We're welcoming back campers!

W’s Post Scripts: Like! (1)
Insights from Cobbey Crisler and Ken Cooper on select citations for
“God the Only Cause and Creator”
for June 9, 2019


CedarS Staff Certifications Week 2!! Click here daily to listen to short CedarS Practitioner Talk(s) given after breakfast nearly every morning going forward (and backward to 2006)!
Saturday’s “Prac Talk” (June 1, 2019) was delivered by John Biggs, C.S. Today’s by Craig Ghislin, C.S.


Warren’s (W’s) PS#1 Ken Cooper wrote a poem entitled “God the Only Cause and Creator.” You can download it and this week’s online Post Scripts which are both always available to browse by author and year at CedarS Metaphysical website.]

Ken writes: This week's contribution is "God the Only Cause and Creator", and is read by Sue. The standard PDF versions in color and B&W are downloadable from CedarS website along with the images from the YouTube as some may like to download the words and related pictures! The YouTube link is https://youtu.be/zKrMPbzCZ2E, the poetry site is https://www.kencooperpoetry.com/god-the-only-cause-and-creator/

Creation is the proof of God’s existence, is the proof of Love because God is Love, the proof of Life for God is Life, the evidence of perfection, because nothing less than perfect can be of God. As an artist loves what they paint, God loves what He / She creates. Everything is always very good. That‘s the simple Truth of ALL true being. Creation is God's treasure, Love reflected in every glorious image.


W’s PS#2—Cobbey Crisler on Psalms 8 (B2): “What is man?”
“Psalms 8, Verse 4. What is the presumption behind biblical therapy? What is its premise? We know it would be based on the question in verse 4 in part, “What is man?” That has been the most elusive answer to any question for the human race, except, perhaps, what is God? Who am I? The great unanswered question. Or does the Bible provide answers that fill that gap in thought, that vacuity? The answer given here biblically is “Thou madest him to have dominion.”
You need to have a premise on which to base the whole idea or concept of biblical healing or therapy. It’s based on the fact that man has dominion. Of course, that immediately recalls to us God’s pronouncement of that effect in Genesis 1 [Verse 26]. If dominion is part of the nature of man, what does that say about man’s ability to get rid of disease? We can’t have dominion and be dominated simultaneously. The logic of that premise requires us to search out more deeply what the Bible is telling us about man’s nature as it relates to God because it’s on that basis that we are having these prescriptions filled…
If it’s God’s theology, according to the Bible, it works. God’s theology in the Bible can never be confined to theory. When God spake, what happened? It was done. That’s how quickly His medicine works…
“In biblical terms, [Psalms 8:6], “Thou makest him to have dominion.” What is there about this fact that we can apply? Are the Psalms, in part, the threshold of our discovery of this throughout the entire Bible?”
“Leaves of the Tree: Prescriptions from Psalms,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


W’s PS#3 – Cobbey Crisler on John 1:1-3 (citations B1 and S1): “In the beginning”
“John 1:1. John starts off unlike any of the preceding gospels. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He starts off, as a matter of fact, as only one other book of the Bible begins. Notice Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. " Do you think the early readers of his gospel would have recognized that? Do you think that was John's intent? That it should be recognized?

“There is something that is a major clue to studying the Bible. That is, when you get the remotest hint of an Old Testament verse in the New Testament, don't ignore it or put it aside. It’s there for a very deep reason. It probably holds the key to the meaning of the New Testament event, or the author would not have included it. By no means make the mistake which Professor Davies, Professor Dodd, Professor Albright and many others of our top New Testament scholars say we often make. That is, when you find a verse in the New Testament which comes from the Old Testament, either an exact quote or a paraphrase, don’t just go back to that verse. Read the context around it. Study the environment; get deeply involved in the thought and intent of the Old Testament passage. You may be more closely at-one with what the author in the New Testament means. In other words, what do you have? You have a blend of the whole Bible that way. You find that Old and New Testaments become inseparable, which is virtually the view, I think, that the authors of the New Testament take. The account of the "Walk to Emmaus" in Luke 24: 13-35 shows how much Jesus and the apostles used the Old Testament to show how much the New Testament fulfills Old Testament prophecies.

