[font=Georgia]-
Hello;
Seeing as how this area is set up for people with an urge to express their
opinions rather than argue back and forth in endless disputes that never get
to the bottom of anything; I'm taking advantage of the relatively peaceable
environment hereabouts to post my thoughts on a variety of Bible subjects;
beginning with the one below.
Light
In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist
Avi Loeb stated that the Bible attributes the appearance of stars and
galaxies to the divine proclamation "Let there be light". Is Mr. Loeb's
statement correct? No; of course not. God created light on the very first day
of creation; while luminous celestial objects weren't created until the fourth.
The Bible is notoriously concise in some places; especially in it's story of the
creation of light. Well; the creation of light was a very, very intricate
process. First God had to create particulate matter, and along with those
particles their specific properties, including mass. Then He had to invent
laws to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the
presence of, other kinds of matter in order to generate photons.
The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate photons also
make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice, soil, rain, life,
centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy, gravity, atoms,
organic molecules, magnetism, radiation, high energy X-rays and gamma
rays, temperature, pressure, force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et
al. So the creation of light was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives
its origin passing mention.
†. Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the
surface of the deep
That statement reveals the cosmos' condition prior to the creation of light;
and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that make light
possible, the cosmos' particulate matter would never have coalesced into
something coherent.
2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the
cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
the Higgs Boson.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]
What I Think
Moderator: Moderators
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: What I Think
Post #51[font=Verdana]-
The Everlasting Gospel
This particular gospel is a bounce from the first chapter of Genesis.
â—� Rev 14:6-7 . . And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the everlasting gospel to preach to the people who dwell on the earth-- to every nation, tribe, language, and people. Fear God! he shouted. Give glory to Him! For the time has come when He will sit as judge. Worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all the springs of water!
The everlasting gospel is very elementary. Pretty much all it says is:
1• There is a supreme being.
2• He deserves respect.
3• There's a frightful reckoning looming on the horizon, and
4• The cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --is the product of intelligent design.
/[/font]
The Everlasting Gospel
This particular gospel is a bounce from the first chapter of Genesis.
â—� Rev 14:6-7 . . And I saw another angel flying through the sky, carrying the everlasting gospel to preach to the people who dwell on the earth-- to every nation, tribe, language, and people. Fear God! he shouted. Give glory to Him! For the time has come when He will sit as judge. Worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all the springs of water!
The everlasting gospel is very elementary. Pretty much all it says is:
1• There is a supreme being.
2• He deserves respect.
3• There's a frightful reckoning looming on the horizon, and
4• The cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --is the product of intelligent design.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: What I Think
Post #52[font=Verdana]-
Abraham Ex Post Facto
â—� Gen 26:5 . . Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge: My commandments, My laws, and My teachings.
Some construe God's statement to indicate that Abraham was included in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But Moses' statement below excludes him.
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our forefathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of whom are here alive today." (Deut 5:2-3)
Were Abraham included in the Jews' covenant; God would have placed Himself in a serious dilemma.
The problem is: Abraham was married to a half sister (Gen 20:12)
The covenant prohibits marrying, and/or sleeping with, one's half sister. (Lev 18:9, Lev 20:17)
Under the terms and conditions of the Jews' covenant; men who sleep with their sisters are cursed the moment they do so because "cursed be he" is grammatically present tense; no delay and no waiting period; viz: the curse is immediate.
"Cursed be he who lies with his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter." (Deut 27:22)
Well; were God to slam Abraham with a curse for sleeping with his sister, then God would be obligated to slam Himself with a curse in return.
"The one who curses you I will curse" (Gen 12:3)
Abraham enjoyed quite an advantage. He had a certain kind of immunity. In other words, seeing as how Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were instituted long after Abraham passed away; then none of the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 applied to him.
Abraham complied with God's requirements; His commands, His decrees and His laws voluntarily rather than by compulsion because he wasn't in a covenant with God that demanded him to do so like his posterity would be in the days of Moses. (Deut 5:2-3)
The promises God made to Abraham as per Gen 12:2-3 and Gen 17:8 were not sustained by Abraham's piety. In other words: once God made those promises, neither Abraham nor his posterity can ever lose them because they are unconditional
"The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise." (Gal 3:17-18)
The "promise" in question reads like this:
"And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings, the entire land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them for a god." (Gen 17:8)
That should be really good news to Abraham's posterity because although the law has a marked effect upon their occupation of the land, it has no effect upon their entitlement to it.
