-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Quickies
- Thread starter WebersHome
- Start date
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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 years old. 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 2017, critters would have been on the move towards it since 1897-- six years before the Wright Brothers historical flight, and fifteen 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.
Ten miles off the coast of Alabama in 60 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico, are the remains of a Bald Cypress grove that's estimated to be eight to fourteen thousand years old; testifying that the earth's topography was quite a bit different in the ancient past.
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.
/
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 years old. 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 2017, critters would have been on the move towards it since 1897-- six years before the Wright Brothers historical flight, and fifteen 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.
Ten miles off the coast of Alabama in 60 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico, are the remains of a Bald Cypress grove that's estimated to be eight to fourteen thousand years old; testifying that the earth's topography was quite a bit different in the ancient past.
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.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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.
/
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.
/
Upvote
0
If you can acknowledge that God created the laws that govern the physical world, then you should be able to accept that he can bend the laws he created. Somehow it is not acceptable to the scientifically minded for God to bend the laws, but it is completely acceptable for them to stand with the scientists that bend the same laws. How many "laws" are bent in the Big Bang theory? How can the size of the universe be so much larger than how old it is?
If Bible thumpers trust God's word, why do some Christian science thumpers trust ants/scientists over God? Because they follow Eve in her first sin, to be God and attain knowledge that God has.
Your scientific mind searches for ways to challenge God's word. How about using your scientific mind to understand that the earth was created on day one and that the morning and evening just represent the time it takes for the earth to make one revolution? You don't need a sun to measure out the 24 hours it takes for the earth to revolve. The point of the morning and night in the description is to convey the time it took God to do something, not give an account of what the horizon looked like if one was on the surface of the earth then. Do you think the audience of scripture would be better served if the text said it took 794243384928000 cycles of caesium 133? The revolution of the earth has been the basis of the measurement of time since day one. Get it?
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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.
/
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.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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 speaks of divorce as well as 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 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.
Biologically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's sons (Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved when the old boy 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.
/
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 speaks of divorce as well as 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 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.
Biologically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's sons (Gen 25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved when the old boy 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.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
Abraham And Ex Post Facto
● Deut 29:13-14 . . Not only with you am I making this covenant and this oath, but with those standing here with us today before the Lord, our God, and [also] with those who are not here with us, this day.
It's sincerely believed by some that the statement above serves to include Abraham in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But the statement below seems to exclude him.
● Deut 5:2-3 . .The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our forefathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of whom are here alive today.
I'm pretty sure that Abraham was excluded from the covenant. The reason I feel that way is because God promised to curse whosoever curses Abraham.
● Gen 12:3 . . I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse,
The problem is: Abraham was married to a half sister (Gen 20:12)
The covenant prohibits marrying, and/or sleeping with, one's half sister. (Lev 18:9, Lev 20:17).
Under the terms and conditions of the covenant; men who sleep with their sisters are cursed the moment they do so because "cursed be he" is grammatically present tense; no delay and no waiting period; viz: the curse is immediate.
● Deut 27:22 . . Cursed be he who lies with his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter.
● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of this Torah, to fulfill them.
Well; it seems to me that were God to slam Abraham with a curse for sleeping with his sister, then God would be obligated to slam Himself with a curse in return as per Gen 12:3.
Abraham enjoyed quite an advantage. He had a certain kind of immunity. In other words, seeing as how Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were instituted long after Abraham passed away; then none of the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 applied to him.
● Gal 3:17 . .The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
The "promise" in question reads like this:
"I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will aggrandize your name, and [you shall] be a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you." (Gen 12:2-3)
Additionally:
"And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings, the entire land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them for a god." (Gen 17:8)
Q: What about Genesis 26:4-5? doesn't that prove Abraham was included in the covenant?
A: The passage in question reads like this:
"I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."
Gen 26:4-5 reveals that the promises God made to Abraham as per Gen 12:2-3 and Gen 17:8 were not sustained by Abraham's piety; rather, Abraham's piety up to that point deserved them. In other words: once God made those promises, neither Abraham nor his posterity can ever lose them because they are unconditional
● Gal 3:18 . . For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
That should be really good news to Abraham's posterity because although the law has a marked effect upon their occupation of the land, it has no effect upon their entitlement to it.
