View Full Version : Demons
I would like to start a study in scripture concerning Demons. To start I know very little about this subject, but thought of a couple of scriptures that seem to indicate to me that 'demons' or 'devils' are written in scripture in one are two ways.
Let first gather from scripture that the word 'demon' has a meaning of 'spirit' in this case an 'unclean spirit, evil spirit or devils'. Strong's G1140 - daimonion which is translated in the KJV as devil.
The first group of scriptures I would place under the 'Possessed' category and the latter under the 'Captivity
' category. [comments are in brackets and blue]
Possessed:
Luke 8:27-30
27And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
28When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
29(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)
30And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
[Here this seems to be a case where a certain man had devils/demons inside of him, for which Christ drive them out of him]
Mark 9:17-22
17And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
18And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
19He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, having compassion on us, and help us.
25When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
[The disciples were unable to clean the child, so Jesus clean the child and said this kind can only come out by prayer and fasting.]
Captivity:
1 Timothy 4:1
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
[This doesn't seem to imply the same as possession. It seems to imply being deceived by those that speak evil and have evil doctrines.]
Ephesians 6:12
12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
[In this sence the rulers (devils) of darkness are what we battle against, being set free from darkness]
Colossians 2:8
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. (NIV)
[Captive here seems to be by doctrine of men]
There are allot more scriptures to compare and if you feel the need to add them please feel free. I only put these in two categories, but there are also more. The whole purpose is to get a better understanding of what it going on and how it applies.
Your thought are welcomed,
Mark 9:17-22
17And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
18And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
19He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, having compassion on us, and help us.
25When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
[The disciples were unable to clean the child, so Jesus clean the child and said this kind can only come out by prayer and fasting.]
Hi Beck
The incident of demon possession in Mark has always struck me as odd because Jesus begins by reprimanding the people for being faithless when it clearly states that the disciples themselves could not cast out the boy's demons. Secondly, the father has to beg Jesus to have compassion on their son and cast out the demon. How did Jesus expect the father of the child to be able to cast the demons out when no one had been imbued with the power of the Holy Spirit yet?
All the best,
Rose
Hi Beck
The incident of demon possession in Mark has always struck me as odd because Jesus begins by reprimanding the people for being faithless when it clearly states that the disciples themselves could not cast out the boy's demons. Secondly, the father has to beg Jesus to have compassion on their son and cast out the demon. How did Jesus expect the father of the child to be able to cast the demons out when no one had been imbued with the power of the Holy Spirit yet?
All the best,
Rose
Thanks Rose for given your input i never thought of it that way. I thought of Luke mentioning a certain man and how that is used many times in Jesus parables. What could these mean if they are parables in a sence?
Charisma
12-01-2011, 05:56 PM
Hi Beck,
You and others might like to look at this book online:
Written in 1921. Many case histories in it.
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/holiness/Zepp/Demon/DALindex.htm
There is also youtube footage (and audio (not youtube)) of Jim Logan's ministry to Christians on this topic, which makes it controversial, but not necessarily false.
heb13-13
12-01-2011, 06:53 PM
Hi Beck,
You and others might like to look at this book online:
Written in 1921. Many case histories in it.
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/holiness/Zepp/Demon/DALindex.htm
There is also youtube footage (and audio (not youtube)) of Jim Logan's ministry to Christians on this topic, which makes it controversial, but not necessarily false.
Hi Beck,
The book that Charisma recommended is very good reading. I had misplaced the link, Charisma. Thank you for posting this. :signthankspin:
Rick
Thanks Rose for given your input i never thought of it that way. I thought of Luke mentioning a certain man and how that is used many times in Jesus parables. What could these mean if they are parables in a sense?
Hi Beck
That's a good question, since it's pretty well known in our modern age that what people in the 1st century considered to be demonic possession is actually different types of psychological disorders that are curable in many cases with modern drugs. With that in mind I really don't see any parabolic value to those stories.
Rose
Hi Beck,
You and others might like to look at this book online:
Written in 1921. Many case histories in it.
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/holiness/Zepp/Demon/DALindex.htm
There is also youtube footage (and audio (not youtube)) of Jim Logan's ministry to Christians on this topic, which makes it controversial, but not necessarily false.
Hi Charisma,
I appreciate that book link, but what can you bring to this discussion as I read through.
Just by quick readying the topics I came to this and thought that there might be a parallel with what Jesus said in Matthew 10:1 about casting out the unclean spirits, healing the sick.
The demon teareth him, throweth him into the fire, and into the water and driveth into violent, unreasonable rage (it may perchance be about some very trifling matter). The Garadene illustrates the destructiveness of evil spirits. He was forced to lacerate himself. Again, demons lack the sense of decency and inspire their victim to go nude, to wear no clothes. This fact may throw some light on nudity in modern dress and styles, as also the nudity in so-called high art, which is low art. Demons are unclean and lustful. Christ calls them "foul spirits," "unclean spirits." Thus they work in the realm of lust.
Here we have an evil spirit driving him to tare himself and remove his clothes. Is there a connection in this unclean spirit and nakedness symbolically?
Hi Beck
That's a good question, since it's pretty well known in our modern age that what people in the 1st century considered to be demonic possession is actually different types of psychological disorders that are curable in many cases with modern drugs. With that in mind I really don't see any parabolic value to those stories.
Rose
I would agree about the psychological disorders, but I'm not sure if that is even the case. It may well not be a parable, but I ask becasue Jesus said that they shall take up serpents and heal the sick. One could understand that the serpents is as Jesus called the Phraisees and the sick as those that are unto second death. Could the meaning of demons be the unclean spirit those rulers in high places? Someone like the pharisees?
heb13-13
12-01-2011, 09:00 PM
Hi Beck
That's a good question, since it's pretty well known in our modern age that what people in the 1st century considered to be demonic possession is actually different types of psychological disorders that are curable in many cases with modern drugs. With that in mind I really don't see any parabolic value to those stories.
Rose
Hi Rose,
How does the "modern age" know that these "demonic" manifestations in the 1st century were different types of psychological disorders?
If modern drugs cured the individual today why do they have to stay on the drugs? Modern drugs only suppress the manifestations by suppressing the individual (bringing them into a passive state).
But, I would really like to know how someone in the "modern age" can confidently know that the people in the 1st century had psychological problems and not demonic possession? By the way, demon oppression and possession will give you psychological problems.
Now, I understand if these people in the modern age (whoever you are talking about) don't believe in demons and the powers of darkness then they will of course say that it is psychological. You can be an expert then in any century without having to time travel to it. You can just say all presumed demonic problems have always been psychological. Is this the reasoning of the "modern age" that you are talking about? That these people think Satan and demons are myths and so everything must either be psychological or chemical?
Thanks for your reply and glad you had a memorable Anniversay.
Rick
Hi Rose,
How does the "modern age" know that these "demonic" manifestations in the 1st century were different types of psychological disorders?
If modern drugs cured the individual today why do they have to stay on the drugs? Modern drugs only suppress the manifestations by suppressing the individual (bringing them into a passive state).
But, I would really like to know how someone in the "modern age" can confidently know that the people in the 1st century had psychological problems and not demonic possession? By the way, demon oppression and possession will give you psychological problems.
Now, I understand if these people in the modern age (whoever you are talking about) don't believe in demons and the powers of darkness then they will of course say that it is psychological. You can be an expert then in any century without having to time travel to it. You can just say all presumed demonic problems have always been psychological. Is this the reasoning of the "modern age" that you are talking about? That these people think Satan and demons are myths and so everything must either be psychological or chemical?
Thanks for your reply and glad you had a memorable Anniversay.
Rick
Hi Rick
People with mental disorders like schizophrenia were thought to be demon possessed up until modern science discovered it is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. Someone who lived in the 1st century with schizophrenia would have been called demon possessed. Either demons cause mental disorders or they don't, you can't have it both ways and it seems that one by one modern science is discovering the biological causes many diseases that used to be attributed to demons. However modern drugs work in helping to alleviate the symptoms of psychological disorders, it does prove that they have a biological source and not a demonic one
Now I agree if someone believes in demonic oppression or possession it can actually cause psychological problems in that person because of all the fear and anxiety caused by the mind manifests itself in the body.
Thanks for the anniversary wishes :yo:
Rose
Now, I understand if these people in the modern age (whoever you are talking about) don't believe in demons and the powers of darkness then they will of course say that it is psychological. You can be an expert then in any century without having to time travel to it. You can just say all presumed demonic problems have always been psychological. Is this the reasoning of the "modern age" that you are talking about? That these people think Satan and demons are myths and so everything must either be psychological or chemical?
Rick
Hi Rick,
That's a good question and in part that is one reason I wanted to search the scriptures to find out just what is written about demons and the power of darkness. As I grouped two categories of Possessed and Captivity together. There's seems to indicate that at least captivity indicates the fight against being overtaken by the power of darkness.
