Paul Palmer, proud to be a pisces man

When you are in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging! So if you are in debt, the first thing you should do is to lessen your spending and increase your saving in order to reduce your debt. While it will take some time to repay your entire debt the key to staying out of debt lies in being able to maintain that low expense lifestyle and garner some savings.

Saving money is something that was once looked upon as a virtue. However, our consumerist society today seems to frown upon the same virtues that our parents and grandparents (and their parents) grow up on. Have the courage to think differently and take steps to lead a tension free life without liabilities. Here are some tips to help you get started.

Eating Out Spending Friday nights with friends can be fun, but it remains as fun only if done once in a while. Too often and you find yourself having to pay for it at the end of the month. Make sure you keep and maintain an appropriate entertainment budget.

Fancy Clothing If you are someone who loves designer clothing, then be prepared to pay for it up front in cash, and to have that much less money at the end of the month. Instead try to keep such exquisite purchases left only for special occasions such as Christmas. That way you will live within your means, get the things you want, and feel much better about all of it.

Own Home If you are looking to move out to a new place, make sure it is one that you can afford on a regular basis and are not caught up in the excitement and find yourself taking something which you can’t maintain. Rent to own, do it yourself arrangements and owner financing are some of the options available.

Grocery Shopping Don’t go for the branded items. Go for the cheapest with the largest quantity. Use coupons and discount opportunities as much as possible, but only for items that are really needed and don’t just buy them because they are cheaper.

School Supplies Stock your children’s school supplies at home and avoid buying any fancy items.

Contentment & Limitations Try to be content with what you have and live within your means. Know what your financial limitations are and don’t exceed them.

Plan your Childs Education Apart from saving early for this, also remember to teach your children ways to be self supporting, look for campus jobs and apply for scholarships.

Anticipate Failures Always have a budget plan so that you would then avoid impulsive purchases, which are often the least required ones.

Adamheist
http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/debt-management-spending-less-means-saving-more-79564.html

What makes the difference between two children raised in the same environment with the same parents when one ends up a neuro-surgeon and the other a hardened violent criminal? What makes the difference between two patients suffering in a hospice center from identical conditions when one requires very little medication and is liked by all, while the other suffers bitterly regardless of the medication and no one really wants to be around them? What are the subtle differences that seem to allow one person to live a certain life style free of illness while another doing the same things becomes ill as a result? What defines a stimulus as stressful to one while the same exact stimulus is welcomed with excitement by another? The answer is so simple as to be overly obvious.

In my work, I have had the opportunity to work with a wide range of individuals in differing settings, ranging from the inmate incarcerated in maximum security to the terminal patient in the hospice center. Over the years my observations ultimately led to this hypothesis: the persons who seem to suffer most consider themselves to be victims. The classic victim scenario in the prison generally goes something like this: all but for the grace of God there go you. Translated by the inmate population, this means something like, “What would you do? Where would you be? After all, my daddy was an alcoholic, my mother was a prostitute and the neighbor boy hung heroine on me when I was only eight”.

The fact is, our environment and circumstance do imprint us in profound ways. Our very ability to cope depends in large on our choices and they are predetermined in large by our enculturation process. Thus, what else could the victim of these tragedies do?

We all grow up with some substantially similar ideas and notions about what is fair and acceptable. We all tend to say things like “When I’m a parent, I’ll do it differently”; and yet, when our children act in some way that meets with our disapproval, we respond just as our parents did. Psychologist call this process imprinting. In very simple terms, if you raise a duckling with chickens, it will behave as a chicken. There is a marvelous story that illustrates this point.

It seems one day that an eagle flew over a chicken coop. To his amazement, pecking in the yard below, was a large gathering of chickens and a lone, beautiful female eagle. He swooped down for a closer look and the chickens together with the eagle fled to the chicken house. For days the eagle watched the chickens from a distance until one day he was certain that he could stop the beautiful eagle before she reached the chicken house. With the prowess of an eagle he was suddenly in between the eagle and the chicken house. She trembled. He spoke, “What are you doing living down here like a chicken”. She answered, “I am a chicken”. He argued, showing her the similarities between himself and her. He told her of what it was like to be an eagle and soar high above the earth. His stories only frightened her. Finally she said, “Well if I’m an eagle then you will not harm me”. He responded in the affirmative. She said, “Then step back and show me.” As he stepped backed she seized the opportunity to run into the chicken house. When the other chickens questioned her about the encounter, she told them all of how she had outsmarted the eagle. Of course, all the chickens commended her for tricking the eagle.

Many of us are like the female eagle. We outsmart ourselves with betrayals of who we really are. Our choices are predicated on our beliefs and our beliefs have been adopted from the same process inherent to the story about the chickens and the chicken house. Here is another example of how this kind of reason pervades who and what we are.

One day a man walking the streets of Manhattan passed beneath a high rise complex that consisted of very expensive condominiums. As he passed under the balcony of one of the two story units a flower pot which had been placed precariously close to the balcony edge fell and crashed down on his head. Now imagine this man’s choices. What could he do? What would be the normal thing to do? Well, he could take the broken pot back to its owners and put it guess where. Administer a beating to the idiot that put the flower pot too close to the edge, that’s what most people respond with as their first thought when I have presented this scenario to audiences. What else could he do? Well, he could be metaphysical. You know, kismet, what’s to be will be, after all, maybe the blow to his head rearranged some neurons and now he will experience higher consciousness. So just be metaphysical and act as if it was supposed to happen and just go on down the road. What else could he do? Well, he could be an opportunist. You know that flower pot fell from a wealthy person’s ledge. Whip lash, concussion, something like that—sue the sucker!

What else could he do? What would you do? How about taking the flower to a florist, potting it and returning it as a gift of love? Could you just as well do that? Of all the possibilities, which one do you think would produce the best outcome for yourself in terms of happiness, wholeness and even health?

The fact is, the normal person has been trained to behave in a normal manner. Normal means that they have a right to become angry and exact punishment. Robert Laing once said something like “normal man has educated himself to be normal and thus to become absurd” in his book THE POLITICS OF EXPERIENCE. The emotional reaction termed anger is just one such absurdity. What happens to the body when one becomes normal is no less than a weakening of the immune system and further, suspended states of fight flight, or as we know it in more modern man, anxiety and depression, literally produce chemistry that is toxic to the human condition. As Dr.’s Steven Locke and Douglas Colligan point out in their book, THE HEALER WITHIN, these hostile emotions, victim, if you will, feelings, literally can condition the body in the direction of disease as well as produce certain diseases in and of themselves (1986).

The correct answer in our flower pot analogy is of course, pot the flower and return it as a gift. The idea is not foreign in terms of possible alternatives and yet it is seldom ever considered. Our choices arise from our definitions and they have been incubated all too often in chicken houses, but let’s stop for a moment and look at one of the preferred enculturated choices from the human chicken house. My work and research has demonstrated that for every fear there is an anger response. Sometimes the anger is withheld, turned in, and sometimes it is acted out. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as anger without some fear underpinning it! Now, what exactly is anger? My examination of this cycle of fear and anger has given rise to an acronym that I often use when describing anger. A—a, N—nasty, G—getting, E—even, R—response. A nasty getting even response. If fear and anger are circular, what is it that gives rise to feeling frightened, anxious or nervous, becoming angry and responding in a fight/flight way when the stimulus is something like the way my employer speaks to me, the way my significant other looks at me, or just the stuff one feels when cut off in five o’clock traffic and given the infamous bird. None of these things are truly life threatening and after all, isn’t that what the fight/flight functions are wired in for, the preservation of the species?

