Church of Sweden to formally stop referring to God as "he"

[Vicomte13]

.
.

MATTHEW.18: =
Dealing with a Sinning Brother
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

That's certainly the approach that the Church took towards Martin Luther.

 

[Vicomte13]

Figuratively I mean, I don't think God as Father means the same as man as father, as in making babies with a mother.

God as spiritual father of us all works. "Spirit" in Hebrew and Aramaic, is literally "breath" or "wind". God formed Adam of clay and breathed into his nostrils, and he became a breather ("a living soul"). God is the source, the Father of each life: truly the creator.

At a certain point, the Devil cam come along and breathe a new spirit into a man. Only by being begotten anew in water and the Spirit (og God) can a man reclaim his Creator as his spiritual Father.

But when you speak of Jesus as the Father's only BEGOTTEN son, you are saying that Jesus is the only one that God produced as biological father through sexual reproduction. He and you and I are all sons of God through the Spirit, but he 's the only begotten son of God, through God's impregnation of a human woman by the flesh.

He constructed Adam out of dirt, and he built up Eve starting with Adam's rib as a base. But he fertilized Mary's egg in her uterus, and allowed biological process to build up a human baby that is his son by the flesh also. Jesus is unique, God's only begotten son by the flesh, born of a virgin, no less. An utter miracle.

 

[Vicomte13]

(source: The Hebrew Name for God - The Spirit of God (Ruach Elohim) )

Introduction

"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."
(Job 33:4)

From the time of creation constant reference is made in Holy Writ to Messiah and the Messianic hope of Israel. 'The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters'; the Spirit of God means Messiah.
(Midrash Genesis Rabbah 2; Leviticus Rabbah 14)


The Spirit of YHVH is YHVH Himself...

In the Tanakh, the word ruach generally means wind, breath, mind, spirit. In a living creature (nephesh chayah), the ruach is the breath, whether of animals (Gen 7:15; Psa 104:25, 29) or mankind (Isa 42:5; Ezek 37:5). God is the creator of ruach: "The ruach of God (from God) is in my nostrils" (Job 27:3). In God's hand is the ruach of all mankind (Job 12:10; Isa 42:5). In mankind, ruach further denotes the principle of life that possesses reason, will, and conscience. The ruach imparts the divine image to man, and constitutes the animating dynamic which results in man's nephesh as the subject of personal life.

When applied to God, the word Ruach indicates creative activity (Gen 1:2) and active power (Isa 40:13). The Spirit of God also works in providence (Job 33:4; Psa 104:30), in redemption (Ezek 11:19; Ezek 36:26-27), in upholding and guiding his chosen ones (Neh 9:20; Psa 143:10; Hag 2:5), and in the empowering of the Messiah (Isa 11:2; Isa 42:1; Isa 61:1).

In short, as the ruach is to the created nephesh, so the Ruach Elohim is to God Himself, part of God and identified with God. Ruach may be understood as the Author of the animating dynamic of the created order, the underlying Principle of creation, and the One that imparts the nephesh to the entire universe.


The Spirit of God

Ruach Elohim.
The Spirit of God.
References: Gen. 1:2; Gen. 41:38; Exod. 31:3; 35:31; Num. 24:2; 1 Sam. 10:10; 11:6; 16:15f, 23; 18:10; 19:20, 23; 2 Chr. 15:1; 2 Chr. 24:20.
In many of these references note that the Spirit of God "came upon" an individual and enabled him to speak or act on behalf of YHVH.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

(circa 2001)
Strong's #7307: ruwach (pronounced roo'-akh)

from 7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):--air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y).

( https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H7307/ruwach.htm )

(notice that the 2001 version had no noun Feminine)
. . . . . . .

(circa 2017)
Strong's Concordance; 7307. ruach

ruach: breath, wind, spirit
Original Word: ר֫וּחַ
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: ruach
Phonetic Spelling: (roo'-akh)
Short Definition: spirit

( Strong's Hebrew: 7307. ר֫וּחַ (ruach) -- breath, wind, spirit )

Excellent work! Breath IS wind IS Spirit. Now look at the Hebrew pictographs that form the words you read. "H" - "Hey" - is a picture of a man arms raised in suprise or joy shouting "HEY!".

"H" is pronounced as a puff of air a breath of air. When God wants to ennoble Abram and Sarai, he breathes the spirit into them - that imparted breath is an H - Abram becomes Abraham, Sarai becomes Sarah.

W, 'Waw" the "vav" that is often translated as "and", is a picture of a tent peg, a think that links one thing to another.