Now what seems to me is that alot of these terms we used to describe like 'darkness' has a deeper meaning. I mean in the sence of it's symbolize something else. Here 'darkness' in scripture indicates the same as being 'blind' or being 'asleep' in the 'night' as Paul alludes to in 1 Thess.5:4
This has little to nothing to do with being demon possessed or does it? This captivity is seem to be the ones that are hold in the darkness of disbelief of which Jesus said he came to free.
In the case of Mark 8:28-34/ Luke 8:26-40 'Demons are casted into swine' there seems to me to be a greater meaning rather than reading this as a literal event, it rather seems to speak of a parable of sort.
The unclean spirits (demons) plead with Christ that he cast them not into the sea. Again 'sea' is a symbol to denote 'peoples'. Could there be a relationship in that the unclean spirits are a symbol of those that speak evil which disbelieve to those children of Ephriam that are driven into the sea of the Gentiles?
As to some would declare that Jesus when speaking in Luke 16 'Rich man and Lazarus' is a literal event, but to carries many of the same symbol's of a parable. Which relates to the Rich man as Judah and Lazarus as Eliezer to denote 'not my people' will be called my people the children of Ephriam. So you see there can be an alternative view of demons.
heb13-13
12-02-2011, 03:15 PM
That's a good question and in part that is one reason I wanted to search the scriptures to find out just what is written about demons and the power of darkness. As I grouped two categories of Possessed and Captivity together. There's seems to indicate that at least captivity indicates the fight against being overtaken by the power of darkness.
Now what seems to me is that alot of these terms we used to describe like 'darkness' has a deeper meaning. I mean in the sence of it's symbolize something else. Here 'darkness' in scripture indicates the same as being 'blind' or being 'asleep' in the 'night' as Paul alludes to in 1 Thess.5:4
This has little to nothing to do with being demon possessed or does it? This captivity is seem to be the ones that are hold in the darkness of disbelief of which Jesus said he came to free.
Hi Beck,
I think it is a great topic. God is supernatural and the Bible is a supernatural book. We have already found out that some think it is all psychological while some see it literally and believe it truly is some entity or spirit that is possessing people. Now why are you differentiating between "possession" and "captivity"? I don't understand.
In the case of Mark 8:28-34/ Luke 8:26-40 'Demons are casted into swine' there seems to me to be a greater meaning rather than reading this as a literal event, it rather seems to speak of a parable of sort.
I think this reveals that demon spirits seek for a body and don't want to be cast into outer darkness. A human body, perferably.
The unclean spirits (demons) plead with Christ that he cast them not into the sea. Again 'sea' is a symbol to denote 'peoples'.
Depending on the context "sea" does not necessarily have to mean people. In this instance, I don't think it does. Demons seek for a body, to give them "rest".
Could there be a relationship in that the unclean spirits are a symbol of those that speak evil which disbelieve to those children of Ephriam that are driven into the sea of the Gentiles?
I think you are stretching it a bit here.
As to some would declare that Jesus when speaking in Luke 16 'Rich man and Lazarus' is a literal event, but to carries many of the same symbol's of a parable. Which relates to the Rich man as Judah and Lazarus as Eliezer to denote 'not my people' will be called my people the children of Ephriam. So you see there can be an alternative view of demons.
Ok, I understand where you are coming from. Then we have two alternative views of demons, now. One is psychological problems and the other is that the events were not real, just stories or parables to illustrate a teaching.
I think I got it,
Thanks,
Rick
Hi Beck,
Now why are you differentiating between "possession" and "captivity"? I don't understand.
Rick,
I wanted to show the difference in how the 'possession' is described ( tareth him, he formeth, fallen into fire and water) while captivity relates to ( spiritually blind, alseep and apostasy). In the first one is an outward sign of a demonic possession while the last is an inward sign of demonic possession.
Lets take into consideration 2 Timothy 3:6 which speaks of coming apostasy that men shall fall way from sound doctrine to which is described as 'they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, lead away with divers lusts.' He connects this in verses 13 to speak of evil men and seducers shall wax worse deceiving and being deceived.
Isn't this the same message that Jude related about those false teachers as 'angels' better translated as 'messengers' that are hold in darkness unto the judgment day (.v6) That darkness indicates not being able to see the light.(truth)
So should we not understand the meaning of demon captivity as being decevied by false teachers and these false teacher are considered having a unclean spirit. In cases like Revelation 2 of the church Thyatira having allowed the spirit of Jezebel of fornication.
I think this reveals that demon spirits seek for a body and don't want to be cast into outer darkness. A human body, perferably.
Depending on the context "sea" does not necessarily have to mean people. In this instance, I don't think it does. Demons seek for a body, to give them "rest".
In one place I believe Luke there's a reference to 'deep' that they didn't want to be casted into. Deep is abysso 'bottomless pit'. So they didn't wanted Jesus to cast them into the pit before their time was up.
I think you are stretching it a bit here.
Just thinking out loud.
Ok, I understand where you are coming from. Then we have two alternative views of demons, now. One is psychological problems and the other is that the events were not real, just stories or parables to illustrate a teaching.
I think I got it,
Thanks,
Rick
Yes the latter one of parables to illustrate a teaching is some what compelling to me.
heb13-13
12-02-2011, 11:12 PM
Rick,
I wanted to show the difference in how the 'possession' is described ( tareth him, he formeth, fallen into fire and water) while captivity relates to ( spiritually blind, alseep and apostasy). In the first one is an outward sign of a demonic possession while the last is an inward sign of demonic possession.
Lets take into consideration 2 Timothy 3:6 which speaks of coming apostasy that men shall fall way from sound doctrine to which is described as 'they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, lead away with divers lusts.' He connects this in verses 13 to speak of evil men and seducers shall wax worse deceiving and being deceived.
Isn't this the same message that Jude related about those false teachers as 'angels' better translated as 'messengers' that are hold in darkness unto the judgment day (.v6) That darkness indicates not being able to see the light.(truth)
So should we not understand the meaning of demon captivity as being decevied by false teachers and these false teacher are considered having a unclean spirit. In cases like Revelation 2 of the church Thyatira having allowed the spirit of Jezebel of fornication.
In one place I believe Luke there's a reference to 'deep' that they didn't want to be casted into. Deep is abysso 'bottomless pit'. So they didn't wanted Jesus to cast them into the pit before their time was up.
Just thinking out loud.
Yes the latter one of parables to illustrate a teaching is some what compelling to me.
Hi there Beck,
Really appreciate your replies and good spirit. I understand "thinking out loud" and hope you were not offended when I said "it seems like a stretch". It is late where I am from but I wanted to acknowledge your post. I plan on responding tomorrow. Let's dig into this.
Cheers,
Rick
Hi Rose,
How does the "modern age" know that these "demonic" manifestations in the 1st century were different types of psychological disorders?
If modern drugs cured the individual today why do they have to stay on the drugs? Modern drugs only suppress the manifestations by suppressing the individual (bringing them into a passive state).
But, I would really like to know how someone in the "modern age" can confidently know that the people in the 1st century had psychological problems and not demonic possession? By the way, demon oppression and possession will give you psychological problems.
Now, I understand if these people in the modern age (whoever you are talking about) don't believe in demons and the powers of darkness then they will of course say that it is psychological. You can be an expert then in any century without having to time travel to it. You can just say all presumed demonic problems have always been psychological. Is this the reasoning of the "modern age" that you are talking about? That these people think Satan and demons are myths and so everything must either be psychological or chemical?
Thanks for your reply and glad you had a memorable Anniversay.
Rick
Hi Rick,
Being a medical person, I could easily "diagnose" some diseases as stated in the Bible. Some are easily diagnosed as in leprosy; you will know a leper when you see one and a mad person when you see one. In ancient days, people attributed diseases to evil spirits and demons due to lack of understanding in the cause of diseases and came out with "cures" such as exorcism etc. As such I agree with Rose. I have special interest in how Jesus cured the sick, cast out demons and raised the dead. From my years of Bible study, there are 2 categories of the cause of diseases in the Bible:
1) Evil spirits which in modern day terms. we call them pathogens which include bacteria, virus, fungi. These are evil because they are bad and spirits because they cannot be seen with the naked eyes as spirits are unseen "beings". Bacteria, fungi, viruses are too microscopic to be seen by the naked eyes.
2) Demons which in modern day terms are causes of diseases other than through pathogens as as hormones, chemicals etc. They are call demons because they cause troubles. Many of these diseases also cause changes in their mental status rsulting in delirium as if being possessed or controlled by another being or person known as a "demon".