Dr. Carl LaPresch used to speak of the four “F’s” in his introductory lectures regarding basic psychology. These four primitive drives were the basis for most behavior. In fact, it was Carl who first suggested to me that perhaps the highest act of human consciousness was cortical inhibition—over riding the wired in responses that can occur in the primitive brain. The four “f’s” are easy to remember and oriented to species preservation: fight, flight, feeding and—well the propagation of the species.

Why then a fight/flight response to a synthetic stimuli—that is a stimuli that is not life threatening? What special lens do we attach to certain events in life that give rise to a perception of threat when indeed the threat is not a tiger in hot pursuit? My early hypothesis regarding the fear/anger loop eventually led to the conclusion that perceived threats were rejection oriented. In other words, our individual intrinsic value was denied. Interestingly though, for most of us, the normal strategy for avoiding rejection is itself the ultimate rejection. There are two ways to be tied up in the world. One is to have someone literally bind you and another is simply to tether oneself to a thread, refusing either to pull hard enough to break it or to let it go. Many of our beliefs are the product of the latter. We refuse to let them go. Like the eagle raised by the chickens, we know what we are expected to do and define our behavior accordingly. Thus, to resolve conflict we establish strategies designed to protect us from rejection. Among these strategies our defense mechanisms function, as well as our attitudes, toward everything we will encounter in our lives.

When I was a boy my definitions included labels and what I have termed for years as the no-don’t syndrome. In my many lectures throughout America and Europe, the audience has repeatedly verified that my experience was not unique. Indeed, it was the rule. If this generalization applies, then most of us were raised with statements like: “You’re not old enough.” “You’re stupid or that’s stupid.” “Children are to be seen and not heard.” “Don’t do this”—”you can’t do that”—and so forth as well as a host of labels.

It was not long before I was wearing glasses and one of my best friends was black. My early definitions were in direct conflict with my experience; still, various strategies for coping with this conflict developed, albeit most unconsciously.

It wasn’t until I was in my thirties that I learned that not only did I wear glasses and have black friends, but my grandfather was Jewish and my great grandmother was Native American. For years I had coped by demonstrating that I was “tough enough” to wear glasses and not get called four-eyes and to stand up for what just inherently seemed wrong and later became known to me as bigotry and racism. In other words, my defense strategy was compensatory—aggression would align my inner with the outer—my experience with my training as a child could avoid conflict by simply becoming too tough for someone to challenge my behavior.

The result was devastating. Not only did I poison myself, but the never ending quest to justify my actions produced increasing needs for aggression. My relationships deteriorated and/or were destroyed, and well, you can just imagine the havoc wreaked in my own life. The method of choice for conflict in my particular upbringing was aggressive—and hostility was the norm.

What I have found over the years of life and work is that once again, this was not a unique pattern. Oh, the circumstances may vary from individual to individual, but the essence of the lesson never did. The result for many of us is a mechanism called blame. That brings us right back to our inmate whose daddy was an alcoholic and so forth. Alas, a light went on that set years of work and research into perspective, at least for me.

Now here is the bottom line: as long as one blames anything or anyone they are effectively tied up. There is nothing they can do. They are victims of their circumstances. They can only but whimper. As victims, they are helpless. As victims, perhaps they are even due benefits such as sympathy, attention, special care and so on. But as victims, they are not in charge of their circumstances and/or their responses.

Applying this theory I discovered that regardless of the circumstances, from hospice to prison, the suffering was directly related to blame or “victim-hood”. What is more, I discovered that on the opposite side of this continuum, rested the self responsible. The person who assumed control of their own life and found creative solutions for difficult situations—returning the flower, if you will, replanted in a new flower pot.

These responsible individuals were in charge of their own inner environments. Their secret was simple, they did not become angry and involved in blame. Oh they did not necessarily accept everyone or anything, in fact, quite the contrary in some instances, but they did not waste time eliminating their possibilities by divesting their power via blame. They took the initiative to resolve situations positively and assumed the responsibility for doing so. Unlike the whimpering victim, they were what they made of the stuff of life and accepted so.

There is an interesting experiment that has been replicated many times and perhaps addresses the effect this kind of hopelessness/helplessness mentality can have on physical health. Dogs were placed in Pavlovian slings where they could do nothing when electric shock was administered by psychologist Martin Seligman at the University of Pennsylvania in an experiment to determine the effects of helplessness. Seligman suggests that many of us have learned that nothing can be done in many circumstances to make a difference. Once the dogs were conditioned to the shock they were then placed in cages with floors that on one side of the cage an electric grid could be used to apply shock while on the other side of a low barrier wall the dog could escape the shock. What Seligman discovered has many ramifications. Dogs who had not been conditioned in the sling ran around frantically when shock was first administered. They learned to jump the small wall and escape the shock. They became so good at it that when the electricity was turned on, they simply got up and casually jumped over the wall. However, dogs that had been conditioned to the sling ran frantically at first just as the unconditioned dogs but soon quit and only whimpered. They accepted the shock passively and thus the whimpering shocked dog metaphor (Ibid). This sense or conditioned belief in victim-hood has been demonstrated to effect the immune system in a negative manner. The Institute of Noetic Sciences has funded much of the research in what is now termed PNI or psychoneuroimmunology and this body of work shows clearly, as does the entire body of literature regarding mind/body wellness, that the deleterious effects of certain mental processes on the body can literally kill ( ). Nothing I could do—helplessness—victim-hood—this side of the responsibility equation is among the worst of mental processes one can adopt regardless of its source. In fact, in a paper that is now in press, we learned from a follow-up study of terminally diagnosed patients conducted by PROGRESSIVE AWARENESS RESEARCH, that the physicians attitude is somehow more influential on patient life expectancy than either the treatment modality or the patients attitude toward their future, their responsibility regarding the disease and/or their outcome expectation. Somehow the attitude of the physician is assumed to have been communicated to the patient for in every single instance where the physicians responded to the questionnaire regarding patients role in terms of the positive use of their mind with neutral to negative evaluation, the patient died. The study generally indicated a survival rate of over 30% for all respondents (remission) and an increase in life by up to three years over time given in prognosis for those patients whose physicians generally agreed that the mind has a role in patient health even in the face of “terminal” illness. The assumption suggests that one must fully accept the responsibility for their own lives and mental processes even if that means guarding against the influence of another.

What then is the pragmatic to overcome, or I prefer, to outgrow, this early conditioning. Once again, it’s so simple as to be difficult—difficult to believe and difficult to do. The answer is forgive! In my research we began applying three messages as cognitive tools to untie the victim. They are called the forgiveness set and consist of these three statements: I forgive myself; I forgive all others; and I am forgiven.