/[/font]
Abraham Ex Post Facto
â—� Gen 26:5 . . Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge: My commandments, My laws, and My teachings.
Some construe God's statement to indicate that Abraham was included in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But Moses' statement below excludes him.
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our forefathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of whom are here alive today." (Deut 5:2-3)
Were Abraham included in the Jews' covenant; God would have placed Himself in a serious dilemma.
The problem is: Abraham was married to a half sister (Gen 20:12)
The covenant prohibits marrying, and/or sleeping with, one's half sister. (Lev 18:9, Lev 20:17)
Under the terms and conditions of the Jews' covenant; men who sleep with their sisters are cursed the moment they do so because "cursed be he" is grammatically present tense; no delay and no waiting period; viz: the curse is immediate.
"Cursed be he who lies with his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter." (Deut 27:22)
Well; were God to slam Abraham with a curse for sleeping with his sister, then God would be obligated to slam Himself with a curse in return.
"The one who curses you I will curse" (Gen 12:3)
Abraham enjoyed quite an advantage. He had a certain kind of immunity. In other words, seeing as how Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were instituted long after Abraham passed away; then none of the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 applied to him.
Abraham complied with God's requirements; His commands, His decrees and His laws voluntarily rather than by compulsion because he wasn't in a covenant with God that demanded him to do so like his posterity would be in the days of Moses. (Deut 5:2-3)
The promises God made to Abraham as per Gen 12:2-3 and Gen 17:8 were not sustained by Abraham's piety. In other words: once God made those promises, neither Abraham nor his posterity can ever lose them because they are unconditional
"The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise." (Gal 3:17-18)
The "promise" in question reads like this:
"And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings, the entire land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them for a god." (Gen 17:8)
That should be really good news to Abraham's posterity because although the law has a marked effect upon their occupation of the land, it has no effect upon their entitlement to it.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: What I Think
Post #53[font=Verdana]-
Erotic Fantasies
â—� Matt 5:27-28 . .You have heard that it was said you shall not commit adultery; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary carnal activity between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants has to be married.
The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon.
Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the ruling of covetousness; which reads:
â—� Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to "covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy (1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the full intention of possessing it.
Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it condemns scheming to take away something of your neighbor's instead of getting your own.
â—� Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.
The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires; rather, upon taking steps to fulfill them; which has the distinction of being the correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.
So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man can't look across the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it, turning green with envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom wife, undressing her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies a man going after the neighbor's Harley, and the buxom wife instead of getting his own.
Coming at this from the opposite direction: in the movie The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her heart to make it happen.
Supposing a Catholic man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to entertain thoughts about women-- any woman, whether somebody's wife or single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels, then whenever he does, he's an adulterer.
â—� Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
â—� Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
That is indeed tragic because there are decent Catholic men out and about stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due to their religion instilling within them a guilt complex related to a perfectly normal, God-given attraction to women.
/[/font]
Erotic Fantasies
â—� Matt 5:27-28 . .You have heard that it was said you shall not commit adultery; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary carnal activity between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants has to be married.
The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon.
Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the ruling of covetousness; which reads:
â—� Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to "covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy (1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the full intention of possessing it.
Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it condemns scheming to take away something of your neighbor's instead of getting your own.
â—� Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.
The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires; rather, upon taking steps to fulfill them; which has the distinction of being the correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.
So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man can't look across the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it, turning green with envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom wife, undressing her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies a man going after the neighbor's Harley, and the buxom wife instead of getting his own.
Coming at this from the opposite direction: in the movie The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her heart to make it happen.
Supposing a Catholic man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to entertain thoughts about women-- any woman, whether somebody's wife or single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels, then whenever he does, he's an adulterer.
â—� Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
â—� Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
That is indeed tragic because there are decent Catholic men out and about stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due to their religion instilling within them a guilt complex related to a perfectly normal, God-given attraction to women.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: What I Think
Post #54[font=Verdana]-
Yom Kippur
â—� Lev 16:29-34 . . And it shall be a statute to you for ever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you; for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before The Lord.
. . . It is a sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute for ever.