“It also seems clear to me that Jesus, in his approach to mankind, from his outlook, his acts, his attitudes, his words as well as works, embraced universal humanity. You'll find hints of it passed down from his early students to their students, and so forth. But more than this, Jesus of Nazareth was a Bible student to surpass all Bible students. Therefore, if he knew in his own thought when an event affecting him or others of his period were the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy, or a lesson should be learned from a new/old truth that came out of the reservoir of the Scriptures, then he would so state it.

“But sometimes he allowed it to remain hidden. It would force his hearers, as well as his readers in this century, to become Bible students with him if they wanted to understand what he was saying. He embraces universal humanity. He addresses and communicates particularly to Bible students. As far as Jesus' comprehension of the word "Christian" is concerned, it probably would be fair to say that he would insist that Christians become Bible students just to comprehend what the word meant. What does that say to us today? Does that mean we should be reading these books, this collection, this library called the Bible? Specifically, our focus today is on the New Testament and one of the gospels? Should we be reading it as if it were a novel? Is that how Jesus felt his life and mission should be conveyed?

“Should we weep real tears because of the suffering and the lack of understanding and the persecution that occurred to him? And then wipe our eyes and go about our business because we've read a very deeply moving story, as we might have turned on a television set? Is that the kind of surface research that Jesus expected of his followers? When he said in John 5:39, "search the Scriptures,” I doubt you could ever apply that to television. Who wants to search television? There is obviously an object in view which Jesus knew would not benefit him, but would be enormously rewarding. The yield on that kind of investment would leap out of the page into the lives of those who did it. Therefore, "the word would be made flesh,” (John 1:14).

“John 1:1 starts his gospel off, "In the beginning was the Word.” The Greek is, en arche hin ho logos. Does arche look familiar to you? It is the root word in "archeology." It's an exciting word. It doesn't just mean when things begin or when they have started in a human way, so much as, translated by some scholars, as "the first principle" of things.

“For instance, when Jerome, in about 400 A.D. translates the Greek Bible into Latin, here’s how he does those opening words. "In principio," which, of course, is our root of our word "principle," in principio. He could have used another Latin expression which is "ab initio, " which would have meant at the initial phases of things, but instead he chooses a Latin word which has a dual meaning which could be "principle," the first principle, the origin, the basis of things.

“If we choose that particular Greek meaning for the opening of both Genesis and John, then it gives it an entirely different connotation. If, in principle, God created the heaven and the earth, or in principle, was the word, it starts out like many mathematical or scientific textbooks which start out with the statement of principle. Everything else derives from it.

“But then we come to a word which John uses in the first chapter and uses again in successive chapters but never with the same connotation. It stands out in its uniqueness and it is so emphatically important to the author that we have to just dwell on it somewhat and see what it might mean.

“Let me give you a partial history of the word. What automatically occurs to you as the meaning of logos? We take this word, "Word," and identify it with logos. This is likely being written at some point during the 1st century A.D. Way back in the 6th century B.C., Heraclitus at Ephesus was attempting philosophically to explain continuity amid all the flux around him. He resorted to logos as the eternal principle of order in the universe, the kind of reliable, unchanging law and order. This is several centuries prior to John's use of it. (Interestingly enough, people think that the Gospel of John may have been written there.)

“From that period, we can trace the word logos through many, many different concepts. Zeno (of Elea, c 490 – c 430 B.C.), a Greek philosopher used it in the connotation of right reason, of reality within the mind, pure thought. Which leads me to what Professor Dodd has said, "It is only in Greek that a term is available which means both thought and word, and that's logos." Only in Greek have you that term that can convey both thought and word. So, when you’re talking about logos, even from the standpoint of word, if we are not giving to it what really is behind it, we're losing something of the message, aren't we?

