This Agreement Made And Entered By And Between Matthews Alive: Fill & Download for Free

“I’ve got chest pains. I’m coughing all the time. I’m out of breath going up the stairs. What can I do?”“Quit.”“But… I can’t. I’ve been doing it for years. I’ve tried. I can’t do it. There must be something else.”“If you don’t, the chest pains will get worse. It will hurt to swallow. Your heart will work overtime. You might have a heart attack. Your risk of getting cancer…”“What if I smoked less?”“… will increase. You’re slowly and painfully going to die.”It’s easier to quit smoking when the doctor tells us we’re going to die. Most people don’t want to die. So they let the doctor make the decision for them. The doctor decides it’s in their best interest to quit. So they do.Life’s easier when the burden of choice is lifted from our backs.That’s why professional services are so prevalent.We all know we should eat better, move more and try to be more healthy.But to do so requires effort. You have to learn how to sort the true from the false. You have to figure out who to listen to and who not to. Then you have to take all of the information and convert it into a useful format that you can apply in your own life.That’s hard, so you get a personal trainer, or follow a diet you see online, or try out an exercise program a friend is on.Say you’re in a job that you don’t enjoy. In fact, maybe you detest it.You want to quit but it pays the bills. Plus it’s not that bad. But you could find something better. Something more suited to your skills and attitude. But what if you don’t find it right now?The flip-flopping between leave and stay is endless. Until you get fired.The decision’s been made for you. You’ve got to move on now. You’ve got to adapt and learn. You’ve got to try something you wouldn’t normally have had you been stuck in that job.In The 33 Strategies of War, Robert Greene describes how to “create a sense of urgency and desperation” by placing yourself on “death ground”:​“You are your own worst enemy. You waste precious time dreaming of the future instead of engaging in the present. Since nothing seems urgent to you, you are only half involved in what you do. The only way to change is through action and outside pressure. Put yourself in situations where you have too much at stake to waste time or resources--if you cannot afford to lose, you won't. Cut your ties to the past; enter unknown territory where you must depend on your wits and energy to see you through. Place yourself on "death ground," where your back is against the wall and you have to fight like hell to get out alive.”​You can put yourself on death ground through the use of contracts, verbal agreements, accountability partners, public commitments and deadlines.On the home page of my blog, it says, “I write daily about mastery, strategy & practical philosophy.”That’s putting myself on death ground. I’ve said that I will publish every day, so I do.Sun Tzu describes the impact of placing soldiers on death ground in The Art of War:​“Put them in a spot where they have no place to go, and they will die before fleeing. If they are to die there, what can they not do? Warriors exert their full strength. When warriors are in great danger, then they have no fear. When there is nowhere to go they are firm, when they are deeply involved they stick to it. If they have no choice, they will fight.”​You can place yourself on death ground, or someone else can put you there. Either way, the outcome is the same: You have no choice. You must fight.If there’s something that must be done but you cannot bring yourself to do it, the use of a death ground strategy could be the way to accomplish it.

