PDA

View Full Version : Useful In A Pinch



WeberHome
October 31st, 2015, 08:18 AM
-
Hello; and welcome to a home-spun compilation of information from the
Bible that comes in handy now and then for just about everybody.

NOTE: The compilation isn't plagiarized. I cobbled it together from 18 years
of experience on internet forums.

FYI: It is not my wish that this thread be either an ivory tower, or a
monologue, or a filibuster. I welcome, and encourage, any and all
comments, remarks, corrections, and/or suggestions.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
October 31st, 2015, 08:21 AM
-
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New

This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made
instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite
useful.

In a nutshell:

1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective
atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon
animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based
upon a human sacrifice.

2• The Old Testament's high priesthood is captained by men subject to
death; while the New Testament's high priesthood is captained by a man
impervious to death.

3• The Old Testament reveals curses for people who disobey the Ten
Commandments; while the New Testament reveals an escape from those
curses.

4• The Old Testament is where we learn of the origin of the human race as
we know it; while the New Testament is where we learn of the termination of
the human race as we know it; along with the introduction of a new human
race about which we know comparatively little.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Truster
October 31st, 2015, 08:30 AM
No comment.

chrysostom
October 31st, 2015, 10:19 AM
the old testament is the letter of the law
ie ten commandments
and
the new testament is the spirit of the law
the two great commands

there is no difference in how they were saved
except
those before Jesus had to wait for Him to do what He did

aikido7
October 31st, 2015, 10:42 AM
The Bible contains actual remembered history, oral tradition, interpretations (many different ones) of the sacred and holy, copies and corrections of those interpretations, metaphor, legends and myth.

Theology in the Bible is the meaning people placed over the factually correct evidence (evidence that anyone viewing the same thing would say).

Jesus died by crucifixion. This is what any observer, both faith-based and neutral, saw.

Jesus died for our sins was later theology placed over the actual crucifixion. And it was not the only theology that responds to his death on the cross.

glorydaz
October 31st, 2015, 10:46 AM
The Bible contains actual remembered history, oral tradition, interpretations (many different ones) of the sacred and holy, copies and corrections of those interpretations, metaphor, legends and myth.

Theology in the Bible is the meaning people placed over the factually correct evidence (evidence that anyone viewing the same thing would say).

Jesus died by crucifixion. This is what any observer, both faith-based and neutral, saw.

Jesus died for our sins was later theology placed over the actual crucifixion. And it was not the only theology that responds to his death on the cross.

Why do you call yourself a Christian? :chew:

aikido7
October 31st, 2015, 11:11 AM
Why do you call yourself a Christian? :chew:Because I see God in Jesus.

Are you sure you don't want to just withdraw from this conversation?
You have said before that you are done with reading my posts.

What were you really trying to communicate when you said that?

aikido7
October 31st, 2015, 11:24 AM
1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective[/FONT][/SIZE]
atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon
animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based
upon a human sacrifice.

Actually, both traditions are found in the Hebrew Bible (what we call the "Old" Testament). Jesus and John the Baptizer held to the older tradition of coming before God with repentance. Jesus pushed this envelope and included forgiveness of ourselves and others.

Jesus quoted the prophet Hosea when he said that God "desires mercy, not sacrifice." The pagan blood cult was the province of the priests who wanted to monopolize the temple to maintain their control. But archaeologists have discovered evidence of a mikvah, a ritual bath of purification. But apparently it was not a large one. It was dwarfed by the complex architecture that pointed to the spilling of blood on the altar. Nevertheless, we can clearly see an alternative available to all Jews during Jesus's time.

Remember Jesus's attack on the temple during his last days in Jerusalem (John's gospel has the incident happening at the very beginning of Jesus's mission). Because all four gospels mention this activity, we can be pretty sure it goes back to a real historical memory of the early Christian church.

If you read the Bible carefully from Genesis on, you can easily trace the development and uses of both traditions. The jealous God of justice who demands a blood sacrifice has to make peace with the God of mercy who demands contrition and forgiveness.

In my view they are still different traditions that describe a God that makes sense to the different groups. Just as we do, they needed a God that believed what they believed and made sense to them.

glorydaz
October 31st, 2015, 04:00 PM
Are you sure you don't want to just withdraw from this conversation?

Quite sure. If I wanted to withdraw I would have, and wouldn't be here to read this, would I? :chuckle:



You have said before that you are done with reading my posts.

There you go playing fast and loose with someone's words, again.





What were you really trying to communicate when you said that?

It was a question. You know what those are, don't you?

WeberHome
November 1st, 2015, 08:49 AM
-
Creation's Light

In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist
Avi Loeb states 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 natural 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.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Bradley D
November 1st, 2015, 08:27 PM
The idea of OT sacrifice of animal for sins was that innocent blood was being spilt for the sins of Israel/individual. It lose its meaning. The NT was that the Son of God Jesus gave His life for our sins. The ultimate sacrifice that finished the animal sacrifices.

Danoh
November 1st, 2015, 08:51 PM
-
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New

This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made
instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite
useful.

In a nutshell:

1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective
atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon
animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based
upon a human sacrifice.

2• The Old Testament's high priesthood is captained by men subject to
death; while the New Testament's high priesthood is captained by a man
impervious to death.

3• The Old Testament reveals curses for people who disobey the Ten
Commandments; while the New Testament reveals an escape from those
curses.

4• The Old Testament is where we learn of the origin of the human race as
we know it; while the New Testament is where we learn of the termination of
the human race as we know it; along with the introduction of a new human
race about which we know comparatively little.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Both the OT and the NT concern that which was prophesied, Acts 3:21.

And then there is that was not prophesied - the Mystery, hid in God, Eph. 3:9.

aikido7
November 1st, 2015, 09:56 PM
Quite sure. If I wanted to withdraw I would have, and wouldn't be here to read this, would I? :chuckle:Poor glorydaze. Poor, poor glorydaze.





There you go playing fast and loose with someone's words, again.

Mamma? MAH-MAHHHH! Chucky never tells me what he’s really talking about when he uses descriptions like “fast and loose” and “someone’s words” !!!

He doesn’t know that those judgements are vague enough to drive a Mac truck through and don’t say anything.

Help me, Mamma!







It was a question. You know what those are, don't you?Ouch! Now where did THAT anger come from?
Do you think I “made” you angry?
Do you really want to give me that infinite power over you?

I hope next time you fling a post like that my way you pay attention to the answer and get back to me with your REAL thoughts.

Seems reasonable to me.

glorydaz
November 1st, 2015, 10:42 PM
Poor glorydaze. Poor, poor glorydaze.






Mamma? MAH-MAHHHH! Chucky never tells me what he’s really talking about when he uses descriptions like “fast and loose” and “someone’s words” !!!

He doesn’t know that those judgements are vague enough to drive a Mac truck through and don’t say anything.

Help me, Mamma!






Ouch! Now where did THAT anger come from?
Do you think I “made” you angry?
Do you really want to give me that infinite power over you?

I hope next time you fling a post like that my way you pay attention to the answer and get back to me with your REAL thoughts.

Seems reasonable to me.

And these are the kinds of nuts being attracted to TOL these days. I think he/she is someone's old "roommate", and his MASK has been removed for our viewing "pleasure". He's got the "Poor poor poor" thang down pat and his WHINING is fit for any jammie party the girly boys might ever hope to throw. I'm thinking they've been smoking some ganja, too. :think:

patrick jane
November 1st, 2015, 10:58 PM
And these are the kinds of nuts being attracted to TOL these days. I think he/she is someone's old "roommate", and his MASK has been removed for our viewing "pleasure". He's got the "Poor poor poor" thang down pat and his WHINING is fit for any jammie party the girly boys might ever hope to throw. I'm thinking they've been smoking some ganja, too. :think:

Who's the hippy ? I haven't heard the word ganja since the Cheech and Chong movies

glorydaz
November 1st, 2015, 11:02 PM
Who's the hippy ? I haven't heard the word ganja since the Cheech and Chong movies

Stop following me around. :down:

patrick jane
November 1st, 2015, 11:09 PM
Stop following me around. :down:

you referred to me :duh:

WeberHome
November 2nd, 2015, 10:25 AM
-
The Length Of A Creation Day

†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

In accordance with a normal, strict chronological sequence; evening and
morning would indicate overnight; viz: a day of creation would take place
entirely in the dark; which fails to comply with the definitions of Day given at
Gen 1:4-5a and Gen 1:14-18.

Seeing as how it says evening and morning instead of evening to morning,
then we're not really looking at a chronological sequence but merely the
Am/Pm portions of daytime because evening and morning is all the same as
morning and evening.

In other words: morning represents the hours of daylight between sunup
and high noon, while evening represents the hours of daylight between high
noon and sunset.

NOTE: I suspect that God did His work of creation during what is defined as
daytime rather than what is defined as nighttime in order to convey the idea
that His work was a work of light as opposed to a work of darkness. That
makes sense to me seeing as how there were no actual mornings and
afternoons till the fourth day. I also suspect that Christ rose from the dead
during daytime instead of nighttime in order to convey the very same idea.

Now, just exactly how long were the days of creation? Well; according to
Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day;
which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land
animals but the sixth.

Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar
days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that
dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my
estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of
indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the
sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and
exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word
is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally
occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be
available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to
have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning".

The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another;
and even more important, evening and morning indicate periods of light
only, rather than periods of light and darkness together. In other words:
none of God's creative activity was done in the dark. I think that is very
significant.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped
when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the
earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.
It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go
ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow
ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really
appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern
men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and
religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion
doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer;
viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and
religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of
some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

glorydaz
November 2nd, 2015, 12:09 PM
And these are the kinds of nuts being attracted to TOL these days. I think he/she is someone's old "roommate", and his MASK has been removed for our viewing "pleasure". He's got the "Poor poor poor" thang down pat and his WHINING is fit for any jammie party the girly boys might ever hope to throw. I'm thinking they've been smoking some ganja, too. :think:


you referred to me :duh:

Oh, which are you?

1. "nuts"
2. "roommate"
3. "poor thang"
4. "girly boy"
5. "mask"

Or was it the "whining" and "jammie party" that you identified with most? Let me know and I'll make sure I never use those words again on this forum....lest you get your tender feelings hurt.

WeberHome
November 3rd, 2015, 08:13 AM
-
Day And Night

†. Gen 1:4b-5a . . God separated the light from the darkness. God called the
light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Day and Night simply label two distinct physical conditions-- the absence of
light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions
may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in
the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate
in regards to Christ's burial and resurrection.

†. Gen 1:14 . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
distinguish Day from Night

On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and defined Night
as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day, as pertains to
life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is when the sun is down and
apparently Christ concurred.

These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the
memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always
thinking of Days as 24-hour events. That's okay for calendars but can lead
to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical schedules, predictions,
and/or chronologies.

†. Gen 1:15-18a . . God made the two great lights, the greater light to
dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars.
And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to
dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.

For the third time in Genesis, "day" is defined as when the sun is up, and
"night" is defined as when the sun is down. Plus: night is further clarified as
when the stars are out; and yet people still don't think God means it.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 5th, 2015, 08:12 AM
-
The Image And Likeness Of God

†. Gen 1:26-27 . . Then God said: Let us make man in our image, in our
likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
along the ground. So God created man in His own image, in the image of
God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 9:5-6 outlaws murder: not on the basis that its morally wrong, but
because humanity was created in the image of God.

James 3:9 frowns upon cursing people: not on the basis that it's morally
wrong; but because humanity was created in the image of God.

I take it from those passages that were it not for the fact that mankind was
created in the image of God, human life would be very cheap, and have no
more value than a gerbil or a garden slug. The image and likeness of God is
what lends human life a measure of dignity over and above the animal
kingdom. Were it not for their image and likeness of God, people could go on
safari and hunt each other for sport, like human wildlife, and mount their
heads on walls and mantles.