Now look at the word "life" (used as a name: Eve). It is HWH. "HaWaH", or "Havah" (as in havah nageela, the famous Jewish party song that means "celebrate life")

So, what is "HWH" H-W-H. "Life" is H-W-H. Breath linked to breath. That's what life is. A breath. Followed by a Breath. Followed by a Breath. That is LITERALLY what life is, and that is how life was depicted in the Hebrew pictographs, and that is what those pictographs me.

So, now, let's complete the picture. "Yod" - the letter Y - is a picture of an arm and a hand. It is used to show the mighty arm and hand of God upon the waters in elohiym.

Here, it is the mighty arm that links breath to breath: YHWH - the name of God - Yod (arm) Hey (breath/wind) Waw ((tent peg/link) Hey (breath/wind/spirit)

God is the mighty arm that links breath to breath: God creates life.
God is the mighty arm and hand and the spirit linked to spirit: God IS life.
And the word "is" in Hebrew? There is none. When one wishes to say "exists" on uses "lives"
Breath linked to breath.

To be a "living soul" - a nephesh - is literally to be a "breather".
And when God cleansed the land with the Flood, what did he do? He sent the water to take the breath out of all nostrils on land.

The very essence of God is tied in with might, breath linked to breath, spirit, life and existence, and these are all rooted on the same few pictographic glyphs.

And the name "EL"? It is a pictographic sentence too: an ox head - meaning might and leadership, and a shepherd's staff, a lam. A-L. El. God. Read pictographically, the name is "Lord shepherd". Indeed, the Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.

We could go on an on and see the whole meaning of scripture unravel in just the names and pictures, like a sort of quantum foam bubbling and popping spiritually below the level of the visual words.

None of this is imparted by the English - a translation is but an echo.

Given that the written Hebrew language did not exist as a literary language at all before the Torah, and indeed that the Hebrew people didn't exist either - they were CREATED as a people by God taking a bunch of slaves out of Egypt and giving them a covenant - Hebrew was essentially designed by God to write the Torah.

Can one possibly believe, then, that God paid such excruciating attention to the words and sounds of the letters and the pictographs he used for every facet of the Torah text, and he haphazardly chose a gender for the Spirit of God, and the fact that her pronoun is "she" is just a random accident?

No, one cannot possibly believe it, once one sees the level upon level upon level of overlapping detail in this miraculous and stunning text.

When God revealed the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1, he did so as a she. And he continued that convention throughout the Hebrew and Aramaic that Jesus spoke.

We need to not throw up barriers we made up from our own erroneous traditions, and submit to the authority of what God revealed as he revealed it. Because then the picture is clear and makes sense.

I think I'll make that my last word on this subject, because I'm getting repetitive.
I hope you all had a Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[discipler7]

When God revealed the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1, he did so as a she. And he continued that convention throughout the Hebrew and Aramaic that Jesus spoke.

Not true.
.
Source: The Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) - March 2015 - Jewish Jewels
.
The Ruach in the Tanakh
The Hebrew word Ruach is used 389 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is used to designate the human spirit, God’s Holy Spirit, and several other entities such as “breath,” “wind,” “odor,” and “space.” The exact words, Holy Spirit, occur only three times in the Tanach, in Psalms 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10-11: “Do not cast me away from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.” (King David prayed this when confronted with his sin by Nathan the prophet.) “But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; so He turned Himself against them as an enemy, and He fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying: ‘Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them…” This latter verse has often been cited as evidence that the Holy Spirit in the Tanach is a Person, not just a Divine Force or Presence. The Hebrew word for “grieved” in verse 10 means to feel profound hurt, pain, and grief. Only a Person can be grieved.

The more usual expression for Holy Spirit in the Tanach is “Spirit of God (Ruach Elohim)” or “Spirit of the LORD (Ruach Adonai).” Most scholars see a progressive revelation in understanding the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, from being synonymous with God (His Spirit), to being distinct from God the Father. Jewish understanding, of course, does not include the belief in the Spirit as One in a complex unity. Tanach primarily focuses on the deeds of the Spirit in relation to mankind, using non-personal words and phrases to describe the Spirit such as wind, fire, and light. For example, “And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice” (1 Kings 19:11-12).

Empowered by the Ruach
The activity of the Spirit of God in the Tanach is very evident in the way the Spirit came upon the leaders of Israel to empower them to accomplish various God-given tasks. The Spirit provided the gifts necessary for leadership for kings and rulers, and gave mental and physical guidance.