. . . And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father's place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments; he shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.
. . . And this shall be an everlasting statute for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins. And Moses did as The Lord commanded him.
See also Lev 23:27-32, and Num 29:7
There are many more details to Yom Kippur than the above, but the rest doesn't really matter all that much to Christians because the New Testament only concerns itself with the ritual's limitations.
In the letter to Hebrews; it's explained that Yom Kippur's ritual only addresses sins committed up to that point; i.e. the very moment that the high priest completes the full and complete ritual, new sins immediately begin to accumulate on the books requiring the attention of yet another Yom Kippur; and another, and another, and another, ad infinitum; viz: Yom Kippur's ritual is never sufficient to address sins once and for all. In other words: it's always and only for addressing the people's past sins; never their future sins.[/font]
[font=Georgia]FYI[/font][font=Verdana]: Never wish a Jewish person a happy Yom Kippur. It's okay to wish them a satisfactory Yom Kippur but never a happy one because it is not a day of joy like Christmas and birthdays; no, it is specifically a day of sadness and self-affliction as per Lev 16:29, Lev 16:31, Lev 23:27, and Lev 23:32, which is from a Hebrew word meaning to mistreat, humiliate, oppress, break the spirit, demean, abuse, weaken, injure, abase, etc. Jews that fail to be unhappy on that day accrue an instant curse upon themselves. (Deut 27:26)
/[/font]
Yom Kippur
â—� Lev 16:29-34 . . And it shall be a statute to you for ever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you; for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before The Lord.
. . . It is a sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute for ever.
. . . And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father's place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments; he shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.
. . . And this shall be an everlasting statute for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins. And Moses did as The Lord commanded him.
See also Lev 23:27-32, and Num 29:7
There are many more details to Yom Kippur than the above, but the rest doesn't really matter all that much to Christians because the New Testament only concerns itself with the ritual's limitations.
In the letter to Hebrews; it's explained that Yom Kippur's ritual only addresses sins committed up to that point; i.e. the very moment that the high priest completes the full and complete ritual, new sins immediately begin to accumulate on the books requiring the attention of yet another Yom Kippur; and another, and another, and another, ad infinitum; viz: Yom Kippur's ritual is never sufficient to address sins once and for all. In other words: it's always and only for addressing the people's past sins; never their future sins.[/font]
[font=Georgia]FYI[/font][font=Verdana]: Never wish a Jewish person a happy Yom Kippur. It's okay to wish them a satisfactory Yom Kippur but never a happy one because it is not a day of joy like Christmas and birthdays; no, it is specifically a day of sadness and self-affliction as per Lev 16:29, Lev 16:31, Lev 23:27, and Lev 23:32, which is from a Hebrew word meaning to mistreat, humiliate, oppress, break the spirit, demean, abuse, weaken, injure, abase, etc. Jews that fail to be unhappy on that day accrue an instant curse upon themselves. (Deut 27:26)
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: what I Think
Post #55[font=Verdana]-
When To Obtain Eternal Life
Note the grammatical tense of the "have" verb in the passages below. It's present tense rather than future, indicating that believers have eternal life right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.
â—� John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life
â—� John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who heed my message and trust in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.
â—� John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
â—� 1John 5:13 . . I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
According to those passages, people lacking eternal life, are lacking it because 1) they are unbelievers, 2) they are not paying attention to Christ's message, and 3) they don't trust God.
The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's testimony, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to life and death; people lacking eternal life do not have God's son. In other words: they are currently quite christless.
â—� 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; and whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: People that argue with God's testimony, are insinuating that He's a dishonest person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth.
â—� 1John 5:10 . .Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about His son.
When people do that-- when they insinuate that God is dishonest --they imply that He belongs in hell because according to Rev 21:8, hell is where all liars are destined.
Anyway; I should think that it goes without saying that christless people are in grave danger of the sum of all fears.
â—� Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
We can be sure that there are millions of christless people throughout the world; but are there any christless Christians? Well; for starters: Roman Catholicism-- known everywhere as the largest single denomination in the world --currently consists of approximately 1.2 billion followers who all, to a man, including the Pope, insist that nobody obtains eternal life till sometime after they die and cross over to the other side.