Gen 5:3 indicates that at least one of the meanings of "image and likeness"
is the reproduction of one's self by means of engendering biological children.
However; humanity bears small resemblance to its creator because God isn't
physical. According to John 4:24 God is spirit, while according to John 3:6
humanity is solid. According to Ex 3:14 God is imperishable, while according
to Matt 10:28, humanity is perishable: body and soul.

Though humanity obviously isn't God's biological offspring, it still seems to
me "children" is the best way to define humanity's image and likeness of
God: at least in a limited way; for example:

†. Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.

Now, obviously humanity's status as sons of the Most High isn't a biological
status because according to Gen 2:7 human life was constructed from the
dust of the earth; in other words: humanity wasn't born a son of the Most
High by means of the Most High giving birth. So then; I think it safe to
conclude that humanity's status as a son isn't a natural-born status; but
rather, an honorary status; viz: the image and likeness of God is conferred
rather than inherited. And a pretty amazing status it is too seeing as how it's
about as close to divine as a creature can get without actually having
biologically descended from God.

†. Ps 8:5 . .You have made man a little lower than the angels; and You have
crowned him with glory and honor.

The "glory and honor" spoken of in that Psalm pertains to the image and
likeness of God; which puts humanity pretty high up on the food chain-- not
because they are brighter and smarter then the other creatures; but
because the image and likeness of God lends mankind an amount of value
that no other species on Earth can match.

Q: If mankind was created in the image and likeness of God, then why is
mankind so prone to evil?

A: Because mankind isn't biologically related to God, nor is mankind a chip
off the olde block, so to speak. The term "image and likeness" is merely a
status. It has no bearing whatsoever upon either the qualities, or the
character, or the personality of mankind's creator. Were mankind biologically
related to God, it would be 110% sinless in thought, word, and deed.

†. John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed
remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Q: But doesn't Acts 17:28-29 say that mankind is God's biological kin?

A: According to Acts 22:3, Paul the apostle was accomplished in Judaism; so
he knew very well from the schooling he underwent with Gamaliel that
according to Gen 2:7 human beings are definitely not God's biological kin.
No; Paul simply appealed to Greek poetry to point out to the Athenians that
if human beings were truly God's biological offspring, then the father of
human beings surely would be made of something other than metal and/or
stone. I think maybe the Greeks took their religious art just a mite too
seriously.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 6th, 2015, 09:04 AM
-
Your Daddy

The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific diagram that traces
all forms of life back to a common genetic heritage. The branch on that tree
that interests me the most is the one that traces human life. According to
the diagram; any two people you might select-- no matter what their age,
race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can eventually be identified with
a common ancestor.

†. Gen 2:21-23 . .Yhvh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And
the God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man,
and brought her to the man. And the man said: This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man.

The Hebrew for "rib" in that passage is is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-23
contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's
translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other
twenty-nine places, it's translated "side"

In other words: Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as
was Adam. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated
from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; consequently
any and all human life produced by Eve's body is Adam's human life.

It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life be
biologically related to a sole source of human life-- the one and only human
life that God created directly from the earth's dust; viz: Adam.

So then; it is not quite accurate to say that Christ didn't have a human
father because if Christ is biologically related to his mother, and if his
mother is biologically related to Eve, then Christ is biologically related to
Adam.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

everready
November 6th, 2015, 11:08 AM
-
The Length Of A Creation Day

†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

In accordance with a normal, strict chronological sequence; evening and
morning would indicate overnight; viz: a day of creation would take place
entirely in the dark; which fails to comply with the definitions of Day given at
Gen 1:4-5a and Gen 1:14-18.

Seeing as how it says evening and morning instead of evening to morning,
then we're not really looking at a chronological sequence but merely the
Am/Pm portions of daytime because evening and morning is all the same as
morning and evening.

In other words: morning represents the hours of daylight between sunup
and high noon, while evening represents the hours of daylight between high
noon and sunset.

NOTE: I suspect that God did His work of creation during what is defined as
daytime rather than what is defined as nighttime in order to convey the idea
that His work was a work of light as opposed to a work of darkness. That
makes sense to me seeing as how there were no actual mornings and
afternoons till the fourth day. I also suspect that Christ rose from the dead
during daytime instead of nighttime in order to convey the very same idea.

Now, just exactly how long were the days of creation? Well; according to
Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day;
which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land
animals but the sixth.

Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar
days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that
dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my
estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of
indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the
sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and
exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word
is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally
occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be
available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to
have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning".

The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another;
and even more important, evening and morning indicate periods of light
only, rather than periods of light and darkness together. In other words:
none of God's creative activity was done in the dark. I think that is very
significant.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped
when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the
earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.
It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go
ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow
ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really
appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern
men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and
religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion
doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer;
viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and
religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of
some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


"Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the
sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and
exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word
is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally
occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be
available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to
have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

Your calculations haven't factored in what conditions were like before sin entered creation, that would include animal vegetable and mineral.

everready

WeberHome
November 8th, 2015, 12:38 PM
-
Why Adam Didn't Drop Dead

†. Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden
of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying:
Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of
knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of
it, you shall die.

That passage has always been an embarrassment for Bible thumpers
because Adam didn't drop dead the instant he tasted the forbidden fruit. In
point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800
years after the birth of his son Seth. (Gen 5:4)

So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

Well; first off let me point out that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in
his day, rather than death as the Bible thumpers understand it in their day.
In other words: Adam didn't expect to die spiritually. No, he expected to die
normally; viz: physically; like as in pass away.

How can I be so sure that God meant normal death instead of spiritual
death? Because according to Gen 3:19 that's how it worked out; and to
make sure Adam stayed normally dead, God blocked his access to the tree
of life. (Gen 3:22-24)

Anyway; the trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted
the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"

Well; according to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It
can easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours; viz:
the "day" of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit.

That was a milestone in human history. Up till Adam tasted the fruit, the
only days on record were the six of creation, and the one when God ceased
creating. Adam inaugurated a new day by tasting the fruit-- the day of
death.

"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
way death came to all men" (Rom 5:12)

Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: "The
day ain't over yet"

†. Ecc 7:2 . . It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house
of gaiety, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this
seriously.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

patrick jane
November 8th, 2015, 01:20 PM
Oh, which are you?

1. "nuts"
2. "roommate"
3. "poor thang"
4. "girly boy"
5. "mask"

Or was it the "whining" and "jammie party" that you identified with most? Let me know and I'll make sure I never use those words again on this forum....lest you get your tender feelings hurt.

Ganja. Look lady, I post to recent posts on the active board, even yours. If you weren't referring to me then maybe I was wrong, but maybe I was right. Don't worry about my feelings.

20694

glorydaz
November 8th, 2015, 04:52 PM
Ganja. Look lady, I post to recent posts on the active board, even yours. If you weren't referring to me then maybe I was wrong, but maybe I was right. Don't worry about my feelings.



Look, little whiney boy. :loser:

Are you not getting enough attention? :chew:


You go dig up a post from a week ago all to tell me not to worry about your feelings? Really? :mock: pj

WeberHome
November 10th, 2015, 07:48 AM
-
Why Cain Was Rejected

†. Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of
the soil.

Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to
the Adams' survival. Humans at this time were vegetarians so Cain farmed
and raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by
tending flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

†. Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord
from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the
firstlings of his flock.

There's no indication in this scene suggesting that the items they brought
were sacrifices for sin. The Hebrew word for "offering" is from minchah (min
khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically,
tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).

Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- which are essentially gifts
rather than atonements --it would be wrong to insist Abel slew his firstling
and/or burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings are indicated
by the word 'olah (o-law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 8:20 and
Gen 22:2.

Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of
oblation.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain
brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation
of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the
flock. (Targum Jonathan)

Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce
was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an
animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate
first fruits offering.

I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather,
responsible men in this particular scene because God treated them that way.
This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God.
The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing
gifts for many years; ever since they were of age. And up to this point,
apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much
pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.

But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

"Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the
prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the
blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar
and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)

It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given
religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)

†. Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain
and his offering He paid no heed.

The language and grammar of that verse indicate that God not only snubbed
Cain's offering; but also Cain himself; so that his offering wasn't the only
issue: Cain himself was an issue too.

Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city
barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or
thoughtless, nor did she neglect or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang, didn't
carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed, drink,
snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women.

Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a
predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment
banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap
politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he
associate with the wrong crowd. He was very religious and worshipped the
exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the rituals he practiced
were correct and timely.

The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do; yet he, and
subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected. What?

Well; for one thing; at this point in his life, in spite of appearances; Cain was
actually impious. (1John 3:12)

In what way was he impious? Well, my first guess would be friction between
him and his brother. It is unacceptable to worship God while the
worshipper's relationship with their brother is dysfunctional.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your
brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar,
and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and
offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)

†. Gen 4:5b-7a . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord
said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen? If you do
what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cain knew the drill; viz: it's conduct first and worship second. That can be
readily seen played out in the first chapter of Isaiah where Yhvh's people are
depicted practicing their God-given worship to perfection. They were
attending Temple on a timely basis, praying up a storm, offering all the
correct sacrifices and offerings, observing the Sabbath, and all the holy days
of obligation. But God soundly rejected all of that because their conduct was
unbecoming.

Bottom line: Abel and his offering were acceptable because Abel's conduct
was acceptable; while Cain and his offering were unacceptable because
Cain's conduct was unacceptable. So then, from Cain and Abel we learn that
the key to acceptable worship is acceptable conduct. The two are joined at
the hip; so to speak. And that being the case; I'd have to say that there are
a number of Christians attending church every Sunday morning who really
ought to stay home and not come back until they clean up the things in their
lives that they know very well are rubbing God the wrong way.

†. 1John 1:5-6 . . This then is the message which we have heard of him, and
declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we
say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do
not the truth

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 12th, 2015, 10:35 AM
-
Why God Didn't Prosecute Cain For Murder

†. Gen 4:12-13 . . If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to
you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth. Cain said to the Lord:
My punishment is too great to bear!

His punishment was actually very lenient. In point of fact, it wasn't
punishment at all, it was discipline. It's true that Cain would struggle to
survive; but at least he was allowed to live. His kid brother was dead. How is
that fair?

Q: How did Cain get off with only a slap on the wrist? Why wasn't he
executed for murder since God himself mandates capital punishment for
murderers as per Gen 9:5-6, Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num
35:31-34? Does God practice a double standard?

A: Murder is intrinsically evil, yes; however; according to Gal 3:17, law
enacted ex post facto is too late; viz: law can't be enforced until after it's
enacted; which is precisely why God didn't, and couldn't, execute Cain for
murder. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 14th, 2015, 12:24 PM
-
From Whence Cain Got A Wife

Adam was created directly from the dust of the earth. Not so Eve. She was
constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body. In
other words: Eve's flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as
Adam's except for gender; viz: Eve wasn't a discrete species of human life,
rather; she was the flip side of the same coin.

After God created Adam and Eve, He wrapped creation and has been on
sabbatical every since.

According to the Bible, all human life thereafter came from Eve's flesh.

†. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all the living.

It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life descend
from a solo specimen.

†. Acts 17:26 . . From one man He made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth.

The Greek word for "nation of men" is ethnos (eth'-nos) which pertains to
racial diversity.

Bottom line: The flesh of Cain's wife descended from his mother's flesh.

An even more convincing example of prehistoric incest is Noah and his three
sons and their wives. Nobody else survived the Flood; ergo: Shem's, Ham's,
and Japheth's children married amongst themselves-- first cousins with first
cousins.

†. Gen 9:18-19 . . Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were
Shem and Ham and Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah; and from
these the whole earth was populated.

Obviously the human genome was very pure back in those days. The proof
of it is pre-historic human life's amazing longevity-- Adam lived to be 930,
and Noah to 950.