3) There are instances in the Bible in which one can have evil spirits and be demon possessed. I take it to mean diseases caused by pathogens resulting with signs of delirium or altered mental status. The example of the boy with the deaf and dumb spirit since birth and foaming in his mouth seems to suggest from my medical point of view to be mental retardation with epilepsy. The epilepsy since childhood could be a result of meningitis or febrile fits which caused the mental retardation.
The cures that Jesus used based on my highly speculative views are:
1) Radiation therapy - We know that radiation are used to treat many illnesses such as cancer, skin diseases etc. Xrays have been used in diagnosis. We also know that ultra-violet radiation can kill germs, fungi and viruses but also normal cells. Imagine if we could used ultra-violet radiation to kill all these pathogens yet without killing normal cells then we have an excellent treatment whereby all diseases caused by pathogens can be instantly cured within a few seconds by subjecting a sick patient to intense ultraviolet radiation. In the Gospel, it was mentioned that even the shadows of Jesus could cure illness.
2) Electro or electromagnetic therapy - Electro-shock therapy has been used to treat depression, pain and cardiac arrest. Electromagnetic equipment has been used to diagnosed diseases as in MRI. I suspect this or some form of energy was used by Jesus to cure the sick and raise the dead. Electroshock therapy requires one to touch the patient physically in order to administer the treatment. Perhaps, someone can discover a way to use Electrocution as a therapy by electrocuting the germs, viruses and fungi without electrocuting the body and cells. Electromagnetism therapy needs to be close to the patient but needs no physical contact in order to administer the electro-magnetism. This has been seen in the Gospel whereby Jesus had to touch the patient in order to cure the illness or raise the dead. In one instance, Jesus spat onto some earth to make into a poltice and applied to the eyes of a blind man. I believe the poltice helped to keep the treatment energy in situ at the blind eyes for sometime for the treatment to be effective as the blind man was told to wash at the pool of Siloam.
John 9:
10 'How then were your eyes opened?' they asked.
11 He replied, 'The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.'
Mark 5:
A large crowd followed and pressed around him. 25 And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. 26 She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27 When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, 28 because she thought, 'If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.' 29 Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
30 At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, 'Who touched my clothes?'
3) Instant stem cells - How did Jesus attached a severed ear or cured a disfigured leper instantly? I would imagine someone applying a sort of powerful stem cells that worked instantly when applied to the affected area to repair damaged cells.
4) Jesus could also used a combination of several of the stated therapies.
Luke 22:
49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, 'Lord, should we strike with our swords?' 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
See my explanation of evil spirit as stated in the Gospel found in my thread:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?917-Evil-spirit-and-swine-flu
In the modern world, we all know that many diseases caused by "evil spirit" are caused by germs which include viruses, bacteria, fungus. I have found an interesting topic for discussion in Matthew 12 :43-45 in which Lord Jesus uses the analogy of evil sprit and compared it with the wicked generation:
43"When an evil[a] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."
Using the interpretation of evil spirit = germs, this is what I get:
"When germs is discharged from a person (through cough, sneezing, body fluids), it travels through the air and other media to lie dormant and wait to infect a suitable host. When the germs can't find any, it tries to re-infect the original host. When the germs found the original host already cured but still capable of being re-infected (perhaps the host is still weak), it gets several other virulent types of germs to propagate and evolve itself to become a new more virulent and resistant strain (so as to re-infect the original host). The original host will become more sick than he was before when he is re-infected. This is analogy of how this wicked generation will become more wicked."
This is what happened with swine flu The swine flu evolved from several flu virus strains from pigs, human and birds and become a new virulent and resistant strain worse than what it formerly was.
May God blessed us with His wisdom. In Jesus name. :pray:
Charisma
12-03-2011, 05:59 AM
Hi Beck,
Thanks for your reply. Sorry it's taken a while to get back to this thread. I'm a bit of a one track person and I didn't want to start here because it's a huge topic. I do have experience and understanding to add, but I know if you're going to stick to the letter of the written word in the Bible, it is not possible to construct a truly practical and working doctrine from both the point of view of the person experiencing demon molestation (whether a transient state like Saul's or a residential intruder like some of those whom Jesus delivered), and the person seeking the Lord for wisdom as to how to lead the person to permanent freedom from demon molestation.
Is there a connection in this unclean spirit and nakedness symbolically?If you look in scripture for 'naked' you will find it associated with disobedience (a doorway to devils), an activity/lust of the flesh contrary to God's direction and/or design (a doorway to devils), and, idolatry (including worship of a named devil) - which can be self-worship, worship of the human form, whether male or female, adult or child, or, some other physical or mental image of a created being or attribute.
Demons individually are extremely limited. They are all liars, and each has one main string to their bow. They like open flesh - wounds, weaknesses, selfishness.
Okay. I'm not going to write more for the moment, as if you are really going to understand this as a minister of the gospel, you must realise the importance of loving the person with the wound, the weakness, and the natural selfishness which the Lord Jesus Christ came to rectify. Doctrine is never about knowledge and learning, but about how to become pleasing to God in our hearts, minds, strengths, our spirits and our souls.
Hi Rick,
Being a medical person, I could easily "diagnose" some diseases as stated in the Bible. Some are easily diagnosed as in leprosy; you will know a leper when you see one and a mad person when you see one. In ancient days, people attributed diseases to evil spirits and demons due to lack of understanding in the cause of diseases and came out with "cures" such as exorcism etc. As such I agree with Rose. I have special interest in how Jesus cured the sick, cast out demons and raised the dead. From my years of Bible study, there are 2 categories of the cause of diseases in the Bible:
1) Evil spirits which in modern day terms. we call them pathogens which include bacteria, virus, fungi. These are evil because they are bad and spirits because they cannot be seen with the naked eyes as spirits are unseen "beings". Bacteria, fungi, viruses are too microscopic to be seen by the naked eyes.
2) Demons which in modern day terms are causes of diseases other than through pathogens as as hormones, chemicals etc. They are call demons because they cause troubles. Many of these diseases also cause changes in their mental status rsulting in delirium as if being possessed or controlled by another being or person known as a "demon".
3) There are instances in the Bible in which one can have evil spirits and be demon possessed. I take it to mean diseases caused by pathogens resulting with signs of delirium or altered mental status. The example of the boy with the deaf and dumb spirit since birth and foaming in his mouth seems to suggest from my medical point of view to be mental retardation with epilepsy. The epilepsy since childhood could be a result of meningitis or febrile fits which caused the mental retardation.
The cures that Jesus used based on my highly speculative views are:
1) Radiation therapy - We know that radiation are used to treat many illnesses such as cancer, skin diseases etc. Xrays have been used in diagnosis. We also know that ultra-violet radiation can kill germs, fungi and viruses but also normal cells. Imagine if we could used ultra-violet radiation to kill all these pathogens yet without killing normal cells then we have an excellent treatment whereby all diseases caused by pathogens can be instantly cured within a few seconds by subjecting a sick patient to intense ultraviolet radiation. In the Gospel, it was mentioned that even the shadows of Jesus could cure illness.
2) Electro or electromagnetic therapy - Electro-shock therapy has been used to treat depression, pain and cardiac arrest. Electromagnetic equipment has been used to diagnosed diseases as in MRI. I suspect this or some form of energy was used by Jesus to cure the sick and raise the dead. Electroshock therapy requires one to touch the patient physically in order to administer the treatment. Electromagnetism therapy needs to be close to the patient but needs no physical contact in order to administer the electro-magnetism. This has been seen in the Gospel whereby Jesus had to touch the patient in order to cure the illness or raise the dead. In one instance, Jesus spat onto some earth to make into a poltice and applied to the eyes of a blind man. I believe the poltice helped to keep the treatment energy in situ at the blind eyes for sometime for the treatment to be effective as the blind man was told to wash at the pool of Siloam.
John 9:
10 'How then were your eyes opened?' they asked.
11 He replied, 'The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.'
Mark 5:
A large crowd followed and pressed around him. 25 And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. 26 She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27 When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, 28 because she thought, 'If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.' 29 Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
30 At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, 'Who touched my clothes?'
3) Instant stem cells - How did Jesus attached a severed ear or cured a disfigured leper instantly? I would imagine someone applying a sort of powerful stem cells that worked instantly when applied to the affected area to repair damaged cells.
4) Jesus could also used a combination of several of the stated therapies.
Luke 22:
49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, 'Lord, should we strike with our swords?' 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
See my explanation of evil spirit as stated in the Gospel found in my thread:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?917-Evil-spirit-and-swine-flu
In the modern world, we all know that many diseases caused by "evil spirit" are caused by germs which include viruses, bacteria, fungus. I have found an interesting topic for discussion in Matthew 12 :43-45 in which Lord Jesus uses the analogy of evil sprit and compared it with the wicked generation:
43"When an evil[a] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."