“Why does the additional concentration on thought add to the definition of word? When you go behind the word to the thought, you're dealing with ideas, concepts, and the meaning. It is where all human languages finally give up their fragmentation and meet, and become one, in a Pentecostal day of infinite communication. The "word" is but an instrument which we must meet at the thought or at the meaning. Then, no barriers, especially language barriers, can stand between us and comprehension of one another, of the universe, its laws, and the source of those laws.

“Dodd continues: "In Origen’s commentary on the 4th gospel which is being written, again very early in the history of the Christian church. In reading Origen's commentary, there are interpretations in there, in the Greek that he's writing, which absolutely depend upon taking logos not only in the sense of word, but it alternates without warning with the other sense of rational principles. So, the continual indication of this word principle is something that is significant."

“Do you know where we use logos in the English language? Biology, physiology. Logos is the one that has been used to define the sciences in the English language. This was the comprehension at least of the lexicographers who developed our own language of the Greek term. Look how it's lasted even in our language. We use it all the time without realizing it, taking it for granted. Is there a scientific connotation, then, that "In the beginning,” "In the first principle of things,” there is a scientific unvarying, inalienable, order that's ruling. And that it's not only being uttered as an expression or word, but behind it is the immense thought that also must be based on the same principle. Notice in Verse 1of Chapter 1 that it all related with and to God.

“John 1:3 continues with a statement that is quite absolute, "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Is there any reservation for qualifications? "All things were made by him. That is [an] enormous commitment to make at the beginning of a book. The theology of this book is therefore committed right squarely on what principle if we're now defining the theological principle on which the Bible is based? Not only oneness of God, but the fact He's one, also means He's all. "All things were made by Him.” Everything is created by Him. That also poses problems, because all we have to do is open our eyes and look around us. And what we see, we'd rather not think was created by God. But as of now, we've just started the book. So, let's see what the style of the author is and his theological commitments. "All things were made by Him.”

“He doesn't leave it there. The very next sentence adds, “Without him was not any thing made that was made." Why is he saying that? Why y Him,” doesn’t that take care of the other part? What is the difference? What’s the distinction that he is implanting in his readers' thought right at the beginning of the book? "All things were made by Him.” What would you call that? That kind of statement is an absolute, but is it also an affirmation. It's a real solid plus. This is a plus of the theological view of John. "All things were made by Him."

“What have we got now? Denial. Here is how we're going to deal with the minus element. The minus element is without Him, "without him was not any thing made that was made.” Any hint of a minus existing after the all-things-were-made-by­ him being declared, is removed, because it is the other side of the same coin.

“The plus, the minus, the affirmation, the denial is a mathematical approach. Dealing with the plus, dealing with the minus and ending up with one, not dualism. One, so there’s no doubt that the key to the gospel is monotheism. It challenges the reader’s thought to see if he’s there at that altitude before he continues any further in the gospel. It forces the reader to get to that height in order to remotely commu

nicate with what's in the gospel.”
“Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


W’s PS#4 –One of the inspirations for Desiree Goyette’s Hymn #499 “I Am the Lord” in the 2017 Christian Science Hymnal was from Isaiah 45:5, 6 & 18 (B3)


W’s PS#5—Cobbey Crisler on Job 38:1-10, 33-36 (B6)

The thing we see in Elihu’s testimony is what we see in the three friends earlier. There are some wonderful statements, beautiful statements, and there are also the reverse. You have that to-and-fro mixture in the testimony of all four "friends," if we can add them together.

In Job 36:2 [Elihu] says, "[I have} yet to speak on God's behalf." Even though he’s done a lot of talking up to this point, apparently he feels he hasn’t convinced Job.