When you forgive, you can not blame. If you do not blame it’s exceedingly difficult to become angry. What you cannot become angry about, you do not fear. When there is nothing to fear, there is nothing to become angry about or no one to blame. Life is simply a miracle and living is the process of maximizing the miraculous experience. Every thought or deed becomes therefore differently oriented. When you accept responsibility for everything in your universe, you gain the power to make changes. The real changes are made in you and thus your experience of life and self become qualitatively different almost immediately.

You are in charge of your inner environment, and your beliefs, attitudes and emotions do matter to you. Your health, your enjoyment of life, your ability to become all that you are is inescapably involved in your ability to forgive and let go.

But alas, you may say, that’s all too simple and further life sucks and then we die. And I am sure you can find many that will agree. Still, if you want to see the barnyard from the sky, spread your wings and see for yourself. Seeing is believing. Try it—I promise, you’ll like it. And if necessary, fake it until you make it.

Eldon Taylor
http://www.articlesbase.com/motivational-articles/owning-your-own-controls-3966.html

Do you ever feel like events in your life are out of control? Some days, it’s easy to feel that way.

No matter how diligently you set goals, visualise results, and affirm a positive outcome, every once in a while your life is going to feel as if it’s gone a little crazy. Carefully laid plans go up in smoke – sometimes quite literally. People you counted on, bail out on you. A health or family crisis strikes. An earthquake or tornado puts you back to square one. Suddenly you feel as if you’re completely off course, out of control, and lost at sea. life is like that at times but don’t stress keep your focus and you will still get to where you are going.

At times like this, there are a few things it may help you to remember. First of all, no one can control every aspect of his or her life, and adversity comes to all of us, no matter how moral we are, and no matter how good our attitude is. Bad things happen to good people all the time.

Second, it’s important to realize that there is one and only one thing in life that is completely within your power to control, and that is your response to what happens to you. When you find yourself overcome with feelings of fear, helplessness, doom and gloom, you can put the brakes on these feelings by gently but firmly choosing to shift the focus of the thoughts that are running through your mind.

Your feelings are a direct result of the thoughts you think, and setting aside some time every morning and evening for positive visualization, affirmation, or guided meditation is a highly effective way of getting these thoughts back under your control again. Try it. I think you’ll be surprised at just how well it works.

Paul Palmer

Technorati Tags: life, out of control, paul palmer

To begin with, it is largely a relative concept, because while some men and their partners may be happy with ejaculation five minutes into intercourse, others may require 15. What compounds the problem is that what a man views as premature ejaculation may actually be delayed ejaculation on the part of the woman.

Let’s make this a little clearer: say a man reaches climax after four minutes of intercourse. This would not be premature ejaculation if his partner were to climax in three minutes, so – wham bam thank you Sam. However, even if a man ejaculates 15 minutes after intercourse, he would still think it was premature ejaculation if his partner routinely took 30 minutes to reach her climax.

This is what happened with Graham Hinds of Savannah, Georgia. In a relationship for three months, the 19-year-old student was miserable about what he though was his inability to delay ejaculation until he consulted an urologist. “He found I was taking about seven minutes to reach a climax, while my girlfriend was obviously not achieving orgasm through intercourse at all. So he suggested I bring her to a climax before intercourse in order to satisfy both of us,” says Graham.

However, there is no denying that PE is a serious enough problem for close to 40% of men below the age of 50 in the US. In plenty of cases, this means that the man reaches climax as soon as sexual contact is made, or even during foreplay. Robin Carson, a mechanical engineer in his late 30s, went through many broken relationships and rock-bottom self-esteem before summoning up the courage to consult a sexual therapist about his PE problem.

“I would come even before I actually entered my partner,” says Robin, “and the number of times I said sorry is too humiliating to even think about.” Happily married today, Robin is seriously thinking of starting a PE support group in his home city of Nashville, Tennessee, where he met “countless other sufferers” during his therapy.

So what can one do to prevent premature ejaculation? One of the first steps to do that is to learn to control the pubococcygeus (PC) muscle. Most commonly, a weakness in this muscle leads to premature ejaculation. How do you find this muscle? Just deliberately stop the flow when you urinate. The muscle that you use to shut off the stream of urine is the PC muscle, and you need to strengthen it.

In order to do that, you must perform certain exercises that will teach this muscle to control the flow of ejaculate. Try this: contract the muscle for five seconds, and then relax for five seconds. Do this at least 10 times initially, at least twice a day. Gradually, increase the number of contractions-relaxations to 50, and thrice a day.

Once you have the hang of it, try it during a sex session, and you will find you can control premature ejaculation. A good indicator of how successful you have been will be the ease with which you can cut off the urine flow. However, do not rush the process and overstrain yourself. As with all exercises, patience is the key.

Simon Chan
http://www.articlesbase.com/sexuality-articles/advice-on-premature-ejaculation-prevention-72289.html

Late-date-for-the-Gospel Theory

Jesus was a historical figure. Modern historians and scholars agree. That tells us something, but not a whole lot. Davy Crockett was a real man too. But books, movies, and television shows turned the real man into a legend. How about the story of Jesus? Did the Gospel writers take the real man, Jesus of Nazareth, and embellish him with such things as a virgin birth, miracles, sinless life, voluntary martyr’s death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven?

Many will tell you today that is exactly what happened. Doesn’t that appear to be the most reasonable explanation? Those “added features” seem unnatural; they seem out of place. They certainly aren’t the rock-hard reality you and I encounter everyday.

At least on the surface, it sounds like these four writers created a myth, a legend, The other side says, “No.” Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not myths; they are not legends; they are factual accounts of what actually took place. As you can see, the issue here revolves around one very important question, namely: How reliable are the Gospel reports on this historical figure?

For the past three hundred years, the best and brightest scholars have mulled over that very question. As they see it, Jesus is an enigma. On one hand, they admire the depth and sanity of Jesus’ moral teachings. The Jewish carpenter taught moral truths in their simplest and purest form. No one before or since has expressed them so well or with so much authority.

His teachings do not come across as sloppy idealism. Just the opposite. His words have the unmistakable ring of wisdom and shrewdness. Such insights into life and human nature must have come from an exceptionally sound and intelligent mind.

There is wide spread agreement on that score. But then again, what do we do with those grandiose claims of Jesus? He said he is the Son of God! Could a man with a sound mind say that about himself? And we keep running into miracles, including raising the dead; and he himself was reported as resurrected from the grave. And of course there is also the virgin birth. Does not the inclusion of supernatural elements make the entire story questionable?

Those who sought a rational explanation thought over the possibilities and concluded Jesus the Moral teacher was the real thing. His words rang true, so that much of the gospel story they accepted. However, no written account of the life of Jesus existed for a hundred years or so after his death. Word was passed down orally from one generation to the next during those formative years, and exaggerations seeped in.

You know how it is when stories are passed around. A little enhancement here, a little tinkering with the details there, and before long you’ve got a story all out of proportion to that of the original. By the time Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were put on paper, tall tales were well established parts of the story.

Consequently, what we call the New Testament is nothing more than a mixture of truth and error – a bit of first century reality intermingled with generous portions of second or even third century nonsense.