 

[Vicomte13]

Not true.
.
Source: The Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) - March 2015 - Jewish Jewels
.
The Ruach in the Tanakh
The Hebrew word Ruach is used 389 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is used to designate the human spirit, God’s Holy Spirit, and several other entities such as “breath,” “wind,” “odor,” and “space.” The exact words, Holy Spirit, occur only three times in the Tanach, in Psalms 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10-11: “Do not cast me away from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.” (King David prayed this when confronted with his sin by Nathan the prophet.) “But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; so He turned Himself against them as an enemy, and He fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying: ‘Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them…” This latter verse has often been cited as evidence that the Holy Spirit in the Tanach is a Person, not just a Divine Force or Presence. The Hebrew word for “grieved” in verse 10 means to feel profound hurt, pain, and grief. Only a Person can be grieved.

The more usual expression for Holy Spirit in the Tanach is “Spirit of God (Ruach Elohim)” or “Spirit of the LORD (Ruach Adonai).” Most scholars see a progressive revelation in understanding the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, from being synonymous with God (His Spirit), to being distinct from God the Father. Jewish understanding, of course, does not include the belief in the Spirit as One in a complex unity. Tanach primarily focuses on the deeds of the Spirit in relation to mankind, using non-personal words and phrases to describe the Spirit such as wind, fire, and light. For example, “And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice” (1 Kings 19:11-12).

Empowered by the Ruach
The activity of the Spirit of God in the Tanach is very evident in the way the Spirit came upon the leaders of Israel to empower them to accomplish various God-given tasks. The Spirit provided the gifts necessary for leadership for kings and rulers, and gave mental and physical guidance.

What I wrote was absolutely true.

The logic of the lengthy piece above takes one word - ruach - one concept - and shatters it into a whole series of words in English. This is the root of the error. There is one concept in Hebrew, and it applies to many things. It is not one word for many things that each needs its own word - that is the English translator's error. It is one word, one concept, in many different contexts. The English takes the one word and concept and chops into multiple words imposing upon and changing the meaning and intent of the text. Where the Hebrew uses one word over and over again, in a series of related concepts, then it is up to us to realize that, from God's perspective, these things that WE - with our 21st Century minds and language think are different - have divided, but that should not be divided. God revealed these things as one concept, not a bunch of different ones. When we chop it up and use different words for what God has expressed as the same thing, we have simply written a new story, and then we proceed to confuse ourselves and reify differences that we ourselves imposed on the text.

Instead of being stubborn about our errors, we need to be spending the mental effort to understand why wind, spirit, breath, odor, etc., are the same thing. Because they ARE the same thing in the Hebrew.

Take the difference between "wind" and "spirit" and "breath". The wind is God's breath on the earth. The human breath is the little wind that comes from the man. And what animates us is the wind that God breathed into our nostrils. Jesus says to Nicodemus that the wind blows where it will, and speaks about the spirit. The spirit of God - or a mighty wind - hovers over the face of the waters. At Pentecost, they hear the rush of a mighty wind. And when Jesus tells them to receive the holy spirit, he breathes on them.

It would be obtuse not to see all of these things as variations on the same theme - especially given that the exact same word is used for all of it - ruach in Hebrew, pneuma in Greek.

We've decided to chop up concepts into odors and winds, spirits and breaths, and to try to make some sort of distinction between spirit and Spirit. There are no lower-case letters in the ancient Hebrew or Greek. That distinction is in the mind of the English reader, because the more varied and abstract English language allows for all sorts of nuances.

The problem with those "nuances" is that they are not there in the Hebrew. They have been entirely made up in the imagination of the translator, to convey subtleties that he, no doubt, sincerely believes are there, but that he has no basis in any authority to conclude.

So what those multiple words have done is take a unity that God provided, and fray it into a disunity that God didn't reveal. (Except to those like the KJV-Onlyists, who assert that the translators themselves were divinely inspired, so all of that additional nuance, and all of that decoupling and multiplication of concepts was inspired by God.)

Obviously I am not going to go along with that viewpoint. It's preposterous. Expend the effort to see the unity in the concept, and remember that that is what you would SEE were you to read the Hebrew: not a dozen different words and nuances - one word, used across a variety of different concepts, to express a unity that God sees in them - that we may not. Certainly we won't see it at all if we go muddling with his language and changing the words to tease out a nuance that he didn't actually inspire or put there.

I'm getting tired of this subject, so I'm going to sign off of this now. See you around the threads.

 

[The Times]

so is the Son of God only not his Father because he was born a human being?

The Son of God is the Son of God and not the son of Adam. So Jesus did not inherit the sins of Adam, by virtue of him being the Son of God.

His humanity came about through the genealogy of his mother Mary, that is why Matthew went at length to give detail of her genealogy.