Elihu disappears at the end of Chapter 37. We get down to the real dialogue that we've all been waiting for.

Chapter 38 is the examination, the only examination higher than a self-examination. That is what?
God’s examination of us.

In Job 38:1 we find "the LORD answering Job out of the whirlwind.” What's the whirlwind? It's a beautiful example of to-and-fro and what's been going on in Job’s thought all the way up to this point.

This chapter is one series of questions. Once again you can wonder how does God communicate to man?
Here [in] chapter 38 it tells us by question which requires an answer from us. That's rather interesting, isn't it?
A question requires an answer from Job.

[Job 38:2] "Who [is] this that darkeneth counsel by word, without knowledge?”

We have to answer that question. To fulfill communication. God makes demands on us and we are expected to fulfill those demands, and that's our relationship with God.

Look how Jesus applied that when he healed his cases and man was equipped to respond.

In Job 38:3 look at the authoritative statement which sounds like so many of the statements Jesus made when he healed. "Gird up now thy loins like a man:" What did Job look like down there on all fours on the ash heap'?

Like an animal. "Gird up your loins like a man; Get into your manhood.

"I will demand of thee and answer thou me.

Now, back to the last chapter of Job and we'll see what occurs [there]

In Job 42:2 Job says, "I know that you can do every [thing}, and no thought can be withholden from thee."

Job 42:5 says. "I’ve heard of thee by the hearing the ear: Guess what “My eye sees You." Not just a rumor that God is around, but what else?

[Voice: The healing.''] The evidence of God’s presence being in his healing.

··Deck thyself [with] glory and majesty and beauty" [Job 40:10].

In Job he says something that sounds like you're sorry he says it.

Wherefore I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes." But notice what’s in italics/brackets there. [Voice: "It's not in the original."] Alright. Remember that "repent" really conveys what? [Voice: "Change your concept."] Changing your concept. Now read it this way. "Wherefore I abhor and change my concept about dust and ashes." ···

In Job 42:7 we’re introduced to the three friends again. Elihu never appears.

What are the three "friends'' doing? We're told that God says. "they have not spoken of Me what was right, " incorrect false theology, in other words. You know what they're still doing?

[In Job 42:8] they're out making burnt offerings. That’s where we ran into Job. Way back in that primitive concept of worship [Job 1:5].

But Job isn’t making burnt offerings anymore. In fact, God says for Job to pray for his 'friends" and Job is now "praying," a word which was not used when we first met Job. He was making a burnt offering. So, in Job 42: 10 we're told that "the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: and he received twice as much as he had before” You remember Jesus parable [Matthew 7:24-27] of the house built on a rock and the house built on sand? Everything is the same in that parable except the results, and where the house was built. Rock or sand? Had Job all the wealth, all those possessions, everything before, but built on what he thought maybe was a self-made foundation? Which turned out to be sand.

Now look. Everything he had doubled! But perhaps built on a right concept of where it comes from.”

“Finally, Job 38:33 requiring man thought to get to what level? Look at the demand and question in this verse. Do you know the ordinances of heaven? Do you know the laws of heaven? We have to answer that. Do we? Because if our answer is “Yes,” look at the next one. Can you set that very same dominion on the earth? Can you exercise that dominion in heaven? What does the Lord’s Prayer (in Matthew 6:10) say? “Thy kingdom come” where? “Thy will be done” where?

Taking that heavenly law and exercising it on earth, God is suggesting to man, not suggesting but inspiring, man, with His concept of dominion here in Genesis 1 (verse 26). Isn’t it appropriate that God is the first to introduce that dominion?”
“The Case of Job,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


W’s PS#6 — Cobbey Crisler on Job 42:2-5 (B8)

“Now, back to the last chapter of Job and we’ll see what occurs (there).

In Job 42:2 Job says, “I know that you can do every (thing) and that no thought can be withholden from thee.”