However, we now realize the Late-date-for-the-Gospel theory was flawed from the beginning. The case for it was not based on evidence. It was mere speculation, speculation to allow sufficient time for the legend surrounding Christ to develop. The facts involved tell us a different story. What evidence we can muster tends to confirm early dates for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Papias and Irenaeus Discredit Late Gospel Theory

In A.D. 130, Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, quoted The Elder (the apostle John) as saying that Mark accurately recorded Peter’s statements regarding Jesus’ actions and words. Since Mark had not personally witnessed the events, however, they were not written in chronological order. On the other hand, Mark was scrupulously faithful to Peter’s teachings. Nothing added, nothing omitted.

As you can see, Papias strongly endorses the book of Mark. The sequence may be wrong, but, he assures us, these are the very words of Peter.

Irenaeus was the bishop of Lugdunum (what is now Lyons) in A.D. 177. He was a student of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna who was burned at the stake in A.D. 156. Polycarp in turn was a disciple of the apostle John.

Irenaeus informs us that, “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the church. After their deaths (Paul somewhere between A.D. 62 and 68 and Peter about A.D. 64), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke, follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord himself, produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.”

Papias agreed saying, “Matthew recorded the ‘oracles’ in the Hebrew tongue.” All the early church leaders say the same thing, namely, Matthew was the first written Gospel. When was it written? Irenaeus indicates it was probably produced in the early A.D. 60s. Mark’s Gospel followed Matthew, Luke wrote third, and John composed his narrative some time later.

Notice the real significance of Irenaeus’ comments. None of the Gospels ever went through a series of oral hand-me-downs. He assures us the apostle Matthew wrote his own account of what he had seen and heard. Likewise, the apostle John produced a manuscript of what he himself had witnessed. The apostle Peter preached. Mark wrote down his words, and wrote them down accurately too, according to Papias. By the same token, Luke recorded what he heard directly from Paul.

Irenaeus was only the second generation from the apostle John. In time and in acquaintances, he was very close to the facts. He said the only oral tradition in Mark is what Peter told Mark; the only oral tradition in Luke is what Paul told Luke. In Matthew and John, the oral tradition was not a factor at all.

Oral Tradition

But what about the oral tradition anyway? The first century was an oral society. Yes, they did have writing, but it was primarily a spoken word tradition instead of a paper based society like our own. We do not depend on our memories as much as they did in the first century. We write it down and refer to it later, or we look it up on the computer. It’s easier that way.

But before the age of the printing press, books or scrolls were too expensive for the average man to own. Whatever one needed or wanted to know, he had to carry around in his head. That required a good memory.

A Jewish rabbi of the period remarked, “A good disciple is like a well-built cistern: he does not let a drop of water fall from his master’s teachings.” Jesus’ disciples were no doubt equally diligent in preserving the words and deeds of their master — all the more so because they had good reason to believe he was the Messiah, the Holy One from God.

Gospel Authorship and Dating

Gospel of Matthew

The Gospels themselves contain a number of clues giving us a rough idea of when they were written. Matthew is a good example. The early church fathers were unanimous in attributing this work to Matthew, the tax collector who left his job to follow Jesus. His occupation required him to keep records, so it doesn’t surprise us that he had the ability to write.

We find his Gospel had a distinctive Jewish style and character. According to both Papias and Irenaeus, the first edition was written in the “Hebrew tongue.” It is a Jewish book written by a Jew for a Jewish audience.

The author starts by tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Abraham, the patriarch. Throughout his narrative, Matthew is constantly pointing out how Jesus is fulfilling this or that Messianic prophecy. His goal is to convince Jews, Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God based on documents they consider beyond reproach.

Matthew feels no need to explain Jewish customs, which is reasonable if he is addressing Jewish readers. Also he uses such Jewish euphemisms as “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Father in Heaven.” Jews were reluctant to even mention the name of God. Consequently, these terms were common substitutes in their vocabulary. And what could be more Jewish than to speak of Jesus as the “Son of David?”

The exclusive Jewish character of Matthew suggests the book was composed shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, a time when the Christian movement was almost entirely Jewish.

In his 1996 book Eyewitnesses to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels, Carsten Peter Thiede, A German papyrologist, analyzes three small scraps of Matthew chapter 26 from Magdalen College at Oxford University.

He found several ancient documents which were comparable in both style and technique: the Qumran leather scroll of Leviticus, dated to the middle of the first century; an Aristophanes papyrus copy of Equites (The Knights), dated late first century B.C. to early first century A.D.; and incredibly enough, an Egyptian document actually signed and dated by three civil servants July 24, 66.

Based on these close comparisons, Thiede concludes that the three tiny fragments of Matthew chapter 26, known collectively as the Magdalen papyrus, date no later than A.D. 70. As we have already noted, both Irenaeus and Papias claim the original Matthew manuscript was in Hebrew. Obviously, the Hebrew original must have predated this papyrus Greek translation.

Gospel of Luke

Perhaps the least controversial author of the Gospel writers is Luke. Most agree that the physician and sometimes traveling companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel that bears his name, that is, the Gospel of Luke.

That book is a companion volume to the book of Acts. The language and structure of the two manuscripts indicate they were written by the same person. And they were addressed to the same individual — Theophilus. Luke’s authorship is supported by early Christian writings such as the Muratorian Canon A.D 170 and the works of Irenaeus in A.D. 180.

Luke appears to be a well-educated gentile. His writings show he is fluent in Greek. At times his style even approaches that of classic Greek. Both of his books are rich in historical and geographical detail. As others have observed, this physician writes like an historian.

Luke tells us that a number of people had already written about Jesus’ life. However, he would like to set the record straight and correct the errors he found in those early reports. To separate fact from fiction, Luke conducts a personal investigation interviewing eyewitnesses and verifying oral accounts with the apostles. In his own words, he investigated everything from the beginning to write an orderly report for Theophilus so that he could be certain of the things he had been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)

Indirect evidence suggests Luke wrote Acts in the early A.D. 60′s. Acts is a history of early Christianity which was centered in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem’s destruction which occurred in A.D. 70.

Likewise, nothing is mentioned of Nero’s persecution of Christians in A.D. 64, nor does it tell of the martyrdom of the three major characters in the book: James, brother of Jesus, A.D. 62; Peter A.D. 64; and Paul some time between A.D. 62 and 68.

On the other hand, Acts does inform us of the deaths of two less prominent figures: Stephen, the first known martyr, in A.D. 36, and the apostle James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, in A.D. 44. Based on this indirect evidence, there is reason to believe Acts was composed in A.D. 62 or earlier. Acts is an obvious continuation of the Gospel Luke. So if Acts were written by Luke no later than A.D. 62, the Gospel of Luke was most likely recorded before that time, presumably in the late 50′s.

Carsten Thiede speaks of a codex papyrus of Luke’s Gospel located at the Bibliotheque in Paris. After evaluating the original document, the papyrologist decided it was from the first century A.D., only slightly older than the Magdalen Papyrus.

Later Embellishment Theory

Before we leave Luke, there is another item which needs to be mentioned. Skeptics, you will recall, believe that all of those miraculous events were just fictitious inventions tacked on to the original writings hundreds of years later. Luke discredits their “later embellishment” theory.