Lets start with the documents written within a reasonable time of Jesus' death... the books of the New Testament. Lets remember that the manuscript evidence for the accurate transmission of the New Testament is far better than for any other documents (historical or not) from the same period.Then we have the evidence of Paul within a 15-20 years of the events mentioning a number of eye-witnesses that were still alive, could be asked and openly testified to the resurrection of Jesus (and its theological implications). "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." This is, according to most scholars the earliest attestation of the death and resurrection of Jesus.Now I will forestall a number of objections, before looking at how the testimony fit together. 1. While Paul's own sighting of the resurrected Jesus was in a light from heaven (as described in the book of Acts, written by Luke after his gospel according to its own internal testimony), in the same book of Acts the appearance of Jesus to the other apostles before his ascension to heaven, was not of the same kind (i.e. it was not a vision of some kind). We cannot have it both ways... Paul is not claiming in 1 Cor. that it was a vision; that information we get from the book of Acts. And the author of Acts make it clear that the earlier appearances to the disciples, by contrast, were not just a vision of some kind. 2. While it is claimed that none of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses, no evidence of this is given. Now, we know that Luke claims to have based his gospel on eye-witness accounts and therefore that he was not an eyewitness himself. And Mark was the interpreter of Peter according to early Christian tradition and based his gospel on the oral teachings of Peter. While many say that the Gospel accounts were originally anonymous, there is also no evidence of this - all manuscripts that include the beginning (or sometimes end) of the gospels, also include the names by which they are know to this day. By this measure (the gospel text not including the name of the author) one of Josephus's works is also anonymous. There is something more at play here... all the titles given, use the term kata (according to), indicating that the "authors" did not regards themselves as original authors so much, but regarded the gospel as being by Jesus and them just translating it. But in Mark there is a strange, often ignored, passage. When Jesus is captures, mention is made of a young man (teenager?) who followed Jesus and his disciples and were grabbed by the soldiers, but escaped by leaving his linen clothes behind. Maybe Mark was an eyewitness after all, since we know that his mother's house was used afterwards as a gathering-place for the disciples in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12)? What better explanation is there for this passage in Mark, except that he referred to himself briefly? While Matthew makes extensive use of Mark, he places it into a more Hebrew / Jewish setting. And then he add material that was not available to Mark. Once again this makes sense if Peter is known to have been one of the inner circle of 3 of the apostles of Jesus, that Matthew would refer to his account, especially as he only became a disciple relatively late and also were not always present when some of the events described in Mark happened. John obviously claims to be written by an eyewitness. As for the alleged illiteracy of the early apostles or their lack of Greek, dictating to a (professional?) writer was fairly common and is frequently attested for the various letters in the New Testament (of both Paul and Peter). 3. There is really no evidence for the alleged late dates of the gospels either. The fact that they do not mention the prophesied destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as being fulfilled can be seen as strong evidence that they were written before that happened. Additionally, Luke who uses material from both Mark and Matthew, is written before the book of Acts by the same author, and Acts ends with Paul in prison in Rome, also before the destruction of Jerusalem or his own martyrdom. So Matthew and Mark had to be written even earlier! 4. There is no real equivalent to the resurrection of Jesus in any of the surrounding nations. The story by Chariton (Callirhoe) has really no relevance, since it tells of a woman who was only in a coma and then woke up in order to surprise a bunch of grave robbers who kidnapped her. Apollonius was created almost a century later, by which time the gospel of Jesus was well-known in the area. The deification of Caesars and Greek heroes and their subsequent ascension to the gods were nothing like the expected Jewish prophecies concerning the Messiah sitting at the right hand of God. The resurrection of other people during the ministry of Jesus did not constitute anything like the expected resurrection of the last days, since all of them would age and eventually die again just like everybody else. The resurrection of Jesus is depicted as something else and its significance is seen as something else altogether.Now the interesting thing about the gospels is that while for the life of Jesus before his trial there is plenty of evidence that at least the synoptic gospels share sources