVCE Tobit 8:19]). It was entirely the normal, ordinary custom to moderately and intermittently enjoy wine frequently during all that time of feasting, to rejoice with good cheer without getting ''immoderately, excessively'' drunk. An abundance of wine was regarded as a necessary compliment of cheer accompanying celebrations of joy. The fact that "they have no more wine" suggests that the wedding feast at Cana drew a great many more guests than the families had reasonably expected, and no more wine would mean that the joy of celebration would be diminished (but not destroyed). Since the time of the early [[Apostolic Fathers|church fathers]] the marriage feast at Cana has anciently been seen as a prophetic allegory of the kingdom of heaven and the joy of resurrected life in the eternal communion banquet of everlasting fellowship with God ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+12%3A22-24&version=RSVCE Hebrews 12:22-24]). The glory of the realized kingdom of God foretold by the prophets included the image of a great wedding feast of joy, "unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined." Isaiah 25:6. See [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+25%3A6-9&version=RSVCE Isaiah 25:6-9]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+60-62&version=RSVCE chapters 60–62].  :An abundance of alcoholic wine at a Jewish wedding feast does not normally result in drunkard guests, or even intoxication. Almost all of the alcohol ingested in a beverage or food is metabolized at a constant rate, independent of the amount of alcohol ingested. The human body burns about 1/3 to 1/2 oz. of alcohol per hour, representing little less than one average 4 to 8 oz. glassful of wine with a 6%-12% alcohol content, ingested at the rate of one drink per hour. With more of the beverage than that during one hour, alcohol accumulates in the bloodstream, and the person drinking more than 8 oz. of 6%-12% alcoholic wine in an hour becomes intoxicated. The unalterable rate of alcohol metabolism (burned up) in the body, and a prudently decent rate of drinking a moderate amount of alcoholic wine combined with food (which slows the rate of alcohol absorption), substantially supports a lack of ''immoderate'' drunkenness during a 7 day marriage feast with abundant food. One 6 oz. serving of 12% wine in one hour, at the rate of one per hour day and night while feasting at moderate intervals on an available abundance of food, the guests coming and going frequently, will not produce intoxication over a period of 7 days. :The adequate availability of an abundance of fermented alcoholic wine on such an occasion (John 2:10 KJV) does not automatically justify any assumption that that the guests who had '''[https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=nkjv&strongs=g3184 "well drunk"]''' of the wine '''''must''''' have been falling down drunk like pagan Greeks and Romans. This is an utterly unfounded assumption, a form of [[confirmation bias]] based on abstinence [[polemic]], which sees no distinction between a sip of wine and the gluttony of unrestrained drinking of alcohol to the point of mindless imbecility, all indifferently condemned as the single sin of drunkenness damning the soul to [[hell]]. The Bible itself recognizes several degrees of intoxication, from the cheerful joy of light inebriation, to the absolute disgrace of grossly drunken immoral behavior ending in slurred speech, blurred vision, loss of coordination, mindlessly irrational, babbling incoherency, vomit-covered garments and tables, brawling, bruises, falls, hallucinations and unconscious collapse. A responsibly informed Christian [[Hermeneutics|hermeneutic]] charitably assumes the ordinary, historically confirmed cultural meaning that the wedding guests at Cana "''had drunk well''" as Jews, "''rightly, properly''", to at most a point of light or moderate intoxication, thus "''doing well''" (James 2:8; 1&nbsp;Peter 2:15-16) with a prudent measure of reasonable moderation, in accordance with normal Jewish cultural custom, which strongly disapproved of immoderate drunkenness.  :The '''assumption''' of Leon C. Fields and his cited supportive sources that, if the wine at Cana was indeed even mildly alcoholic wine, and the Jewish wedding guests at Cana were ("''of course '''!''' ''") normally all regular "drunkards" as he proposes<br>—the '''assumption''' that they were all drunkards who, using that occasion as a pretext, would therefore have been expected to seize the opportunity to be ''immoderately, excessively, utterly'' intoxicated from an uninterrupted binge of seven days and nights of non-stop drinking of alcoholic wine to the extreme point of vomiting and falling down unconscious in an alcoholic stupor ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+28%3A1-8&version=RSVCE Isaiah 28:1-8]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+4%3A3-5&version=RSVCE 1&nbsp;Peter 4:3-5])<br> —the '''assumption''' that even one sip of alcoholic wine is the unforgivable sin of drunkenness, because Paul says "drunkards cannot inherit the kingdom of God"<br> —the '''assumption''' that Jesus would walk among them and therefore ''ipso facto'' have knowingly, ''sinfully'', provided "a crowd of drunkards" (meaning all of the invited wedding guests) with even more alcohol, 120 to 180 gallons of what the caterer called "the good wine" (an even better wine than they had been drinking, which would certainly and unavoidably enable them all as drunkards to get even more intoxicated)<br>—'''''this assumption''''' is an outstanding example of what the Bible condemns as "rash judgment". <br> [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1-5&version=RSVCE Matthew 7:1-5]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7%3A24&version=RSVCE John 7:24]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A8-14%3A23&version=RSVCE Romans 13:8–14:23]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A4-5&version=RSVCE 1&nbsp;Timothy 4:4-5].  :Wine was a '''food''' in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Israelite_cuisine Ancient Israelite cuisine]. <br> '''[http://biblehub.com/mark/7-19.htm "Thus he declared all foods clean." Mark 7:19]'''. <br> See [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7%3A14-23&version=RSVCE '''Mark 7:14-23''']. <br> See also [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10%3A14-15&version=KJV '''Acts 10:14-15''']; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A20-37&version=KJV '''Matthew 12:20-37''']; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A21&version=KJV '''Matthew 7:21''']; <br> [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7%3A24&version=KJV '''John 7:24'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1-5&version=KJV '''Matthew 7:1-5''']. <br> Compare [[Scandal]], [[Prejudice]], [[Straw man fallacy]], [[Polemic]] and [[Falsehood]].

:Compare ''See especially'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2%3A23-26&version=RSVCE '''2 Timothy 2:23-26'''] and ; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&version=RSVCE '''Romans 14''']; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A11-12&version=RSVCE '''Revelation 22:11-12''']; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15%3A12-14&version=RSVCE '''Matthew 15:12-14'''].

:Compare the results of medical studies of the benefits to health of red wines and other alcoholic beverages in moderation (average 4 oz. to 8 oz. daily and occasionally , on rare occasions, more - ''as at Passover once a year'''!'''''):

He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is lord '''Lord''' even of the Sabbath.”

He said to them, “The Son of Man is lord '''Lord''' of the Sabbath.”

:“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. You shall labor six days, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to '''the L<small>ORD</small> ''' your God. You shall not do any work in it, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your livestock, nor your stranger who is within your gates; for in six days '''the L<small>ORD</small> ''' made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore '''the L<small>ORD</small> ''' blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy.”

Mark 2:23–3:6 <br> Luke 6:1-11 <br> Mark 3:7-12 <br> John 5:1-10<br>Exodus 20:8-11<br>John 5:11-611–6:2 <br> —LXX Wisdom 2:16

:More literally, "'''''on the second first Sabbath'''''" — '''Ἐν Σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ''' ''en Sabbato deuteroproto'' "The Sabbath second-first". <br> See [http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/6-1.htm the interlinear text of Luke 6:1]—the word '''δευτεροπρωτω''' ''deuteroproto'' does not appear.  :The word '''δευτεροπρώτῳ''' "second-first" is absolutely unique in Greek literature, found only here in the Gospel of Luke, and is found in no other Greek author. Moreover, it is not found in the majority of the more ancient authorities, that is, it is not found in the majority of the more anciently authentic authoritative manuscripts. For this reason many recent translations simply read "''On a sabbath''" and entirely omit the phrase in the [[Textus Receptus]] (KJV "And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first").