1This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiahb the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2Abraham was the father of Isaac,

Isaac the father of Jacob,

Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,

Perez the father of Hezron,

Hezron the father of Ram,

4Ram the father of Amminadab,

Amminadab the father of Nahshon,

Nahshon the father of Salmon,

5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,

Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,

Obed the father of Jesse,

6and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

Abijah the father of Asa,

8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

9Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

11and Josiah the father of Jeconiahc and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

12After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

13Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

Abihud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

14Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Elihud,

15Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. (Matthew 1:1-16)

 

[The Times]

Given all of this, why do you still talk to me? I am a sinner. You ought to cut me off.

Are you informing me that you WILFULLY remain disobedient to Jesus Christ, by continuing to break his commandments on a daily basis, due to living a sinful lifestyle?

If so, then you have made your choice to live a life of sin and in this regard if you are not willing to repent of the sinful lifestyle, then I am forced by my Lord's instruction to disconnect from you.

I say this sincerely out of the goodness of my heart, that I am no longer a sinner, but a born again believer, who has left behind wilful sinning.

Do you know what wilful sinning is?

It is when a person acknowledges that they are wilfully and knowingly sinning, but are not repentant about it. Jesus always instructed to sin no more and this is the whole ethos of the gospel of Jesus Christ. A person cannot claim to be a sinner who wilfully sins and at the same time a faithful to Jesus Christ believer, this would be a contradiction, for Jesus said......

27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. (John 10:27)

Following Jesus is to deny thyself and others who would want you to continue to live a life of sin and to also accept them who continue to live a life of sin. It is like a seed that is planted in thorns, which ends up choking the plant.

Acknowledging to be a sinner and a Christian at the same time, is counterproductive to the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it smeares the message of repentance and borders on hypocrisy. Off course today's world view, would be the opposite to that of Jesus and the disciples, but does the world care for Jesus?

Obviously not! Because they have not denied themselves and continue to live a life of sin and without any fear or recourse to their wilful actions.

 

[Strong in Him]

Mark my words, Jesus did not do what you are saying that Jesus did.

Sure he did.
He ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners and was criticised for doing so, Matthew 9:10-11; Luke 5:30; Luke 7:33-35. He welcomed Zacchaeus and had a meal with him at his house, Luke 19:1-10. He helped and forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, John 8:1-11. Yes, he told her to sin no more, but he could have allowed the men to stone her to death - which is what the law said should happen.

And the message that Jesus was born a human being, lived among us and died for sinners, is the Gospel, Romans 5:6-8.

In fact, Jesus did the opposite to what you are saying Jesus did.

Er no; look up the above passages.

Here are the biblical facts......

13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

No, that's not the same thing.
Jesus sent his disciples out on a specific mission; to preach the Good News. If anyone did not want to receive them, or the message, they were to shake the dust from their feet and move on.
That is not at all the same as saying that during his earthly life, Jesus did not associate with sinners. Had he not been willing to do so, he wouldn't have come to earth, wouldn't have died, and we'd still all be sinners, and lost.

23And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Here, Jesus was condemning cities that refused to repent.
Not the same as saying that you mustn't associate with sinners.

Jesus instructed his disciples not to leave their peace to sinners who continued to practise sin. He instructed them to no longer associate with the practising sinners.

No, he said that if someone didn't welcome them and the Gospel, to leave and go elsewhere.
He didn't say anything about practising sinners, and we don't know that any people who DID reject the apostles didn't later repent.

Jesus condemned the homosexuals of Capernaum and compared their sins to that of Sodom, where he guaranteed their judgement to be more severe than Sodom.

If they refused to repent; yes.
If someone hears the Good News, doesn't repent and continually refuses to do so; when they die they will be condemned. That is Scripture. But it is not the same as saying that Jesus never associated with sinners.

In conclusion, Christians are instructed by Jesus to not associate with sinners who continue to practise sin.

As you have interpreted these verses that way, that is the only conclusion you can come to.
But it's not what Scripture says.

A person associating with practising sinners, becomes a sinner by association

No - or you are saying that Jesus was a sinner.

and the mere fact that they are disobeying the Lord's instructions, within the Great Commission context.

It depends on what you mean by associating with sinners. If you mean joining in with orgies, drunken sprees, robbing a bank, mugging someone; you are probably right - since no Christian could do these things and be claiming to set a good example and doing what Jesus did.
If you mean going into a pub to talk to people who don't believe; then no.

If you find it hard to digest what Christianity means, it means this......

32“Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

Going into a pub to talk to a non believer, or helping, feeding or clothing a homeless person who also happens to be a homosexual, is not disowning Jesus.
Jesus had meals with tax collectors and sinners; we'd be doing what he did.