or depend on each other to some extend, for the last bit, they actually diverge with almost as much difference between the various synoptic gospels, as between John and the synoptics. It seems that we have 4 independent witnesses here instead of only 2 (the Synoptics and John). So let us look at the evidence:The death of Jesus ChristI am not going to mention the trial of Jesus here... (I am also not going to repeat every detail mentioned in the gospels like everything said by Jesus while hanging on the cross for about 6 hours).1. All 4 gospels, Josephus, and Tacitus agree that Jesus was crucified.2. The gospels and Tacitus, that this was by the authority of Pontius Pilatus.3. All 4 gospels mention that 2 others were crucified on both sides with Him.4. Three gospels mention that they were criminals and two that this involved robbery.5. All 4 gospels mention that the charge against Him was that He was the King of the Jews. John mentions that it was written in 3 languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin.6. All 4 gospels mention the soldiers dividing his clothes among each other by casting lots. John adds the observation that his tunic was in one piece so that they ripped his other clothes into 4 parts, but cast lots for it, since they could not divide it. Both Luke and John says that they divided his clothes and cast lots over it.7. The 3 synoptic gospels mention his quoting of Ps.22:1 and the 3 hours of darkness from noon.8. Matthew and Mark mention that He was offered wine mixed with myrrh (and/or gall), a bitter substance to reduce the pain, before crucifying Him and He refused it.9. All 4 gospels mention that He was taunted and mocked while hanging on the cross. (By bystanders, but also by the criminals, although Luke mentions one of them acknowledging Him as innocent and asking to be remembered by Jesus).10. All 4 gospels mention that he drank sour wine (offered in a sponge on top of a hissop stick), shortly before He died.11. The 3 synoptic gospels mention him crying out with a loud voice just before He died. Luke mentions that the words were: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” John have Him saying: "It is finished" just before bowing the head and giving up his spirit.12. Mark and John mentions that Jesus was dead earlier than expected. John alone mentions that the soldiers stuck a spear into the side of Jesus to ensure that He was dead, and that blood and water flowed out.13. All 3 synoptic gospels mentions the curtain of the temple being torn in two, with Matthew adding that it was caused by an earthquake which also opened up some tombs in the area.The burial of Jesus Christ1. All four gospels mentions that Joseph of Arimathea, a rich and important man, went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus and that it was given to him.2. All 4 gospels mention that the body was wrapped in linen. John added that Nicodemus helped by bringing a spice mix of aloe and myrrh to wrap with the linen around the body.3. Matthew. Luke and John mentions that it was a new tomb, never used before, all 4 gospels that it was a tomb hewn from rock, and Matthew alone that the tomb actually belonged to Joseph of Arimathea.4. All 4 gospels mentions the large stone rolled before the tomb.5. All 3 synoptic gospels mention that the group of women who followed Him saw where He was lain in the tomb, with Matthew and Mark specifically mentioning Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses.6. Matthew is the only one who mentions the guard being given by Pilate to secure the tomb. A small detail of agreement is that John calls the day when Jesus died and was buried, the preparation day, while Matthew calls this next day when the guard was posted, the day after the preparation.7. As an aside, while round stones for covering tombs only became popular later in the first century from archaeological evidence, it is mentioned specifically that this was a newly hewn tomb (rich families used to re-use their old family tombs) and thus more likely that it might have used the newer style (which although scarce, already existed in this time period).The resurrection of Jesus ChristAs background, it should be mentioned that both Josephus and the gospels (and possibly later Talmudic material) affirmed that Jesus was crucified during passover. The disciples were thus not living permanently in Jerusalem, but simply came for the 7 day (or 8 day, depending on interpretation) Passover feast and would have been expected to leave again thereafter to Galilee.As mentioned already, Paul gives us the oldest version of the resurrection appearances... he talks about it as a tradition (something he received from the eyewitnesses and delivered to the Corinthians as of first importance). This implies that His claim was not something original, but already formed part of the message about Jesus (the gospel) with probably the last bit about himself as someone to whom Jesus appeared, being his own addition. He does not mention any of the women. This reflects the custom of the time that women were not allowed as legal witnesses and thus probably why they were not included in this "official tradition" which he had relayed.1. In all 4 gospels we have the women coming to the tomb with the idea of anointing the body with