:The word There is a difference between early and late witnesses in extant Greek texts ([[Bible manuscript evidence|manuscripts]]), between '''δευτεροπρώτῳσαββατω δευτεροπρωτω διαπορευεσθαι''' "second-first" is absolutely unique in Greek literature, found only here in the Gospel of Luke, ''sabbato deuteroproto diaporeuesthai'' and is found in no other Greek author. Moreover, it is not found in the majority of the more ancient authorities, that is, it is not found in the majority of the more anciently authentic authoritative manuscripts. For this reason many recent translations simply read "''On a sabbath'σαββατω διαπορευεσθαι''' ''sabbato diaporeuesthai''" and entirely omit the phrase in the [[Textus Receptus]] (KJV "And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first"). <br> See [http://biblehub.com/multi/luke/6-1.htm multiple versions of Luke 6:1].

:The academic question of the precise meaning and intent of '''δευτεροπρώτῳ''' ''deuteroproto'' is of interest to the antiquarian scholar, but is scarcely of any interest to the [[Theology|theologian]]. Such details are not entirely trivial, but this one has no direct impact on the message of the Gospel or on the question of the reliability of the transmission of the text of the Bible. <br> ''See'' [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/6-1.htm ''multiple commentaries on'' Luke 6:1].<br>Some interpreters understand this in reference to Passover, pointing either to the first and second solemn assemblies at the beginning and end of the seven days of Unleavened Bread, the 15th and 21st of Nisan, each of which was a holy sabbath-day apart from the regular weekly sabbath observed on Saturdays, or alternatively to the first day of Unleavened Bread Nisan 15 as the second sabbath of the holy season immediately following the day of the feast of the Passover of Nisan 14 as the first sabbath ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+28%3A16-25&version=RSVCE Numbers 28:16-25]). The text does not, however, say this explicitly. More literally, since only one Sabbath in Nisan, the first month of the year in the religious calendar of Jewish "ordinary time", precedes the day of Passover on the 14th of Nisan, the designation, "On the second first sabbath", can also mean "on the second sabbath after the first sabbath [of Nisan] following Passover" (which would then be the normal Saturday Sabbath on the calendar immediately following the 8-day season of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the second Sabbath of the first month Nisan in Jewish "ordinary time"). <br> Here in this chapter of ''Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)'' the text in Luke 6 relating the grain in the field followed by the healing in the synagogue is placed ''after'' the similar narrative text in Mark 2, so that the "second Sabbath after the first", first mentioned in Luke 6:1, is subsequent to the (first) Sabbath in Mark 2:23-3:6.

:Christians devoutly devoted to the Bible often express their love and devotion by a kind of hobby of knowing entertaining details about the text, and engaging in exercises such as oral and written [[Sunday School]] Bible quizzes, including church sponsored Bible Quiz competitions local and regional, all the way up to a Christian version of the National Spelling Bee competition, exercises such as knowing what is the longest and shortest verse in the Bible, the exact number and order of the books of the Bible, even how many words are in any one of the books of the Bible in the King James Version (either the 1611 or 1769 edition), and can recite from memory the text of any passage of scripture when given only the chapter and verse numbers, and standard doctrinal proof texts to be used in witnessing to other people and in debates with other Christians both public and private. Unfortunately, this initially innocent diversion can sometimes become a serious distraction for the Christian, and a real danger to the soul, especially to the young and the newly converted adult novice, equivalent to the Jewish digression into '''''[[pilpul]]''''' in [[Torah]] studies, in which the heart of the message of the revelation of God in the Bible—"judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matthew 23:23)—is slowly eroded, then lost and forgotten, and the Christian becomes proud, [[Elitism|elitist]], ''knowing the Bible'', intolerant of other Christians, and adept at condemning sinners ''according to the Bible'', without any perceptively outward sign of a life of gentle mercy and compassionate forgiveness toward any repentant sinner (1&nbsp;Peter 3:15-16; Matthew 18:23-35), each believing that he or she is [[Eternal security (salvation)|absolutely assured of salvation]], because he or she "knows the Bible" without knowing the will of the Lord of love (John 16:2-3; Matthew 7:15-27; 23:2; 1 John 3:15 "God is love"). It is possible for any professing Bible Christian, including pastors, scripture scholars, and Bible theologians, to know every word of the Scriptures in both translation and [[Bible manuscript evidence|extant manuscripts]] and not actually hear what the words say. See [[Corporal and spiritual works of mercy]]. Even [[Satan]] knows the scriptures (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; John 5:39; James 2:19; 1 John 3:15; John 8:44) and is that spirit of false religion who goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he can consume (1&nbsp;Peter 5:8). His followers are those who are "eaten up, consumed" with their own self-righteousness and despise others (Luke 18:9-14). Compare [[Westboro Baptist Church]] and [[Hypocrites]]. <br> In [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=RSVCE Matthew 25:31-46], when the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he does not ask those he judges if they read the Bible or went to Church, but only if they saw him hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and actually ministered to his needs (see [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A11-18&version=RSVCE 1&nbsp;John 3:11-18]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A21-23&version=RSVCE Matthew 7:21-23]).

:Jesus heals a withered hand (Mark3:1-5): Jesus heals a withered right hand (Luke6:6-10): two separate Sabbaths. As there was more than one paralytic whom Jesus healed, so also it is not impossible that there was more than one man with a withered hand whom Jesus healed.<br> To the first account of the grain fields before "One Sabbath" in Mark 2:23 add the two Sabbaths of Luke 6:1 "On the second Sabbath" and 6 "It also happened", with the second account of going through the grain fields between the two Sabbaths and then "again" entering the synagogue, "Again he entered the synagogue" Mark 3:1. However, arranging instead an alternative redactive sequence, by placing the narrative of Luke 6:1-5 before the narrative of Mark 2:23-28, note the resulting progression of Jesus' increasing anger, Luke 6:6-11 to Mark 3:1-6, and the progression of the anger of the scribes and Pharisees, adding to it a further conspiracy with the Herodians, Luke 6:11 to Mark 3:6. Either arrangement of the two narratives can be set forth in a harmony of the Gospel without loss of text or alteration of the meaning and intent of the Gospel message.

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord‘'''Lord, Lord,'''’ and do not do the things which I say? Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and does them, I will show you who he is like. He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock. But he who hears, and does not do, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.”

Jesus went with them. When he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, “Lord“'''Lord''', do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy for you to come under my roof. Therefore I did not even think myself worthy to come to you; but say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man placed under authority, having under myself soldiers. I tell this one, ‘Go'''!'''’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come'''!'''’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

Soon afterward, he went to a city called [http://bibleatlas.org/full/nain.htm Nain]. Many of his disciples, along with a great multitude, went with him. Now when he came near to the gate of the city, behold, one who was dead was carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. Many people of the city were with her. When '''the Lord ''' saw her, he had compassion on her, and said to her, “Do not cry.”

His mother and brothers brethren came to him, and they could not come near him for the crowd. Some people told him, “Your mother and your brothers brethren stand outside, desiring to see you.”

But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers brethren are these who hear the word of God, and do it.”

His mother and his brothers brethren came, and standing outside, they sent to him, calling him. A multitude was sitting around him, and they told him, “Behold, your mother, your brothersbrethren, and your sisters are outside looking for you.”

He answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothersbrethren?”