Using the interpretation of evil spirit = germs, this is what I get:
"When germs is discharged from a person (through cough, sneezing, body fluids), it travels through the air and other media to lie dormant and wait to infect a suitable host. When the germs can't find any, it tries to re-infect the original host. When the germs found the original host already cured but still capable of being re-infected (perhaps the host is still weak), it gets several other virulent types of germs to propagate and evolve itself to become a new more virulent and resistant strain (so as to re-infect the original host). The original host will become more sick than he was before when he is re-infected. This is analogy of how this wicked generation will become more wicked."
This is what happened with swine flu The swine flu evolved from several flu virus strains from pigs, human and birds and become a new virulent and resistant strain worse than what it formerly was.
May God blessed us with His wisdom. In Jesus name. :pray:
Hi Cheow
Thank you for the very informative post...:signthankspin: But it brings up two important questions. If Jesus cured the mentally sick folk with means such as radiation, why did he let them believe they were demon possessed? Secondly, why would you equate sickness with wickedness?
All the best,
Rose
Hi Cheow
Thank you for the very informative post...:signthankspin: But it brings up two important questions. If Jesus cured the mentally sick folk with means such as radiation, why did he let them believe they were demon possessed? Secondly, why would you equate sickness with wickedness?
All the best,
Rose
Try explaining germs, viruses and fungi to primitive tribes in the Amazon jungle and see whether they understand you or not. People are fixed in their beliefs and superstitions in evil spirits and demons and will reject whatever explanations what more about those uneducated people in the 1st century and the primitive tribes in the Amazon jungle? Even the Pharisees who were experts of the Mosaic laws did not believe in Jesus and even His miracles which was why Jesus said that if they did not believe in earthly things, how would they believe in spiritual things?
I did not equate sickness with wickedness. What Jesus seemed to mean was that germs will develop stronger strains as they interact with other germs until they become very virulent. Same with evil or wickedness. Wickedness will continue to grow as it interacts with the wicked society Imagine yourself living in a city where robbery, stealing, cheating, lying is the norm, will you be influenced by these evils? I am sure you will do the likewise evils just as everyone in that sin city, something needs to be done before the situation in that sin city becomes worse and uncontrollable as more and more people becomes influenced ....right?
God Blessed our society. :pray:
Hi there Beck,
Really appreciate your replies and good spirit. I understand "thinking out loud" and hope you were not offended when I said "it seems like a stretch". It is late where I am from but I wanted to acknowledge your post. I plan on responding tomorrow. Let's dig into this.
Cheers,
Rick
Thanks Rick,
And no I wasn't at all offended, I look forward to your response.
Being a medical person, I could easily "diagnose" some diseases as stated in the Bible. Some are easily diagnosed as in leprosy; you will know a leper when you see one and a mad person when you see one. In ancient days, people attributed diseases to evil spirits and demons due to lack of understanding in the cause of diseases and came out with "cures" such as exorcism etc. As such I agree with Rose. I have special interest in how Jesus cured the sick, cast out demons and raised the dead. From my years of Bible study, there are 2 categories of the cause of diseases in the Bible:
Thanks CWH,
For giving us this point of view from a medical personal.
In the modern world, we all know that many diseases caused by "evil spirit" are caused by germs which include viruses, bacteria, fungus. I have found an interesting topic for discussion in Matthew 12 :43-45 in which Lord Jesus uses the analogy of evil sprit and compared it with the wicked generation:
43"When an evil[a] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."
CWH I never knew this! That the modern world of today undertood that diseases was casued by evil spirits. I thought that then speaking of evil spirits it was addressing the flesh nature that urges us to give in to evil deeds those like;adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence ..etc.
And each of these would be a 'spirit' or an 'evil spirit' which can be rendered 'evil demon'. In the case of 'legion' there was many demons which could mean that they man had been possessed by many of the spirits (demons) For example he could been possessed by the spirits of adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred. This wold be a case where a man would be possessed by many evil spirits or demons.
heb13-13
12-03-2011, 05:44 PM
Thanks CWH,
For giving us this point of view from a medical personal.
CWH I never knew this! That the modern world of today undertood that diseases was casued by evil spirits. I thought that then speaking of evil spirits it was addressing the flesh nature that urges us to give in to evil deeds those like;adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence ..etc.
And each of these would be a 'spirit' or an 'evil spirit' which can be rendered 'evil demon'. In the case of 'legion' there was many demons which could mean that they man had been possessed by many of the spirits (demons) For example he could been possessed by the spirits of adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred. This wold be a case where a man would be possessed by many evil spirits or demons.
Hi Beck,
That's kind of how I see it too, Beck. Like a "lying spirit" or "spirit of murder". Glad I did not offend you. :D
Paul was presumably "enlightened" being able to identify and differentiate superstition from reality.
"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious" Acts 17:22
The disciples were able to discern what the source of something was. Remember, they (John) told us to "test the spirits". (Beloved, believe not every spirit...).
"And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying" Acts 16:16
I think when you look at the full counsel of God in the Bible that people actually were more enlightened regarding this subject than most people today, are.
Sure, we have found out that there are legitimate medical problems that can drastically affect a person's mood. I believe there are true medical conditions which usually manifest in a person's diminished strength not increased strength as some demonic possessions do. We are spiritual and physical beings living in a spiritual and physical world.
To me possessed means that the "spirit" has a measure of control of a person and may be residing in one's body.
The subject of demons is not new in the NT and the naming or identifying of different spirits is not new, either. Also, it seems that the understanding of many in the Bible is that people can be possessed or filled with a good or bad "spirit" or that a good or bad spirit can "come upon" someone.
Some examples:
A spirit IN someone.
"And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?" Gen 41:38
"And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship" Exo 31:3
A spirit came upon someone:
And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Num 5:14
"But the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon..." Jdg 6:34
Someone "hath" a spirit: (could be upon someone or in someone). "Hath" is possessive don't you think?
"A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit..." Lev 20:27
"Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit..." 1Sa 28:7
I do think that "captivity" could mean both possession and deceived. The "captivity" of the children of Israel by Babylon is a case of possession. Israel is now possessed by Babylon. Of course this is just used as a metaphor today, but all of us have known people (and even ourselves) who were taken captive by some incorrect or false understanding of something. The captivity usually results in some kind of bondage.
I have more to share but this is long enough for this post,
Take care,
Rick
Hi Beck,
That's kind of how I see it too, Beck. Like a "lying spirit" or "spirit of murder". Glad I did not offend you. :D
Paul was presumably "enlightened" being able to identify and differentiate superstition from reality.
"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious" Acts 17:22
The disciples were able to discern what the source of something was. Remember, they (John) told us to "test the spirits". (Beloved, believe not every spirit...).
"And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying" Acts 16:16
I think when you look at the full counsel of God in the Bible that people actually were more enlightened regarding this subject than most people today, are.
Sure, we have found out that there are legitimate medical problems that can drastically affect a person's mood. I believe there are true medical conditions which usually manifest in a person's diminished strength not increased strength as some demonic possessions do. We are spiritual and physical beings living in a spiritual and physical world.
To me possessed means that the "spirit" has a measure of control of a person and may be residing in one's body.
The subject of demons is not new in the NT and the naming or identifying of different spirits is not new, either. Also, it seems that the understanding of many in the Bible is that people can be possessed or filled with a good or bad "spirit" or that a good or bad spirit can "come upon" someone.
Some examples:
A spirit IN someone.
"And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?" Gen 41:38
"And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship" Exo 31:3
A spirit came upon someone:
And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Num 5:14
"But the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon..." Jdg 6:34
Someone "hath" a spirit: (could be upon someone or in someone). "Hath" is possessive don't you think?
"A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit..." Lev 20:27
"Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit..." 1Sa 28:7
I do think that "captivity" could mean both possession and deceived. The "captivity" of the children of Israel by Babylon is a case of possession. Israel is now possessed by Babylon. Of course this is just used as a metaphor today, but all of us have known people (and even ourselves) who were taken captive by some incorrect or false understanding of something. The captivity usually results in some kind of bondage.
I have more to share but this is long enough for this post,
Take care,
Rick
We have to be careful of using English words, "spirit" could be used literally, allegorically, as a noun, adjective, verb etc. depending on context. Meaning of spirit from an online dictionary:
spirit [spir-it]
noun:
1.
the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2.
the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3.
the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4.
conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5.
a supernatural, incorporeal being, especially one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.
adjective:
pertaining to something that works by burning alcoholic spirits: a spirit stove.
27.
of or pertaining to spiritualist bodies or activities.
28.
to animate with fresh ardor or courage; inspirit.
29.
to encourage; urge on or stir up, as to action.
30.
to carry off mysteriously or secretly (often followed by away or off ): His captors spirited him away.