Now as to the sin of incest; according to Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal
3:17; God does not enforce His laws ex post facto: viz: they are not
retroactive. So then, it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to prosecute
pre-historic people for incest because it wasn't prohibited in their day; and
wouldn't be until later in Moses'.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 17th, 2015, 08:45 AM
-
How The Critters Got To Noah

†. Gen 6:3a . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever.
Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But
people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years
afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood,
didn't die till he was 175. No; it's far more reasonable to conclude that God
was announcing a deadline; viz: the antediluvians had 120 years left to get
ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody? Heck no.
They went right on; business as usual.

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of
Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the Flood came and
destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)

The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz:
reprieves are not acquittals-- though God bear a great while, He never bears
forever.

†. Gen 6:12-14 . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the
people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going
to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of
them. I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark

†. Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the
earth --to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life;
everything on earth shall perish.

†. Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of
each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female.
From birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing
on earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.

Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers.
God said two of each "shall come to you" (cf. Gen 7:9, Gen 7:15) which
implies of course that species who failed to come got left behind and went
extinct in the Flood. There was plenty of time for them to make it because
Noah was 120 years building the ark and getting it ready.

A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4
years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450
miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of
shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do,
but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was
plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time
for the Folly's maiden voyage.

If the ark were to launch in 2015, critters would have been on the move
towards it since 1895-- eight years before the Wright Brothers historical
flight, and seventeen years before the Titanic foundered --and probably
reproduced many times along the way since there are not all that many
species that live to see 120 years of age.

But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny
theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of
plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know
that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry
parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.

Scientists also know about subduction and magma hot spots and pressure
points that can raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator; for
example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was
once known as the Vale of Siddim. Sometime in the distant past the earth's
crust rose in that region, blocking the Jordan River's natural drainage into
the gulf of Aqaba; thus trapping it's waters in a huge basin from which they
cannot escape. Subduction causes the earth to wrinkle, bulge, and form
mountain ranges and hill country.

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter
forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the
waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the
sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys
sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a
boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover
the earth." (Ps 104:5-9)

That portion of Psalm 104 is probably speaking of Gen 1:9-10. It's handy for
showing that God is capable of molding the Earth's lithosphere into any
geological configuration He pleases to push sea beds up and form land
bridges; thus expediting migrations from all over the world over to Noah's
diggings.

This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old
stone structure utilized to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the
surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the
Great Lakes region.

The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac.
Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters
hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that
hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down
the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.

The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley
Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor
connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.

Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) shell anyway,
although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at
various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were
smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the
Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough
indigenous water on it to cover the crust to a depth of 9,000 feet of water.
That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles deep.

Geological processes normally take thousands of years to accomplish, but
those processes can be sped up considerably by the cosmos' creator, who
has absolute control over everything-- not just the earth's geological
processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

George Affleck
November 18th, 2015, 09:37 PM
Seems to be some interference.

I'm getting a Ma and Pa Kettle rerun in the background.

glorydaz
November 18th, 2015, 09:44 PM
Seems to be some interference.

I'm getting a Ma and Pa Kettle rerun in the background.

I think your braces are picking up false signals. Just adjust your antenna, and you'll be back to normal in no time.

WeberHome
November 19th, 2015, 01:48 PM
-
The Fate Of Noah's Ark

†. Gen 8:3b . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters
diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the
month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

The precise topographic location, where the ark went aground, was not
really up on a specific mountain by the name of Ararat nor up on any other
mountain for that matter. The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is
haareey which is the plural of har (har). It doesn't always mean prominent
land masses like Everest or McKinley; especially when it's plural. Har can
also mean a range of mountains like the Pyrenees bordering Spain and
France and/or a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where
Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.

"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of
Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke
1:39-40)

In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San
Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There
were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was
very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and
cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and
calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top
of one of its mountains like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.

Another inhabited region in the continental U.S. that's elevated is the area of
Denver Colorado; which is located on the western edge of the Great Plains
near the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Denver is a whole mile above
sea level-- 5,280 feet. However, Denver, even though so high above sea
level, isn't located on the tippy top of a mountain, nor even on the side of
one; it's just located up on high ground.

The ark contained the only surviving souls of man and animal on the entire
planet. Does it really make good sense to strand them up on a mountain
peak where they might risk death and injury descending it?

When my wife and I visited the San Diego zoo together back in the early
1980's, we noticed that the Giraffes' area had no fence around it. The tour
guide told us the Giraffes' enclosure doesn't need a fence because their area
is up on a plateau 3 feet high. The Giraffes don't try to escape because
they're afraid of heights. There's just no way Giraffes could've climbed down
off of Turkey's Mount Ararat. It's way too steep and rugged. Those poor
timid creatures would've been stranded up there and died; and so would
hippos, elephants, and flightless birds.

The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears
three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38,
and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat is always the country of Armenia: never a
specific peak by the same name.

So; where is the ark now? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen
6:15, the ark was shaped like what the whiz kids call a right rectangular
prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common shoe box.
So most of the lumber and/or logs used in its construction would've been
nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together houses, fences,
barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

I think it's very safe to assume Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the
ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires.
Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using
refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody
needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs.
There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of
that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's
lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape
and should have been preserved for many years to come.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

George Affleck
November 19th, 2015, 03:58 PM
Weber,

I found what you said about giraffes and heights interesting. I did not know that about them before.

This might be a clue that the ark rested in one of the valleys in the mountains of Ararat.

Thanks

WeberHome
November 21st, 2015, 08:34 AM
-
Abraham And Hagar

†. Gen 21:10-12 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and
her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my
son Isaac.

The common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate
because he was Abraham's firstborn biological son. However, there was a
clause in the laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's
in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any
and all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The trick is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the
clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.

†. Gen 21:14 . . Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin
of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then
sent her off with the boy.

The phrase "sent her off" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the
emancipation of slaves.In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is
commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail
that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar,
then her son Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's
eldest biological son.

Later, when Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac; God referred to him as
the patriarch's only son.

†. Gen 22:2 . .Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and
go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of
the mountains of which I will tell you.

†. Gen 22:12 . . Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do
nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not
withheld your son, your only son, from Me.

Technically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons
(Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was
dissolved when he emancipated Ishmael's mother; and I sincerely believe
that is precisely how Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, and Heb 11:17 ought to be
understood.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 23rd, 2015, 11:28 AM
-
Who/What The Firstborn Is

†. Col 1:15 . . He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation.

Christ wasn't even the one born first in the human family let alone the entire
creation so what gives here?

Well; firstborn is just as much a rank as it is a chronological birth order; and
though the chronology is set in biological concrete; the title, and it's
advantages, are transferable to a younger sibling; e.g. from Esau to Jacob
(Gen 25:23) from Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1) and from
Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14). This situation can lead to some
interesting ramifications; for example:

†. Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus
asked them a question; saying: What do you think about the Christ, whose
son is He? They said to Him: The son of David. He said to them: Then how
does David in the Spirit call Him "Lord" saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit
at My right hand until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet. If David then
calls Him "Lord" how is He his son?

Jesus referenced Psalm 110:1, where there are two distinct Hebrew words
for "lord". The first is yhvh, a name reserved exclusively for God. The second
is 'adown, which is a very common word in the Old Testament used to
simply indicate a superior. Sarah labeled Abraham her 'adown (Gen 18:12)
Rachel addressed her dad by 'adown (Gen 31:5) and Jacob addressed his
brother Esau by 'adown (Gen 33:8).

So then; Psalm 110:1 could be translated like this:

"Yhvh said unto my superior: Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool."

Anybody who knew the Old Testament in Jesus' day knew good and well
from Ps 89:27 that David has no superiors but God because he holds the
rank of God's firstborn; viz: no king that you might name is David's superior
other than Yhvh: the king of all kings.

So Psalm 110:1 suggests that David's rank-- and subsequently its
advantages --as God's firstborn has been transferred to another man; and
seeing as how Jesus' opponents agreed that the other man is David's son,
then the position has been transferred not to one of David's siblings; but to
one of his own posterity; so that now David has to bow and scrape to one of
his own grandchildren, which up to that time was not only unheard of; but
just wasn't done.

†. Matt 22:46 . . And no one was able to answer him a word

Well; no surprise there. This was something not only strange to their Jewish
way of thinking; but entirely new, yet there it was in black and white in their
own scriptures; and they had somehow failed to catch its significance until
Jesus drew their attention to it.

Now; here's something else that I'm 110% positive crossed the minds of
Jesus' learned opposition. To their way of thinking, David's position as God's
firstborn as per Ps 89:27 is irrevocable. Well; seeing as how there is no
intermediate rank between the firstborn position and the paterfamilias
position, that means David's son, about whom he spoke in Ps 110:1, is equal
in rank to God; which is a blasphemous suggestion to say the least.
(chuckle) Those poor know-it-all Pharisees were utterly baffled beyond
words.

"Your throne O God is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the
scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated
wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy
more than your fellows." (Ps 45:6-7)

If that passage has been translated correctly, it says one of two things.
Either God is speaking to Himself, or He is speaking to a king of the Davidic
dynasty that has been promoted to a level of dignity and authority equal to
His own; which of course outranks David by a pretty large amount; and in
point of fact: is superior to the entire creation-- all of its forms of life,
matter, and energy --no contest.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 25th, 2015, 10:50 AM
-
Why David's Little Boy

Long story short: David breached the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed
upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy by
committing the capital crimes of premeditated murder and adultery (2Sam
11:1-2Sam 12:23). As bad as those two breaches are; what really rattled
heaven's cage was that David's conduct was an embarrassment.

†. 2Sam 12:14a . . Because by this deed you have given occasion to the
enemies of The Lord to blaspheme,

What might the nature of that blasphemy be? Well behavior like David's
causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His
name. That's a very common form of blaspheme: it goes on all the time.
(e.g. Isa 62:5, Rom 2:24)

†. 2Sam 12:14b-18 . . the child also that is born to you shall surely die . .
.The Lord struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was
very sick . . .Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.

How was that fair? Well; it wasn't meant to be fair to the boy; it was meant
to be fair to David. His little boy was just collateral damage.

†. Ex 34:6-7 . . Then Yhvh passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed:
Yhvh, Yhvh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding
in loving-kindness and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who
forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished: visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the
grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

It is apparently God's prerogative to get back at people by going after their
posterity and/or the people they govern.

There's a horrific example of collateral damage located at Num 16:25-34.
Another is the Flood. No doubt quite a few underage children drowned in
that event due to their parents' wickedness. The same happened to the
children in Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ham's punishment for humiliating
Noah was a curse upon his son Canaan, and during Moses' face-off with
Pharaoh, God moved against the man's firstborn son along with all those of
his subjects.

The grand-daddy of all collateral damages is everybody has to die because
the human race's progenitor disobeyed God in the very beginning. (Rom
5:12-18)

Interesting isn't it? There are times when Heaven's anger seems to come out
of the blue; but if truth be known; sometimes it actually comes out of the
past; for example:

†. 2Sam 21:1 . . Now there was a famine in the days of David for three
years, year after year; and David sought the presence of the Lord. And the
Lord said: It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites
to death.

Joshua agreed to a non-aggression pact with the Gibeonites during the
conquest of Canaan (Josh 9:3-16). Saul, when king, dishonored the pact. He
apparently got away with it; but not his countrymen, no; God slammed them
for what Saul did; and that posthumously.

Moral of the story: The sins of today, jeopardize the lives of tomorrow; and
sometimes those lives are very large in number.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Grosnick Marowbe
November 25th, 2015, 10:54 AM
Quite sure. If I wanted to withdraw I would have, and wouldn't be here to read this, would I? :chuckle:




There you go playing fast and loose with someone's words, again.






It was a question. You know what those are, don't you?

A7 is very confused and I might add, Lost.

WeberHome
November 27th, 2015, 02:25 PM
-
The Meaning Of "Under The Law"

†. Rom 6:14 . . For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under
law, but under grace.