Looking around at those who sat around him, he said, “Behold, my mother and my brothersbrethren'''!''' For whoever does the will of God is my brother, my sister, and mother.”

Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to come out. And he '''fell down''' before him, and crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have I to do with you, Jesus, you Son of the Most High God? I [[adjure ]] you by God, I beg you, do not torment me, do not torment me'''!'''”

As he was entering into the boat, he who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. He did not allow him, but said to him, “Go to your house, to your friends, and tell them what great things '''the Lord ''' has done for you, and how he had mercy on you.”

“A disciple is not above his Teacher, nor a servant above his '''lord'''. It is enough for the disciple that he be like his Teacher, and the servant like his '''lord'''. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of his household'''!''' Therefore do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing covered that will not be revealed; and hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in the ear, proclaim on the housetops. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

At that time, Jesus answered, “I thank you, Father, '''Lord ''' of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in your sight. All things have been delivered to me by my Father. No one knows the Son, except the Father; neither does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son desires to reveal him.

“you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is '''Lord ''' of the Sabbath.”

While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brothers brethren stood outside, seeking to speak to him. One said to him, “Behold, your mother and your brethren stand outside, seeking to speak to you.”

He stretched out his hand toward his disciples, and said, “Behold, my mother and my brothersbrethren'''!''' For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

They answered him, “Yes, '''Lord'''.”

Mark 5:22-43 and Luke 8:41–9:541–56

:Luke is an important guide for the conservative redactor of the Gospels. He states at the beginning of his account of the Gospel that he was writing everything "in order" (in sequence). After the choosing of the twelve, Jesus comes down the mountain with them, delivers the Sermon on the Plain, re-enters Capernaum, heals the centurion's slave; then accompanied by "many of his disciples" raises the widow's son at Nain, gives answer to the disciples of John the Baptist, forgives the woman who anoints his feet, teaches the parable of the seeds and the lamp, warns about the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit, declares those who do his Father's will his brothersbrethren, sisters and mother; he departs, heals the Gadarene demoniac, returns and is touched by the woman with a hemorrhage and raises Jairus' daughter, ''and only then does Luke relate that Jesus sends out the twelve to preach and to heal''. <br>In Matthew 10:1-15, after the naming of the twelve and instructing them before sending them out to preach and to heal (parallel to Luke 9:1-6 and Mark 6:7-8), Jesus departs, and immediately Matthew relates that John sent his disciples to Jesus to ask if he is the one expected. The conservative redactor, in preserving intact the chronological integrity of the textual sequence of both Luke and Matthew, cannot reconcile the two accounts of John's sending his disciples to Jesus as the same identical event or episode (Matthew 11:2-30 and Luke 7:18-35). In Matthew John's disciples come to Jesus after he sends out the twelve, in Luke John's disciples come to Jesus before he sends out the twelve. This apparent difficulty is resolved according to the principle that similarity of narrative does not demonstrate identity of event. Just because they sound the same does not mean they are the same. It is not impossible that John in prison sent his disciples to Jesus a second time, after receiving the Lord's initial response, "''the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is he who takes no offense at me.''" He did not directly say "yes" or "no". Through the testimony of others who were eyewitnesses Jesus invited John to reach his own conclusion, based on their anecdotal evidence. It is not impossible that John desired a clear and simple answer, and sent them a second time, to be certain.

:Luke 6:17, ; 8:1, and Mark 4:10 together with their places in the narrative, as found in the textual sequence of events related in the two Gospels, are strongly suggestive of the period of the initial formal training of the twelve, prior to Jesus sending them out to preach and to heal. The conservative redactor uses such details as facts to aid in determining the actual chronological sequence of events in constructing an historically faithful ''Harmony of the Gospel'' by avoiding narrative inconsistencies and obvious contradictions. They cannot simultaneously be out on mission and also be present with him and with the other disciples about him. These verses, Luke 6:17, ; 8:1, Mark 4:10, are not preceded by any statement that Jesus summoned them or called them (back) after sending them out. (See note below: "with him were the twelve" and "those who were around him with the twelve".)</small> "'''''When he ''heard'' about Jesus'', he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and save his servant.'''" <small>:Luke 7:3:Various details in the narrative of Luke 7:1-10 demonstrate that this is not the same as the episode in Matthew 8:5-13. Similarity of narrative is not proof of identity: just because they sound the same does not mean they are the same. The policy of redacting the texts of the four Gospels together into a single ''Harmony of the Gospel'' by placing them side by side, and strictly retaining the sequence of each of them in the order of their narratives, on the conservative assumption that they are set forth by the Evangelists each in chronological order, places the episode in Luke 7:1-10 later than the episode in Matthew 8:5-13. In Matthew's account the centurion comes to Jesus. In Luke the centurion sends elders of the Jews instead of coming himself. They are not the same man. This strongly suggests the scenario that when his own servant was close to death he had probably just now "''heard''" from another centurion there in Capernaum of the earlier healing of the servant who had been suffering in terrible distress from paralysis. Here in this account in Luke the centurion not only had respect for the Jewish community, he had earned their respect by building a [[synagogue]] for them. The chief elders were ready to accede to his request to have Jesus heal his servant as he had previously healed the servant of his fellow centurion who had gone to Jesus himself. But when he heard that the [[rabbi]] Jesus was actually coming to his house, the Roman pagan centurion was overwhelmed. He humbly acknowledged the ''auctoritas'' of Jesus' power and dignity by his own words of faith in him as had his fellow centurion. As with the other man, who earlier had humbly demonstrated such unquestioning faith in him, Jesus praised this pagan's faith too, saying that he had not found such faith even in Israel. This statement made directly to the elders of the Jews sent to him was the rebuke of a prophet reproaching them for their lack of faith in him. "I have not found such faith, no, not in Israel." This text is not necessarily a demonstrable contradiction of the sequentially redacted apparently earlier expression of "such faith" from the centurion who came to him in Matthew 8:5-13 when the Gospels are placed in parallel columns without rearranging their sequence. The grammatical structure of the Greek text points to lack of such marvelous faith in Israel, not to the faith of the other centurion. The Jews, who had received as a people the revelations of God from Moses and the prophets with signs and miracles of power, knowing the scriptures and seeing the signs he had done among them as works worthy of belief, should have had the very faith that these pagans had manifested, but they did not have it. They did not express doubt that Jesus could heal the centurion's servant; the Jewish elders of the nation as a whole doubted that his healings were adequate proof that he is the Messiah. The elders urged Jesus to "do this for him" only because they wished to enjoy the continued favor the centurion had bestowed on them, not because they had any faith that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by Moses.</small> "'''I am not worthy for you to come under my roof...but say the word, and my servant will be healed.'''" <small>:Luke 7:6:The centurion's words here are adapted in several forms of the [[Eucharist]] in Christian worship. The whole congregation before partaking of [[Communion]] says together in some form the collective prayer, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof; but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed." <br> Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+1%3A3-4&version=KJV 2 Peter 1:3-4], ''especially'' [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Peter%201%3A4 "partakers of the divine nature" 2&nbsp;Peter 1:4].

:The WEB text "coffin", while ''technically'' permitted, is misleading and is replaced here with "bier" according to the [http://biblehub.com/multi/luke/7-14.htm majority versions of Luke 7:14]. See [https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g4673 Strong's number ''4673'' '''σορόs''' ''soros'' "a funereal receptacle (urn, coffin), by analogy, a bier.] Compare [http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/7-14.htm interlinear text of Luke 7:14 '''σοροῦ''' ''sorou''].