Job 2:5 says, “I’ve heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now,” Guess what? “My eye sees You.” Not just a rumor that God is around, but what else? (Voice: “The healing.”). The evidence of God’s being present is in his healing.”
“The Case of Job,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


W’s PS#7 — Cobbey Crisler on Matt. 14:14 (B13) Jesus’ compassion that enabled him to heal, feed 1000s and walk on water:
Matthew 14: “(Verse 13, before the verse in the lesson). Jesus hearing that John the Baptist had been beheaded, decides to make himself scarce, leaves into a desert place apart.
(Verse 14). “But the multitudes followed him.” Instead of saying, “Look, will you let a man be alone for once,” he turned around with compassion and healed their sick.”
Verse 15-20). And out comes the famous loaves-and-fishes incident in which everyone is fed, with a balance left over despite the fact that we’re dealing with thousands of people. …
And, right after this (Verses 24-33) we have the walking-on-the-sea incident.
“Book of Matthew, Auditing the Master, A Tax-Collector’s Report,”
by B. Cobbey Crisler**


W’s PS#8—Cobbey Crisler’s on John 9:1-7 (citation B14)
“John 9:2. “who did sin? (A) This fellow over here? Or (B) his parents?”
John 9:3. Jesus had that paper before him as in the examination room on that point many times before. “He says, (C), none of the above… [Or as Warren proposes (D) DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid (DNA) the molecule that supposedly carries encoded genetic instructions Does Not Apply!)] Neither hath this man sinned or his parents.” What’s that saying about origin? Where is that man? His roots are not in parents or in some reincarnated experience…”
Notice what he does in John 9:6 and what it may remind you of. “He spat on the ground, made clay of the spittle.” That reminds you of man being made of the dust in the Second Chapter of Genesis Verse 6 and 7, doesn’t it? Would Jesus ever [by spitting show contempt for or] mock God if he considered that was the real way that creation occurred? Yet, it almost looks like a mockery of that. He’s taking on that concept of the man of dust. He’s spitting on that ground, into the dust, making clay of it, and slapping it on the eyes of the blind man.
John 9:7. The man goes to the pool of Siloam. He can’t see his way there. He’s got mud all over his face. He doesn’t go seeing. He comes seeing.” He comes only after he has washed off that symbolic making or formation of man out of the dust.
In a way, it might even give us a greater hint on what the true meaning of baptism is, the immersion in Spirit, nativity, and washing off every trace of the dust man.”
“Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple,”
by B. Cobbey Crisler**


W’s PS#9Cobbey Crisler on Paul’s discussion of manifesting freedom from the flesh in Romans 8 (verses before and after verses 16 and 17, B15)
“Romans 8, Verse 9. How many auditoriums would empty in ridicule if Paul stood before them today and announced, “You are not in the flesh”? That’s an invitation to laughter, isn’t it? “You are not in the flesh,” Paul said. Flesh is not the container, then, of our individuality. We think we are. We’re proud of that fact. We have turned the glory into shame by thinking out from the basis of flesh. We suffer from the incurred problems of an evolution that traces itself back through dust-like levels, so that heredity becomes a problem in health. We take pride in those “designer-genes” that form our genetic code.

In the Bible it’s a case of choosing between Genesis or genetics. Genesis (1:1, 25) has us in the beginning created by God with dominion and in God’s image. So, flesh cannot be part of that image. Where are we seeing ourselves? “Adam, where art thou?” (Genesis 3:9)

Where are we instead of in the flesh according to Romans 8, Verse 9? We’re “in the spirit” That’s home, then. Do we really feel at home in the Spirit? To be inspired is to have Spirit within, literally, in Latin. Do we enjoy living in an inspired state? Everything moves aside. Everything is subordinated to that inspiration. “we’re in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in us.”…

In Verse 19 would you agree with Paul that “the earnest expectation of the whole human race is waiting for this manifestation of the sons of God”? That it could be manifested, this sense of glory?