34“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn

“ ‘a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

If we were being persecuted and the persecutors said "if you confess Christ's name you will be tortured or die", then members of the same household might, sadly, turn on one another - especially if someone was determined to confess Christ and someone else wanted them not to, to spare their life. Even today, some family members argue with, tease, turn upon and tease other family members for their faith. And I think that is doubly true from anyone from another faith who converts to Christianity; they may be disowned and lose everything.

Still got nothing to do with not associating with sinners.

37“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

That doesn't mean you can't love your family - just that you shouldn't worship them and put them above God.

To associate with practising sinners, is to become Christ's enemies.

Again, it depends on what you mean exactly.
But if you are saying that Christians shouldn't feed, help, clothe or visit non Christians especially if they might turn out to be homosexuals, alcoholics or drug addicts - then, no.

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't totally believe the sorry part.

Well if you don't, then there's no point in my talking to you.
Do you think I said that just to waste time and use up forum space? Why would I say it otherwise?

 

[The Times]

He gave the story of the prodigal son for two reasons:

(1) To show that the Father welcomes back those who stray with open arms.
(2) To show that the people who reject those who come back (the brother) and who complain and whinge about forgiveness, are actually not in accord with God they are less forgiving than God, and wrong.

Under your point (1) highlight the word strayed to the self and the pig troff of the world. This is a past tense verb "strayed", meaning the son is no longer a lost sheep, but one that is now in harmony with the Father, the Father's will and his commandments. The self, after living for the world, returns to the Father as a destitute, broken and contrite heart, that denies the self and sins no more, meaning the son leaves behind the sinful lifestyle. No more wilful sinning by the son, is why the Father opens his arms to once again accept a destitute son or daughter for that matter.

Your point (2) is entirely a collapse of context and is absent of the fact, of what the Father said regarding the younger son. The Father said.....

"we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ ”

Highlight the word WAS and discern that the Father is acknowledging that his son, when he wilfully and knowingly continued sinning with the pigs of the world was spiritually dead and separated from him. The Father also acknowledged that he WAS once lost, however, after he had repented and turned away from a lifestyle of sin, then he IS found. WAS AND IS, simple isn't it?

The Father no longer declares his son a sinner, otherwise it would have undermined his very words, which highlight a pertinent point, that is he WAS DEAD, he WAS LOST, now he is no longer DEAD, NO LONGER LOST, therefore is no longer a sinner. If the Father acknowledged his son was still a sinner, he would not have opened his arms to receive him and would have agreed with the older brother and tossed him out with the pig troff of the world where he belongs.

The Father's Grace is in perfect harmony with his Justice, for the two go hand in hand and no born again believer can still claim to be a sinner, unless they are in fact promoting sin itself.

 

[Strong in Him]

.
2TIMOTHY.3: =
Perilous Times and Perilous Men
3 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

So what are you saying; that you think I am one of these people and that you should turn away from me?
Your choice - bye.

Edit: sorry, I probably misread that and replied too hastily; but if you don't associate with anyone who does wrong, you won't associate with anyone at all, and won't be able to spread the Good News.

 

[The Times]

Well if you don't, then there's no point in my talking to you.
Do you think I said that just to waste time and use up forum space? Why would I say it otherwise?

God knows our hearts. I am just stating how I understood it to be, that is all.

 

[hedrick]

But Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God, the only one who was biologically generated through the reproductive process by his Mother's egg, and the Father's reproductive power (the Bible does not speak of the exact mechanics by which God "overshadowed" Mary and impregnated her, only that he did.)

I think saying "biologically" is a really bad choice of words. It suggests something impossible and approaching blasphemous. God doesn't have the ... errrmmmm ... necessary parts.

If you try to push things that direction, you'll have to say it was the Holy Spirit's reproductive power, given Mat 1:18. But I think that's getting way too specific. I like the Word commentary:

"We do not have here the pagan notion ... of a god having sexual relations with a woman but rather of the creative power of God at work within Mary in order to accomplish his purposes."

You refer a number of times to Jesus being God's only begotten son. The problem is that begotten is used in the Creed in reference to the origin of the eternal Logos from the Father, not to Jesus' biological origin. In Act 13:33 it's used metaphorically to refer to the resurrection. I don't think you'll find it used of the biological origin of Jesus.

 

[Vicomte13]

Are you informing me that you WILFULLY remain disobedient to Jesus Christ, by continuing to break his commandments on a daily basis, due to living a sinful lifestyle?

If so, then you have made your choice to live a life of sin and in this regard if you are not willing to repent of the sinful lifestyle, then I am forced by my Lord's instruction to disconnect from you.

I say this sincerely out of the goodness of my heart, that I am no longer a sinner, but a born again believer, who has left behind wilful sinning.

Do you know what wilful sinning is?