:A literal reading of the "clear, plain and simple" meaning of the words of this verse absolutely contradicts the "clear, plain and simple" reading of the meaning of the preceding passage of Luke 7:37 "'''a woman in the city who was a sinner, ''when she knew'' that he was reclining in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment.'''". Jesus says quite clearly, plainly and simply that the woman started kissing his feet the moment he entered the room. But according to verse 37, Luke says that he was already seated at table in the Pharisee's house and eating with him when the woman first learned that he was sitting at table in the Pharisee's house! By this literal method of reading the Bible, scripture is made to contradict scripture. : Luke contradicts the words of Jesus, and Jesus contradicts the words of Luke. This is not a legitimate way to read and understand the Bible.

:In contrast to the unnecessary difficulties and contradictions created by a literalistic approach to reading the Bible, Bible scholars strongly recommend an understanding informed reading of the true ''[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#The literal sense of scripture|literal sense of scripture]]'' in accordance with for understanding its true meaning. The truly literal meaning includes an informed understanding of the ordinary first century [[Semitic languages#Differences between Semitic and Indo-European language structure|semitic]] mode of speaking by use of [[hyperbole]] within the ''mileau'' of the culture of the time . This meaning resolves the difficultydifficulties of literalistic interpretation from an unconscious ''[[eisegesis]]''. To their credit, most literalist readers of the Bible using their innate [[common sense]] do not take the strictly literalistic surface reading of the bare words of this passage Luke 7:37 and 7:45 as the actual meaning of these Bible verses, and normally do not see a contradiction. In accepting the actual meaning of Luke and Jesus according to the narrative of what the woman did to Jesus as he sat at table in the Pharisee's house and when she did it. In accepting the actual meaning of Luke's narrative and the words of Jesus according to the context of the situation within the narrative and the normally expressive mode of speaking at the time ([[hyperbole]]), they implicitly dismiss as absurd the principle of reading the Bible solely according to the "clear, plain and simple" meaning of the individual words of every passage in the Bible, because . Because of its the evident absurdityof this approach, and they adopt instead the accommodated understanding of the ''literal sense of scripture'' according to its true meaning: that from the moment '''''she''''' came in she has not ceased to kiss his feet, in contrast to Simon who from the moment Jesus came into Simon's house Simon had not greeted him with a kiss, nor washed his feet, nor anointed him with oil. She showed her love in gratitude, Simon demonstrated no welcoming love. Where a literalistic reading creates a contradiction "from the time I came in", a reading according to the literal sense removes it.

:Another clear example is the statement by Jesus himself in [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/13-32.htm Matthew 13:32] that the mustard seed is the "least" or "smallest" of seeds. [[Liberal]] critics of Christianity eagerly cite this statement to prove that Jesus is in error, since there are numerous other kinds of seeds that are much smaller than the mustard seed, some of them nearly microscopic in size. The majority of biblical exegetes understand this parabolic saying (parable) as an example of customary Middle Eastern hyperbole. See [http://biblehub.com/multi/matthew/13-32.htm multiple versions of Matthew 13:32]. In an absolute sense it is not the "smallest of seeds", yet there is little argument against understanding the mustard seed as most probably the least important of all commercially available seeds sold for cultivation in the Middle Eastern marketplace. (There is were no "mustard farmfarms"dedicated to the production of mustard seed as a commercial cash crop.)

:Some Fundamentalist Christians who believe, and teach, that the hot, molten core of the earth is the literal location of the lake of fire and hell, where the resurrected wicked sinners condemned for their unrepented evil deeds will physically spend everlasting eternity (Revelation 20:10-15) will physically spend everlasting eternity (; Daniel 12:2-3), . They understand the core of the earth itself to be the literal meaning of the heart of the earth, where Jesus went when he lay in the tomb, and that "he went and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19-20) where "Tartarus" or "Hell" is located ([https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Peter%202%3A4 2&nbsp;Peter 2:4]). Jesus did not say that the Son of Man will only "spiritually" be in the heart of the earth, but that he would "'''''be''''' three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and . And Peter does say that Jesus went "spiritually" or "alive in the spirit" to preach to the spirits in prison" (1&nbsp;Peter 3:18-19). In the most literal reading of the Greek text of [http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/16-22.htm Luke 16:22] and [http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/16-23.htm 23], the rich man is "buried in '''hell'''", (Luke 16) ²²...'''ἐτάφη''' ²³'''καὶ ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ'''—this is the reading of the [[Douay-Rheims|Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible 1899]], "''the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell''" [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A22&version=DRA Luke 16:22] from —from [[Jerome]]'s Latin Vulgate translation "'''et sepultus est in inferno'''".

:Biblical [[Exegesis|exegetes]] tell us that "''sheol, gehenna, hell''" is the grave. Thus "ashes to ashes and dust to dust" (see Genesis 3:19; 18:27) is the meaning of "the heart of the earth", as being the place of the dead, the grave, the tomb. The speaker's intended reference to the grave, according to the ''[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#The literal sense of scripture|literal sense of scripture]]'', is understood as [[death]], the sealed tomb—not the molten core of the planet. Moreover, the core of the earth will also be destroyed when

:It should be evident that the core of the planet, the "heart of the earth" according to this a literalistic doctrine[[exegesis]], cannot be the everlasting hell of [http://biblehub.com/multi/revelation/20-10.htm Revelation 20:10]; likewise . Likewise the alternate interpretation instead that the center of the [[Sun]] is hell is dismissed by the Bible, because neither of them the earth nor the sun will last forever. <br>See article [https://www.gotquestions.org/where-is-hell.html Where is Hell? What is the location of Hell? (gotquestions.org)].<br>Moreover, John saw that even "death and hell were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." Revelation 20:14.

:To truly discover and understand ''the sacred authors' intention,'' the reader must take into account the conditions of the sacred authors' particular time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current, not the meaning understood by the plain, ordinary American English-speaking 21st century reader. (See [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)]].) The reader must be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Bible, as having one supreme Author who cannot deceive or be deceived, speaking through inspired writers chosen by him to express the truth of God's revelation to man, "for he cannot deny himself". Any method of reading any text of the Bible by a literalistic interpretation which produces absurdities and contradictions is proven false by the very fact that it produces that result: "A tree is known by its fruit." It takes away from the words of the book of prophesy. It violates the principle set forth in Revelation 22:18-19. Compare Jeremiah 8:8-9. What has been called by Protestant scholars the "''perspicuity of scripture''" is obscured by an ignorantly literal reading of the "clear, plain and simple" surface meaning of the words of the Bible. Sometimes this results in unexpected confusion for the uninformed reader who innocently uses this method of reading the scriptures for the sole purpose of simple devotion and guidance and does not know how to resolve what simply and plainly and clearly appears to be inconsistencies in the word of God. Sometimes literalistic reading is done for the purpose of citing "proof texts" as ammunition for [[polemic]]al arguments, which frequently violates the actual meaning of the Bibleas a whole by unintentionally turning the Bible against itself. The reasons for this do not lie in the Scriptures themselves but in the unconscious baggage of uninformed interpretive assumptions which many people bring to their reading of the Sacred Scriptures. Many denominations have creeds or statements of faith that they use as a norm to define themselves. In doing so they tend to view Scripture through the lens of their stated beliefs ([[Confirmation bias]]). In other cases some people inherit their particular interpretation of scripture from their forefathers without questioning whether it actually corresponds to the ''[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#The literal sense of scripture|literal sense of scripture]]''. See [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Peter%203%3A14-17 2 Peter 3:14-17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2013%3A7 Hebrews 13:7] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2013%3A17 17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2013%3A1 Romans 13:1 (includes "church authorities")] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2013%3A2 13:2 (includes "church government")].It is better to adjust our understanding to the scriptures, than to adjust the scriptures to our understanding. Some people discover that many of the doctrines they had previously believed, are directly contradicted by the Bible in passages that they had often casually read, but now have suddenly found to be significant with meanings that they had never fully noticed before, simply because they had never been mentioned from the pulpit or emphasized in commentaries and study materials they had read in support of their particular denomination or church doctrine. For this reason many of them leave their churches and denominations to seek one that more closely expresses the whole entirety of authentic biblical doctrine, not just the part of it emphasized by their founders to the neglect of the rest of the text as a rationalization for their particular doctrinal position. (See [[Sophistry]] and [[Specious reasoning]]; also [[Fallacy of exclusion]] and [[Confirmation bias]].)