Idiom:
31.
out of spirits, in low spirits; depressed: We were feeling out of spirits after so many days of rain.
Origin:
1200–50; Middle English (noun) < Latin spīritus orig., a breathing, equivalent to spīri-, combining form representing spīrāre to breathe + -tus suffix of v. action
Related forms:
spir·it·like, adjective
non·spir·it, noun
out·spir·it, verb (used with object)
un·spir·it·ing, adjective
Synonyms :
2. life, mind, consciousness, essence. 5. apparition, phantom, shade. See ghost. 6. goblin, hobgoblin. 7. genius. 14. enthusiasm, energy, zeal, ardor, fire, enterprise. 15. attitude, mood, humor. 17. nature, drift, tenor, gist, essence, sense, complexion. 19. intention, significance, purport.
Related Words for : spirit
inspirit, spirit up, feel, feeling, flavor
Collins
World English Dictionary:
spirit 1 (ˈspɪrɪt)
— n
1. the force or principle of life that animates the body of living things
2. temperament or disposition: truculent in spirit
3. liveliness; mettle: they set to it with spirit
4. the fundamental, emotional, and activating principle of a person; will: the experience broke his spirit
5. a sense of loyalty or dedication: team spirit
6. the prevailing element; feeling: a spirit of joy pervaded the atmosphere
7. state of mind or mood; attitude: he did it in the wrong spirit
8. ( plural ) an emotional state, esp with regard to exaltation or dejection: in high spirits
9. a person characterized by some activity, quality, or disposition: a leading spirit of the movement
10. the deeper more significant meaning as opposed to a pedantic interpretation: the spirit of the law
11. that which constitutes a person's intangible being as contrasted with his physical presence: I shall be with you in spirit
12. a. an incorporeal being, esp the soul of a dead person
b. ( as modifier ): spirit world
— vb (usually foll by away or off )
13. to carry off mysteriously or secretly
14. ( often foll by up ) to impart animation or determination to
[C13: from Old French esperit, from Latin spīritus breath, spirit; related to spīrāre to breathe]
spirit 2 (ˈspɪrɪt):
— n
1. ( often plural ) any distilled alcoholic liquor such as brandy, rum, whisky, or gin
2. chem
a. an aqueous solution of ethanol, esp one obtained by distillation
b. the active principle or essence of a substance, extracted as a liquid, esp by distillation
3. pharmacol
a. a solution of a volatile substance, esp a volatile oil, in alcohol
b. ( as modifier ): a spirit burner
4. alchemy any of the four substances sulphur, mercury, sal ammoniac, or arsenic
[C14: special use of spirit 1 , name applied to alchemical substances (as in sense 4), hence extended to distilled liquids]
Spirit (ˈspɪrɪt):
1. a. another name for the Holy Spirit
b. God, esp when regarded as transcending material limitations
2. the influence of God or divine things upon the soul
3. Christian Science God or divine substance
Word Origin & History:
spirit
c.1250, "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from O.Fr. espirit, from L. spiritus "soul, courage, vigor, breath," related to spirare "to breathe," from PIE *(s)peis- "to blow" (cf. O.C.S. pisto "to play on the flute").
Medical Dictionary:
spir·it definition
1 a : DISTILLATE
especially : the liquid containing ethyl alcohol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mash —often used in plural
b : a usually volatile organic solvent (as an alcohol, ester, or hydrocarbon)
2 : an alcoholic solution of a volatile substance < spirit of camphor>
spirits An alcohol solution of an essential or volatile substance.
spirits An alcoholic beverage, especially distilled liquor.
A liquid that has been distilled.
Bible Dictionary:
Spirit definition
(Heb. ruah; Gr. pneuma), properly wind or breath. In 2 Thess. 2:8 it means "breath," and in Eccl. 8:8 the vital principle in man. It also denotes the rational, immortal soul by which man is distinguished (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 5:5; 6:20; 7:34), and the soul in its separate state (Heb. 12:23), and hence also an apparition (Job 4:15; Luke 24:37, 39), an angel (Heb. 1:14), and a demon (Luke 4:36; 10:20). This word is used also metaphorically as denoting a tendency (Zech. 12:10; Luke 13:11). In Rom. 1:4, 1 Tim. 3:16, 2 Cor. 3:17, 1 Pet. 3:18, it designates the divine nature.
Related Words:
ghost
soul
spiritual
ethyl nitrite spirit
objective spirit
proof spirit
subjective spirit
sweet spirit of nitre
devil
familiar
familiar spirit
flesh
Idioms & Phrases:
spirit
kindred spirit
Matching Quote:
"Ev'ry time I feel the Spirit movin' in my heart, I will pray."
May God blessed us with His Words. :pray:
Hi Beck,
That's kind of how I see it too, Beck. Like a "lying spirit" or "spirit of murder". Glad I did not offend you. :D
Paul was presumably "enlightened" being able to identify and differentiate superstition from reality.
"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious" Acts 17:22
The disciples were able to discern what the source of something was. Remember, they (John) told us to "test the spirits". (Beloved, believe not every spirit...).
"And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying" Acts 16:16
[SIZE=2][COLOR=#000000]I think when you look at the full counsel of God in the Bible that people actually were more enlightened regarding this subject than most people today, are.
Hi Rick,
Thanks, You have made some good connections. I was also thinking that Jesus told the seventy to go out and heal the sick and cast out demons. Of which they rejoiced becasue they were able and even the demons (devils/spirits) are subject to them. Jesus then said that not only this, but He gave them the power to tread on serpents and scorpions, in this rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you. I noticed that Jesus spoke of the demons, serpents and scorpions as spirits that they were given power over. I understand that serpents and scorpions refer to the Pharisees and Sadducees. I'm guessing that the demons (spirits) would be in relationship to their venom which is injected into their prey.
Jesus then told them don't rejoice becasue you overcome the demons (spirits) the vemon, but he gave them the power to overcome the serpents and scorpions themselves.
To me possessed means that the "spirit" has a measure of control of a person and may be residing in one's body.
The subject of demons is not new in the NT and the naming or identifying of different spirits is not new, either. Also, it seems that the understanding of many in the Bible is that people can be possessed or filled with a good or bad "spirit" or that a good or bad spirit can "come upon" someone.
Not only those, but I thought of what Paul told the saints at Corinthians that they couldn't drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils (at the same time) nor be a partaker at the Lord's table and of the table of devils. (1 Cor.10:21) They were not to be partakers of God and then have fellowship with the false idols.
I do think that "captivity" could mean both possession and deceived. The "captivity" of the children of Israel by Babylon is a case of possession. Israel is now possessed by Babylon. Of course this is just used as a metaphor today, but all of us have known people (and even ourselves) who were taken captive by some incorrect or false understanding of something. The captivity usually results in some kind of bondage.
I have more to share but this is long enough for this post,
Take care,
Rick
I'm glad you mentioned captivity is some kind of bondage. That's why I think there is a deeper meaning of 'possession and exorcism' and the connection is this bondage or control. People are held in bondage under the control of these evil spirits (demons) that the desciples where told to go and set free.
I would also add that some like John Dominic Crossan believe that the story of the man with legions of demons is a parable of sort of bondage. He believes this to be a parable of the anti-Roman resistance. I can see how he would come to that conclusion, but I think it more toward the Jewish community of possession and exorcism maybe read as a parable about breaking the bonds of sin.
Hi Rick,
Thanks, You have made some good connections. I was also thinking that Jesus told the seventy to go out and heal the sick and cast out demons. Of which they rejoiced becasue they were able and even the demons (devils/spirits) are subject to them. Jesus then said that not only this, but He gave them the power to tread on serpents and scorpions, in this rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you. I noticed that Jesus spoke of the demons, serpents and scorpions as spirits that they were given power over. I understand that serpents and scorpions refer to the Pharisees and Sadducees. I'm guessing that the demons (spirits) would be in relationship to their venom which is injected into their prey.
Jesus then told them don't rejoice becasue you overcome the demons (spirits) the vemon, but he gave them the power to overcome the serpents and scorpions themselves.
Not only those, but I thought of what Paul told the saints at Corinthians that they couldn't drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils (at the same time) nor be a partaker at the Lord's table and of the table of devils. (1 Cor.10:21) They were not to be partakers of God and then have fellowship with the false idols.
I'm glad you mentioned captivity is some kind of bondage. That's why I think there is a deeper meaning of 'possession and exorcism' and the connection is this bondage or control. People are held in bondage under the control of these evil spirits (demons) that the desciples where told to go and set free.
I would also add that some like John Dominic Crossan believe that the story of the man with legions of demons is a parable of sort of bondage. He believes this to be a parable of the anti-Roman resistance. I can see how he would come to that conclusion, but I think it more toward the Jewish community of possession and exorcism maybe read as a parable about breaking the bonds of sin.