It is when a person acknowledges that they are wilfully and knowingly sinning, but are not repentant about it. Jesus always instructed to sin no more and this is the whole ethos of the gospel of Jesus Christ. A person cannot claim to be a sinner who wilfully sins and at the same time a faithful to Jesus Christ believer, this would be a contradiction, for Jesus said......

27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. (John 10:27)

Following Jesus is to deny thyself and others who would want you to continue to live a life of sin and to also accept them who continue to live a life of sin. It is like a seed that is planted in thorns, which ends up choking the plant.

Acknowledging to be a sinner and a Christian at the same time, is counterproductive to the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it smeares the message of repentance and borders on hypocrisy. Off course today's world view, would be the opposite to that of Jesus and the disciples, but does the world care for Jesus?

Obviously not! Because they have not denied themselves and continue to live a life of sin and without any fear or recourse to their wilful actions.

I’ll leave the judgment up to God, yours I don’t trust.

 

[The Times]

Sure he did.

I beg to differ. I think you need to know the mind of Jesus a little better, before we compare him to the current world view of the western society.

He ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners and was criticised for doing so, Matthew 9:10-11; Luke 5:30; Luke 7:33-35. He welcomed Zacchaeus and had a meal with him at his house, Luke 19:1-10. He helped and forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, John 8:1-11. Yes, he told her to sin no more, but he could have allowed the men to stone her to death - which is what the law said should happen.

In all the cases you mentioned above, Jesus did what he did strategically and knowingly that these ONCE sinners, were NOT sinning wilfully, but as God knew the end result of his meet with them would be repentance and turning back from their sinful lifestyles. Jesus who is God all knowing would have not associate with sinners who he knew would not turn from their ways. He obviously would not continue this association with a sinner if that sinner did not change their ways, would he?

He would always instruct, sin no more.

This is where those cities who repented not, were condemned and his disciples association was cut off from them.

Zacchaeus had turned from his ways as soon as he saw Jesus by giving away the money he took from people. It is self evident that Jesus knew he would do this, because he invited himself to Zacchaeus's place.

As far as the prostitute is concerned, Jesus knew that after the event she would sin no more. Otherwise he would not have said......

hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Those words "neither do I condemn thee" are enough evidence for me to conclude that the woman no longer worked as a prostitute from that moment onwards.

And the message that Jesus was born a human being, lived among us and died for sinners, is the Gospel, Romans 5:6-8.

Died for once sinners needs to be highlighted. Not died for sinners who wilfully live a life of sin and to promote sin to the whole world. How can anyone dare to use the cross of Christ to promote a lifestyle of sin by saying that he died for them, when they openly and wilfully continue in sin, is Christ promoting sin.

Paul covered this point as well....don't miss the context of Romans 5 that follows into Romans 6....

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:1-6)

No, that's not the same thing.

Really it is the same. You cannot avoid sound doctrine.

Jesus sent his disciples out on a specific mission; to preach the Good News. If anyone did not want to receive them, or the message, they were to shake the dust from their feet and move on.

The message was to repent and be saved, through the Messiah's commandments.

That is not at all the same as saying that during his earthly life, Jesus did not associate with sinners. Had he not been willing to do so, he wouldn't have come to earth, wouldn't have died, and we'd still all be sinners, and lost.

He came to reconcile us to the Father through Grace, and to set us free from the letter of the law. This does not in anyway, shape or form take away the fact that Jesus sent a stern message with an ultimatum of repent or else and the else part you have been dismissing in your exegesis.

Here, Jesus was condemning cities that refused to repent.

Yes that is correct. They continued the lifestyle of sin, even after he gave them the ultimatum to repent and what he later issued upon them was condemnation. Did Jesus further associate with those cities?

Absolutely not!

Not the same as saying that you mustn't associate with sinners.

The same thing, as to not associate with sinners who wilfully continue to live a lifestyle of sin, like whoremongers, warmongers, murderers, thieves, pedophiles, homosexuals, inappropriate behavior with animals, genderless, transhumanists etc. Jesus would not have us associate with the likes of lawless Man/people (Anthropos) of sin like the above mentioned.

No, he said that if someone didn't welcome them and the Gospel, to leave and go elsewhere.

And never to return back and never to associate with those who wilfully continue in a lifestyle of sin. Otherwise Jesus would be seen to promote sin, which scripture emphatically denies.

He didn't say anything about practising sinners, and we don't know that any people who DID reject the apostles didn't later repent.

Notwithstanding your false assertion, Jesus would not have given permission for his apostles to continue to associate with those who refused to repent and turn back from their sinful lifestyles.

Just like the prodgical son, they need to turn back from the pig troff of the world and deny themselves and come at Christ's feet as a broken and contrite heart. This is the ultimatum.