spices which they had prepared on the Saturday evening after the Sabbath. They either did not know that Nicodemus already included spices in the linen during the burial, or thought it insufficient.2. In all 4 gospels the women come to the tomb around daybreak on Sunday morning (Matt: "toward the dawn of the first day of the week", Mark:"very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen", Luke: "at early dawn", John: "early, while it was still dark")3. In all 4 gospels is Mary Magdalene mentioned by name, the other Mary (mother of James and Joses = mother of Jesus?) mentioned in Matthew, Luke and Mark, Salome mentioned in Mark only, with Luke just referring to "the women who followed Him from Galilee", later explained as Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James and other women. John does not mention the other women; only Mary Magdalene.3. The stone of the tomb was rolled away according to all 4 gospels. Matthew alone explaining that this happened by an earthquake caused by an angel. In all 4 gospels the tomb is empty (i.e. no progression from a "spiritual resurrection" to a "physical resurrection").4. Mary Magdalene runs to tell 2 disciples and then returns to the tomb. Mentioned only in John. The other gospels have the women (all of them?) entering the tomb and seeing two messengers in white clothes (Luke and John - Mark and Matthew only mentioning the one who spoke), who reminded the women of the words of Jesus that He must die and rise again. The messengers send them to tell the disciples that they will meet Him in Galilee. According to Mark (and that gospel ends here in the short version) they (all of them?) are too scared to tell anybody (at least immediately). The longer version of Mark 16 is a combination of the stories in the other gospels and will thus not be considered as evidence of independent testimony.5. Luke and John have Peter run to the tomb after hearing about it being empty. John includes the other disciple (the beloved one = the author) running with him. Both Luke and John have Peter discover the empty linen cloths in the tomb. John adds the detail that the cloth that was wrapped around his head, was separate from the rest.6. Then John has the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene near the tomb. Matthew have a highly summarized version of the women meeting Jesus as they left the tomb after the angel had spoken to them. In John Mary Magdalene also meet Jesus after speaking to the angels. In both Matthew and John Jesus tells the women to go and tell disciples.7. Luke alone mentions the 2 disciples on their way to Emmaus meeting with Jesus. But he then confirms Paul's version that Jesus first appeared to Cephas (=Peter) when they return to Jerusalem and find the other disciples who tell them that Jesus had appeared to Peter.8. Paul then mentions Jesus appearing to the twelve (used as a title for the apostles, though they were only 11 at that stage). This meeting is mentioned in both Luke and John as well, as happening on the evening of that first day of the week.9. In both Luke and John He shows them the marks in his hands, feet and side. (The side only mentioned in John and the feet only mentioned in Luke).10. Both Luke and John (a week later in John) mention that Jesus invited them to touch Him and feel that it is actually He. In Acts Luke says that "He presented Himself alive through many proofs" over a period of 40 days. In both Luke and John He eats food.11. Matthew and John then mention later meeting(s) with the 11 disciples in Galilee. This makes sense, since the Passover would be over by then. But it is Mark and Matthew that mentions the messengers specifically saying that He will meet them on a certain mountain in Galilee. The meeting in John would appear to be a separate meeting in Galilee, since only a smaller group of disciples is mentioned, not all of the 11 and it happens at the sea.12. In Matthew, Luke (and Acts) and John Jesus sends out the disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, to be witnesses to Him and proclaim repentance and forgiveness of sin, that He sends them just as the Father sent Him.13. In all three gospels (Matthew, Luke, John) and Acts He promises the Holy Spirit and thus His own presence to be with them as they go.14. In both Luke and John the resurrected Jesus is physical in the sense that He has flesh and bones, but in both He can also appear suddenly in a locked room (John) or disappear from the view of the Emmaus disciples when they recognise Him (Luke). Though physical, his body does not appear to be subject to physical constraints any longer.15. In both Luke and Acts, it seems like Jesus is speaking with a larger group of disciples (more than the 12) in Jerusalem again just before His "ascension to heaven". This is only 10 days before Shavuot (Pentecost) the next feast when all Jewish males were supposed to be in Jerusalem at the temple. This might be the "more than 500 at one time" that Paul refers to in 1 Cor.15.16. While in Luke it seems like the ascension happens shortly after the resurrection appearance of Jesus on the first Sunday after his death, Acts (written by the same author) shows that this is simply a summary of a period of 40 days. There is thus no contradiction with multiple other appearances