"'''His mother and brothers came to him, and they could not come near him for the crowd. Some people told him, “Your mother and your brothers stand outside, desiring to see you.” But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are these who hear the word of God, and do it.'''” <br> —"'''The multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. When his ''friends'' heard it, they went out to seize him; for they said, “He is insane.” '''" <small>:Mark 3:21:Mary the mother of Jesus is not mentioned here as being with the "friends", literally "those of him", his neighbors in Nazareth. What the text does '''''not''''' say can often be as important to the understanding and interpretation of Bible doctrine as what it does say. :Compare Luke 8:19-21; Mark 3:20-21. Few readers of these passages suppose that His relatives, his brethren and sisters, and his mother had traveled that day to see Jesus and had just arrived to greet him. Jesus took the opportunity to teach them that faithful obedience to God and His revelation of truth transcends the loyalty of blood relationship alone.

:Compare [https://biblehub.com/greek/3844.htm Strong's number ''3844'' '''παρα''' ''para'' (par') "near, from beside, at/in vicinity (of), proximity (to), contrary (to), beyond, apart (from), in opposition (to)"]  :Translations of Mark 3:21 differ. The Greek term '''Οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ''' ''oi parʼ autou'' literally means "''those of him''", that is, the common general term for ''acquaintances, relatives, hometown (citizens), those who knew him as one of their own, the people of his vicinity''. <br>The Greek text here allows a latitude of interpretation, offering translators a choice of interpretive readings. The choices they make are directly influenced by their own beliefs and doctrinal or denominational persuasion. In the context of the situation in the Gospel of Mark 3:20-35 interpreters are directly influenced by their own personal attitudes regarding the Orthodox and Catholic doctrine of Mary the mother of Jesus, either opposing it or not directly opposing it. :Some translated readings say "his friends" (KJV), in the context of this verse implying those with some sympathy toward him, and implicitly excluding his relatives and mother. But some say "his family", implicitly including Mary among them as his mother. <br> However, ''against both of these interpretive readings'', the Greek term '''τους φίλους του''' ''tous philous tou'', "his friends", is not in Mark 3:21. The Greek term '''οικογένειάς του''' ''oikogeneias tou'', "his family", is not in Mark 3:21. As for the reading "his own people", the Greek term '''τους δικούς του ανθρώπους''', ''tous dikous tou anthropous'', "his own people", is not in Mk Mark 3:21. (Compare [http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-11.htm the interlinear text of John 1:11 "''his own''"].) :The most probable [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#The literal sense of scripture|literal sense]] of the wording in Mark 3:21 would be "''his neighbors''", those from his hometown who did not accept him, and therefore not in sympathy with him (compare Mark 6:1-6; Matthew 13:53-58; Luke 4:16-30; John 7:2-9). <br>  :Depending on which version the reader prefers, ''either'' (1) Mary is '''''not''''' among "his friends", "his acquaintances" who say "He is beside himselfinsane" (KJV) / "He is insanebeside himself"(KJV)—'''or'''—Mary is — (2) Mary '''''includedis''''' included among "his family" in Mark 3:21 "his friends", "his people", "his relatives", "those of him", "his own", and according to this interpretive version his mother Mary agrees with them in saying "He is beside himself" / "He is insane". <br> Compare [http://biblehub.com/multi/john/10-20.htm John 10:20] "''he hath a devil and is mad; why hear ye him?''" (KJV). :The translated Bible version that reads "his family" here strongly implies that Mary had ceased to believe in Jesus and therefore that she too had sinned against Him by disbelief, that she had lost faith in him and had [[Apostasy|apostatized]], and had [[Blasphemy|blasphemed]] against Him by saying, "He is insane". This is readily adduced by many Protestant Christian [[Exegesis|exegetes]] as biblical and doctrinal proof that Mary had sinned, and committed blasphemy, and therefore that ''the Catholic doctrine that Mary was wholly and entirely free of sin by the grace of God from the moment of her [[Immaculate Conception]] and entirely throughout her life'' is a false doctrine and a [[Satan|satanic]] deception (see 1&nbsp;Timothy 4:1-2). On the basis of this interpretive reading Mary therefore was a sinner.

:The version that reads "his familyfriends" implies does not [[Eisegesis|eisegetically]] read into Mark 3:21 evidence that Mary had ceased to believe was among those who thought Jesus was insane. Exegetes in Jesus and therefore support of the view that she too had sinned against Him by disbelief, Mary was not among the group assert that she had lost faith in him the plain and had [[Apostasy|apostatized]], and had [[Blasphemy|blasphemed]] against Him by saying, simple reading of the Greek text does not justify the reading of "He is insanehis family". This Therefore there is adduced by many Protestant Christian [[Exegesis|exegetes]] as biblical and doctrinal proof no explicit scriptural support here for the contention that Mary had sinned, and committed blasphemy, and therefore that the Catholic doctrine that Mary was wholly and entirely free of sin by disbelief. On the grace basis of God from this interpretive reading according to the moment structure of her [[Immaculate Conception]] and entirely throughout her life is a false doctrine and a [[Satan|satanic]] deception (see 1&nbsp;Timothy 4:1-2). Greek grammar in this passage Mary therefore was a sinnernot among those sinners who said He was insane.

:The version that reads "his friends" does not [[Eisegesis|eisegetically]] read into In either case, a basic understanding of the natural psychology of mothers toward their children sees in Luke 8:21 and parallel texts (Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:21 evidence 31) a mother's natural concern and anxiety over the reaction of Jesus' relatives. Many have ''supposed'' that His relatives on the several occasions mentioned in the Gospels had come to call Jesus apart from His followers and the crowd, in order to reason with Him and beg Him to cease embarrassing them and alarming the Roman authorities, and that Mary His mother in her worried concern about what they might be planning to do was among only motivated by her anguish over their obvious doubts about Him. In this interpretation, Mary was alarmed by the belief of '''Οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ''' ''oi par' autou'' "those of him" who thought Jesus were acquainted with him, that her child was insane. Exegetes , and in support her fear for Him she could not remain aloof and apart from them when they gathered to confront Him and "take charge of the him / take him into custody" as a madman, to "protect him from himself". In this view , they were only causing her sorrow. The Greek text of Mark 3:21 does not present proof that Mary was not among the group assert that the plain and simple reading with '''Οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ''' ''oi par' autou'' "those of the Greek text him", and it does not justify the reading present proof that she agreed with them, even if she happened to be present with them "who heard of it"his familywhen they gathered to "seize him", to "lay hold on him" (KJV). Therefore However reasonable it may seem that Mary believed that Jesus was "beside himself" insane, there is in fact no explicit scriptural support here for text in the contention Bible that explicitly says so, or states by name that she (Mary had sinned ) no longer believed in Him, or sided with his enemies against him by disbeliefrejecting him as a deceiver of the people. This interpretation must be "read into the text" ([[Eisegesis]]).