/
Abraham And Ex Post Facto
● Deut 29:13-14 . . Not only with you am I making this covenant and this oath, but with those standing here with us today before the Lord, our God, and [also] with those who are not here with us, this day.
It's sincerely believed by some that the statement above serves to include Abraham in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But the statement below seems to exclude him.
● Deut 5:2-3 . .The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our forefathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of whom are here alive today.
I'm pretty sure that Abraham was excluded from the covenant. The reason I feel that way is because God promised to curse whosoever curses Abraham.
● Gen 12:3 . . I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse,
The problem is: Abraham was married to a half sister (Gen 20:12)
The covenant prohibits marrying, and/or sleeping with, one's half sister. (Lev 18:9, Lev 20:17).
Under the terms and conditions of the covenant; men who sleep with their sisters are cursed the moment they do so because "cursed be he" is grammatically present tense; no delay and no waiting period; viz: the curse is immediate.
● Deut 27:22 . . Cursed be he who lies with his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter.
● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of this Torah, to fulfill them.
Well; it seems to me that were God to slam Abraham with a curse for sleeping with his sister, then God would be obligated to slam Himself with a curse in return as per Gen 12:3.
Abraham enjoyed quite an advantage. He had a certain kind of immunity. In other words, seeing as how Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were instituted long after Abraham passed away; then none of the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 applied to him.
● Gal 3:17 . .The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
The "promise" in question reads like this:
"I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will aggrandize your name, and [you shall] be a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you." (Gen 12:2-3)
Additionally:
"And I will give you and your seed after you the land of your sojournings, the entire land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them for a god." (Gen 17:8)
Q: What about Genesis 26:4-5? doesn't that prove Abraham was included in the covenant?
A: The passage in question reads like this:
"I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."
Gen 26:4-5 reveals that the promises God made to Abraham as per Gen 12:2-3 and Gen 17:8 were not sustained by Abraham's piety; rather, Abraham's piety up to that point deserved them. In other words: once God made those promises, neither Abraham nor his posterity can ever lose them because they are unconditional
● Gal 3:18 . . For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
That should be really good news to Abraham's posterity because although the law has a marked effect upon their occupation of the land, it has no effect upon their entitlement to it.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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 birth order; and though the latter 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 sandwiched in 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 cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --no contest.
/
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 birth order; and though the latter 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 sandwiched in 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 cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --no contest.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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.
/
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.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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.
The apostle Paul was a well-trained Jew (Acts 22:3, Php 3:5). He and his fellow Pharisees generally understood the law as that of Moses', a.k.a. the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The important thing to note about the covenant 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 Jews' 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.
/
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.
The apostle Paul was a well-trained Jew (Acts 22:3, Php 3:5). He and his fellow Pharisees generally understood the law as that of Moses', a.k.a. the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The important thing to note about the covenant 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 Jews' 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.
/
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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 koiné 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 walk 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 acquitted 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.
FYI: The June 2017 issue of National Geographic magazine contains a very interesting article titled: Why We Lie. There's actually been studies done about this.
/
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 koiné 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 walk 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 acquitted 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.
FYI: The June 2017 issue of National Geographic magazine contains a very interesting article titled: Why We Lie. There's actually been studies done about this.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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 koiné Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which basically 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; and 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, when God finished assembling the cosmos with its various forms of life, matter, and energy; He pronounced it all not just good; but "very" good. In other words, God was satisfied that the human body came out just exactly as He designed it to come out; but it didn't stay that way.
● Rom 7:18 . . I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me
When people do something contrary to their own better judgment; it's very common to hear them say "I don't know what came over me". Well; the thing that came over them was their natural will having its own way.
/
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 koiné Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which basically 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; and 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, when God finished assembling the cosmos with its various forms of life, matter, and energy; He pronounced it all not just good; but "very" good. In other words, God was satisfied that the human body came out just exactly as He designed it to come out; but it didn't stay that way.