Reminds me of the story in Acts in which Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake and was expected to die by the locals. But Paul survived without any signs and symptoms of the effects of snake venom ...how come? Jesus also gave the apostles power to literally tread on snakes and scorpions without sufferring from their venoms, how was it possible? The answer seems to lie on electricity which can neutralized poisons. Google it and you will know what I mean. Did the apostles have some kind of electrical power in their bodies? I remembered Bob telling us about faith healers having electrical voltage in their hands....certainly sounds interesting.
http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=can+electricity+neutralize+venom&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=2&oq=can+electricity+neutralize+venom&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=4512l29541l0l31746l34l34l0l25l25l0l198l1196 l3.6l9l0
Electro-Shock Treatment of Snake and Spider Bites
A large portion of the population will come in contact with a venomous ... and K H. Meyer propose the theory that electricity may neutralize the snake venom by ...
electroshockbite.blogspot.com/ - Cached - Similar
Electic Shock on Venomous Bites & Stings - First Aid Venom Electric ...
SDS-PAGE protein electrophoresis does not show any alterations of the protein profile of the crude venom following application of the electrical current. ...
venomshock.wikidot.com/ - Cached - Similar
Can An Electric Shock Neutralize Snake Venom? - Backpacker ...
Can An Electric Shock Neutralize Snake Venom? Q.} Can an electric jolt from a DC source (i.e., spark plug wire, hand-held stunner) neutralize snake venom? ...
www.backpacker.com/community/ask_buck/195 - Cached - Similar
Treating Bites and Stings a New Way - Electrically!
Electricity - in a knowledgable way - can be used to assist healing, relieve ... because it neutralizes the venom proteins of the particular type animal/insect. ...
frogyfish.hubpages.com/hub/Treating-bites-and-stings-a-new-way - Cached - Similar
May God Bless us, in Jesus name. Amen.:pray:
heb13-13
12-03-2011, 10:45 PM
Hi Rick,
Thanks, You have made some good connections. I was also thinking that Jesus told the seventy to go out and heal the sick and cast out demons. Of which they rejoiced becasue they were able and even the demons (devils/spirits) are subject to them. Jesus then said that not only this, but He gave them the power to tread on serpents and scorpions, in this rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you. I noticed that Jesus spoke of the demons, serpents and scorpions as spirits that they were given power over. I understand that serpents and scorpions refer to the Pharisees and Sadducees. I'm guessing that the demons (spirits) would be in relationship to their venom which is injected into their prey.
And remember that Jesus said to the Pharisees that "you are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father you will do".
In the "Dumbo" thread, I talked about the link between the lusts of the flesh and demons.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2619-Looking-for-Dumbo/page7
Jesus then told them don't rejoice because you overcome the demons (spirits) the vemon, but he gave them the power to overcome the serpents and scorpions themselves.
"And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house" Eze 2:6
I believe men are influenced by the Spirit of God to embrace the cross and take on the image of Christ (His character being formed in them) or they embrace the flesh and take on the character of Satan (his image being formed in them). And in either case men are helped either by the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit.
Deuteronomy 8:15.
15] Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness (the world), wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, (enemies) and drought, where there was no water (words of life) ; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;
182
Not only those, but I thought of what Paul told the saints at Corinthians that they couldn't drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils (at the same time) nor be a partaker at the Lord's table and of the table of devils. (1 Cor.10:21) They were not to be partakers of God and then have fellowship with the false idols.
The Lord sets a table before us in this world (wilderness) and so does the Devil. He has set his own table for us. See what I mean about counterfeits?
Also, I believe Satan uses idols to gain entrance into our hearts. At first, for us to give him a "place" of significance, then with every idol, "friends" are often brought in.
"I'm glad you mentioned captivity is some kind of bondage. That's why I think there is a deeper meaning of 'possession and exorcism' and the connection is this bondage or control. People are held in bondage under the control of these evil spirits (demons) that the desciples where told to go and set free."
Satan cloaks himself in a little bit of truth and slowly brings one into greater and greater bondage. He makes his lies appealing.
I would also add that some like John Dominic Crossan believe that the story of the man with legions of demons is a parable of sort of bondage. He believes this to be a parable of the anti-Roman resistance. I can see how he would come to that conclusion, but I think it more toward the Jewish community of possession and exorcism maybe read as a parable about breaking the bonds of sin.
Remember this verse?
"Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first" Luk 11:26
CWH, when I talk about "spirits" I mean invisible spiritual entities, demons, powers of darkness.
Appreciate all your thougts,
Rick
Charisma
12-04-2011, 06:22 AM
Hello Beck and all,
I don't have time today to answer in depth, but I would like to register some alternative thoughts for you all to chew on. :)
To Rose,
People with mental disorders like schizophrenia were thought to be demon possessed up until modern science discovered it is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.How do you 'know' the chemical imbalances are not caused by demons inhabiting the fractures in the person's psyche, however those fracture originally occurred?
To CWH,
Just a general comment - that in the OT, say, with regard to conditions they called leprosy, it's clear that there were several. Some healed spontaneously, and some were more intractible. We see in the NT that such is the virtue (power to heal) in Jesus, that He was not afraid to touch lepers, as well as that He could command sickness and demons to depart from a person who was not even in His physical presence.
Many years ago I was on a weekend retreat with other teenagers, studying the book of Ephesians (part of the time). We came to ch 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth; ) and were asked to discuss whether there is any difference between 'goodness' and 'righteousness' and 'truth'. It was the first time I'd looked so closely at a detail of 'what' the Bible says. It was a grown-up question, (imho), which led me to the conclusion that since the apostle had chosen three different words to express his thought, that whether I understood the difference or not, there must be a difference. This experience - of not being able to distinguish (for myself) the difference between the three terms under discussion, laid a foundation for my future Bible study. Indeed, I have found the Bible makes far more sense if I accept the terms it uses - for God can and does bring understanding upon understanding - than if I try to change them. This is especially true of the incredible economy used by Paul in his writing, which is frequently impossible to improve upon. And so, I refer you to Jesus Christ Himself, who spoke about demons with ease and authority. When people came to Him asking for a demon to be cast out of their loved one, unlike when He corrected those seeking to trip Him up in His words (for instance, when He told the Sadducees, 'you do greatly err'), He did not once say to a person requesting a demon to be cast out, 'you do greatly err, this is not a demon but a bacteria' - which He could easily have explained to them (seeing He was teaching them far greater truths about life and death and eternity - He simply gave the command for the demon to depart, and it departed (sometimes with a show of its powers).
Therefore, we do well to learn from Jesus about the different ways a demon can affect a person, and seek for a heart so in tune with our Father that we know to whom to offer which solution in the name of Jesus Christ - whether healing, or deliverance, or rebuke (and so on). Remember, Jesus rebuked the fever in Peter's mother - which suggests it was being caused by a spirit, rather than an infecting organism.
Thank you for listening to these thoughts.
To Rick,
I see you are covering a lot of ground at a gentle pace. Sorry I cannot reply in detail. I wish to pick up on one thing you said, which requires greater discernment on the part of the minister (than you indicated).
I believe there are true medical conditions which usually manifest in a person's diminished strength not increased strength as some demonic possessions do.While it's true that diminished strength attends all physical conditons, there are definitely demons of physical weakness - for instance, the spirit of infirmity which Jesus spoke to in the woman in the Temple (Luke 13:11). Having said that, one could argue that the spirit was so strong it forced her body to bend over in the characteristic stance which we sometimes observe today. There are bound to be physical consequences for a body which is being pushed out of shape continuously, and in this respect, and also where the demon is functioning on the ground of a person's past physcological trauma, it is important to pray for healing at the same time as deliverance. Indeed, my experience is that healing can precede deliverance if the person is willing to deal with the reasons a demon is there at all.
Hmm. I'm thinking as I'm writing this. I can see that, (for instance) a demon of self-pity, or a demon of lassitude, could be confused with physical weakness, but in the same manner as the spirit of infirmity, the spirit is actually establishing an unnatural strength and tendancy towards those particular mentalities, which the person experiencing them may find impossible to break away from, unless someone outside themselves casts out the demon. However, it is also possible for a person to amend their thinking and behaviour so as to counteract the effect of a demonic influence, effectively taking the 'ground' from under its 'feet' in their life, until their liberty from it has been established. I'm not saying this is always an alternative to a prayer for deliverance, but it can work for a person who has received the Holy Spirit to help them 'mortify the flesh'. (Romans 8:13)
And, thank you for the verse in Deu 8, which is an example of something I mention later in this post.