:In either case, a basic understanding The doctrine of Christ that those who hear the natural psychology word of mothers toward their children sees God and do it are his brother and sister and mother is a semitic expression of close loyalty and affection, as Jonathan was David's faithful brother. 2 Samuel 1:26. Mary is not excluded as his mother, for she believed in him. Luke 81:21 and parallel texts (Matthew 1245; John 19:4625-27; Mark 3Acts 1:3112-14; Romans 16:6 (?) a mother; Revelation 12. The unqualified statement of the Lord "'s natural concern and anxiety over 'For whosoever shall do the reaction will of Jesus' relatives. Many have supposed that His relatives on God, the several occasions mentioned in the Gospels had come to call Jesus apart from His followers and the crowdsame is my brother, in order to reason with Him and beg Him to cease embarrassing them and alarming the Roman authoritiesmy sister, and that Mary His mother in her worried concern about what they might be planning to do was only motivated by her anguish over their obvious doubts about Him. In this interpretation, Mary was alarmed by the belief of '''Οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ''' "(Mark 3:35 KJV) does not exclude those of him", who knew him, were outside at that her child was insane, moment and in her fear for Him she could not remain aloof and apart from them when they gathered to confront Him and "take charge of sitting around him / take him into custody" as a madman, to "protect him from himself"with the twelve apostles. In this view, they were only causing her sorrowIt did not exclude Mary. It does not exclude us.

:Throughout this ''Harmony of the Gospel'' the name of Jesus in one parallel text does not eliminate the personal pronoun "He" in another, and the name of Jesus immediately repeated more than once in a redaction of parallel texts is not replaced by the word "He" for the sake of avoiding an unpleasant repetitious experience for the English speaking reader-audience, but the Semitic pattern of poetic parallelism is used, so that the content of both texts is preserved. Here, the repetition also suggests the stubbornly rebellious resistance of the demons and the victim's hesitant reluctance to be rid of them due to their dominating influence on him. The persistence of Jesus in the face of resistance is an example to those who seek to follow him.

:When this "twelve years" is taken literalistically as an exact figure of precisely twelve years, no more and no less, ::and Mark 5:25 is seen as identical with Matthew 9:20 and Luke 8:43,  ::and similarity of narrative is taken as proof that these three texts relate ''exactly'' the same episode,  ::as if such an occurrence was absolutely unique and therefore could only have happened once, :a chronological harmony of the accounts of the four Gospels which preserves unaltered the sequence of their narratives becomes impossible. <br>When the expression "twelve years" is taken as the more probable, well-known cultural middle eastern expression of an imprecise or approximate figure of speech (the ''[[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)#The literal sense of scripture|literal sense of scripture]]''), ::together with the fact that it is not impossible that more than one woman at the time of Jesus' ministry suffered from a chronic discharge of blood, and was healed by touching him, :the apparent problem of comparative internal textual inconsistency is resolved. "''Similarity of narrative does not demonstrate or prove identity of event: just because it sounds the same does not mean it is the same.''" This principle allows the interpreter of the Gospel to compare the detailed differences in circumstance and see as distinctly different episodes the raising of the daughter of Jairus (an '''ἀρχισυναγώγων''' ''archisunagogon'', a chief rabbi of the synagogue), and the raising of the daughter of a ruler (an '''ἄρχων''' ''archon'', a civil magistrate), both of them "'''''about''' twelve years of age''" (Mark 5:1-43 and Luke 8:22-56; Matthew 8:28-9:26). Jairus was an '''ἀρχισυναγώγων''' ''archisunagogon'', a chief rabbi of the synagogue; the ruler was an '''ἄρχων''' ''archon'', a civil magistrate. They are not the same thing. Both of these episodes were circumstantially preceded by the healing of women who had each suffered a long time with a continuous discharge of blood for years and sought to touch him to be healed. If this parallel of incidents had happened in our time we would say that this was a "remarkable coincidence", and we would see no discrepancy in the fact that it happened that way. See also Mark 3:10, 6:56; Luke 6:19. As part of the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ, it was only necessary that a single representative episode out of many be related in detail in the narrative account of any one of the Gospel writers. Matthew simply related one of them, and Mark and Luke separately each simply relate others; just as the similar narratives of the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000 are related by Matthew and Mark (Matthew 14:15-21; 15:32-38) and ; Mark (6:35-44; 8:1-9), but only the narrative of the feeding of the 5,000 is related in Luke and John with no mention of the feeding of the 4,000 (Luke 9:2-17) and ; John (6:5-13) with . See '''John 21:25'''.</small> "'''Someone did touch me, for I perceived that power has gone out of me.'''" <small>:Luke 8:46:Jesus was aware that she desired to remain hidden, and therefore did not immediately reveal her identity without eliciting her consent to come forward freely, of her own free will, to openly acknowledge what she had done and why, and testify to the power of his mercy to cleanse her and make her whole. (See the next note below, "This he said to test her.") :This verse is directly relevant to the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement universally available to [http://biblehub.com/revelation/22-17.htm "''whosoever will''" Revelation 22:17 (KJV)], also 2&nbsp;Peter 3:9 that the Lord is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance". Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11%3A28-30&version=RSVCE Matthew 11:28-30 "'''''all'''''"].  :The woman had no mention power to save herself, but her faith immediately appropriated the readily available power of God from within the feeding Lord Jesus Christ; not that she of herself had any power to sovereignly command by her willing faith the 4power of God,000as if her faith compelled Christ as God to act without his consent or made the power come forth from him; but the universal love of God for every human being had already made, and does constantly make readily available his saving power to all who will not refuse it; and the power of his love is able to call back to him again anyone who has turned away and who afterward does not refuse to return to him repentant at any time before the very moment of death. See [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+5%3A19-20&version=RSVCE James 5:19-20]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John 21+5%3A15-17&version=RSVCE 1&nbsp;John 5:2515-17]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32&version=RSVCE Luke 15:11-32]. The water available in a vast reservoir will immediately flow whenever an opening is made. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3%3A20&version=RSVCE Revelation 3:20 "any one"]. Compare [http://biblehub.com/luke/7-30.htm Luke 7:30 "but the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves."] His whole purpose of love is to save the whole world, [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16-17&version=RSVCE '''John 3:16-17'''].

:The scriptures consistently attest the fact that Jesus knew the interior thoughts and motivations of people, and that nothing was hidden from him even as a man. See John 1:47-51; 2:23-25; 6:64, 70-71; 13:11; 18:4; Matthew 9:4; 12:25; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 11:15-17. See also Acts 1:7 and 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. <br>Liberal theologians point biblical literalists to texts such as Luke 8:45-46 and Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 to support their position that Jesus had only imperfect knowledge as a man, themselves inferring and then implying and suggesting that he could not in fact at the same time be God. This is an application of the [[logical fallacy]] of the [[loaded question]]. ::(The "Son" in Matthew 24:36 is properly understood as a reference to the whole community of '''''Israel''''' as God's "son" in accordance with Old Testament texts such as Exodus 4:22-23, and many Christian theologians also see in this a distinction between the Persons of the Blessed Trinity which does not deny the equal divinity of the Son with the Father.) :They isolate these texts from the rest of the Bible and from Christian traditional doctrine([[Fallacy of exclusion]]), by emphasizing a literalistic reading of the text while ignoring the ''literal sense of scripture'', and by removing such texts from the context of the whole of the Christian revelation about Jesus in both the sacred scriptures and sacred tradition, which together say of him that he is "''true God and true man''" ::([[Apostles' Creed]], [[Nicene Creed]], [[Council of Chalcedon]], ; <br> ''see the article'' [https://www.catholicity.com/catechism/true_god_and_true_man.html "True God and True Man" (catholicity.com)] ).  :This deliberate approach of liberal and atheistic biblical scholarship is aimed directly at a fundamental weakness of the [[Fundamentalism|Fundamentalist]] method of strict literalism in the reading of the Bible ([[Sola scriptura]]). It is a method which often inadvertently violates the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 by either adding to or taking away from the intentional meaning of the words of the Book by a literalistic reading of the textwithout considering the literal sense of scripture. The conservative textual critic can always respond by pointing out that the text (Mark 5:30) does '''''not''''' say that Jesus did not actually know who touched him; it says that he '''asked''', "''Who touched my garments?''" (RSVCE). This is no different from a parent who, fully knowing what happened, and what the child has done, lovingly asks, "Who did this?", thus giving the child opportunity to honestly, humbly, and courageously testify to the truth of the matter.