Well; that can mean but one thing, and one thing only: seeing as how those 1.2 billion souls are currently lacking eternal life, then according to God's expert testimony they are currently living without Christ, and they will pass on without Christ; you can safely apply that rule to any, and all, denominations, religions, and/or spiritual ideologies insisting that eternal life cannot be obtained prior to one's demise.
/[/font]
When To Obtain Eternal Life
Note the grammatical tense of the "have" verb in the passages below. It's present tense rather than future, indicating that believers have eternal life right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.
â—� John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life
â—� John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who heed my message and trust in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.
â—� John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
â—� 1John 5:13 . . I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
According to those passages, people lacking eternal life, are lacking it because 1) they are unbelievers, 2) they are not paying attention to Christ's message, and 3) they don't trust God.
The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's testimony, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to life and death; people lacking eternal life do not have God's son. In other words: they are currently quite christless.
â—� 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; and whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: People that argue with God's testimony, are insinuating that He's a dishonest person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth.
â—� 1John 5:10 . .Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about His son.
When people do that-- when they insinuate that God is dishonest --they imply that He belongs in hell because according to Rev 21:8, hell is where all liars are destined.
Anyway; I should think that it goes without saying that christless people are in grave danger of the sum of all fears.
â—� Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
We can be sure that there are millions of christless people throughout the world; but are there any christless Christians? Well; for starters: Roman Catholicism-- known everywhere as the largest single denomination in the world --currently consists of approximately 1.2 billion followers who all, to a man, including the Pope, insist that nobody obtains eternal life till sometime after they die and cross over to the other side.
Well; that can mean but one thing, and one thing only: seeing as how those 1.2 billion souls are currently lacking eternal life, then according to God's expert testimony they are currently living without Christ, and they will pass on without Christ; you can safely apply that rule to any, and all, denominations, religions, and/or spiritual ideologies insisting that eternal life cannot be obtained prior to one's demise.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: What I Think
Post #56[font=Verdana]-
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin
Some folk posit that Mary was, in some manner, a sort of surrogate mother, i.e. Jesus' embryo was an implant. Others sincerely believe that Mary's baby was an alternate species of human life totally unrelated to her own, i.e. another Adam, so to speak; basing their posit on 1Cor 15:45.
But the Bible testifies that Jesus Christ was Mary's honest to gosh, bona fide biological human progeny.
Q: How can you be so sure that Jesus Christ was produced from his mother's human egg, viz: her ovum?
A: Not only the Bible; but also the science of Biology bears that out.
Christ is stated to be born of David's seed.
â—� Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will". Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus
â—� Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper' mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their genetic material; especially when the seed is according to the flesh, i.e. biological seed rather than spiritual seed.
Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's flesh, one of his biological descendants had to be involved. So then, seeing as how Jesus was virgin conceived, then his mother became the default progenitor, i.e. Mary was one of David's granddaughters.
â—� Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David
An implanted embryo isn't really a conceived embryo. Conception took place in a woman's womb back in those days when her own ovum was involved in the process.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: In following the kings of the Davidic dynasty in the Old Testament, it's readily apparent that many of the names of the monarchs are associated with their mothers' names. There's a number of theories as to why that is, but the one that satisfies me most is that by naming the mothers of David's successors, it proves that they were 100% normal human beings rather than alien beings; which, in my mind at least, makes Luke 1:31 an extremely important piece of information.
â—� Heb 7:14 . . It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah
Well; it's clear enough to me, yes, but there are some who would contest Christ's biological origin.
Q: If Jesus Christ really was David's biological progeny; then wouldn't his mom have passed the guilt of Adam's sin to him?
A: Yes; absolutely, because the whole entirety of Adam's posterity-- regardless of age, race, or gender --is automatically condemned for tasting the forbidden fruit.
Note the grammatical tense of the passage below; it's past tense; indicating that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his posterity (which included Eve seeing as she came into being via the organic tissues of his own body) became guilty of tasting it-- in real time --including those of his family yet to be born.
â—� Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
â—� Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners.
Well; the trick is: though Adam's disobedience made his posterity sinners; it didn't make them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about joint principals in Adam's act of disobedience.
The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to clear his sin off the books seeing as how life's end is the proper satisfaction of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his posterity's own personal sins is another matter.
Q: If Jesus Christ was made a joint principal in Adam's slip-up, then how can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?