NOTE: The law's mastery is played out in its power to control people's
destiny. For example when somebody commits grand theft, criminal justice
puts the thief behind bars regardless of how he might feel about it.

The "law" in question is the covenanted law that Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The
important thing to note about the agreement is that it's a legally binding
contract. So then the term "under the law" refers to contractual obligations.

Seeing as how Christ's followers are not contracted with God to comply with
the covenant, then neither is God contractually obligated to penalize Christ's
followers for breaching it.

God has to lower the boom on Yhvh's people with any and/or all of the
curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 for
breaching the covenant, but He doesn't have to lower the boom on Christ's
followers with those curses because He isn't contracted with them to do so.
This is a very important aspect of Christianity.

In a nutshell: where there is no contract, there is no contract to breach; and
where there is no law, there is no law to break; and where there is no law to
break, there are no indictments. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

This principle applies in a really big way to people who have undergone the
baptism described at Rom 6:3-11 because it essentially means that they
cannot be sent to hell for breaking the Ten Commandments, or any of the
other covenanted commandments for that matter.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 29th, 2015, 07:08 AM
-
Who/What The Schoolmaster Is

†. Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith.

The koinι Greek word for "schoolmaster" is paidagogos (pahee-dag-o-gos')
which defines not a headmaster, nor a teacher, nor a tutor. It essentially
defines a servant whose responsibility it was to take their master's children
to school. In other words: a sort of chaperone who made sure the kids got
there; even if the servant had to take them by the hand to do it.

The "law" to which the writer refers is the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Although Gentiles aren't contracted with God to comply with the covenant,
it's useful for revealing God's feelings about certain kinds of behavior; for
example:

†. Lev 19:11 . . You shall not deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

Once a Gentile is made aware that their maker disapproves of dishonesty,
henceforth they get in hot water every time they lie because God is lenient
with uninformed liars but has little patience with scofflaws.

†. Num 15:30-31 . .The person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly
reviles the Lord; that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has spurned the word of the Lord and violated His
commandment, that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.

So; what might "cut off" amount to? Well; for one: no liar will be allowed
entrance to the holy city.

†. Rev 21:27 . . No one who practices lying shall ever come into it

†. Rev 22:14-15 . . Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they
may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into
the city. But outside are whoever loves and practices a lie.

The law's task then; is to instill fear in dishonesty, and make liars aware that
if they opt to take their chances, and stand before God to be judged on their
own merits; that they haven't the slightest, slimmest possibility of coming
away unscathed. It's a 110% forgone conclusion that they will come away
dead.

†. Rev 21:8 . . All liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire
and brimstone, which is the second death.

I am willing to bet that nobody can get through the day without dishonesty--
we need dishonesty, we have to have dishonesty or interactions with our
friends, with strangers, with associates, with superiors and loved ones would
be very strained indeed. It is just humanly impossible to be honest all the
time. I would even go so far as to say that in the world in which we live; it's
not smart to be 110% honest all the time; viz: "Honesty is the best policy"
just isn't true; not in the world we live in anyway; which is a bit of a catch
22.

Q: Why does everyone find it so easy to lie?

A: Because human beings are natural-born liars.

†. Ps 58:3 . . The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak
lies go astray from birth.

That's an interesting statement. It's saying-- in so many words --that
although infants are too young to lie; they are born with a proclivity to lie,
and that's what makes them wicked because that proclivity to lie is in them
and will eventually have its way with them.

Q: How are people supposed to obey that commandment seeing as how
we're all natural-born liars?

A: Nobody can, it's impossible.

†. Jer 13:23 . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Well; the Schoolmaster's goal is not just to frighten liars and make them
nervous; but also to show them the God-given way out of their predicament.

†. Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith.

The cross' first and foremost purpose was to satisfy justice for liars. That
right there should make liars breathe a little easier in respect to the sum of
all fears.

†. 1John 2:1-2 . . If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous; and he himself is the propitiation for our sins;
and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

†. Isa 53:6 . . All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned
to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Totton Linnet
November 29th, 2015, 05:51 PM
-
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New

This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made
instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite
useful.

In a nutshell:

1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective
atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon
animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based
upon a human sacrifice.

2• The Old Testament's high priesthood is captained by men subject to
death; while the New Testament's high priesthood is captained by a man
impervious to death.

3• The Old Testament reveals curses for people who disobey the Ten
Commandments; while the New Testament reveals an escape from those
curses.

4• The Old Testament is where we learn of the origin of the human race as
we know it; while the New Testament is where we learn of the termination of
the human race as we know it; along with the introduction of a new human
race about which we know comparatively little.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The OT is the shadow, the NT is the substance

Totton Linnet
November 29th, 2015, 05:56 PM
-
The Fate Of Noah's Ark

†. Gen 8:3b . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters
diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the
month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

The precise topographic location, where the ark went aground, was not
really up on a specific mountain by the name of Ararat nor up on any other
mountain for that matter. The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is
haareey which is the plural of har (har). It doesn't always mean prominent
land masses like Everest or McKinley; especially when it's plural. Har can
also mean a range of mountains like the Pyrenees bordering Spain and
France and/or a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where
Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.

"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of
Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke
1:39-40)

In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San
Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There
were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was
very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and
cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and
calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top
of one of its mountains like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.

Another inhabited region in the continental U.S. that's elevated is the area of
Denver Colorado; which is located on the western edge of the Great Plains
near the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Denver is a whole mile above
sea level-- 5,280 feet. However, Denver, even though so high above sea
level, isn't located on the tippy top of a mountain, nor even on the side of
one; it's just located up on high ground.

The ark contained the only surviving souls of man and animal on the entire
planet. Does it really make good sense to strand them up on a mountain
peak where they might risk death and injury descending it?

When my wife and I visited the San Diego zoo together back in the early
1980's, we noticed that the Giraffes' area had no fence around it. The tour
guide told us the Giraffes' enclosure doesn't need a fence because their area
is up on a plateau 3 feet high. The Giraffes don't try to escape because
they're afraid of heights. There's just no way Giraffes could've climbed down
off of Turkey's Mount Ararat. It's way too steep and rugged. Those poor
timid creatures would've been stranded up there and died; and so would
hippos, elephants, and flightless birds.

The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears
three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38,
and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat is always the country of Armenia: never a
specific peak by the same name.

So; where is the ark now? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen
6:15, the ark was shaped like what the whiz kids call a right rectangular
prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common shoe box.
So most of the lumber and/or logs used in its construction would've been
nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together houses, fences,
barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

I think it's very safe to assume Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the
ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires.
Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using
refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody
needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs.
There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of
that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's
lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape
and should have been preserved for many years to come.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

And this shows that God's salvation is not just for the soul but is adapted to our natural needs. Our religion is a fellowship religion, just as the fellowship gathered to feast on the sacrifice...so they must have gathered around the fire made from the wood of the ark.

iouae
November 29th, 2015, 08:22 PM
-
Why David's Little Boy

Long story short: David breached the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed
upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy by
committing the capital crimes of premeditated murder and adultery (2Sam
11:1-2Sam 12:23). As bad as those two breaches are; what really rattled
heaven's cage was that David's conduct was an embarrassment.

†. 2Sam 12:14a . . Because by this deed you have given occasion to the
enemies of The Lord to blaspheme,

What might the nature of that blasphemy be? Well behavior like David's
causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His
name. That's a very common form of blaspheme: it goes on all the time.
(e.g. Isa 62:5, Rom 2:24)

†. 2Sam 12:14b-18 . . the child also that is born to you shall surely die . .

To blaspheme God is to say bad things about Him.

The bad things folks say about God as a result of David's sin is this...

"You can murder and commit adultery and get away with it because God is a God of grace".

People use David's example to this day. The last sermon I heard yesterday used this very example. His theme was we are saved by grace plus NOTHING. We are saved by Jesus and NOTHING. And the sins such as David did were used to "prove" this. I personally am infuriated at this theology. It has an element of truth, but implies that as believers, we can be like David and sin and stay saved.

Folks do not realise how close David came to being rejected by God if he had not repented (see Ps 51).

2 Sam 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

The implication is that God was on the point of killing David if he had not repented.

Sorry Weberhome, I don't agree Davids sin causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His name.

patrick jane
November 29th, 2015, 08:44 PM
To blaspheme God is to say bad things about Him.

The bad things folks say about God as a result of David's sin is this...

"You can murder and commit adultery and get away with it because God is a God of grace".

People use David's example to this day. The last sermon I heard yesterday used this very example. His theme was we are saved by grace plus NOTHING. We are saved by Jesus and NOTHING. And the sins such as David did were used to "prove" this. I personally am infuriated at this theology. It has an element of truth, but implies that as believers, we can be like David and sin and stay saved.

Folks do not realise how close David came to being rejected by God if he had not repented (see Ps 51).

2 Sam 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

The implication is that God was on the point of killing David if he had not repented.

Sorry Weberhome, I don't agree Davids sin causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His name.

Nobody "gets away with" anything. Everyone pays on earth one way or another. Nobody ever murders and commits adultery and lives happily ever after.

patrick jane
November 29th, 2015, 08:48 PM
Seems to be some interference.

I'm getting a Ma and Pa Kettle rerun in the background.

What's that Ma ?

20982

exminister
November 30th, 2015, 03:12 AM
-
Why David's Little Boy

Long story short: David breached the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed
upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy by
committing the capital crimes of premeditated murder and adultery (2Sam
11:1-2Sam 12:23). As bad as those two breaches are; what really rattled
heaven's cage was that David's conduct was an embarrassment.

†. 2Sam 12:14a . . Because by this deed you have given occasion to the
enemies of The Lord to blaspheme,

What might the nature of that blasphemy be? Well behavior like David's
causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His
name. That's a very common form of blaspheme: it goes on all the time.
(e.g. Isa 62:5, Rom 2:24)

†. 2Sam 12:14b-18 . . the child also that is born to you shall surely die . .
.The Lord struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was
very sick . . .Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.

How was that fair? Well; it wasn't meant to be fair to the boy; it was meant
to be fair to David. His little boy was just collateral damage.

†. Ex 34:6-7 . . Then Yhvh passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed:
Yhvh, Yhvh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding
in loving-kindness and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who
forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished: visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the
grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

It is apparently God's prerogative to get back at people by going after their
posterity and/or the people they govern.

There's a horrific example of collateral damage located at Num 16:25-34.
Another is the Flood. No doubt quite a few underage children drowned in
that event due to their parents' wickedness. The same happened to the
children in Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ham's punishment for humiliating
Noah was a curse upon his son Canaan, and during Moses' face-off with
Pharaoh, God moved against the man's firstborn son along with all those of
his subjects.

The grand-daddy of all collateral damages is everybody has to die because
the human race's progenitor disobeyed God in the very beginning. (Rom
5:12-18)

Interesting isn't it? There are times when Heaven's anger seems to come out
of the blue; but if truth be known; sometimes it actually comes out of the
past; for example:

†. 2Sam 21:1 . . Now there was a famine in the days of David for three
years, year after year; and David sought the presence of the Lord. And the
Lord said: It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites
to death.

Joshua agreed to a non-aggression pact with the Gibeonites during the
conquest of Canaan (Josh 9:3-16). Saul, when king, dishonored the pact. He
apparently got away with it; but not his countrymen, no; God slammed them
for what Saul did; and that posthumously.

Moral of the story: The sins of today, jeopardize the lives of tomorrow; and
sometimes those lives are very large in number.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

These are stories of infanticide and abortion (pregnant women at the flood).

Are the young ones or unborn destined to hell due to God's punishment of their parents or grandparents or great grandparents?

exminister
November 30th, 2015, 03:22 AM
Folks do not realise how close David came to being rejected by God if he had not repented (see Ps 51)

Sorry Weberhome, I don't agree Davids sin causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His name.