To Beck,
I see you have introduced the idea (in an earlier post in this thread) that there is some relationship between people groups in scripture, and demons. The connection you are making is not correct in the deduction you offer. However, there is plenty of scripture to support the fact (reiterated by Paul in the NT) that demons become the object of worship when idolatry is embraced in place of worshipping God in spirit and truth. In the OT, God specifically lists behaviour associated with idolatry (in several places - for instance, forbidding engagement with familiar spirits, divination, worshipping the 'host of heaven', to name but three), most notably the time in the wilderness that the children of Israel are specifically instructed not to commit a long list of abominations (Leviticus 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which [were] before you, and the land is defiled; ) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that [were] before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that [ye] commit not [any one] of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I [am] the LORD your God. There are many other verses in the OT which support this statement, not necessarily spelling out the connection between idols and demons. My point is, God had made it clear, and, He had spoken against it. And, the people were not ignorant of the spiritual facts. We do well to accept the spiritual facts and appropriate the spiritual solutions.
God repeats Himself five times on this one point. It could hardly be more emphatic. It is Paul who states that an idol is nothing, but that the ritual (eating and drinking) associated worship of idols necessitates drinking into a 'cup of devils'. It is really important to see that when we all are made to drink into 'one Spirit' (the Holy Spirit) this is fulfilling an aspect of worship which is unavoidable. As Rick said earlier, we are all walking in something. Just the same, we are all 'drinking into' one kind of spirit or another. That is a spiritual law. In the OT, the keeping of Old Covenant protected the people as a group, from the influence of other spirits. Even Christians are always at risk of being influenced by other spirits, when they stop walking in the New Covenant, through which the Holy Spirit has been poured out.
Zechariah 13:2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, [that] I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land. Here we see there seems to be (or, to have been) one evil spiritual ruler over the territory of the land in which Israel dwelt. This also goes along with what Jesus said here: Matthew 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth [it] empty, swept, and garnished. 45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last [state] of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
In the OT, during the seasons when the king was the spiritual guide of the nation, there is an interesting connection to be made with the effects of idolatry, after Israel and Judah had split under Solomon's son. In Israel, to prevent the people going back to Jerusalem to worship God as they ought, and perhaps to soften towards the king of Judah, two golden calves were set up to facilitate a new kind of idolatry:
1 Kings 12:26 And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: 27 If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, [even] unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. 28 Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves [of] gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 29 And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. 30 And this thing became a sin: for the people went [to worship] before the one, [even] unto Dan. 31 And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. 32 And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that [is] in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. 33 So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, [even] in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.
Then this happens: 1 Kings 13:1 And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. 2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee. 3 And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This [is] the sign which the LORD hath spoken; Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that [are] upon it shall be poured out. 4 And it came to pass, when king Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the altar, saying, Lay hold on him. And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so that he could not pull it in again to him. 5 The altar also was rent, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD. 6 And the king answered and said unto the man of God, Intreat now the face of the LORD thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me again. And the man of God besought the LORD, and the king's hand was restored him again, and became as [it was] before.
Now see this: Mark 3:1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched [it] out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. 6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. Interesting, eh?
Food for thought and a whole lot more Bible study!
Thank you to all for reading, if you made it to the end of this post (which was a bit longer than I intended, when I started it)!
Charisma
12-04-2011, 06:30 AM
Just a comment about 'the table' which Rick mentioned.
I puzzled for a long time over this verse in Matthew 12 which I quoted above, in respect to 'garnished', before I realised that one of the main places in a home which is 'garnished', is 'the table'. We leave it empty, apart from the garnish, and then it is all ready to set for eating at, the next time.: 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth [it] empty, swept, and garnished. I believe Jesus is saying it's important when an evil spirit has 'gone out of' a man, that He Himself is invited to take the place it had occupied, so that we are 'supping' with Him.... and not a devil.
To CWH,
Just a general comment - that in the OT, say, with regard to conditions they called leprosy, it's clear that there were several. Some healed spontaneously, and some were more intractible. We see in the NT that such is the virtue (power to heal) in Jesus, that He was not afraid to touch lepers, as well as that He could command sickness and demons to depart from a person who was not even in His physical presence.
Leprosy is spread by long term contact and why should Jesus be afraid of leprosy if He can cure all illnesses. Yes,Jesus can command sickness and "demons" out from people but He could also have been aided by His angels. It was said that an angel would stir the pool of Siloam at certain timings so that whoever enters it during those times would be cured of all sickness. (John 5:4)
http://laneys.info/node/755
Many years ago I was on a weekend retreat with other teenagers, studying the book of Ephesians (part of the time). We came to ch 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth; ) and were asked to discuss whether there is any difference between 'goodness' and 'righteousness' and 'truth'. It was the first time I'd looked so closely at a detail of 'what' the Bible says. It was a grown-up question, (imho), which led me to the conclusion that since the apostle had chosen three different words to express his thought, that whether I understood the difference or not, there must be a difference. This experience - of not being able to distinguish (for myself) the difference between the three terms under discussion, laid a foundation for my future Bible study. Indeed, I have found the Bible makes far more sense if I accept the terms it uses - for God can and does bring understanding upon understanding - than if I try to change them. This is especially true of the incredible economy used by Paul in his writing, which is frequently impossible to improve upon. And so, I refer you to Jesus Christ Himself, who spoke about demons with ease and authority. When people came to Him asking for a demon to be cast out of their loved one, unlike when He corrected those seeking to trip Him up in His words (for instance, when He told the Sadducees, 'you do greatly err'), He did not once say to a person requesting a demon to be cast out, 'you do greatly err, this is not a demon but a bacteria' - which He could easily have explained to them (seeing He was teaching them far greater truths about life and death and eternity - He simply gave the command for the demon to depart, and it departed (sometimes with a show of its powers).
Try talking to people of the 1st century or pre-schoolers and see if they understand about bacteria and the causes of diseases or not. Command is one thing and whether aided by His angels or not, we may never know. But we do know that the Bible describes Jesus touching them to be healed, if command alone unaided could cure diseases, why don't Jesus and His apostles used command only instead of touch to heal the sick, raised the dead and cast out "demons"?
Therefore, we do well to learn from Jesus about the different ways a demon can affect a person, and seek for a heart so in tune with our Father that we know to whom to offer which solution in the name of Jesus Christ - whether healing, or deliverance, or rebuke (and so on). Remember, Jesus rebuked the fever in Peter's mother - which suggests it was being caused by a spirit, rather than an infecting organism.
This is answered as above and remember also that Jesus could not do anything except from the Father in heaven.
John 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: 'Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.
Thank you also and may God Bless everyone.
Hello Beck and all,
I don't have time today to answer in depth, but I would like to register some alternative thoughts for you all to chew on. :)
To Rose,
How do you 'know' the chemical imbalances are not caused by demons inhabiting the fractures in the person's psyche, however those fracture originally occurred?
Food for thought and a whole lot more Bible study!
Thank you to all for reading, if you made it to the end of this post (which was a bit longer than I intended, when I started it)!
Hi Charisma
The main problem I see with that hypotheses is that we know modern medicines alleviate the symptoms of psychological disorders while the patient is medicated, and we know the symptoms return when the medicines are stopped, indicating a chemical imbalance as the sole cause.
All the best,
Rose
And remember that Jesus said to the Pharisees that "you are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father you will do".
In the "Dumbo" thread, I talked about the link between the lusts of the flesh and demons.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2619-Looking-for-Dumbo/page7
"And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house" Eze 2:6
I believe men are influenced by the Spirit of God to embrace the cross and take on the image of Christ (His character being formed in them) or they embrace the flesh and take on the character of Satan (his image being formed in them). And in either case men are helped either by the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit.
Yes, "Choose this day whom you will serve" and "No man can serve two masters for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other".
Deuteronomy 8:15.
15] Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness (the world), wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, (enemies) and drought, where there was no water (words of life) ; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;
182
The Lord sets a table before us in this world (wilderness) and so does the Devil. He has set his own table for us. See what I mean about counterfeits?
Yes, I do understand.
Also, I believe Satan uses idols to gain entrance into our hearts. At first, for us to give him a "place" of significance, then with every idol, "friends" are often brought in.
Satan cloaks himself in a little bit of truth and slowly brings one into greater and greater bondage. He makes his lies appealing.
Appreciate all your thougts,
Rick[/SIZE]
We are to put on the whole armor of God that we might be able to stand against the devices of the devil.
So Rick are you indicating by all these passages that you agree that when scripture speaks of 'demons', 'evil spirits' or 'devils' it really means the devices of satan to deceive. Which the evil spirit is contrast to the Spirit of God.
I'm not sure you addressed what I said in my last post concerning how I view this possession and exorcism.
I said:
I can see how he would come to that conclusion, but I think it more toward the Jewish community of possession and exorcism maybe read as a parable about breaking the bonds of sin.