In Acts 2:22, he quotes Peter’s sermon to the Jews at Pentecost: “Men of Israel, hear me. Jesus of Nazareth was singled out by God and made known to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did among you through him.” Peter followed that up with: “. . . you, with the help of wicked men put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead . . . . God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact . . . . God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:23-24, 32, and 36)

Peter said in effect: You yourselves saw Jesus perform miracles. That wasn’t just a man you crucified. That was your Lord and Christ. What’s more, that Man did not stay dead. God brought him back to life. We know that for a fact. We have seen him with our own eyes; heard him with our own ears; why, we even ran our fingers over his crucifixion wounds. He’s alive. And he’s back!

The interesting point here is how the crowd reacts. If modern skeptics were right, that is, those incredible supernatural events never really happened, we would expect the crowd to say something to the effect: Who are you kidding? That man never performed any miracles! And he’s dead. We saw him die. Forget him, Peter. Go get a life of your own.

But they didn’t say that. Instead: “They were cut to the heart and said: ‘Brothers, what should we do?’” (Acts 2:37) They had seen Jesus’ “miracles, wonders, and signs” and Peter used that knowledge to convert those Jews to Christianity.

Something else. Notice that Peter doesn’t shy away from Jesus’ resurrection. In fact, it is the focal point of his speech. Remarkable isn’t it? Three thousand of those listening to Peter’s words accepted the apostle’s eye witnessed account. We read, “Those who accepted (Peter’s) message were baptized and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” (Acts 2:41)

Peter, John, and Paul all made good use of firsthand evidence in their writings. Peter said: We didn’t make up stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)

John reads: We tell you what we have seen and heard so you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3) John is talking about himself when he referred to the witness of Christ’s death: “We know this is true, because it was told by someone who saw it happen. Now you can have faith too.” (John 19:35 CEV)

Also Paul, in speaking to Festus and King Agrippa, tells them that Christ did exactly what Moses and the prophets said he would do, that is, he suffered, died, and was raised from the dead. Festus immediately questioned Paul’s sanity. But Paul responds: “What I am saying is reasonable and true. The king is familiar with these things and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.” (Acts 26:25-26)

Again, notice the reaction. The interesting thing here is what King Agrippa did not say. He didn’t say: That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard of Paul. It has been my experience that dead people tend to stay dead!

That’s exactly what we would expect Agrippa to say, unless, unless he knew something out of the ordinary had taken place. Paul made three startling claims here: First, Jesus was the long awaited Messiah and the fulfillment of prophecy. Second, Jesus was resurrected from the grave. And perhaps ever more extraordinary, Paul himself claims to have seen and heard the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Amazingly enough, King Agrippa doesn’t laugh at, ridicule, or get angry at Paul’s “outrageous” claims. Apparently, Agrippa didn’t find the remarks outrageous. He merely replies, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28)

Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark was very likely composed in A.D. 50′s or the early 60′s. According to early church tradition, Mark was written in Rome where Peter spent the last days of his life. Romans crucified Peter upside down in A.D. 64.

Mark seems to have been written for a gentile audience, possibly a Roman audience. Unlike Matthew, he explains Jewish customs and translates Aramaic words for his readers. Also Mark shows a special interest in persecution and martyrdom – subjects of crucial importance to Roman believers of his day.

Mark’s work was readily accepted, and it spread rapidly throughout Christianity. Some believe the reason it was distributed so quickly is because it originated in Rome.

A papyrus scroll fragment of Mark 6:52-53 called 7Q5 was excavated from Qumran Cave 7. “It must be dated before A.D. 68 and could easily be as early as A.D. 50,” claims Carsten Thiede.

Although the early church said Matthew was the first Gospel, many today think Mark wrote his account first. They base their judgment on the fact that Mark’s book is shorter and much of what he said can be found in the Gospel of Matthew.

Scholars are inclined to say it was more likely that Matthew would expand on Mark’s text rather that Mark would condense and leave out parts of what Matthew wrote. Besides, all of what Mark wrote supposably came directly from Peter.

The assumption is that one copied from the other, but independent origins are a distinct possibility. The question remains, why would an original apostle of Christ need to depend on anyone else to tell him what Jesus said and did?

Both writers probably used the same oral tradition for memorized accounts of Christ’s sayings and actions. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that these bits and pieces of information had already found their way into writing before Matthew and Mark composed their Gospels. The Gospel writers arranged and shaped those commonly known stories and sayings of Jesus into the more comprehensive narratives which bear their names.

Whichever Gospel was first, there is general consensus that both Matthew and Mark appeared before Luke unveiled his Gospel. That puts the probable dates of both early compositions somewhere in the A.D. 50′s. The significant point here is that the period from Jesus’ death to the first three Gospels is too short for the introduction of myths and legends.

The virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection were all there from the beginning. Those “incredible” supernatural events were an intricate part of the original story.

Many saw and remembered Jesus’ miracles, and over five hundred people saw the resurrected Jesus on one occasion. Early Christianity relied on this common knowledge for recruiting new members. The apostles pointed out that this resurrected miracle worker was both Lord and Christ. As Peter demonstrated at Pentecost, it was a very persuasive argument.

We have taken a brief look at each of the first three Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These books agree in language, much of the material they cover, and in a rough sort of way, the order of what Jesus said and did too. Because of this widespread general agreement, these narratives are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.

Gospel of John

Someone with a lot more patience than I claims that 91 percent of the Gospel of Mark is found in Matthew, while 53 percent of Mark is seen in Luke. But what of the fourth Gospel – the Gospel According to John? What do we know about it?

The apostle John “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is the author. He refers to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” six times without naming the name. He was prominent in the early church, but his name is never mentioned in this Gospel. That is one of the little oddities of his book. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” would be a “natural” if somewhat coy way of referring to himself if John were the author. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain.

The Gospel of John has a number of personal eyewitness touches such as recalling the fragrance of Mary’s pure nard perfume which she poured on Jesus’ feet in the house at Bethany. And then there is the episode of Jesus writing in the dust with his finger when they brought him the woman caught in adultery.

C.S. Lewis points out that the significance of this “dust writing” is the fact it has no significance. If it were a tale, it would be the mark of a realistic prose fiction which never actually existed prior to the eighteenth century. To quote Lewis: “Surely, the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened. The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”

Two early Christian writers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, both claim that John the apostle composed this Gospel and the internal evidence concurs. Traditionally, it has been dated around A.D. 85. More recently, some scholars have suggested an earlier date, even down to the 50′s and no later than the 70′s. One bit of internal evidence is John 5:2, where John uses the present tense “is” rather than “was” for a pool near the Sheep Gate. That implies a time before A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.

In 1935 a small fragment of the Gospel of John was found and dated at A.D. 125. It is called the John Ryland Manuscript. One side quotes John 18:31-33, and the other sides shows verses 37-38. The importance of this find is hard to overstate, because it helps to confirm the traditional date of this Gospel in the first century. Before this discovery, there was a movement among scholars to place the original composition date around A.D. 170.