in Galilee. And while Luke focuses on Jerusalem and Matthew (and Mark) on Galilee, John have both Jerusalem and Galilee as sites where Jesus appeared to his disciples.17. While none of the gospels mention the appearance of Jesus to James explicitly, John mentions that the brothers of Jesus did not believe in Him during his lifetime (and Mark confirms that his family considered Him as out of his mind at some stage) and then Acts mention his brothers as praying with his disciples shortly after his ascension, confirming that something must have happened to make James change his mind.Almost all of these events are mentioned by more than one author, writing within the lifetime of at least some of the disciples who knew Jesus personally. It is in other words not the made-up type of stories written or attested by a single author. For these reasons, I consider the New Testament as veritable evidence for the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I could include here other matters such as the specific testimony of the disciples, not to some hidden "resurrection of the spirit", but to a physical resurrection of Jesus with Whom they ate and drank after his resurrection, Who they touched with their hands (as 1 John testifies), whose glory they have seen (as 2 Peter testifies). And that they held fearlessly to this testimony in the very place where their Lord was crucified not more than 50 days before. The body could be produced to shut them up effectively forever, but it was not. Instead threats, and later stoning, prison and execution was used unsuccessfully to try and shut them up. What else could conceivably change a bunch of scared disciples, hiding in a locked room out of fear, one having disowned Jesus and the rest running away shortly before, into fearless witnesses to having seen, ate with, and conversed with the resurrected Jesus Christ? Similar Messianic groups have come and gone... Bar Kochba, Zabbetai Levi and countless others. And every time the leader has been killed (or converted) the movement died in frustration and disappointment. This did not happen with these followers of Jesus of Nazareth for some reason... why not? Why did not one of those who could so easily escape death or persecution ever confess to it all being only a vision or simply not true? Something extra-ordinary happened; that is what all historical evidence point to IMHO; and the answer is that what was written in the 4 different accounts, at least as far as they agree with each other, really happened.

There are many covenants in the Bible, some between people and some between God and people. This webpage will focus on the 6 basic covenants made by God and with His people. Covenant comes from the Latin word "convenire" which means to come together. A covenant is basically an agreement between people, or between God and His people, that binds one to the other. This is much different than a contract, which involves the exchange of goods or services for money. A covenant can be thought of as a sacred family bond, taken with an oath before a higher power, whereas a contract can be thought of as an agreement to pay someone for services rendered, which involves a promise to each other, rather than an oath. Covenants most often involve a ceremony with witnesses, invoking God, and a communal meal. The covenant therefore unites flesh and blood, as well as ensuring a common family name.So why did God decide to make covenants with mankind? Well, we are God's family, and through sin, we have separated ourselves from the eternal love of God, preferring instead the temporary pleasures of this world. Hell awaits us if we fail to unite ourselves to Him while we are still alive. To help show us the way, our loving Father initiated covenants in the Bible to bring us back into His family.Catholic Bible 101The Commandments specify what our responsibilities are in upholding the covenant. But the ones with God always lead to our violating them and needing our adorable Trinity’s forgiveness. What is often missing in the covenant we make in Baptism is the love of the Trinity that invites the Holy Spirit into our lives, so we are able to fulfill our part of the covenant and enter heaven and the Beatific Vision.{1} * Pertinent Answers Regarding Covenants *Jason McMahon's answer to In the light of Matthew 26:28, did God break or remove the Old Covenant to establish the New? What would the implications be if He did break the Old to make the new?Jason McMahon's answer to What are the major covenants in the Bible?{2} * Pertinent Answers Regarding Commandments *Jason McMahon's answer to “The sins of the father fall on the child” is an old adage. Why do you think this is true or why do you think this is false?Jason McMahon's answer to How did usage of “taking God’s name in vain” change since it was written in the Ten Commandments?Jason McMahon's answer to What order would you place the 10 commandments and 7 deadly sins as the most serious to most trivial thing to break?Jason McMahon's answer to Are the Ten Commandments as foundational to Western society as some claim?Jason McMahon's answer to Did Moses shatter the original Ten Commandments in a fit of rage or was he following God's wishes?Jason McMahon's answer to How many commandments did the Pharisees have?