● Rom 7:18 . . I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me
When people do something contrary to their own better judgment; it's very common to hear them say "I don't know what came over me". Well; the thing that came over them was their natural will having its own way.
/
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
Eternal Life
Eternal life is often mistaken for immortality. The two are not the same.
Immortality is a material kind of life that has to do with a superhuman body impervious to age, death, and putrefaction.
Eternal life, on the other hand, isn't a material kind of life; it's a spirit kind of life; which is why it's possible for people to obtain eternal life before they obtain immortality.
For example: Christ had eternal life when he was here (John 5:26, 1John 1:1-2) but according to Rom 6:9 and Rev 1:18, he didn't obtain immortality till he rose from the dead.
Likewise Christ's believing followers have eternal life while they're here (John 5:24) but according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:51-53, they won't obtain immortality until their resurrections.
So then; I think we can safely conclude that immortality is something that can be seen, while eternal life is something that cannot be seen.
The properties of eternal life are probably best understood relative to human life.
Human life's primary characteristic is human nature; roughly defined as the fundamental dispositions and traits of the human being.
Eternal life's primary characteristic is divine nature, roughly defined as the fundamental dispositions and traits of the supreme being.
/
Eternal Life
Eternal life is often mistaken for immortality. The two are not the same.
Immortality is a material kind of life that has to do with a superhuman body impervious to age, death, and putrefaction.
Eternal life, on the other hand, isn't a material kind of life; it's a spirit kind of life; which is why it's possible for people to obtain eternal life before they obtain immortality.
For example: Christ had eternal life when he was here (John 5:26, 1John 1:1-2) but according to Rom 6:9 and Rev 1:18, he didn't obtain immortality till he rose from the dead.
Likewise Christ's believing followers have eternal life while they're here (John 5:24) but according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:51-53, they won't obtain immortality until their resurrections.
So then; I think we can safely conclude that immortality is something that can be seen, while eternal life is something that cannot be seen.
The properties of eternal life are probably best understood relative to human life.
Human life's primary characteristic is human nature; roughly defined as the fundamental dispositions and traits of the human being.
Eternal life's primary characteristic is divine nature, roughly defined as the fundamental dispositions and traits of the supreme being.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
Leaven
● Gen 19:3 . . Lot prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
The Hebrew word for "unleavened" is matstsah (mats-tsaw') which essentially refers to an unfermented cake or loaf; in other words: bread made with sweet dough rather than sour dough.
In this day and age of cultured yeast it's not easy to explain what the Bible means by leavened and unleavened. Well; the primary difference between the two terms isn't ingredients; rather, the primary difference is age; for example:
"Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven" (1Cor 5:8)
If there is an old leaven, then there must be a new leaven; just as there is an old wine and a new wine.
Old leaven can refer to a batch of dough that's going bad, i.e. fermenting; which, given time, dough will do on its own without the addition of yeast because all flour, no matter how carefully it's milled and packaged, contains a percentage of naturally-occurring fungi. New leaven, then, would refer to a time in the life of the dough before the flour's naturally-occurring fungi has time to spoil the product; for example:
● Ex 12:34 . . So the people took their dough before it was leavened, with their kneading bowls bound up in the clothes on their shoulders.
That gives an idea of how quickly God moved the people out of Egypt after slaying all the firstborn. They had made unfermented bread for that night's meal in accord with the law of the Passover instituted in the 12th chapter of Exodus.
Anyway, point being; Lot served his guests fresh bread made with fresh dough rather than with bread made with dough that's been sitting around for a while. Bread made with sour dough is reasonably safe to eat, we know that, so serving his guests bread made with aged dough wouldn't have been a health issue. I like to think that Lot served his honored guests unleavened bread as an act of courtesy rather than necessity. Giving people your best, rather than your less than best, shows that you think highly of them
/
Leaven
● Gen 19:3 . . Lot prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
The Hebrew word for "unleavened" is matstsah (mats-tsaw') which essentially refers to an unfermented cake or loaf; in other words: bread made with sweet dough rather than sour dough.