Textual Criticism

There is an academic discipline called “Textual Criticism.” When the original document is lost, textual critics compare all available copies to try to piece together what the original document probably said. In general the more manuscripts available and the closer they date to the original, the better. The New Testament scores well on both points.

New Testament books provide a wealth of material for the text critic scholars to evaluate: 5,147 ancient manuscripts, over 10,000 translated scripts into Latin Vulgate, and numerous other translations, plus a large assortment of early scripture quotations by the church fathers. Most of the differences in the copies are minor variations such as word order, spelling, grammar, or stylistic details. However, some variations make a difference. The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament lists 2,040 sets of word variations they think Bible translators should consider.

Does that sound like a lot of disagreement? Actually, it represents a very small portion of the New Testament scriptures. But the important point is this: The unanimous opinion among text scholars remains intact; none of the disputed words affect any doctrine of the Christian faith.

Realistically that is the best Christians could hope for. The same textual criticism which analyzes all ancient text confirms the substance of the New Testament text. The ancient text experts tell us the New Testament account we have today is essentially the same message that the authors recorded over nineteen centuries ago.

Jerry Richard Boone
http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/how-reliable-are-the-gospels-105547.html

Success in school for your children is influenced by you.

Most parents genuinely want their kids to do well in school, and there is a great deal that parents can do to make school success more likely. First, and far above all else, find out how to build your child’s self-image and work at it steadily. There is nothing more important than a strong self-image for success in school, or anywhere else for that matter.

Second, get personally involved. Your kids may try to persuade you to back off, but parental involvement is something that they really do need and want. Get to know their teachers. Ask both child and teacher about what goes on in class and listen attentively to their answers.

Spend time reading their schoolbooks with them. And yes, check on them. Make sure they have a good place to work and help them keep track of assignments so they get done on time. (It may mean temporarily retiring the video games and putting instant messaging on hiatus!) Review their assignments and tests with them when they come back, praise their success, and correct mistakes.

Show them you have the courage to teach by helping them learn how to break large tasks down into smaller, more manageable chunks, how to assign priorities, and the importance of rewarding themselves when they accomplish a goal. Perhaps you’ve heard some of this advice before, but it’s good to re-emphasize that these things work!

If you do them consistently, they will have a significant, positive effect on your child’s success in school.

Paul Palmer

Success in school will pave the way for a successful life. Your offspring are there to let your life speak long into the future

Technorati Tags: paul palmer, success in school, successful life

Everyone at some point or the other needs sage advice. Business leaders are no exception, since they specially need it to ease the life of stress and worry that arises from strategies, profits and important meetings. They usually have difficulty in perceiving simpler solutions to problems. Coaching or mentoring is the most efficacious approach to help business leaders to achieve maximum in minimum time and that too without taxing their lifestyles.

The goal of a business coach should always be to help draw out leadership capability in individuals he is associated with. A business coach must make an effort to help the business executive learn about how to design and link specific leadership challenges, assuming complete responsibility to overcome the challenge successfully.

A business coach must take the following steps first, before introducing them with the leadership and problem solving aspects:

- Take into account the work culture and the talent of the team, by partnering first with the CEO or business head and the HR team.

- The mentoring should go on for as long as the business coach is not completely satisfied with the performance of the participants. The aim here is to coach the executives in such a way that they are aware of every aspect of leadership and problem solving skills.

- Companies hire business coaches to improve the performance of the team, both, collectively as a team and individually. After the completion of the coaching session an executive should have a better understanding of individual and organizational behavior. He should be able to comprehend the key changes that are required for his transition from manager to leader.

The six characteristics that are indispensable requisites for a successful business coach are:

Strong Belief: Coaches need to have a very strong belief system, a vision of the future, a positive approach to every problem and a strong understanding of themselves. This they need to pass on to the managers, who lack these basic leadership skills.

Optimism: This is an absolutely essential trait for a leader. It is a trait that sets apart the managers from leaders and the coach himself should have this approach on life and business, to teach others.

Courage: The coach has to hardwire this virtue in managers. He has to prove to them that although we all have our own fears; the main thing is to learn how to overcome them in the best possible way.

Teamwork: This is a very important point to remember. It is preached everywhere, but seldom practiced. The coach should himself know how to work within a team. Everyone knows that leaders cannot do everything by themselves and so they have a team of individuals with different talents. He has to guide the team in such a way that each talent is fully utilized and the team feels good about using their talent.

Good preparation: Always prepare and go through your content before you start implementing them on the participants. The content needs to cover all the aspects of the subject, from basic skills to designing and implementation of leadership ideas.

Clear communication: The most important of all traits is effective communication. Managers dont essentially become leaders because they cannot communicate their ideas to the management and their team effectively. A business coach is not only responsible for polishing the communication skills of the participant, but also on how he speaks and conveys management strategy to the participants.

Kris Koonar
http://www.articlesbase.com/management-articles/characteristics-of-a-business-coach-92911.html

What difference does it make whether we keep the Golden Rule? The difference between heaven and hell, says Jesus. Should we ignore his advice? or listen to what he has to say?

“An expert in the law tested him with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?’

“Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all of your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and the greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’” (Matthew 22:35-40)

If we truly love our neighbors as ourselves we will not mistreat them. Brawling, murder, revenge, swindling, and theft are unthinkable. Grumbling, gossiping, insulting, lying, perjuring, quarreling, slandering, and strife in general will never happen. And defrauding, extortion, indecency, provocation, and causing others to sin are repugnant to us.

Physical Abuse

Murder

Clearly, we are not to physically abuse each other. Jesus says unequivocally: Do not murder. Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. (Matthew 5:21) He repeats the warning: If you want eternal life, do not murder. (Matthew 19:16-19) (Mark 10:17-19) (Luke 18:18-20)

What happens to murderers? “Their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

Revenge

Jesus, Paul, and Peter all warn us against it. Jesus issues what may well be the most difficult command in all the Bible when he tells us not to resist those who wrong us. If someone strikes your right cheek, turn and offer him the other one also. (Matthew 5:39)

Does he really want us to do that? Or is this a bit of hyperbole to make the point we should not take revenge?

Paul gives us an order and a reason: “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. ” (Romans 12:19-20) He tells the Thessalonians: “Make sure no one pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.” (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

Again Paul: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.” (Romans 12:17)

Peter has a similar comment: “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3:9)

Theft

We are not to take what does not belong to us: don’t steal, don’t defraud, don’t extort, and don’t swindle. Isn’t that just saying the obvious for civilized behavior? Yes, but people still do steal, defraud, extort, and swindle. Anyone who is tempted to commit one of these crimes should understand the eternal consequences.

Jesus: If you want eternal life, do not steal. (Matthew 19:16-19) Again Jesus: Theft makes a man unclean. (Matthew 15:18-19) And: If you want eternal life, do not defraud. (Mark 10:18-19)

Paul: Thieves and swindlers do not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:10) Paul advises: “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.” (Ephesians 4:28)

John the Baptist: “Don’t extort money.” (Luke 3:14)

Verbal Abuse

Bragging and Boasting

I am sure you have heard the old ditty: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” But it is not true. Words do matter. What you say makes a big difference to God.