I find this a far more satisfying explanation. God is not so petty to worry about human opinion like some movie star.

Reading the OT certainly would make me question Gods choice of people. They were 5 minutes out of the gate stubborn and wayward. But that is not because they were Jewish, it was because they were human.

WeberHome
November 30th, 2015, 08:22 AM
-

Are the young ones or unborn destined to hell due to God's punishment of
their parents or grandparents or great grandparents?

Though progeny may be subjected to collateral damage because of their
parents sins; they are not incriminated by them.

†. Ezek 18:20 . .The son will not bear the punishment for the father's
iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the
righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of
the wicked will be upon himself.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

exminister
November 30th, 2015, 08:56 AM
-


Though progeny may be subjected to collateral damage because of their
parents sins; they are not incriminated by them.

†. Ezek 18:20 . .The son will not bear the punishment for the father's
iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the
righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of
the wicked will be upon himself.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

So since they had not come of age and were killed as an infant or fetus they will be in heaven, right?

WeberHome
November 30th, 2015, 09:56 AM
-

People use David's example to this day. The last sermon I heard yesterday
used this very example. His theme was we are saved by grace plus
NOTHING. We are saved by Jesus and NOTHING. And the sins such as
David did were used to "prove" this. I personally am infuriated at this
theology. It has an element of truth, but implies that as believers, we can
be like David and sin and stay saved.

Christ's version of Christianity is a lethal religion. It quite literally, in some
supernatural way that I don't quite understand; put Christ's believing
followers to death. Their entire existence, as natural-born human beings,
went up on the cross with him.

†. Rom 6:3 . . Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

†. Rom 6:6 . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him

†. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

†. Col 3:3 . . For you died when Christ died

Seeing as how Christ's believing followers-- which includes David and
everyone else who believed in Christ back in the Old Testament --have already
adequately satisfied justice for every sin that they will ever commit from
birth to the grave; then no matter what they do from here on in; they'll
never again be in the slightest danger of the lake of flaming sulfur depicted
at Rev 20:10-15.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to my message, and believe
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.

Christ offers a version of Christianity that guarantees a Ten Commandments
proof, God proof, sin proof, Devil proof, temptation proof, fool proof, human
nature proof, human error proof, fail-safe rescue from the wrath of God. It
just amazes me the number of people, even those warming pews in old
school Christian churches, who want nothing to do with it.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
November 30th, 2015, 10:17 AM
-

So since they had not come of age and were killed as an infant or fetus they
will be in heaven, right?

Even if children were to remain underage and/or a fetus, they would still fail
to qualify for the kingdom of God.

†. John 3:3 . .Truly, truly, I say to you: unless one is born again, he cannot
see the kingdom of God.

This birth about which Christ spoke isn't optional; no, its a must.

†. John 3:5-7 . . That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you: You must be
born again.

Natural-born infants and fetuses are born of the flesh. Therefore;
somewhere, at some time, they have to undergo a birth by the Spirit in
order to qualify for the kingdom of God.

Something else people forget. Little children do not remain little children
forever. No, they grow up and become adults: sometimes very disagreeable
adults. Well; seeing as how the kingdom of God is depicted as a place of
peace, then disagreeable adults cannot be allowed-- it not only wouldn't be
right, but it wouldn't be fair to the nice people in the kingdom of God.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

iouae
November 30th, 2015, 10:27 AM
John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to my message, and believe 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.

The Bible always means LISTENING TO DO.


24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Matthew 7:21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Maybe you need to look at my thread "Once saved not necessarily always saved" which is what the seed falling on the rocky ground illustrates. And this is only one of DOZENS of scriptures saying this.

iouae
November 30th, 2015, 10:41 AM
God has to lower the boom on Yhvh's people with any and/or all of the
curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 for
breaching the covenant, but He doesn't have to lower the boom on Christ's
followers with those curses because He isn't contracted with them to do so.
This is a very important aspect of Christianity.

Ignorance of the law does not make one guiltless.
And one does not have to enter a contract with God like ancient Israel did to be bound to keep the law.

Sin is the transgression of the law.
All have sinned.
The wages of sin is death. For atheists too.

Only believing in Christ, being forgiven and walking with Him till death will gain anyone eternal life.

exminister
November 30th, 2015, 07:05 PM
-


Even if children were to remain underage and/or a fetus, they would still fail
to qualify for the kingdom of God.

†. John 3:3 . .Truly, truly, I say to you: unless one is born again, he cannot
see the kingdom of God.

This birth about which Christ spoke isn't optional; no, its a must.

†. John 3:5-7 . . That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you: You must be
born again.

Natural-born infants and fetuses are born of the flesh. Therefore;
somewhere, at some time, they have to undergo a birth by the Spirit in
order to qualify for the kingdom of God.

Something else people forget. Little children do not remain little children
forever. No, they grow up and become adults: sometimes very disagreeable
adults. Well; seeing as how the kingdom of God is depicted as a place of
peace, then disagreeable adults cannot be allowed-- it not only wouldn't be
right, but it wouldn't be fair to the nice people in the kingdom of God.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


You are the first Christian I have heard say ALL infants/fetuses that die (including miscarriages) before the age of accountability go to hell. I see how you support that but doesn't seem fair.

WeberHome
November 30th, 2015, 09:33 PM
-

You are the first Christian I have heard say ALL infants/fetuses that die
(including miscarriages) before the age of accountability go to hell.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they're made quite comfortable in an afterlife
orphanage where underage children are cared for till they're old enough to
think for themselves and make intelligent decisions.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 1st, 2015, 06:30 AM
-
The Flesh

†. Rom 8:13 . . For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by
the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

The koinι Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which essentially indicates the
meaty parts of either man or beast. The meat of the human body would of
course include the 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within its
bony little skull sufficing for a mind. In other words: sans the meaty part of
their body called the brain; people would not have a mind. In point of fact,
it's not all that difficult to tamper with a brain and make its owner quite
mindless.

The meaty parts of the human body are the source of a human being's
human nature and it isn't all that difficult to define. Webster's says its (1)
the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are common to most people,
and (2) the nature of humans; especially the fundamental dispositions and
traits of humans. In a nutshell then: the flesh, as per Rom 8:13, can be
concisely defined as that which comes natural to an organic species of life

Ironically, it has never been okay for people to live according to that which
comes natural even though when God finished manufacturing the cosmos'
various forms of life, matter, and energy; He pronounced it all not just good;
but "very" good. In other words, God was satisfied that human nature came
out just exactly as He designed it to come out. But the odd part of that is:
mankind's creator has never wanted people to make human nature their
lead to the point of excluding God having a say.

So; right from the gun, it has been God's desire that people heed their
maker rather than always and only heeding their body; and when I say
"body" I'm speaking of the senses, the impulses, and the natural
predilections and proclivities produced by the human body-- it's organs, its
chemistry, and its central nervous system.

†. Rom 7:18 . . I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good
thing: for to will is present with me

It's very common to hear people say "I don't know what came over me"
when they do something contrary to their own better judgment. Well; the
thing that came over them was their flesh doing what comes natural.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

exminister
December 1st, 2015, 07:14 AM
-


I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they're made quite comfortable in an afterlife
orphanage where underage children are cared for till they're old enough to
think for themselves and make intelligent decisions.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Sounds like how the Catholics addressed it. Not sure what it's called Limbo or Perdition, something like that.

WeberHome
December 3rd, 2015, 12:21 PM
-
Eternal Life

Though eternal life is impervious to death; it has little to do with longevity.
For instance when Christ says: "I assure you, those who heed my message,
and trust in God who sent me, have eternal life" he isn't saying that they
have immortality. The proof of that is all around us. Every day, around the
clock, Christ's believing followers die all the time, just like everybody else. In
point of fact, Christ had eternal life (John 5:26, 1John 1:2) yet was easily
put to death.

Q: So: if eternal life has no effect upon human longevity, then what is it?

A: There's a clue located in one of Peter's epistles.

†. 2Pet 1:3-4 . . His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to
life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His
own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious
and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become
partakers of the divine nature.

Peter could just as easily have said "partakers of eternal life" because when
speaking of life per se: eternal life and the divine nature are joined at the
hip, so to speak.

I have human nature because I have the breath of life that was given to
Adam in the book of Genesis. God has the divine nature because He has
eternal life. In other words: if people want to some day think, speak, act,
and feel the way that God thinks, speaks, acts, and feels; then they are
going to have to somehow swap out their human nature for the divine
nature. And this isn't optional, no, it's a must.

†. John 4:24 . . God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in
spirit

Can people relate to a clam spirit-to-spirit? No; they can't, because a clam's
nature is foreign to human nature. In like manner: people cannot relate to
God spirit-to-spirit either because divine nature is foreign to human nature.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 5th, 2015, 08:10 PM
-
When People Obtain Eternal Life

In the passages below, note the grammatical tense of the "have" verbs.
They're in the present tense; not future, indicating that believers have
eternal life right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.

†. John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life

†. John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

†. 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.

†. 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.

The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's
testimony, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to eternal life;
Christians who currently lack it also lack God's son. In other words: they are
currently quite christless.

†. 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.

I should think that it goes without saying that christless Christians are in
grave danger of the sum of all fears.

†. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

How many christless Christians are there? 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 no one obtains eternal life before 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 quite christless. And you can safely
apply that rule to any, and all, denominations insisting that nobody obtains
eternal life before they die and cross over to the other side.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 7th, 2015, 12:56 PM
-
How Christ Is Related To Adam

I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a
virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. That
notion is easy to debunk.

According to the book of Genesis; God created Adam's flesh from the earth's
dust. Not so Eve.

She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's
side. Thus Eve's flesh wasn't the flesh of a second species of h.sapiens. Her
flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's except for
gender. In other words: Eve was the flip side of the same biological coin. In
point of fact, the Bible refers to Eve as Adam just as it refers to Adam as
Adam, (Gen 5:22)

From that point on; any human flesh biologically produced from Eve's flesh--
whether virgin conceived or naturally conceived --would be biologically just
as much Adam's flesh as Adam's because the source of its mother's flesh
was Adam's flesh.

†. Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Just about everybody agrees that the seed spoken of in that passage is
Christ. Well; seeing as how his mom's flesh was derived biologically from
Eve, then Christ's flesh is just as much Eve's flesh as Eve's, and seeing as
how her flesh was just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then it's readily
deduced that Adam is Christ's biological progenitor.

It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome
necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't.
However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of
man flesh; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to
construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a sample of woman flesh. And
seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then
any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would
actually be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was
produced from Adam's flesh.

Bottom line: In order to qualify as one of Adam's biological descendants, a
person need only be one of Eve's biological descendants: which we all are.

†. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all the living.

So then; unless somebody can prove-- conclusively and without ambiguity--
that Jesus Christ's mother wasn't biologically related to either Adam or Eve;
then we are forced to conclude that Adam is Jesus Christ's biological father.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 9th, 2015, 07:40 PM
-
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin

Q: If Jesus Christ was made from one of his mother's eggs; wouldn't she
have passed the curse of sin down to her son?

A: Yes; absolutely, because everybody descending biologically from Adam
stands condemned for tasting the forbidden fruit. The reason for that is
because Adam is humanity, and humanity is Adam; viz: he's all there is
because God created no other humanity but Adam. In other words:
everyone is just simply more Adam; including Eve because she was derived
from Adam's flesh. (Gen 2:21-23, Acts 17:26)

Note the grammatical tense of the passage below-- it's past tense;
indicating that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, his entire race
became guilty of tasting it-- in real time --including those of his race who've
yet to be born.

†. 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

†. 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 race 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 a universal
felony, so to speak.

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 Adam's demise is the proper
satisfaction of justice for his sin (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for
his race's own personal sins is another matter.