:In heeding the particular details of narrative, an additional distinction is noted between Luke's sending of the twelve [together] (Luke 9:1-2) and Mark's sending of the twelve "two by two" (Mark 6:7), which suggests to the more conservative textual critic a progression in the training of the Twelve. Note also the difference in sending them out without a staff in Luke 9:3 and the (later) exception that they are to take a staff in Mark 6:8. The conservative redactor sees in this difference an indication of two separate events. <br> :The more liberal textual critics, assuming on principle that ''similarity of narrative demonstrates identity of event'', see in such divergent details in apparently similar narratives a contradiction or "confusion" in relating the "same event". Their readings of the [[The Gospels|Four Gospels ]] according to this principle ''a priori'' (from the first) allows them to represent [[Misrepresentation|misrepresent]] the narrated events in the Gospels as poorly remembered anecdotal evidence, which they assert should consequently be regarded as unreliable, even "contradictory", and therefore "uncertain". See the following three sources refuting the academic opinion that the Gospels are myth:

:*article in ''Strange Notions: The Digital Areopagus - Reason. Faith. Dialogue.'' [http://www.strangenotions.com/gospels-myth/ "'''Are the Gospels a Myth?'''" by Fr. Dwight Longenecker- article in ''Strange Notions: The Digital Areopagus - Reason.Faith. Dialogue.''] (''He says they are not''.) <br> —"If “myth” means a made up story with no basis in history or fact, then 'no' the gospels are not myth." :Conservative textual critics assume ''[[a priori]]'' on principle that the scriptures are accurate and truthful, according to the apostolic tradition of the Church that their primary author is God the Holy Spirit "''who cannot lie''", and assume that the Gospels are factual accounts provided by truthful, reliable eyewitnesses. They are guided according to the principle that apparent inconsistencies (as ''subjectively'' perceived by the reader) can be resolved by the strong possibility (the [[hypothesis]]) that differences in detail indicate different occasions, or separate events. It is an example of what is called '''''elegance''''' in science and mathematics, an elegant solution to an apparently difficult problem.<blockquote>::"Looking at the overall picture it becomes clear that elegant proofs or theories or experiments possess most or all of the following features: they are simple, ingenious, concise and persuasive; they often have an unexpected quality, and they are very satisfying. What is more, once one has understood the argument behind the proof or theory or experiment, it can be seen at a glance, and one has no doubts about its validity. " ([https://www.nhbs.com/elegance-in-science-book Ian Glynn, author of ''Elegance in Science, the Beauty of Simplicity''].)</blockquote>:It is a fundamental principle that any unwillingness on the part of researchers and scholars to entertain and consider ''all'' possible hypotheses is a violation of the [[Scientific method|scientific principle]]. This applies to biblical textual criticism, which includes the hypothesis of "the historical integrity, reliability and internal consistency of the testimony of the scriptures", an hypothesis that liberal agnostic and atheistic biblical textual critics reject on the assumption ''a priori'' that it is impossible. See [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)]] and [[Philosophical naturalism]].</small> "'''Do not go among the ''Gentiles'', and do not enter into any city of the Samaritans.'''" <small>:Matthew 10:5:'''Sepphoris''', a major metropolitan center rebuilt by Herod in Galilee over the site of a huge cemetery as a showcase of pagan Greco-Roman culture (and included a synagogue with Greco-Roman mosaics on its walls and floor) only 4 miles from Nazareth is never mentioned in the Gospels, or anywhere in the New Testament. This fact has been variously regarded by Bible scholars and historians as "astonishing", "puzzling", "a mystery", "significant". The instruction Jesus gave to the twelve when he sent them out to preach "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" is most probably the reason. There is no record in the scriptures that the Gospel was preached there.:*[http://www.land-of-the-bible.com/Sepphoris_The_Forgotten_City Sepphoris – The Forgotten City (land-of-the-bible.com)]:*[https://gospelsmuseum.div.ed.ac.uk/exhibits/show/sepphoris-mosaic/new-testament-significance--hi New Testament Significance: Historical Jesus. Did Jesus ever visit Sepphoris in his public ministry? (gospelmuseum.div.ed.ac.uk)]:*[https://biblewalks.com/Sites/Sepphoris.html Sepphoris (biblewalks.com)]:*[https://itsgila.com/highlightssepphoris.htm Holy Sites: Gila's Highlights. Let's consider whether Jesus visited Sepphoris (itsgila.com)]:*[http://doctorwoodhead.com/jesus-zippori-a-key-to-authenticating-the-gospels/ Jesus & Zippori A Key to Authenticating The Gospels, Dr. Daniel Woodhead (doctorwoodhead.com)]:*[https://vridar.org/2012/08/29/a-little-quirk-in-the-historical-reconstruction-of-the-jesus-story/ A Little Quirk in the "Historical" Reconstruction of the Jesus Story, by Neil Godfrey (vridar.org)] —''An atheist historian's point of view of the historical and cultural evidence and influential sociological significance of Sepphoris in Galilee only a relatively short distance from Nazareth. The information in the articles listed here offer material insights and conclusions in reasonable response to Godfrey's conclusions''''':''':::"His 'biographers' know nothing of Sepphoris. The literary heritage of Jesus bears no relationship to historical geographic reality."

:The New Testament has an abundant number of passages warning against the danger of falling away, and losing what has been freely given, joined to admonitions to remain faithful to until the day of the coming of the Lord. See 2 &nbsp;Peter 3, in particular verse 3:17; also Hebrews 12:12-17; 6:4-8.<br> ("Faithful until the day"—the admonition to believers to "remain faithful until" does not mean that Christians must cease to be faithful when "the day of the coming of the Lord" has arrived. The biblical meaning of "until" '''έως''' ''heos'' means "at any time before" and "up to the day of". Strong's number ''2193''. It does not imply anything about what happens or should happen after the terminus of the indicated period. See Acts 2:34-35; 23:1; 2&nbsp;Corinthians 3:14; Philippians 1:5-6; 1&nbsp;Timothy 6:14; Hebrews 1:13; 2&nbsp;Peter 1:19; 1&nbsp;John 2:9; Matthew 1:24-25.)