A: Adam's slip made Christ culpable right along with his fellow men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful. In point of fact; Christ committed no personal sins of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
Q: What was the secret to his success?
A: Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine. Not only did he descend from David according to the flesh, but Christ also descended from God according to the Spirit. (Luke 1:32-35). That is quite an advantage because according to 1John 3:9, that which is born of God not only doesn't sin, but cannot sin.
/[/font]
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin
Some folk posit that Mary was, in some manner, a sort of surrogate mother, i.e. Jesus' embryo was an implant. Others sincerely believe that Mary's baby was an alternate species of human life totally unrelated to her own, i.e. another Adam, so to speak; basing their posit on 1Cor 15:45.
But the Bible testifies that Jesus Christ was Mary's honest to gosh, bona fide biological human progeny.
Q: How can you be so sure that Jesus Christ was produced from his mother's human egg, viz: her ovum?
A: Not only the Bible; but also the science of Biology bears that out.
Christ is stated to be born of David's seed.
â—� Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will". Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus
â—� Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper' mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their genetic material; especially when the seed is according to the flesh, i.e. biological seed rather than spiritual seed.
Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's flesh, one of his biological descendants had to be involved. So then, seeing as how Jesus was virgin conceived, then his mother became the default progenitor, i.e. Mary was one of David's granddaughters.
â—� Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David
An implanted embryo isn't really a conceived embryo. Conception took place in a woman's womb back in those days when her own ovum was involved in the process.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: In following the kings of the Davidic dynasty in the Old Testament, it's readily apparent that many of the names of the monarchs are associated with their mothers' names. There's a number of theories as to why that is, but the one that satisfies me most is that by naming the mothers of David's successors, it proves that they were 100% normal human beings rather than alien beings; which, in my mind at least, makes Luke 1:31 an extremely important piece of information.
â—� Heb 7:14 . . It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah
Well; it's clear enough to me, yes, but there are some who would contest Christ's biological origin.
Q: If Jesus Christ really was David's biological progeny; then wouldn't his mom have passed the guilt of Adam's sin to him?
A: Yes; absolutely, because the whole entirety of Adam's posterity-- regardless of age, race, or gender --is automatically condemned for tasting the forbidden fruit.
Note the grammatical tense of the passage below; it's past tense; indicating that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his posterity (which included Eve seeing as she came into being via the organic tissues of his own body) became guilty of tasting it-- in real time --including those of his family yet to be born.
â—� Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
â—� Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners.
Well; the trick is: though Adam's disobedience made his posterity sinners; it didn't make them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about joint principals in Adam's act of disobedience.
The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to clear his sin off the books seeing as how life's end is the proper satisfaction of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his posterity's own personal sins is another matter.
Q: If Jesus Christ was made a joint principal in Adam's slip-up, then how can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?
A: Adam's slip made Christ culpable right along with his fellow men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful. In point of fact; Christ committed no personal sins of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
Q: What was the secret to his success?
A: Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine. Not only did he descend from David according to the flesh, but Christ also descended from God according to the Spirit. (Luke 1:32-35). That is quite an advantage because according to 1John 3:9, that which is born of God not only doesn't sin, but cannot sin.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: What I Think
Post #57[font=Verdana]-
Interpretation
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
The KJV's obsolete language is misleading. Here's that same passage in updated language.
â—� 2Pet 1:20-21 . . Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
That passage isn't talking about one's own personal understanding of prophecy, rather, the origin of prophecy. In other words: the sayings of the prophets didn't arise from human reasoning and a fertile imagination. No, they got their sayings directly from God.
Now, the sayings they got from God are not quite the same as the sayings that you see in print. No, the sayings you see in print are the prophets' interpretations of the sayings they got from God; viz: they translated God's thoughts into common language and grammar; but that's not the end of it.
For example: Jesus once said that his words are spirit (John 6:63). Well that right there is a bit of a problem because I don't have in my possession an [/font] [font=Georgia]ENIGMA[/font][font=Verdana] machine designed to decode spirit words; so were I not blessed with the anointing as per 1John 2:26-27, I'd be sort of like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there when it comes to spirit words.
â—� 1Cor 2:12-13 . .We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
/[/font]
Interpretation
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
The KJV's obsolete language is misleading. Here's that same passage in updated language.