In this day and age of cultured yeast it's not easy to explain what the Bible means by leavened and unleavened. Well; the primary difference between the two terms isn't ingredients; rather, the primary difference is age; for example:
"Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven" (1Cor 5:8)
If there is an old leaven, then there must be a new leaven; just as there is an old wine and a new wine.
Old leaven can refer to a batch of dough that's going bad, i.e. fermenting; which, given time, dough will do on its own without the addition of yeast because all flour, no matter how carefully it's milled and packaged, contains a percentage of naturally-occurring fungi. New leaven, then, would refer to a time in the life of the dough before the flour's naturally-occurring fungi has time to spoil the product; for example:
● Ex 12:34 . . So the people took their dough before it was leavened, with their kneading bowls bound up in the clothes on their shoulders.
That gives an idea of how quickly God moved the people out of Egypt after slaying all the firstborn. They had made unfermented bread for that night's meal in accord with the law of the Passover instituted in the 12th chapter of Exodus.
Anyway, point being; Lot served his guests fresh bread made with fresh dough rather than with bread made with dough that's been sitting around for a while. Bread made with sour dough is reasonably safe to eat, we know that, so serving his guests bread made with aged dough wouldn't have been a health issue. I like to think that Lot served his honored guests unleavened bread as an act of courtesy rather than necessity. Giving people your best, rather than your less than best, shows that you think highly of them
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
The Fiery Serpent
● John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story short: Yhvh's people became weary of eating manna all the time at every meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational; angrily demanding tastier food.
In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; Yhvh sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.
After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion an image of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying from venom could look to the image for relief.
The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible study and/or Sunday school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the Ten Commandments, not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The image was it; nothing else would suffice to save their lives.
In other words then: Christ's crucifixion is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and when people accept it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they qualify for a transfer from death into life. Those who reject his crucifixion as the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God are already on the docket to face it.
● John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
His son's "name" in this case is relative to the fiery serpent incident.
/
The Fiery Serpent
● John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story short: Yhvh's people became weary of eating manna all the time at every meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational; angrily demanding tastier food.
In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; Yhvh sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.
After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion an image of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying from venom could look to the image for relief.
The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible study and/or Sunday school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the Ten Commandments, not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The image was it; nothing else would suffice to save their lives.
In other words then: Christ's crucifixion is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and when people accept it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they qualify for a transfer from death into life. Those who reject his crucifixion as the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God are already on the docket to face it.
● John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
His son's "name" in this case is relative to the fiery serpent incident.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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 1.226 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 1.226 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.
/
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 1.226 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 1.226 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.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
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.
/
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.
/
Upvote
0
- May 7, 2017
- 2,140
- 460
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
-
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin
Some folk posit that Mary was, in some manner, a sort of surrogate mother, i.e. Jesus' embryo was an implant. Others sincerely believe that Mary's baby was an alternate species of human life totally unrelated to her own, i.e. another Adam, so to speak; basing their posit on 1Cor 15:45.
But the Bible testifies that Jesus Christ was Mary's honest to gosh, bona fide biological human progeny.
Q: How can you be so sure that Jesus Christ was produced from his mother's human egg, viz: her ovum?
A: Not only the Bible; but also the science of Biology bears that out.
Christ is stated to be born of David's seed.
● Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will". Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus
● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper' mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their genetic material; especially when the seed is according to the flesh, i.e. biological seed rather than spiritual seed.
Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's flesh, one of his biological descendants had to be involved. So then, seeing as how Jesus was virgin conceived, then his mother became the default progenitor, i.e. Mary was one of David's granddaughters.
● Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David
An implanted embryo isn't really a conceived embryo. Conception took place in a woman's womb back in those days when her own ovum was involved in the process.
NOTE: In following the kings of the Davidic dynasty in the Old Testament, it's readily apparent that many of the names of the monarchs are associated with their mothers' names. There's a number of theories as to why that is, but the one that satisfies me most is that by naming the mothers of David's successors, it proves that they were 100% normal human beings rather than alien beings; which, in my mind at least, makes Luke 1:31 an extremely important piece of information.