James and John both caution us against bragging and boasting.

James: You boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. (James 4:16)

John: Do not love the world or anything in the world. The boasting of what a man has and does-comes not from the Father but from the world. (1 John 2:15-16)

Careless Talk

Carelessness too can be our downfall. Jesus gives us three warnings: “Men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:36-37)

A second quote from the book of Matthew: “What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean.” (Matthew 15:11)

Jesus’ third quote includes the following explanation: “Things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man unclean.” (Matthew 15:18-20)

James offers us this candid bit of advice: “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.” (James 1:26) Also see James 3:5, 6, and

Complaining and Grumbling

Paul, James, and Peter tell us to refrain from complaining and grumbling. Paul admonishes us twice: “Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God.” (Philippians 2:14-15)

And: Do not grumble like ancestors who were killed by the destroying angel. (1 Corinthians 10:10)

James warns us: “Don’t grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!” (James 5:9)

And Peter simply says: “Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.” (1 Peter 4:9)

Dissensions and Factions

Paul includes dissentions and factions in his category of obvious acts of the sinful nature. The punishment is severe. “Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21) In Romans, he again tells us not to engage in dissension, (Romans 13:13) and in Corinthians, he speaks against factions. (2 Corinthians 12:20)

Gossips

Paul mentioned gossips on several occasions. Here is how he accounts for them. Because man did not see fit to acknowledge God, he gave them over to their own depraved way of thinking and that lead them to all kinds of misconduct. They became gossips, slanderers, and haters of God. (Romans 1:28-30)

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote he was afraid when he came to see them he would find gossip, arrogance, and disorder. (2 Corinthians 12:20) And in 1 Timothy, the apostle cautions the church not to support widows younger than age sixty because they may become idlers, gossips, and busybodies, saying things best left unsaid. (1 Timothy 5:13)

Insults

We should not insult each other. It is one of the numerous obvious truths mentioned throughout the Bible. Insults stir up ill will and the desire to retaliate. Jesus forbids this sin: “Anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matthew 5:22)

Peter gives us this caveat: “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult.” (1 Peter 3:9)

Lying

Another obvious sin is lying. Paul simply says, “Do not lie to each other.” (Colossians 3:9) In 1 Timothy, he tells us that liars flaunt the sound teaching of the gospel. (1 Timothy 1:8-10) And Jesus states the penalty: “All liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

Well, of course, lying is wrong, but aren’t there times when shading the truth a bit might be in the best interest of everyone? That, I believe, depends on what we mean by “shading the truth.” Let’s say you encounter a very ugly woman. Would your sense of “honesty” compel you to inform her of your opinion?

Nothing is more destructive than brutal “honesty” of that sort. Neither you nor I really want to hear a “truth” that’s nothing more than in-your-face-hostility. Only the immature equate rudeness with honesty or tact with lying. Honesty is a requirement, so is kindness. There is little or no conflict between the two. Mature people understand that point.

On the other hand, intentionally distorting or twisting the truth for your own advantage is deception. Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John all condemn that practice. Rarely, if ever, will we find any legitimate reason for distorting the truth. Our intention should always be to speak the truth because we know we must account for everything we say. (Matthew 12:36)

Offensive Talk

Offensive talk in general is counterproductive. Paul orders us to watch our speech. Let there be no more offensive talk but rather words that are helpful. (Ephesians 4:29) Later in the same letter he writes: There must not be any obscenity, foolish talk, or coarse joking among you. (Ephesians 5:4)

In Colossians, Paul says to rid ourselves of filthy language. (Colossians 3:8) Then in 2 Timothy, he gives us this word of warning: “Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.” (2 Timothy 2:16)

Perjury

Perjury means intentionally giving false testimony under oath or withholding material evidence. John the Baptist responded to the solders who had asked his advice: “Don’t accuse people falsely.” (Luke 3:14)

Jesus says false testimony is a sin that defiles a man. (Matthew 15:18-20) And in three of the gospels he says if you want eternal life, do not give false testimony. (Matthew 19:16-19) (Mark 10:17-19) (Luke 18:18-20)

And Paul adds: Perjurers flaunt the sound teaching of the gospel. (1 Timothy 1:10-11 REB)

Quarreling

Quarreling is yet another verbal offense. In five passages Paul orders us to refrain from quarreling. (Romans 13:13) (1 Corinthians 1:11-17) (2 Corinthians 12:20) (1 Timothy 2:8) (Titus 3:2) Warn your fellow Christians to stop quarreling about mere words. It does no good, and only ruins those who listen. (2 Timothy 2:14)

Again Paul: Avoid foolish controversies, arguments, and quarrels. These are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that have nothing to do with him. Such a man is warped and sinful. (Titus 3:9-10)

Paul also warned the Corinthians against jealousy and quarreling which showed they were worldly. (1 Corinthians 3:3)

Slander

Slander means to say something false attempting to damage another’s reputation. Jesus, Paul, James, and Peter all condemn this sin.

Jesus: Slander defiles a person. (Mark 7:22-23 REB)

Paul: Slanderers do not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:10) Also see: Ephesians 4:31, Colossians 3:8, Titus 3:2, James 4:11, and 1 Peter 2:1.

At one point or another in our lives we all become painfully aware, we cannot take back what we say. We may regret it; we may apologize for it; but the damage is done. As we mature, we ought to learn to choose our words carefully.

Christians are specifically warned against: boasting and bragging, careless talk, complaining, grumbling, creating dissensions or factions, gossiping, insulting others, lying, offensive talk, perjuring, quarreling, and slandering. Mere words can get us in a lot of trouble — with eternal consequences.

The New Testament writers mention several other misdeeds which don’t fit in either category: physical or verbal abuse. We will just call these offenses: other abuses against people.

Other Abuses Against People

Busybodies

Busybodies are meddlesome people. Paul tells the Thessalonians: Some of you mind everybody’s business but your own. We urge you to settle down to work and earn a living. (2 Thessalonians 3:11-13)

Divorce

Jesus explains the reason why husbands and wives should not separate: “At the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one.’ Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Paul adds his advice: “A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

In both Mark and Luke, Jesus states it unequivocally: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12) (Luke 16:18)

However twice in Matthew, Jesus makes a singular exception: “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:32) (Matthew 19:9)

Indecency or Impurity

Indecency is defined as immodest, obscene, or vulgar behavior. Today such conduct is so common it is almost considered normal or natural. If we notice it at all, we tend to dismiss it as a minor offense. Jesus, Paul, and John disagree. Here is what they have to say:

Jesus: Indecency defiles a person. (Mark 7:21-23 REB)

Paul: Impurity is an act of the sinful nature. Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

(Galatians 5:19-21)

Again Paul: But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. (Ephesians 5:3) No impure person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5:5)

Jesus: “But the vile — Their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

John: Nothing impure will ever enter heaven nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful. (Revelation 21:27)

Every age reads their own values into Christianity. In a vague, hazy sort of way, we assume God must see things the way we do. That naive sentiment would have God doing a flip flop in his principles every generation or so to keep up with the latest intellectual fad.