Q: If Jesus Christ was made a sinner due to 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 a sinner right along with his fellow men, yes; but
it didn't make him sinful; viz: Christ committed no personal sins of his own.
(John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 11th, 2015, 12:06 PM
-
How Christ Is Related To Solomon

Q: Christ's dad, Joseph, biologically descended from Solomon. However,
Christ didn't. He biologically descended from Solomon's brother Nathan. But
according to the genealogy in Matthew, Christ is in Solomon's line. How so?

A: At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his own two biological grandsons Manasseh
and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and
power to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of adding additional
children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid
Bilhah— Dan, and Naphtali.

Jacob's motive for adopting his son Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for
his deceased wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which
subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own.
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph and his wife Asenath.

Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The Lord spoke
to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to take part in naming Mary's out-of
wedlock baby.

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt
1:21)

Joseph complied.

"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)

So Christ went in the books as Joseph's son; because that's how it worked in
those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child.

Bottom line: Heirs to the throne have to be David's biological progeny— that
much is irrevocable. However, they only have to be Solomon's by law.

Not too many Jews are happy with the way Christ became heir to David's
throne; but who are they to argue with Jacob's precedent? He's the grand
paterfamilias of the entire people of Israel; in point of fact, they are
identified by Jacob's spiritual name: the one that God himself personally
pinned on him very early in their history. (Gen 32:28, Gen 35:10)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 13th, 2015, 11:03 AM
-
What, And Where, Sheol Is

Sheol is a transliteration of the Hebrew word sheol (sheh-ole'). It's very first
appearance in the Bible is the passage below; recording Jacob's reaction
upon being informed of his son Joseph's alleged death.

†. Gen 37:33-35 . . And he recognized it and said: It is my son's tunic. A
wild beast has devoured him. Without doubt Joseph is torn to pieces. Then
Jacob tore his clothes, put sackcloth on his waist, and mourned for his son
many days. And all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him; but
he refused to be comforted, and he said: For I shall go down into the grave
to my son in mourning. Thus his father wept for him.

The editors of that translation arbitrarily translated sheol as the grave; but
the actual Hebrew words for grave are qibrah (kib-raw') and/or qeburah
(keb-oo-raw') for example Gen 35:20 and Gen 50:5 et al.

Sheol is just a bit more complicated than burial. According to Jonah 2:1-6,
sheol is located at the roots of the mountains. Well; I think it goes without
saying that mountains aren't rooted in the bellies of fishes; rather: they're
rooted deep in the earth; which is exactly why Jonah said the earth beneath
imprisoned him rather than the lips of a big fish.

Q: How could Jonah be in the tummy of a big fish while at the roots of the
mountains; viz: both places at the same time?

A: Jonah was dead; and this is a bit tricky to discern because the second
chapter begins with Jonah praying from the innards of the fish just before it
regurgitated him out on dry land. But in his pre-regurgitation prayer, Jonah
recounts what he prayed while in the belly of sheol; specifically about his
resurrection.

†. Jonah 2:6 . . I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with
her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from
corruption, O Lord my God.

Bringing up somebody from corruption (a.k.a. putrefaction) is the language
of resurrection; for example Acts 2:23-31 recounts how that Christ's corpse
was not left to rot in the tomb; but was revived.

But where was Christ's soul while his body was interred? Well; according to
Acts 2:31 it was in haides (a.k.a. hades) which is the Greek equivalent of
sheol; which Jonah sited at the roots of the mountains. So then, just as
Jonah's corpse was in the fish's belly while his soul was in sheol's belly, so
Christ's corpse was in the tomb's belly while his soul was in hades' belly. And
coincidentally, both men's experiences were identical in length.

†. Matt 12:40 . . For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of
the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth. (cf. Jonah 1:17)

Well; I should think it wouldn't be necessary to point out that Christ's tomb
wasn't located in the heart of the earth. It was on the surface of the earth;
and it wasn't even in the earth's soil but was above it in stone.

NOTE: The Watch Tower Society teaches its Jehovah's Witness missionaries
that when a human being dies, it goes completely out of conscious
existence, which essentially implies that when Christ died on the cross, he
ceased to exist; viz: for three days and three nights, there was no Christ.
That belief of course assumes that Christ's soul died on the cross right along
with his body; which of course it didn't because assassins can't kill souls.

†. Matt 10:28a . . Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill
the soul.

In other words: the soul doesn't perish along with the demise of one's body.
Not that it's impossible; it's just that only God can pull off something like
that.

†. Matt 10:28b . . but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell.

The Greek word for "hell" in that verse isn't the haides of Acts 2:25-31. No;
this one is geena (gheh'-en-nah) which is much worse than the roots of the
mountains: much worse; but I'll spare you the grim details; though if you
wish to see them; they're on display at Isa 66:22-24 and Mark 9:47-48.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 15th, 2015, 09:17 AM
-
The Reality Of Hell

I watched an educational series on NetFlix in September of 2014 called "The
Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries" hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson
Ph.D. director of the Hayden Planetarium. Mr. Tyson said, in so many words;
that in the study of Physics, one must sometimes abandon sense and accept
discoveries as they are no matter how contrary to logic they may seem.

The NASA teams that sent Pioneers, Voyagers and Mariners out to explore
the planets came to the very same conclusion: they learned to abandon their
logical expectations and instead expect the unexpected; and they
encountered plenty.

In the field of Christianity, as in the fields of Physics and planetary
exploration, faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only what makes
sense to it.

I readily admit that the idea of people existing in conscious suffering to time
indefinite makes no sense at all, and seems to totally contradict the nature
of a divine patron alleged to be kind, caring, and sympathetic. But just as
science admits to many unsolved mysteries; so does Christianity. And
there's no shame in that. The shame is in pretending to have complete
understanding of a supernatural entity that by its very nature defies reason
and common sense.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 17th, 2015, 09:16 AM
-
Knowing Your Religion is Right

I've been asked several times in the past how I know that my beliefs are
true. My answer is: I don't know if they're true. Then of course they follow
up with: Then why do you believe your beliefs are true when you have no
way of knowing they're true?

Most of the people who ask me those kinds of questions are genuine; they're
not trying to trip me up and make a fool out of me. They really are curious
about it. So I tell them that though I don't know if my beliefs are true, my
instincts tell me they are; in other words: I cannot shake the conviction that
they're true.

Mark Twain once remarked that he didn't believe in an afterlife; but
nevertheless expected one. In other words: Twain logically concluded that
there is no afterlife, but his instincts did not agree with his thinking; and I
dare not criticize him for that because even my own religion requires that I
believe in my heart rather then only in my head.

Why does any believer believe what they believe? Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu,
Bahα'ν, Hare Krishna, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Judaism, Voodoo, Wiccan,
Jain, Druze, Native American, etc, etc, etc. The answer is: It appeals to
them.

It's a known fact that quite a few voters do their voting with their gut. In
other words, they settle on a candidate based upon how they feel about him,
and then use their minds to craft a justification for their choice.

Take for instance President Barack Hussein Obama. A large block of
Americans voted for him solely on the basis of his color rather than on the
basis of his executive ability. (Ironically Mr. Obama isn't even Black. He's
what used to be called Mulatto but now called Mixed Race; viz: his father
was Black, but his mother was White. Lucky for him that his skin turned out
dark or he might not be President today.)

Anyway, my point is: I've observed that people typically adhere to a religion
not with their mind; but with their feelings: the meanwhile using their minds
to fabricate a justification for their choice. Goes on all the time.

It is of course impossible that all religions are right; that's pretty much a
given. But on the other hand, it's very possible that none are right. So I
would say that when settling upon a religion, don't worry so much about
picking the one that's right; instead pick the one that's right for you; and if
none are right for you, then in my estimation; you're just as well off because
if your heart's not in it; then let's face it; your choice is no less arbitrary
than randomly selecting a cookie out of a jar of 100.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 22nd, 2015, 10:31 AM
-
The Rich Man, Lazarus, And Abraham

Fiction can be defined as stories about people and events that, though
untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

Fantasy can be defined as stories about people and events that are not only
untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.

For example: a story about a boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while a story
about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio and a
boy with autism is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while the
other is far removed from normal reality.

I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that could not possibly
be a real-life story. They're all actually quite believable-- farmers sowing
seed, women losing coins, sons leaving home, wineskins bursting, tares
among the wheat, leavened bread, barren fig trees, the blind leading the
blind, et al.

Now; if he had told one that alleged the moon was made of green cheese;
we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was fantasy;
but none of them are like that. No; there's nothing out of the ordinary in his
parables. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as fiction; but never
fantasy because none of them are so far removed from the normal round of
human experience that they have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies
that the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable
theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life
man; held in very high esteem by at least three of the world's prominent
religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And he's also the friend of God
(Isa 41:8). I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among
normal Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say something
untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about one of his Father's
buddies.

And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the
story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said
things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the
commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.

There is something else to consider.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No,
it originated with his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro
managed.

†. John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words

†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things
as the Father taught me.

†. John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

†. John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who
sent me.

So, by implying that Luke 16:19-31 is false, the parable theory insinuates
that God is a person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the
truth about people, not even about His own friends, which is ridiculous
seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that God cannot lie.

His impeccable character is what makes that narrative all the more
terrifying. Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
Christ's Father is a tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume the narrative
was drawn from real-life; and if not drawn from real life, then at least based
upon real life.

In other words: there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where
people endure unbearable anxiety worrying that loved ones are on a road to
where they are and there is no way to warn them.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 26th, 2015, 11:06 AM
-
The God Begotten Of God

Q: One translation of John 1:18 says that Jesus is the only begotten god;
while another translation of John 1:18 says Jesus is the only begotten son.
Which translation is correct?

A: Either one will do because, biologically speaking, they're both saying the
very same thing.

God has lots of sons; but only one is His son by means of procreation.

The Greek word for "only begotten" in John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16,
John 3:18, is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combination of two
words.

The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel rather
than two or four in surround-sound stereo. Mono is very common; e.g.
monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome,
monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which
Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls
or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing.

In other words: monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than
many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's sole
biological child. If a parent has two or three biological children, none of them
qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a monogenes child, the
child has to be an only child. Obviously then, an adopted child can never be
monogenes in the home because it wouldn't be the home's biological child.
Examples of monogenes children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and
Luke 9:38.

Now if God's monogenes son is really and truly His biological offspring, so to
speak, then we are going to have to admit that His son is a chip off the old
block; which in fact the Bible declares.

†. Col 2:9 . . In him all the fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form.

Webster's defines "divinity" as the quality, or the state, of being a god.

According to the Greek version, "divinity" is modified by a definite article; so
that what we're looking at here isn't nondescript divinity; rather, the
divinity; viz: the quality, or the state, of being Almighty God.

People have difficulty with the literal meaning of "only begotten" because it's
unthinkable to them that God is somehow able to reproduce. Well; I don't
know how God goes about it; but if single cell organisms like amoeba can
reproduce by means of a process called binary fission; then we shouldn't be
all that aghast at the prospect of God multiplying Himself in a similar way.
And if God actually did reproduce; then His offspring is more of Himself; viz:
God would produce God just as humans produce humans.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 28th, 2015, 08:17 AM
-
Christ's Demise

According to Muhammad; Christ didn't die on the cross.

The Women [4.157] . . And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah,
Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did
they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those
who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge
respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

But according to the New Testament; Christ fully expired.

†. Luke 23:46 . . And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into
Thy hands I commit my spirit. And having said this, he breathed his last.

Other sources corroborate Luke.

†. John 19:31-35 . . But when they came to Jesus and found that he was
already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers
pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He
knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

Since Jesus was somewhat elevated, (it's not stated exactly how high) the
spear point would have entered his body at an upward angle. The text
doesn't say which side was penetrated, but from John's description, and
judging from the intent of the soldier to leave no doubt about Jesus' death,
the heart side was very likely the side they cut into and the spear point
would've entered just under his rib cage.