● Heb 7:14 . . It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah
Well; it's clear enough to me, yes, but there are some folk who would contest Christ's biological origin.
Q: If Jesus Christ really was David's biological progeny; then wouldn't his mom have passed the guilt of Adam's sin to him?
A: Yes; absolutely, because the whole entirety of Adam's posterity-- regardless of age, race, or gender --is automatically condemned for tasting the forbidden fruit.
Note the grammatical tense of the passage below; it's past tense; indicating that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his posterity (which included Eve seeing as she came into being via the organic tissues of his own body) became guilty of tasting it-- in real time --including those of his family yet to be born.
● 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 posterity sinners; it didn't make them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about joint principals in Adam's act of disobedience.
The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to clear his sin off the books seeing as how life's end is the proper satisfaction of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his posterity's own personal sins is another matter.
Q: If Jesus Christ was made a joint principal in Adam's slip-up, then how can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?
A: Adam's slip made Christ culpable right along with his fellow men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful. In point of fact; Christ committed no personal sins of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
Q: What was the secret to his success?
A: Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine. Not only did he descend from David according to the flesh, but Christ also descended from God according to the Spirit. (Luke 1:32-35). That is quite an advantage because according to 1John 3:9, that which is born of God not only doesn't sin, but cannot sin.
/
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin
Some folk posit that Mary was, in some manner, a sort of surrogate mother, i.e. Jesus' embryo was an implant. Others sincerely believe that Mary's baby was an alternate species of human life totally unrelated to her own, i.e. another Adam, so to speak; basing their posit on 1Cor 15:45.
But the Bible testifies that Jesus Christ was Mary's honest to gosh, bona fide biological human progeny.
Q: How can you be so sure that Jesus Christ was produced from his mother's human egg, viz: her ovum?
A: Not only the Bible; but also the science of Biology bears that out.
Christ is stated to be born of David's seed.
● Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will". Of this man's seed hath God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus
● Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper' mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their genetic material; especially when the seed is according to the flesh, i.e. biological seed rather than spiritual seed.
Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's flesh, one of his biological descendants had to be involved. So then, seeing as how Jesus was virgin conceived, then his mother became the default progenitor, i.e. Mary was one of David's granddaughters.
● Luke 1:31 . .You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David
An implanted embryo isn't really a conceived embryo. Conception took place in a woman's womb back in those days when her own ovum was involved in the process.
NOTE: In following the kings of the Davidic dynasty in the Old Testament, it's readily apparent that many of the names of the monarchs are associated with their mothers' names. There's a number of theories as to why that is, but the one that satisfies me most is that by naming the mothers of David's successors, it proves that they were 100% normal human beings rather than alien beings; which, in my mind at least, makes Luke 1:31 an extremely important piece of information.
● Heb 7:14 . . It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah
Well; it's clear enough to me, yes, but there are some folk who would contest Christ's biological origin.
Q: If Jesus Christ really was David's biological progeny; then wouldn't his mom have passed the guilt of Adam's sin to him?
A: Yes; absolutely, because the whole entirety of Adam's posterity-- regardless of age, race, or gender --is automatically condemned for tasting the forbidden fruit.
Note the grammatical tense of the passage below; it's past tense; indicating that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his posterity (which included Eve seeing as she came into being via the organic tissues of his own body) became guilty of tasting it-- in real time --including those of his family yet to be born.
● 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 posterity sinners; it didn't make them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about joint principals in Adam's act of disobedience.
The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to clear his sin off the books seeing as how life's end is the proper satisfaction of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his posterity's own personal sins is another matter.
Q: If Jesus Christ was made a joint principal in Adam's slip-up, then how can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?
A: Adam's slip made Christ culpable right along with his fellow men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful. In point of fact; Christ committed no personal sins of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)
Q: What was the secret to his success?
A: Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine. Not only did he descend from David according to the flesh, but Christ also descended from God according to the Spirit. (Luke 1:32-35). That is quite an advantage because according to 1John 3:9, that which is born of God not only doesn't sin, but cannot sin.
/
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