A more reasonable view is that God’s values are permanent. The writer of Hebrews says that Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8) First century Christians were ordered to behave decently; we have no reason to believe less is expected of us today. Jesus, Paul, and John all tell us that indecency is not permitted.

Provoking

Paul urges us: “Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.” (Galatians 5:26)

Causing Others to Sin

In Matthew, Jesus warns us twice: “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!” (Matthew 18:7) And: “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

Details of the Golden Rule

We have covered a long list of do’s and don’ts regarding our behavior towards others. What sounds like a cumbersome agenda of rules and regulations really isn’t that at all. These dos and don’ts are merely the details filling out the Golden Rule. Treat others the way you would want to be treated. It is simple and covers all the bases.

If you are looking for a new twist on the subject , sorry, I don’t have one. But I do have a couple of observations. First, the importance of the Golden Rule cannot be overstated. Here is the very heart and soul of Christianity.

Jesus tells us the first commandment is to love God. How do we love God? By obeying his command. What command. To love our neighbor as our self. How do we do that? By treating them as we would have them treat us. That’s it. That’s what Christianity is all about.

My second point is: Despite it’s importance, few people actually practice it. Oh, occasionally you may run across someone who makes the effort. But they are the exception. Most of us settle for treating other people about the same way they treat us. And we think we are pretty nice folks for doing that much. It’s natural enough. But Christianity demands a higher standard.

Someone asked Jesus, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”

He replied, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” (Luke 13:23-24)

In Matthew, Jesus says, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

When Jesus speaks of the judgment to come, it becomes clear that the “narrow door,” the “small gate,” and “narrow road” are all symbols for keeping the Golden Rule. The “wide gate” and the “broad road” are symbols for not doing to others as we would have them do to us. That’s the easier, more natural path. And most people follow it.

Here is how Jesus put it: When the Son of Man comes, he will sit on his thrown. All the nations will be before him. He will separate the people one from another. “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. . . . Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. . . . Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46)

What difference does it make whether we keep the Golden Rule? The difference between eternal life and eternal punishment, says Jesus.

But does the Golden Rule mean we should rain down sweetness and light on all who come our way? Jesus, Peter, and Paul are clearly not advocating that sort of sentimental mushiness. Remember, Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip of cords. (John 2:15) And he publicly berated the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and teachers of the law — often to their face. (Matthew 23:28) (Mark 12:16) (Luke 12:1) Moreover, Jesus warned us not to give dogs what is holy or throw our pearls to pigs. (Matthew 7:6)

As for Peter, he condemned Ananias and Sapphira to death for lying. (Acts 5:1-11) And Paul called Elymas the sorcerer a child of the devil and temporarily blinded him because of his deceit and trickery. (Acts 13:8-11)

Surely God expects us to act with discretion. When charity or goodwill are appropriate, we should give generously. On the other hand, when confronting evil, we must stand with God. Wisdom is understanding what needs to be done. Courage is doing it.

Question to Consider:

C. S. Lewis says we shouldn’t worry whether or not we love our neighbors. Just act like we do. In time we will grow to love them. Do you think that might work?

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” Plato (428-348 B.C.)

Note: All Scripture References are taken from the New International Version unless otherwise stated.

REB – Revised English Bible

Jerry Richard Boone
http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/sins-against-people-135961.html

If you’re busier than you like to be, but feeling less productive, then read on.

I have a question for you? How busy are you these days? Now, here’s another question: How productive are you? As most of us know, the two just aren’t the same. All too often, being busy may have nothing at all to do with the results we get and what we achieve.

We spend our days, often very long days, in a flurry of activity. But, when the day or week is over, we’re disappointed at the level of our accomplishment. Our disappointment creates stress and we push ourselves even harder to “get more done.” But pushing hard isn’t the answer.

What is? Well, in my experience, a sense of priorities based on a clear purpose and well-defined short- and long-term goals are what one needs. The world is full of individuals who are definitely in motion, but they’re not exactly sure where they’re going and they don’t know why, either. Maybe they get going so fast that they never take the time to figure it out. If that is your situation, I strongly urge you to set aside some time for personal reflection, some personal values clarification and goal-setting.

There’s nothing like a strong sense of purpose, based on clearly spelled out values, to keep you moving. But more than that, it keeps you moving in the right direction. Without it, you can climb the ladder of success all right, but when you get to the top, you may find that it’s leaning against the wrong building!

Paul Palmer

Technorati Tags: paul palmer, productivity, working hard

Or, on the importance of “right association.”

“When a wild elephant is to be tamed and trained, the best way to begin is by yoking it to one that has already been through the process. By contact, the wild one comes to see that the condition it is being led toward is not wholly incompatible with being an elephant — that what is expected of it does not contradict its nature categorically, but heralds a condition that, though startlingly different, is viable. The constant, immediate, and contagious example of its yoke fellow can teach it as nothing else can.

Training for the life of the spirit (or learning, KK) is no different. The transformation facing the untrained is neither smnaller than the elephant’s nor less demanding. Without visible evidence that success is possible, without a continuous transfusion of courage, discouragement is bound to set in…” -Huston Smith, Buddhism, 2004.

Smith is also the author of “The Soul of Christianity.”

Isn’t this what Jesus meant when he told his disciples to go “two-by-two”, side by side, to tell the story? One who was trained, the other in training, watching and being in the “right association” with the trained one?

Two-by-two been one of the most reliable training methods in training new people in door-to-door and direct sales. For the same reasons it works for the elephants.

Is there anyone in our business anymore who practices two-by-two with a new recruit?

For example, learning to talk to people together first, e.g. cadaver calling together, before the new recruit goes calling on their best prospects? Something which you know many will do no matter what you say?

***

~ The Case for Fanatics… ~

Tonight I had a group of guys who were discussing how to get more aces, or evangelist types, to help them build their businesses.

I told them a story…

There are two major organic food markets in the Kansas City area, where I am right now: Whole Foods and Wild Oats.

Someone who works at the Wild Oats store related recently how the new owners there had decided to add “regular” products like Tide and Crest toothpaste, because, they thought their customers might want to buy those things there, instead of having to go to say Price Chopper, to get them.

The other store, Whole Foods, is planning to do the opposite: go ALL organic, and drop lines that are not organic from their stores.

Question 1: Which store would you go to?

(Response: about half and half)

Question 2: Which store do you think organic fanatics will go to? (Are there regular grocery store fanatics, even?)

(Response: to the all-organic store)

Question 3. Which kind of people would you prefer to represent YOUR product line? Fanatics or luke-warm, half hearted ones?

(Response: fanatics)

Indeed. Fanatics will tell fence-sitter friends of theirs where to shop, so you don’t have to. Luke warm ones won’t.

There are way fewer fanatics than luke warm types, and if you can attract a fanatic, because YOU are one, you will earn their loyalty and their evangalism. Saves you marketing effort for the luke warm ones.

If you are a fanatic, and act like it, other fanatics will join you.

Are you fanatic about what you market? Do you love it madly because of what it did for you in your life?

Do you know how to tell that fanatic story so other fanatics hear the call and come running?

P.S. As an organic fanatic, where do you think I will be shopping from now on?

Kim Klaver
http://www.articlesbase.com/marketing-articles/how-they-train-elephants-101192.html