“Verse 21 mentions “the creature itself.” Look what is going to happen to the human body as the result of the evangelization of our mentality. As our mentality becomes more and more like God, the human body, “the creature itself, also shall be delivered.” There’s freedom, freedom from “every ill that flesh is heir to,” as Shakespeare says. “Delivered from the slavery,” literally in Greek, “the bondage of corruption,” “the slavery of decay into,” literally, “the freedom of the children of God.” The divine mode of being, as one dictionary says glory is, “into the freedom of the glory of the divine mode of being, of the divine nature, of the radiant thought of the children of God.”

If (only) all our thoughts could be at the level of such radiance. We’ve seen light come out from a human expression. We’ve met people who radiate a sense of insight. That’s just simply “the ministration of death,” as Paul says [in 2 Corinthians 3.7]. That’s in the fleshly. That’s simply an outward manifestation of what’s going on within. More should be going on within. And we’re spending most of our time trying to dress the without.”
“Glory: Divine Nature in The Bible,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


W’s PS#10—Cobbey Crisler on “you must be born from above” as in John 3:1-13, 27 (B16).
“John 3:1 begins with an introduction to "Nicodemus." Nicodemus was a rather cautious man that ran around back alleys after twilight. He didn't want to be seen by his daytime friends. Sort of like one of those captions in the Charlie Chaplin movie, where Charlie was a waiter during the day, but dressed up in the finest tuxedo at night. The caption simply said, "Charlie's friends of the evening didn't know Charlie's friends of the day." I think this is probably true of Nicodemus.

“John 3:2, "He comes to Jesus by night.” He's in a rather awkward position because he is a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Jews, that later convicts Jesus. If what he says is accurate, it is an unfortunate commentary on the motives that led to the crucifixion of Jesus. If he is really speaking for the Sanhedrin when he says, "We know that thou art a teacher came from God,” then that is a tremendous commitment. If we know that you are a teacher come from God, where is the evidence? What evidence do they use as proof? Such semeia, or signs, or significant results, can’t happen unless God is with you.

“John 3:3, “Jesus makes this comment, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” You know how popular that particular verse has become in our century. Yet it’s based on a misapprehension of the original word. We really don’t find John here using the Greek word “anothen” here in the sense of “again”. It can suggest the idea of “again.” But John uses it more in these terms, “from above."

"Anothen” means "from above." Now look at that statement that Jesus is making,

"Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom, or dominion, of God." This is a theological breakthrough that’s incalculable. You can’t see the kingdom, which, by the way, he told us was not only within, but here, right here. It wasn't a future far-off thing. "But to see it one must be born from above.” This is a definition of nativity which sounds totally impractical for us as human beings, and yet it's apparently something that Jesus based his whole theology upon. And he got the results from the concept that man is born from above

“We ran into that in the first chapter of John, Verses 12 and 13, when he said, "We all, if we will receive it, have the authority to become the sons of God.” But to be God's son means you've got to cut the animal connection, those links or roots in "blood, will of the flesh, and will of man.” Sever those links.

“A nativity higher, is that practical?

“John 3:4. Nicodemus wonders about that himself. He even goes to the extreme of saying, "How do you do that? Do you climb back into your mother’s womb, and get born all over again?” This is obviously a negatively impossible event, so Nicodemus is somewhat laughing up his sleeve.

“John 3:5. Then Jesus says, "Except a man be born of water, which was the usual way by which children were born in the presence of water, "and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The normal, natural biological birth is not going to do anything. In order to enter the kingdom or dominion of God, something about nativity has to be understood. A nativity that is higher and not tied into biology. Why?

“Because of John 3:6 one of the most practical statements ever made in the Bible, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” And it's not going to rise any high­er than its source. Should we be doing something about recognizing origin in Spirit? Is this what is behind the meaning, again, logos? Get to the meaning. Nativity in Spirit. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” It's never going to go anywhere else. That's pretty clear cut.