â—� 2Pet 1:20-21 . . Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
That passage isn't talking about one's own personal understanding of prophecy, rather, the origin of prophecy. In other words: the sayings of the prophets didn't arise from human reasoning and a fertile imagination. No, they got their sayings directly from God.
Now, the sayings they got from God are not quite the same as the sayings that you see in print. No, the sayings you see in print are the prophets' interpretations of the sayings they got from God; viz: they translated God's thoughts into common language and grammar; but that's not the end of it.
For example: Jesus once said that his words are spirit (John 6:63). Well that right there is a bit of a problem because I don't have in my possession an [/font] [font=Georgia]ENIGMA[/font][font=Verdana] machine designed to decode spirit words; so were I not blessed with the anointing as per 1John 2:26-27, I'd be sort of like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there when it comes to spirit words.
â—� 1Cor 2:12-13 . .We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: What I Think
Post #58[font=Verdana]-
Sons And Bums
â—� Deut 21:18-21 . . If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you.
The koinë Greek word for "profligate" is zalal (zaw-lal') which, among other things, means to be morally loose and/or worthless
The koinë word for drunkard refers to heavy drinking; which could refer to wild parties and such.
Those words don't describe minor children, rather, of-age children, i.e. legally adults still living at home and mooching off their parents instead of out on their own, working for a living to support themselves.
There's a rule of thumb that says "When you live in our house, you'll live by our rules". Well; the bum described in Deut 21:18-21 not only mooches off his parents, but does whatever he pleases in their home, not caring how mom and dad might feel about anything.
These days that's becoming more and more common when 26 is the new 21. Kids are staying home longer than they used to. Well; there's nothing intrinsically wrong with kids staying home longer, but when their lifestyle becomes intolerable for their parents, it's time for them to move out.
Why is the punishment so severe for bums? Well for starters; it violates one of the Ten Commandments.
â—� Ex 20:12a . . Honor your father and your mother,
Failure to comply with that command merits dying before one's time.
â—� Ex 20:12b . . that your days may be prolonged in the land which Yhvh your God gives you. (cf. Eph 6:1-3)
/[/font]
Sons And Bums
â—� Deut 21:18-21 . . If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you.
The koinë Greek word for "profligate" is zalal (zaw-lal') which, among other things, means to be morally loose and/or worthless
The koinë word for drunkard refers to heavy drinking; which could refer to wild parties and such.
Those words don't describe minor children, rather, of-age children, i.e. legally adults still living at home and mooching off their parents instead of out on their own, working for a living to support themselves.
There's a rule of thumb that says "When you live in our house, you'll live by our rules". Well; the bum described in Deut 21:18-21 not only mooches off his parents, but does whatever he pleases in their home, not caring how mom and dad might feel about anything.
These days that's becoming more and more common when 26 is the new 21. Kids are staying home longer than they used to. Well; there's nothing intrinsically wrong with kids staying home longer, but when their lifestyle becomes intolerable for their parents, it's time for them to move out.
Why is the punishment so severe for bums? Well for starters; it violates one of the Ten Commandments.
â—� Ex 20:12a . . Honor your father and your mother,
Failure to comply with that command merits dying before one's time.
â—� Ex 20:12b . . that your days may be prolonged in the land which Yhvh your God gives you. (cf. Eph 6:1-3)
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: What I Think
Post #59[font=Verdana]-
Of Babes And Bears
â—� 2Kgs 2:23-24 . . And [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of The Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
It would appear from the 1611 KJV that Elisha was guilty of criminal child abuse. But to begin with, there's two different Hebrew words translated "children" in that passage.
In verse 23, the word is na` ar (nah'-ar) which has a pretty wide application; and more than one meaning: 1) a boy from the age of infancy to adolescence 2) a servant (of either gender) 3) a girl (of similar latitude in. age as a boy)
The word in verse 24 is yeled (yeh'-led) which has even more latitude than na` ar; and just simply means offspring, viz: the young of either man or beast, e.g. Gen 30:26 where yeled indicates not only Jacob's sons, but also his daughter Dinah. At 2Chron 10:8-10 yeled is the word for the young men from whom Rehoboam sought counsel.