:This ''Harmony of the Gospel'' represents John the Baptist twice sending his disciples to Jesus. <br>In Luke, this episode follows the Sermon on the Plain, the healing of the centurion's slave, and the raising of the widow's son at Nain—before Jesus sends the twelve out to preach and to heal. <br>In Matthew it is related immediately after Jesus had finished instructing his disciples and sent them out. <br>The conservative redactor, seeing the distressing situation that John is in, understands that it is not impossible that John sent his disciples to Jesus twice, to ask for certainty. The second time Jesus reiterates his first response ''verbatim''. The differences in what Jesus said to the crowds after John's disciples departed are suggestive of two separate episodes, as related by eyewitnesses who heard and remembered exactly what Jesus said each time. The Evangelists Matthew and Luke each related a single representative occasion—both present the same teaching. Mark and John were not prompted by the Holy Spirit to relate either one. Liberal textual critics reject the possibility that the witnesses could remember exactly word-for-word ''verbatim'' exactly what Jesus said after more than twenty years. This dismisses the powerful impact of Jesus' personal presence and the extraordinary and unforgettable impression his utterances made on the hearers. Compare John 7:46 KJV, "Never man spake like this man." In the Middle East from before the first century and even unto this day a retentive memory is highly valued and deliberately cultivated even among the common people. This fact alone supports the veracity of the testimony of the eyewitnesses who heard Jesus speak. Moreover, on the basis of all the historical evidence available to us, the contemporaries of the apostles and their disciples, those who opposed the Christians and their writings, do not deny that Jesus said the words attributed to him by the writers of the Gospels, they only reject them as the utterances of a false prophet—not as the creative invention of the writers' imaginations.

:Jesus clearly and emphatically states that the one unforgivable [[sin]] is [[blasphemy]] against the [[Holy Spirit]]. (The "mortal sin" in 1&nbsp;John 5:16-17 is most probably [[suicide]].)

:Many published commentaries discuss, debate and speculate with uncertainty what exactly is meant by the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, or what it could possibly mean. The text of Mark 3:30 plainly says that it is the sin of saying or declaring that the Holy Spirit is unclean, that is, that the Holy Spirit is a defiling evil spirit—"''for they had said, 'He has an unclean spirit'&nbsp;''". This is blasphemy. According to a literalistic reading of this text the words themselves are enough:<br>"''For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.''" Matthew 12:37. <br>"''The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks''" Luke 6:45. <br>Many others affirm against the literalistic reading of these texts that ''the literal sense of scripture'' actually means that the words alone do not condemn the speaker but that the words said together with intent, that is, said with conviction and certainty as a serious charge about the very Spirit that is empowering and performing the works, that these words do condemn. Those who simply say or mouth the words are not condemned, but those who mean what they say against the Holy Spirit—as Spirit will never be forgiven this sin against the Holy Spirit as the [[Soul]] of the [[Christianity|whole Christian community]] animating the works of goodness and holiness and sanctification in changing lives—will never be forgiven this sinlives. <br>See multiple commentaries on [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/12-31.htm Matthew 12:31] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/12-32.htm 32]

:See [http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.lutherdevilsfraud.html '''The Devil's Fraud, Lies, and Deception, Martin Luther''' (angelfire.com)] ''The lying deceit of Catholic miracles and healings as false support of Catholicism''. <br> Luther maintains in this writing that even if the miracles prove to be real, the fact that they are offered as proof that Catholicism is true (as in Acts 4:30 and Mark 16:17-18), is proof rather that such miracles are performed by the Devil"to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22-23; 2&nbsp;Thessalonians 2:9-12). See [[Intercession of the saints]].

:"It follows that a bodily healing does not always ensue from this sacrament, but only when it is requisite for the spiritual healing : and then it produces it always, provided there be no obstacle on the part of the recipient."<br>—[http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5030.htm#article1 ''Summa Theologica'', Supplementum, Article 2, question 30, answer 2 (newadvent.org)] (see [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5.htm Supplement to the Third Part (''Summa Theologica, Tertiæ Partis'') (newadvent.org)] —''scroll down to'' Extreme Unction. <br><small>Compare Code of Canon Law 1004.1 and Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1514.</small> :'''Cessationism ''' is the doctrine that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the passing of the Twelve Apostles.<br>'''Continuationism ''' or non-cessationism is the doctrine that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have continued and will continue until the ''[[Parousia]]''.<br>See the following articles:<br>—[https://bible.org/article/questions-cessationists-should-ask-biblical-examination-cessationism Questions Cessationists Should Ask: A Biblical Examination of Cessationism, Lecture edited by Greg Herrick, Ph.D. (bible.org)] ''Excellent balanced discussion of both positions by a Protestant Bible scholar''.<br>—[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm Charismata - Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org)] ''Condensed complete discussion of the purpose of the gifts of the Holy Spirit then and now''<br><br>. :Some '''cessationists''' unhesitatingly maintain, [http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.lutherdevilsfraud.html as Luther did], that every claim of evidence of miraculous healings after the time of the apostles is '''''not ''''' evidence of the active presence of the truth of pure Christian doctrine in operation and the work of Christ, but is proof of Satanic deception and diabolical activity designed to lead astray the ignorant into superstition and idolatry against the simple purity of the Gospel of salvation. ::"''Even him'', whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2&nbsp;Thessalonians 2:9-12 (KJV). :Anointing of the Sick with oil is rejected as a vain display—"''but the gift ceasing, it is vainly used''" (from [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/james/5.htm Matthew Poole's Commentary on James 5].)<br> The same Catholic Church that Luther and many Evangelicals and all Fundamentalists condemn as Satanic, claims to manifest the continuation of miraculous gifts of healing through its [[sacrament]]s. ::The sacraments of the Church now continue the works which Christ had performed during his earthly life (cf.§1115). The sacraments are as it were "powers that go forth" from the Body of Christ to heal the wounds of sin and to give us the new life of Christ (cf.§1116).<br>—Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), second edition. :It is an undeniable fact that "continuationists" in opposition to "cessationists" point to occasional documented cases of genuinely [[Miracle|miraculous]] physical cures resulting from the Sacrament of [[Anointing of the Sick]] administered to those in danger of death as evidence that the gifts of the Holy Spirit have not ceased. (See also [[Canonization]].) This position strongly implies that all "cessationists" preach a false doctrine. (''Both sides in the debate cite'' 1&nbsp;Timothy 4:1-2; ''cessationists cite'' 1&nbsp;Corinthians 13:8-13, ''while continuationists cite'' Romans 11:29 ''and'' Matthew 28:20.) Orthodox Catholic apologists see evidence of miraculous spiritual and physical healing by the Church as vindicating the truth of their doctrinal teaching, as a Divine answer against the claims of those who oppose them as teaching superstition and doctrines of devils. Compare [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A33-37&version=KJV Matthew 12:33-37] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A12&version=KJV John 14:12]; also [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A24-25&version=KJV Matthew 10:24-25]; [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A11-12&version=KJV 5:11-12] (''these last verses are cited by both sides of the controversy against their detractors and critics.'') :Some '''continuationists''' unhesitatingly maintain that rejection of the evidence of miracles of healing and of restoring the dead to life and health is a blasphemous rejection of the obvious work of the Holy Spirit, and is clearly evidence of the active presence of demonic heresy operating in opposition to the Bible , and in opposition to the Church as the temple of the Holy Spirit, just as the [[Pharisees ]] rejected Jesus' miracles as evidence that He rejected Moses and was in league with Satan.

And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? And as they were leaving, Jesus began to say to the crowds about John, "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken in the wind?

<small>Ad Gloriam Dei, 31 January 2019—developed by Michael Paul Heart and the editors of Conservapedia.<br>[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harmony_of_the_Gospel_(Conservative_Version)_longer_form_Chapters_8-14&oldid=1538230 Revised Tuesday the 14th Week of Ordinary Time, 9 July 2019, by Michael Paul Heart]</small>