The heart is surrounded by a membrane called the pericardium; which
serves to contain a serous material resembling water to prevent the surface
of the heart from becoming dry and/or chafed by its continual motion. It was
very likely this which was pierced and from which the water flowed. The
point of the spear also seems to have reached one of the ventricles of the
heart, and the blood, yet warm, rushed forth, either mingled with, or
followed by, the liquor of the pericardium, so as to appear to John to be
blood and water flowing together. Though not medically accurate in our day,
John's calling the serous fluid "water" was accurate enough in his own day.

Had Christ managed to survive the spear he most certainly would have died
of suffocation. According to the records, his friends covered his face with a
towel, wrapped him with strips of cloth like a mummy, and coated him with
a paste consisting of 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes: all of which served to
not only put him in a straight jacket, but also sealed him in an air-tight
cocoon of sorts.

1• The towel

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)

The koinι Greek word translated "napkin" is soudarion (soo-dar'-ee-on)
which defines a sweat-cloth; viz: a towel for wiping the perspiration from the
face, or binding the face of a corpse.

2• The mummy

"Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes" (John
19:40)

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)

The Greek word translated "wound" is deo (deh'-o) which means to bind

The Greek word translated "linen cloths" is othonion (oth-on'-ee-on) which
defines bandages.

3• The cocoon of sorts

"And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night,
and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the
spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19:39-40)

Myrrh is a gum resin. The aloe of that day was a thick liquid taken from an
aromatic tree and used in medicines and cosmetics, etc. Blending those two
ingredients together produced a nice sticky goo that could be slathered and
plastered all over the deceased to seal the body and retard putrefaction
and/or seal in odors and thwart vermin. This was likely the final step just
prior to wrapping the whole affair in a shroud (Matt 27:59).

So all told-- the spear, the face towel, the wrappings, and the gooey paste --
there is just no way in nature that Christ could have possibly survived either
his crucifixion or his burial.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
December 30th, 2015, 08:31 AM
-
Christ's Recovery

There lacks a universal consensus regarding the nature of Christ's
resurrection. Some say his crucified body came back to life. Some say that
his crucified body was exchanged for a glorified body. Still others say that
Christ's crucified body not only didn't recover, but he came back with a spirit
body; and his post resurrection physical appearances were done as an angel
disguised in a fully-functioning human avatar.

It's evident that Christ has a glorified body at present (Php 3:20-21). But I
really don't think such was the case out at the cemetery.

†. John 2:19-22 . . Jesus answered them: Destroy this temple, and I will
raise it again in three days. The Jews replied: It has taken forty-six years to
build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days? But the temple
he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his
disciples recalled what he had said.

Had not Christ's crucified body revived, then his prediction would be easily
proven false because the temple he spoke of was "this temple" viz: the body
he was standing in as he spoke with the Jews.

Q: If Christ didn't come back from death with the glorified body spoken of in
Php 3:20-21, then how and when did he obtain it?

A: Some day the bodies of all Christ's believing followers will be raised from
the dead and taken up to meet the Lord in the air (1Thes 3:14-17). On the
way up, the bodies will undergo a sudden and miraculous transformation.
(1Cor 15:51-53). I think it's pretty safe to assume that Christ's body
underwent a similar transformation while on the way up to heaven as per
Acts 1:9 so that today his body is no longer a normal human body; but
instead a superhuman body to which all his believing followers' bodies will
one day conform.

Q: What about the fact that he was able to pass through a locked door?
(John 20:19). Surely a normal human body could never do such a thing.

A: Jesus Christ was virgin-conceived, walked on water, calmed storms,
restored withered limbs, put the lame up on their feet, healed blindness and
leprosy, multiplied loaves and fishes, converted water into wine, raised the
dead, withered a fig tree, levitated into the sky, etc. Come on now; what's
one more miracle more or less for a man like that?

Q: Why make a big deal out of the nature of Christ's resurrection?

A: The nature of Christ's resurrection is one of the essential components of
the gospel that must be accepted if one is to have any hope of escaping the
wrath of God.

†. 1Cor 15:1-4 . . Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I
preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which
also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless
you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also
received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that
He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures

Paul goes on to say that if Christ's crucified body did not revive, then his
followers haven't a prayer of escaping the wrath of God.

†. 1Cor 15:17 . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you
are still in your sins.

Bottom line: If one's concept of Christ's resurrection is false, then they do
not yet believe in his recovery.

FYI: What and/or where are the scriptures about which Paul spoke? There's
at least two. One is the story of Jonah; which Christ appropriated as a "sign"
of his own resurrection. (Jonah 1:17, Matt 12:40). Another is in the book of
Psalms at 16:8-10 (cf. Acts 2:22-36)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
January 1st, 2016, 10:08 AM
-
Inspiration

A common interpretation of inspiration is as follows:

†. 2Pet 1:20-21 . . No prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets
themselves or because they wanted to prophesy. It was the Holy Spirit who
moved the prophets to speak from God.

That's actually motivation rather than inspiration. This next example is
better.

†. 2Tim 3:16 . . All Scripture is inspired by God

The Greek word for "inspired" is theopneustos (theh-op'-nyoo-stos) which is
a combination of theo which means God, and pneustos which means to
inflate: as in blowing up a balloon or a soccer ball.

Theopneustos is probably about as close as you'll get for a Greek word
corresponding to Gen 2:7 where it's stated:

"Then Yhvh God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

"breathed into" is pretty much what theopneustos says. But the breath of life
isn't artificial respiration. Pumping air into a corpse doesn't work. It's been
tried. The breath of life is a mysterious energy with enough power to even
make solid rock sentient and aware. (Luke 3:8)

What all this means is: scripture is more than just text-- God has willed
scripture to have a peculiar kind of life all its own.

†. Heb 4:12-13 . . For the word of God is living and active and sharper than
any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of
both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the
heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open
and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Scripture, then, is a divine agent: it speaks about God, it speaks for God,
and it speaks as God. In a manner of speaking then: scripture can be
thought of as a close encounter.

"In its pages we recognize His voice, we hear a message of deep significance
for every one of us. Through the spiritual dynamism and prophetic force of
the Bible, the Holy Spirit spreads His light and His warmth over all men, in
whatever historical or sociological situation they find themselves." (Paulus PP
VI, from the Vatican, September 18, 1970)

Paulus PP VI said it well. So then: when people listen to the Bible, they listen
to God; and when they mock and ridicule the Bible, they mock and ridicule
God.

The voice of God is set to be called as a witness in the prosecution's case
against certain individuals.

†. John 12:48-49 . . He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings,
has one who judges him: the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last
day. For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father himself who
sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
January 4th, 2016, 10:55 AM
-
Jephthah's Daughter

†. Judg 11:30-32 . . And Jephthah made a vow to Yhvh and said: If you will
indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatever
comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from
the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up as a burnt
offering.

Long story short: Yhvh gave Jephthah the victory and the first person to
meet him coming home was his daughter; and she was his only child; but
Jepthah, with his daughter's consent, kept his end of the bargain.

There's some very important things to consider if we're to correctly sleuth
what happened.

1• Bloody human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy; so Jephthah couldn't take his daughter to the
Levitical priests to be offered on the altar as a literal burnt offering.

2• Heb 11:32 lists Jephthah as a man of faith. Men of faith don't kill their
children in pagan rituals knowing full well that God regards all such sacrifices
as abominations.

3• According to Judges 11:29, Jephthah was under the influence of Yhvh's
Spirit when he made the vow. I seriously doubt that Yhvh would lead that
man to kill his daughter contrary to God's feelings about sacrificing one's
own children in a bloody pagan ritual.

4• Jephthah's daughter didn't bewail an impending death, but rather, she
bewailed her virginity; in other words: she wept at the prospect of spending
the rest of her life as an old maid.

5• The Bible doesn't mention her demise, but rather, that she never slept
with anybody.

When all of the above is taken into consideration; I think it's fairly safe to
conclude that Jephthah's daughter took a vow of celibacy and became
equivalent to something in that day and age equivalent to a nun in our
day and age.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
January 7th, 2016, 10:34 AM
-
Eating Meat

†. Gen 9:1-4 . . Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them: Be
fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you
will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon
every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the
sea; they are given into your hands.

. . . Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you
the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that
has its lifeblood still in it.

Blessings should never be construed as commandments and/or laws and
edicts. In other words: God gave Noah and his sons the green light to eat
meat, but He didn't say they had to.

†. Rom 14:2-3 . . One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another
man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats
everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does
not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has
accepted him.

FYI: Prior to the Flood, humans were vegans. Afterwards; they were given
permission to become omnivorous. People are often curious about that.

According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York
Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture
all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to
manufacture all but K and D.

That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old,
but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7
8). Well, Noah at 175 was about equivalent to Abraham at 32; so the human
body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in
Abraham's.

Apparently the inclusion of meat in Man's diet after the Flood was intended
primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the human
body's gradually lessening ability to manufacture all it's own essential
nutrients; much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic
supplements in order to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.

People subsisting on vegan diets, such as many of the people of India, often
eat lots of minute insect eggs along with their fruits and vegetables without
knowing it, thus providing themselves with a number of essential nutrients
that most everyone else obtains by deliberately eating animal products. It's
kind of humorous that in their care to avoid meat they end up eating bugs.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
January 9th, 2016, 08:33 AM
-
Spiritual Body vs Spirit Body

†. 1 Cor 15:44 . . It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If
there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Watch as I revise that passage because the difference is significant.

"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirit body. If there is a natural
body, there is also a spirit body.

The Greek word translated "spiritual" is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily
refer to spirit. Below is a list of spiritual things that bear absolutely no
resemblance whatsoever to the bodily chemistry of an angel or a demon.

spiritual gifts (Rom 1:11)
spiritual law (Rom 7:14)
spiritual things (Rom 15:27)
spiritual people (1Cor 2:15)
spiritual nourishment (1Cor 10:3)
spiritual water (1Cor 10:4)
spiritual rock (1Cor 10:4)
spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3)
spiritual music (Eph 5:19)
spiritual understanding (Col 1:9)
spiritual housing (1Pet 2:5)
spiritual sacrifices (1Pet 2:5)

1Cor 15:43 says that the spiritual body is raised in power. That works for me
because it describes a human body similar in some respects to the man of
steel popularly known at Comic Con as Superman. The heroic figure from the
planet Krypton isn't constructed of spirit; but rather; of some sort of
indestructible material. It looks like ordinary human tissue; but in his case,
appearances can be deceiving.

I sincerely believe that the spiritual body spoken of at 1Cor 15:44 is in no
way composed of spirit. Of what material it is composed I don't know; but I
do know at least three things about it. One is that the material is totally
unknown to science, and two; it's living tissue, and the third is that it's
impervious to aging, death, and putrefaction.

All of the natural elements listed on the periodic table are those that God
created in the first chapter of Genesis. But those elements were custom
crafted for the current cosmos with all of its known and unknown forms of
life, matter, and energy. Heavenly elements are not of this cosmos; and it is
those elements that God used to construct Christ's spiritual body. It
resembles normal flesh and blood, but that's where the resemblance ends.

The spiritual body is patterned after Christ's body.

†. Phil 3:20-21 . .Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a savior
from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to
bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that
they will be like his glorious body.

The spiritual body is capable of dining upon ordinary foods.

†. Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer. For I tell you: I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in
the kingdom of God.

The spiritual body is capable of imbibing ordinary beverages.

†. Matt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now
on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

The spiritual body is visible to the naked eye.

†. Acts 1:11 . . Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This
Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the
same way as you have watched him go into heaven.

†. Rev 1:7 . . Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
January 12th, 2016, 09:14 AM
-
God's Good Faith

†. Eph 1:13-14 . . Having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of
promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the
purchased possession

†. Eph 4:30 . . Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were
sealed for the day of redemption.