“We've got to get out of that concept of flesh. Again, is this really practical theology? Or is it, again, pie in the sky? If we have any concept of arising at some spiritual goal, then we've got to start as if we originated there.

“John 3:9, "Nicodemus says, How can these things be?"

“John 3:10, "Jesus said, You're a teacher in Israel, and you haven't grasped these things?" Think of the average point of view when you've been dealing with the Bible all your life. Then in John 3:13 he makes one of those magnificent statements that requires almost a lifetime search.

"No man hath ascended up to heaven." Isn't that what practically every religion puts in the heart of its communicants? Doesn't everybody want to get to a destination labeled heaven? "Ascended up to heaven," but no one gets there, except "he that came down from heaven.” The same thing, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," John 3:6. You can't get there via flesh.

“Apparently this critical awareness of man's nativity as God's child free from "blood, will of flesh, lust of the will of man," is not just a nice theory. Jesus is introducing it as the prerequisite for comprehending the kingdom of God and seeing it here and now. The son of Man sees it humanly, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of Man which is in heaven.” Is it possible for humanhood to experience the kind of harmony on earth as it is in heaven? There is the major challenge.

“It's almost the same question that God asks Job 38:33, after all the mental argument is through for forty chapters or so, when God says to Job, "Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Imagine being able to express the dominion of heaven right on earth. Is that possible for the son of Man? Or must we wait for some future event where we float up to the sky on a pink cloud somewhere with a harp from Angel Rent-A-Harp, Incorporated? That's a problem. We often try to rent a harp instead of earn it.

“How practical this is, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man already there." Never moved. That claim, then, of heavenly nativity. It has to have something that is of major importance, John including it, and giving it so much space.”

In John 3:27, John the Baptist is confronted again. John, usingcommunication terms, says, “A man can receive nothing, except it be given to him from heaven.” That’s almost the same concept in a way. Receptivity is what’s already been communicated to us. We’re not doing the communicating. We’re tuning in to what’s been communicated.”
“Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


W’s PS#11—Cobbey Crisler on James 1:17, 18 (B17)
James 1:17 “Every good gift and every perfect—free, large, full—gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning”—as in an eclipse.
As promised in scriptures:
“God is not a man, that he should lie…hath he not said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23: 19}

And, “For I am the Lord; I change not.” (Malachi 3:6)
James 1:18 “Of his own will begat he us with the word—logos—of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures”—a sample of what He created to be consecrated to Himself.”
[per Warren’s notes]

[From Book of Job]

… "We already know that James read Job because we read the verse (James 5:11) that mentions Job in it…
James 1:6 tells us how we should pray. You'll find when prayer is not prayer… "Let him ask in faith nothing wavering." Wavering suggests this to-and-fro state of mind… James 1:8 "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."…
James 3:17 (B1) "But the wisdom that is from above" all stems from the commitment to oneness."
“The Case of Job,” by B. Cobbey Crisler**


W’s PS#12 –One of the inspirations for Peter B. Allen’s Hymn #565 “Rise Up and Walk” in the 2017 Christian Science Hymnal was from Science and Health citation S26 (p. 42:24-26) where Mary Baker Eddy says “Correct material belief by spiritual understanding and Spirit will form you anew.”


**You can buy your own transcripts of most of Cobbey Crisler’s 28 talks at this website: www.crislerlibrary.co.uk Email your order or inquiry to office@crislerlibrary.co.uk, or directly to Janet Crisler, at janetcrisler7@gmail.com

American Camp Association

MAIN OFFICE
(November - May)
410 Sovereign Court #8
Ballwin, MO 63011
(636) 394-6162

CAMP OFFICE
(Memorial Day Weekend - October)
19772 Sugar Dr.
Lebanon, MO 65536
(417) 532-6699

Welcome back, campers! Spaces are still available.

CedarS Camps

Back
to top