If they refused to repent; yes.

Well, how many people do you associate with who continue to wilfully live a lifestyle of sin and that repentance is the last thing on their mind?

You see, you cannot have it both ways my friend.

If someone hears the Good News, doesn't repent and continually refuses to do so; when they die they will be condemned. That is Scripture. But it is not the same as saying that Jesus never associated with sinners.

Your deflecting the issue at heart. Jesus never associated with disobedience, unless you are advocating that Jesus was disobedient to the Father. Jesus would have nothing to do with disobedience, that is, those disobedient lawless sons of perdition, who wilfully continued to live a lifestyle of sin and thought nothing of repenting of their wicked ways.

Jesus never associated with practising thieves, practising murderers, practising whoremongers, practising homosexuals.

You must discern that to associate with such lawless people is to be sinning by association and this would be counterproductive to the gospel message of repentance, where the western Christian world doesn't want anything to do with preaching repentance.

As you have interpreted these verses that way, that is the only conclusion you can come to.

Because it is the only conclusion that one can draw my friend.

But it's not what Scripture says.

It certainly does. Let us not beat around the bush.

No - or you are saying that Jesus was a sinner.

On the contrary, if Jesus continued to associate with unrepentant sinners, who continued to wilfully live a life of sin, then he would be seen to promote such people. Some churches today are doing just that.

Jesus gave an ultimatum to repent or to face condemnation.

It depends on what you mean by associating with sinners. If you mean joining in with orgies, drunken sprees, robbing a bank, mugging someone; you are probably right - since no Christian could do these things and be claiming to set a good example and doing what Jesus did.

Associating with people who wilfully continue to live a lifestyle of sin is sinning by association. You become an accomplice and become implicated in the very culture of that sinful lifestyle without requiring you to do the acts yourself.

If you mean going into a pub to talk to people who don't believe; then no.

Giving them your time of day or talking to people who wilfully live a lifestyle of sin, unless for the purpose of instructing them to repent and to turn from their ways, is to communicate to them that their state is perfectly fine. You become a friend to their cause and they in return feel comfort in their ways with you. This meet is counterproductive to the gospel of Jesus Christ and you may be in danger of placing yourself as an enemy of Jesus Christ and I don't mean that lightly either, I am serious, it is no joke!

Going into a pub to talk to a non believer, or helping, feeding or clothing a homeless person who also happens to be a homosexual, is not disowning Jesus.

Look at the way you worded it....hmmmmm....

It seems the talk, the feeding, the clothing, the person is more important than giving that person the gospel ultimatum message of repenting or to face condemnation by the righteous Judge Jesus Christ.

Jesus had meals with tax collectors and sinners; we'd be doing what he did.

Sure, but he knew what he was doing and they all turned and if they didn't he would not continue his association with them, would he?

Unless of course you are implying that he was promoting their lifestyles, are you?

You are loosing focus on what the gospel message is and the urgency of delivering it in a very firm way and get out, before you get bogged down in quick sand.

I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. (1 Corinthians 3:6-8)

Our job is to either plant the seed or to water it. If we see thorns growing around that seed, then what exactly are we watering?

The thorn, hence the sin, we are watering the sin and hanging around to see the sin grow and mature in that person who we were originally assigned to preach the gospel of repentance. This is truly counterproductive. Rather than wasting time on a seed that has developed thorns around it, by watering the thorns, go to another and plant the seed and if the seed grows in a firm place, then water it and or allow others to water it and have faith that God is making it grow.

Our job is not to make friends in the world or to make things grow, for we are only strangers to this life and temporary visitors, here we are in one breath, then we are not in another.

Please listen friend, listen!

If we were being persecuted and the persecutors said "if you confess Christ's name you will be tortured or die", then members of the same household might, sadly, turn on one another - especially if someone was determined to confess Christ and someone else wanted them not to, to spare their life. Even today, some family members argue with, tease, turn upon and tease other family members for their faith. And I think that is doubly true from anyone from another faith who converts to Christianity; they may be disowned and lose everything.

The message from Jesus is clear as crystal, we are to deny ourselves and to carry our crosses. Each will carry their own cross. Our families are passing strangers and we ought not consider them before our Lord. As Jesus said if you do not deny your father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife for the sake of me, then you are not worthy of me.

Jesus knew exactly that the enemies of a person, would be those from his own household and your words ring true to that effect.

Still got nothing to do with not associating with sinners.

By now, if you haven't understood why we are here for, then God help you.

That doesn't mean you can't love your family - just that you shouldn't worship them and put them above God.