The Holy Spirit of God is the seal; which is from the koinι Greek word
sphragizo (sfrag-id'-zo). The word has no reference whatsoever to a zip lock
bag, or a strip of tape, or a gasket, or that little widget that the power
company clips onto electric meters, or a cork, or a bar code, or a bottle cap,
or a label, or a tag, or the lid on a jar, or glue, or the ring of bee's wax that
goes in between the base of a toilet and the flange of the soil pipe it drains
into.

Sphragizo refers to the impression that's made upon wax with a signet ring.
In other words: the Holy Spirit is God's own personal signature on the dotted
line; and it serves a very important purpose.

The Holy Spirit is also the "guarantee" of a believer's inheritance. Let me
explain.

The koinι Greek word is arrhabon (ar-hrab-ohn') which refers to a pledge;
viz: part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for
the rest.

When we bought our home, I had to submit, along with the escrow papers,
an amount of money called a "good-faith" deposit. In the event that my wife
and I backed out of the deal, for any reason at all; we would've forfeited the
deposit. That's no doubt an incentive to make sure people mean business
about buying a home.

Eph 1:13-14 explains a difficult spiritual truth by putting it into a context
easy to understand by anyone familiar with the process of buying a home.
Another context, also easy to understand, is located in the 38th chapter of
Genesis.

Long story short, Judah left his staff and signet with Tamar as a pledge that
he would pay her with a young goat as compensation for sleeping with him
(Gen 38:18). The Hebrew word for Judah's pledge is 'arabown (ar-aw-bone')
which is equivalent to the Greek word for guarantee.

Well; Judah was unable to make good on his promise because Tamar took a
powder. So his response was:

"Let her keep what she has or we will become a disgrace." (Gen 38:23)

You bet your bippy they would have been a disgrace because until such a
time as Judah paid Tamar what he promised; she had a legitimate right to
keep his staff and his signet because that's the way an 'arabown works.

Bottom line is: at this point in the plan of salvation, should God not spare a
Believer from the sum of all fears; then He has to forfeit the Holy Spirit. In
other words: should a believer end up in hell, they get to keep the Holy
Spirit and take Him down there with them because that's the way the
arrhabon and the 'arabown work; and believers have God's signature holding
Him to it..

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
January 14th, 2016, 07:09 PM
-
How People Stay In Heaven

I should think that producing enough piety during one's lifetime in order to
get to heaven would be really hard. But people who make it to haven don't
face a lifetime; no, they're facing eternity. Producing piety for that long has
to be even harder.

According to Rom 2:6-11, people's piety has to be consistent. In other
words: there's no reward for complying with some of God's wishes some of
the time, nor even most of His wishes most of the time. No, people have to
comply with all of His wishes all the time in order to stay in heaven; no
slacking off-- people have to give it everything they've got.

†. Mark 12:30 . . You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.

Christ is the lucky one. Piety is second nature to him. Christ doesn't even
have to work at it because he was born with the nature of God rather than
only the nature of a human. That's quite an advantage over the rest of us.

†. 1John 3:8 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed
remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

According to Rom 6:23, the wages of sin is death. Well; if the wages of sin is
death down here, wouldn't the wages of sin be death up there too? I can't
imagine why not. So then, it seems to me that people in heaven are living
under a sword of Damocles, hanging by a slender thread easily broken by
the slightest impiety; and thus finding themselves booted out of heaven
right quick.

Human nature being what it is, the obvious solution to this dilemma is to
take people right back to square #1 and route them through birth all over
again. Only next time, instead of them born with human nature; they'd be
born with the nature of God, so that piety would be second nature to them
just like it is for Christ; because unless God can say about ordinary people
"this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" like He says about
Christ; they are not going to stay in heaven for very long.

Is what I'm talking about a possibility? Yes; it certainly is.

†. 2Pet 1:3-5 . . His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to
life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His
own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious
and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become
partakers of the divine nature.

Routing through another birth all over again isn't optional. No; it's a must.

†. John 3:3 . . Jesus declared: I tell you the truth, no one can see the
kingdom of God unless he is born again.

†. John 3:7 . . Do not wonder that I said to you: You must be born again.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
January 17th, 2016, 09:17 AM
-
Female Pastors, Preachers, and Teachers

NOTE: The comments below pertain specifically to Christian leadership
within the Christian community, rather than to leadership in general
throughout the world community.

Christ's apostles speak for Christ; and obeying them is a walk pleasing to
God.

†. 1Cor 14:37 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of The Lord.

†. 1Ths 4:1-2 . .We beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord
Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please
God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments
we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

Seeing as how the apostles' commandments are Christ's commandments,
then refusal to obey an apostle is all the same as refusal to obey Christ. It's
a domino effect all the way to the top.

†. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.

Therefore, these next commandments are not just one man's opinion; but
are Christ's wishes, and being so, are God's too.

†. 1Cor 11:3 . . But I would have you know, that the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is
God.

†. 1Cor 14:34-35 . . Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is
not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

†. 1Tim 2:11-12 . . Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be
in silence.

People who refuse to obey those commandments are no better than pagans
practicing dark arts and/or worshipping Shiva and Vishnu.

†. 1Sam 15:23 . . Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is
as iniquity and idolatry.

They're Christ's enemies.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

And they're disloyal too.

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

†. John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

Their insubordination insinuates that God's wisdom is absurd.

†. 2Pet 3:15-16 . . Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

Q: What about Deborah? God appointed her to lead men. (Jdgs 4:4-5:31)

A: Rebels are fond of pointing to Old Testament female luminaries like
Deborah to justify Christian women leading Christian men. But they need to
wake up and get their bearings. Deborah wasn't a Christian; and besides:
she lived in the Old Testament era.

That ship has sailed and we today live in the New Testament era-- an era
where Christ's wishes reign supreme. Male leadership may not be ideal; but
the bottom line is: males are Christ's gender of choice; and it is his Father's
wishes that people follow His son's lead.

†. Matt 17:5 . .Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a
voice out of the cloud, saying: This is My beloved son, with whom I am well
pleased. Listen to him!

†. John 3:36 . . He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abides on him.

You know why the issue of Christian women leading Christian men is so
controversial? It's because far more Christians are worldly than heavenly;
they're living the Christian life according to the standards of their culture,
and according to their feelings, instead of according to Christ's wishes; viz:
they're carnal instead of spiritual; and apparently content to be that way.

†. Rom 8:5-8 . .Those who live according to the sinful nature have their
minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with
the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful
man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the
sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do
so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

Christianity isn't everyone's cup of tea. If people find Christ's rules too strict,
too old fashioned and/or too contrary to their culture, then maybe they
ought to take up something else, like maybe Buddhism or Yoga meditation.
But one thing no one should do is follow Christ with the thought of setting
him straight or bringing him up to date. You see, that would be the sin of
heresy, which is a sin that merits ostracizing.

†. Rom 16:17 . .Watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles
in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away
from them.

Stubborn cases of heresy require excommunication.

†. Titus 3:10-11 . . Reject a divisive person after the first and second
admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self
condemned.

Some Christian churches are so insubordinate that they mirror the church of
Laodicea where Christ is depicted outside the building at Rev 3:14-22
banging on the door trying to get someone's attention to let him in. A
Christian church without Christ at the helm is really an odd duck. For all
intents and purposes, it's little more than a religious social club.

†. 1John 5:3-4 . . For this is the love of God: that we keep His
commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

OCTOBER23
January 17th, 2016, 03:25 PM
NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT THIS MAN WHO CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN.

The Muslems , Buddhists, and all the rest do not have this

nor the promise to Rule the Universe with God.

WeberHome
January 19th, 2016, 05:14 PM
-
Christ And The Priesthood Order Of Melchizedek

Melchizedek was a high priest of the Most High God in the book of Genesis
contemporary with Abraham. (Gen 14:18-20)

Mel, along with Abraham, existed prior to the covenanted law that Yhvh's
people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. This is very important seeing as how according to the Bible,
law enacted ex post facto isn't retroactive.

†. Deut 5:2-4 . .Yhvh our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Yhvh did
not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us
alive here today.

†. Rom 4:15 . . Law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no
transgression.

†. Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law.

†. Gal 3:17. .The Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does
not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God.

That being the case, then Melchizedek's constituents-- among whom was
Abraham --were immune to the consequences stipulated for breaking the
covenant's law as per Ex 34:6-7, Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut
28:1-69.

Christ's priesthood is patterned after Melchizedek's (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:5-6).
So then, seeing as how Melchizedek and his constituents-- which included
Abraham --were immune to the curses stipulated for breaking the covenant's
law, then Christ and his constituents are immune to the curses too. In a
nutshell: neither Christ nor his followers can be sent to hell for breaking the
Ten Commandments.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
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.

Another advantage of Christ's priesthood is its continuity.

Take for example Judaism's priesthood. No one has benefited from its
services since Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70ad. Which means of course
that 1,945 years worth of Yom Kippurs have been merely for show because
the Day Of Atonement cannot be observed properly and effectively without a
fully functioning priesthood.

In contrast: Christ's priesthood isn't effected by wars, and/or geopolitics. He
officiates in heaven where nothing happening on earth can reach to either
interfere with, or interrupt, his services (Heb 8:1-4). And seeing as how
Christ rose from the dead immortal (Rom 6:9, Heb 7:3, Rev 1:18) then old
age and death will never be a factor in either the length or the effectiveness
of his priesthood tenure.

†. Heb 7:24-25 . . He, on the other hand, because he abides forever, holds
his priesthood permanently. Hence, also, he is able to save forever those
who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them.

FYI: The order of Melchizedek is a "high priest" order (Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20).
Well; the Bible limits the number of high priests in office at a time to just
one; and the man stays in office till he's dead before being replaced-- which
of course won't happen with Christ seeing as how he rose from the dead
immortal.

Point being: Mormonism's over-crowded order of Melchizedek is unbiblical:
and so, for that matter, is Mormonism's order of Aaron seeing as how his is
the office of a high priest too.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WeberHome
January 21st, 2016, 09:33 AM
-
Hope For Natural-Born LGBT

Everybody has problems with proclivities; which Webster's defines as
inclinations or predispositions toward something: especially strong inherent
inclinations toward something objectionable.

Everybody also has problems with predilections; which Webster's defines as
a natural liking for something; viz: a natural tendency to do or to be
attracted to something.

†. Eph 2:2-4 . .We too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging
the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of
wrath, even as the rest.

With a pronoun like "we" Paul included himself as someone with natural-born
longings and desires for bad things. And the pronoun "all" precludes the
possibility of any one Christian claiming to be born free of a strong inherent
inclination toward something objectionable and/or a tendency to do, or to be
attracted to, something bad.

The point is: unless something were done to remedy LGBT predilections and
proclivities none of them would qualify for citizenship in either the new
cosmos or the holy city depicted in the 21st chapter of Revelation. All would
be barred entry even though Christ gave his life to atone for LGBT conduct.

The problem is: forgiven LGBT would go right on as LGBT just like always
because their predilections and proclivities would drive them to it; and were
they to suppress their LGBT predilections and proclivities for very long; I
think they would eventually go mad with a nervous break down because
they would be fighting against nature; which everybody instinctively knows
is a fight that can't be won without suffering serious psychological
consequences.

So then, it's futile to tell LGBT to stop acting that way when the problem is
not their conduct; no, their conduct is merely a symptom; and as every
informed person knows: you don't treat an illness by treating its symptoms--
that method has been proven ineffective.

God's remedy for LGBT is pretty extreme. He doesn't remove the LGBT's
longings and desires; instead He regards the natural born LGBT's condition
as so far gone that it can't be treated. In other words: He throws the baby
out with the bath water, so to speak, and starts from scratch with a new
baby.

†. John 3:3 . . I tell you the truth: no one can see the kingdom of God
unless he is born again.

The birth about which Christ spoke isn't an option; no, it's a must.

†. John 3:7 . .You must be born again.

That goes for everybody, not just LGBT, because Christ said "no one" can
see the kingdom of God unless he is born again; which of course has to
include all the holy people in the Old Testament too or otherwise "no one"
has no useful meaning.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=