A far more rational scenario is that Elisha was accosted by a youth gang; not by a posse of unsupervised little toddlers; as some have supposed. Youth gangs can be dangerous at times; and Elisha was very lucky to get away before they attacked him. The curse of the bears was obviously an act of self defense. They ran interference for Elisha; distracting the youths; thus creating an opportunity for Elisha to get away before the gang did more to him than just taunting.
Here's a paraphrased way to look at it.
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. Go on up, baldy; they said. Let's see you go on up too, chrome dome. He turned around, glared at them and called down a curse on them in the name of The Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The incident took place in the vicinity of Bethel; which, at the time, hosted a school for prophets (2Kgs 2:3). I've heard it proposed that the young men who accosted Elisha were disciples of false prophets hanging around that area.[/font]
[font=Georgia]FYI[/font][font=Verdana]: Until Christ returns to take the reins of this planet, there's always going to exist an element out there that has made it their mission in life to stump the Bible thumpers. Some have even gone to the trouble of writing books on the subject; for example 101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible by Dr. Shabir Ally. A response to Dr. Ally's book is located at the web page below.
101 'Cleared Up' Clear Contradictions in the Bible
http://gluefox.com/min/contrad.htm
/[/font]
Of Babes And Bears
â—� 2Kgs 2:23-24 . . And [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of The Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
It would appear from the 1611 KJV that Elisha was guilty of criminal child abuse. But to begin with, there's two different Hebrew words translated "children" in that passage.
In verse 23, the word is na` ar (nah'-ar) which has a pretty wide application; and more than one meaning: 1) a boy from the age of infancy to adolescence 2) a servant (of either gender) 3) a girl (of similar latitude in. age as a boy)
The word in verse 24 is yeled (yeh'-led) which has even more latitude than na` ar; and just simply means offspring, viz: the young of either man or beast, e.g. Gen 30:26 where yeled indicates not only Jacob's sons, but also his daughter Dinah. At 2Chron 10:8-10 yeled is the word for the young men from whom Rehoboam sought counsel.
A far more rational scenario is that Elisha was accosted by a youth gang; not by a posse of unsupervised little toddlers; as some have supposed. Youth gangs can be dangerous at times; and Elisha was very lucky to get away before they attacked him. The curse of the bears was obviously an act of self defense. They ran interference for Elisha; distracting the youths; thus creating an opportunity for Elisha to get away before the gang did more to him than just taunting.
Here's a paraphrased way to look at it.
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. Go on up, baldy; they said. Let's see you go on up too, chrome dome. He turned around, glared at them and called down a curse on them in the name of The Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The incident took place in the vicinity of Bethel; which, at the time, hosted a school for prophets (2Kgs 2:3). I've heard it proposed that the young men who accosted Elisha were disciples of false prophets hanging around that area.[/font]
[font=Georgia]FYI[/font][font=Verdana]: Until Christ returns to take the reins of this planet, there's always going to exist an element out there that has made it their mission in life to stump the Bible thumpers. Some have even gone to the trouble of writing books on the subject; for example 101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible by Dr. Shabir Ally. A response to Dr. Ally's book is located at the web page below.
101 'Cleared Up' Clear Contradictions in the Bible
http://gluefox.com/min/contrad.htm
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: What I Think
Post #60[font=Verdana]-
Christian Defined
â—� Acts 11:26 . . in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.
Webster's defines a Christian as somebody who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
According to that definition; it isn't necessary to actually believe in Christ's teachings in order to qualify as a Christian; it's only necessary to say you do.
People don't even have to know what Christ's teachings are; they only have to say they believe in them.
Nor is it necessary to put Christ's teachings into practice in order to qualify as a Christian; it's only necessary to say you believe in them.
Webster's is a very broad definition, but if all denominations complied with it, I think they'd all be a whole lots more tolerant; and get along a whole lots better too.
/[/font]
Christian Defined
â—� Acts 11:26 . . in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians.
Webster's defines a Christian as somebody who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
According to that definition; it isn't necessary to actually believe in Christ's teachings in order to qualify as a Christian; it's only necessary to say you do.
People don't even have to know what Christ's teachings are; they only have to say they believe in them.
Nor is it necessary to put Christ's teachings into practice in order to qualify as a Christian; it's only necessary to say you believe in them.
Webster's is a very broad definition, but if all denominations complied with it, I think they'd all be a whole lots more tolerant; and get along a whole lots better too.
/[/font]