It means, that if one of your brothers, sisters or friends was a wilful practising murderer, thief, rapist, homosexual, transgender, pedophile then you must deny them for Christ's sake. You cannot be friends with the world and at the same time friends with Jesus, you will either be loyal to one and deny the other. Jesus demands this and we ought to do God willing what pleases him, shouldn't we?

Again, it depends on what you mean exactly.

You should by now understand fully what I mean, with no pun intended.

But if you are saying that Christians shouldn't feed, help, clothe or visit non Christians especially if they might turn out to be homosexuals, alcoholics or drug addicts - then, no.

We are not instructed to water the thorns, get it! Let them grow as thorns until God burns them.

 

[Vicomte13]

I think saying "biologically" is a really bad choice of words. It suggests something impossible and approaching blasphemous. God doesn't have the ... errrmmmm ... necessary parts.

If you try to push things that direction, you'll have to say it was the Holy Spirit's reproductive power, given Mat 1:18. But I think that's getting way too specific. I like the Word commentary:

"We do not have here the pagan notion ... of a god having sexual relations with a woman but rather of the creative power of God at work within Mary in order to accomplish his purposes."

You refer a number of times to Jesus being God's only begotten son. The problem is that begotten is used in the Creed in reference to the origin of the eternal Logos from the Father, not to Jesus' biological origin. In Act 13:33 it's used metaphorically to refer to the resurrection. I don't think you'll find it used of the biological origin of Jesus.

There is nothing blasphemous about the way that God Fathered Jesus. But since the subject provokes squeamishness I will simply stop talking about it here. The biological origin of Jesus is crucial. It’s THE stumbling block of Jews and Muslims, and Arians. Angels fathered nephilim by taking wives. God can do so as well. Did, in fact, which is why Mary’s relationship to God is so utterly unique - and fraught with peril for those who mock it, or her. It is very bold for men to speak dismissively of a man’s wife or of his mother, and Mary fulfills both roles to God. And yet, men take terrible liberties with this subject.

But I am really done with this stuff for now.

 

[1stcenturylady]

If God is female, was Mary a lesbian?

Stop the heresy! God has always been referred to as our Father. Believe it or become an atheist.

 

[The Times]

I’ll leave the judgment up to God, yours I don’t trust.

We all need to discern the times we are living in, least we perish and be judged by the righteous Judge.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

Babylon is rising my friend, don't get swept up by the worldly love conundrum, which is a manufactured counterfeit to the love of God. In the last days people will unwittingly advocate disobedience to Christ Jesus as the final authority in all things.

At the end of the day, there are two sides to choose from, the world or Jesus Christ and our choice has already determined our judgment when Jesus returns to take us to his Father's house, or for some.....

'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Since time began the father of death has been trying to kill the mother of all living. Beginning with Eve satan has been hellbent to dethrone women from their inheritance. A liar and a theif satan has lied about her and stolen from her. Why? Because she is the rightful heir alongside of Christ. As long as satan can dethrone women he can enthrone himself in the male myth and have everyone in his kingdom bowing at the throne of masculinity. Only those who bow at the throne of God are safe from satan. Only in submission to the Father, as Jesus was, can the bride of Christ be safe.

Wisdom is portrayed as female, the bride of Christ and the mother above, Jerusalem, also female. The counterfiet female of satan is religion gone bad. All the good kings were always listed with their mother's names. The bad kings stood alone.

The nation of priests began with male and female. Before the kings, God sought to have a priesthood of the Nazirite which is male and female, starting with Samuel, but the people choose to instate a king. After the exile, during the rebuilding of the temple, at the time of Esther, a pagan king brought in a ruling that men were heads of the household. That is the only law like that in the bible. The only law that Paul could have refered to that kept the women in submission to men. The bride of Christ in submission to the false religion. Why is that in submission to a false religion? Because it's a half truth. The full truth is that we are all the bride of Christ, those who are in submission to the Father. There are no kings between us.

The Father has made His covenent with the remnant and the Holy Spirit lives on in those who are His. Blessed be His name because He is the protector of the female while the world seeks to anihalate her. The father of death fights his wars on the backs of the female across the world today, while the bridegroom fights to bring her home. The Holy Spirit is Who is fighting in the world today, She is the living Word in us. The Father has fought for His bride Israel, the Son has done His part, now the Bride, the Holy Spirit, is the final stand. She is the only force for good, and the bible says that she will win.

 

[The Times]

Gnostic teachings in regards to the Temple of THEOLA emerging from Babylon rising.

It would account to why they are referring to God as Mother.

The same narrative of Asherah Queen of Heaven continues to depict the devine feminine, along with her many shrines depicting her as God's mother, that is the mother of the Christ.

Certain denomination will promote this concept because it falls within the narrative and constructs of the temple of THEOLA.