It would seem to me that in these exorcism of demons is more toward breaking the bonds of sin that they are possessed by for instance the demon spirit of alcohol, demon spirit of smoking. These have a physical hold upon a person and Jesus told his desciples that some of these demons can't be casted out only by prayer and fasting. Well why fasting? That would indicate that the person by fasting would gain control of their own body.
So in cases like Mark 5 you would think that Jesus would have gotten into trouble for casting out the demons of 'Legions' into the swine and them drowing in the sea. That poor herdman of those swine lost allot of his property and livelihood or should we understand it's only a parable of sorts to portray the bondage of sin?
heb13-13
12-04-2011, 06:00 PM
I'm not sure you addressed what I said in my last post concerning how I view this possession and exorcism.
I said:
It would seem to me that in these exorcism of demons is more toward breaking the bonds of sin that they are possessed by for instance the demon spirit of alcohol, demon spirit of smoking. These have a physical hold upon a person and Jesus told his desciples that some of these demons can't be casted out only by prayer and fasting. Well why fasting? That would indicate that the person by fasting would gain control of their own body.
So in cases like Mark 5 you would think that Jesus would have gotten into trouble for casting out the demons of 'Legions' into the swine and them drowing in the sea. That poor herdman of those swine lost allot of his property and livelihood or should we understand it's only a parable of sorts to portray the bondage of sin?
Hi Beck,
Sorry, I did not mean to overlook your question. I believe that every place in the NT where Jesus cast out a demon...He cast out a demon. Some situations take extended and intense spiritual warfare. If you get the chance and would like to read a very enlightening encounter with the powers of darkness by someone who had absolutely no experience or knowledge of them, then you might want to read the The Awakening.
When Blumhardt, a 19th-century pastor from the Black Forest, agreed to counsel a tormented woman in his parish, all hell broke loose - literally. But that was only the beginning of the drama that ensued. Zuendel's account, available here in English for the first time, provides a rare glimpse into how the eternal fight between the forces of good and evil plays itself out in the lives of the most ordinary men and women. More than that, it reminds us that those forces still surround us today, whether we are awake to them or not. Beginning in the fall of 1841, Blumhardt was drawn into a spiritual struggle, which he referred to for the rest of his life as "the fight." At first he tried to keep a cautious distance from it, but it soon became obvious that he would not be able to stay uninvolved.
Gottliebin Dittus, a young woman from a pious Möttlingen family who had once been Pastor Barth's favorite pupil, was regarded in her village as a "God-fearing" member of the parish. At the same time she was known, ever since her childhood, to have suffered recurring nervous disorders and various other maladies, including inexplicable attacks not unlike epileptic seizures.
Repulsed by her peculiar behavior, Blumhardt kept his distance from her. He would come when summoned during her worst attacks, but he went reluctantly, feeling that her case was no task for him as a pastor. Village physician Dr. Späth, on the other hand, argued that Gottliebin's disorders were beyond the scope of his medical knowledge, if not symptomatic of supernatural forces at work. It was on this account that Blumhardt finally agreed to observe the woman.
Read more here: http://www.plough.com/ebooks/awakening.html
Remember also, that when Jesus did one on one battle with Satan in the wilderness, He was on a 40 day fast. Fasting weakens the flesh and strenghthens the spirit.
Why did Jesus say, "This kind cometh not out but by prayer and fasting"?
Isaiah helps us to answer that:
"Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?"Isa 58:6
Regarding the mentally ill, let me tell you a personal story.
In 1989, a brother from Nepal came and stayed with me. His name was Prem Pradhan. He was a former Gurkha (mercenary soldier) that fought for the British in WWII. Towards the end of the war he was flying planes and his was shot down. He was rescued by native villagers and taken care of for the remainder of the war. He returned to Nepal and heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ via a street preacher in India. Prem had gone over the border of Nepal into India and heard a man (Bahkt Singh) preaching the gospel. Prem was converted to Christianity and went back to Nepal. Jumping ahead now, in Nepal it is illegal to share your faith (if it is not Hinuism), to convert someone or baptise them. The penalty is 1 year in jail for sharing your faith, 3 years for converting someone to another religion besides Hinduism and 6 years for baptizing someone into another faith. Prem broke all 3 of these laws and spent 10 years in jail. But not just 10 years in 1 jail, 10 years in 14 different jails. Prem told me that they put him in a 6' by 8' foot cell and shackled his ankle. I remember seeing his ankle and myself and some friends took him to an orthopedic specialist to look at his ankle and his knee (his knee was giving him problems, too). He was fitted with a prosthetic device that helped him greatly.
Back to Prem's prison cell. The authorities used to throw dead bodies into his cell as a holding place until they could dispose of them. Lice had eaten his underwear and the stench was overcomingly horrible. The authorities hoped that he would die. They withheld food from him, but his guards used to slip food to Prem. The guards would here him talking to Jesus and ask him who he was talking to and he would say, "Jesus". They would say "no one is in there" and Prem just would tell them "you can't see him that way". His guards started getting saved one by one. Each new guard would become a Christian. Prem was moved from prison to prison because inmates including guards continued to become Christians. So, one time, they moved Prem to a prison that only had mentally ill people. In Nepal at that time there were no facilities for the "mentally ill" or "deranged". They just put those kind of people into prison.
Prem was distraught because he could not communicate with anyone. He was standing in the courtyard of the prison one day and he says the Lord spoke to him and pointed a man out to Prem. He was directly across the courtyard from him. He says that he prayed and fasted for this man everyday for a month and then one day, he just walked over to him and cast demons out of him in Jesus name. The man immediately came into his right mind. He was shortly released because there was no reason anymore to keep him in jail. Prem continued to do this.
When Prem was eventually released from his 3rd time in jail he had spent 10 years in 14 different jails. He used to hike all over Nepal and cross the Himalayas every summer. He would sleep 18 feet high in trees at night to keep away from tigers. Prem had a huge burden for the people of Nepal and wanted to reach everyone but was frustrated and disappointed that he could not.
Remember the other day in another thread, Richard was talking about "We'll see"?
Here it is.
There's no way for us to know what will come "in the long run" until we get there. Your comment reminds me the ancient Buddhist wisdom. There was a man who had a son. One day the son found a wild horse and was able to capture it and bring it home. The man's neighbor said "How fortunate!" The man said "We'll see." Then one day his son fell the horse he fell off the horse and broke his arm so bad it had to be amputated. The neighbor said "How unfortunate! If only your son had not found that horse!" The man said "We'll see." Then there was war and all the young men in the village were drafted and died in battle except the man's son because of his missing arm. The neighbor said "How fortunate!" The man responded, "We'll see ..."
Well, Prem had suffered immeasurably in those 10 years and must have wondered what the point was, sometimes. He was visiting a village once and there were Christians there and Prem asked them how they had come to know about Jesus. Their testimony to him was that a man who was mentally deranged from their village had been sent to prison and one day he came back and was in his right mind and told them about Jesus.
Prem was astounded at the wisdom and ways of the Lord. Many more occurrences like this happened and Prem realized that it was physically impossible for him to reach so many tribes in Nepal and that instead of God bringing Prem to all of them, God brought the people from many tribes to Prem...in prison. Like Richard said, "We'll see".
Prem is a dimunitive man of about 5'3". I am 6'3". It's funny seeing us stand together. He is with the Lord now, but was often considered the Apostle Paul of Nepal. His physical size has nothing at all to do with the size of his heart and his love for and faithfulness to Jesus Christ. He is credited with 40,000 conversions directly and indirectly from his ministry, yet, he just wants to be called a brother. Meeting Prem and spending 5 days with him gave me an idea of what Paul the Apostle must have been like...just a brother.
What I really liked about Prem, is he knew the Lord and experienced spiritual warfare in his homeland of Nepal but knew that nothing was more powerful than Jesus Christ. He simply believed the word of God and as a result, lived in the book of Acts. And what I really like about Prem is that he knew that Jesus was the Chief Shepherd and he was nothing but a fellow-servant of the Lord. Prem was a brother and did not think he was anyone special. The missionary societies in Nepal (Methodist, Presbyterian) approached him independently and tried to convince him to influence all the Christians that he knew about to come under their "covering". Prem who did not know much about "big business religion" prayed about it and always felt that the Lord was telling him, NO. This was very frustrating to these organizations and eventually they turned on Prem and told the government he was a terrorist. Money does strange things to people. Just think how much the tithes would increase with the instant influx of 40,000 Believers.
Prem experienced spiritual warfare of many kinds. Some of it was in your face and very blatant while other examples of it were extremely subtle. Most of it was Satan working through the agency of men, whereby cloaking himself. "By their fruits you will know them..."
We all have a Father whether we want to admit it or not. There are only two fathers we can choose, God or Satan. Like Bob Dylan once said, "You gotta server somebody".
"He that is not with me, is against me."
Oh yeah, many more deranged, mentally ill men were delivered by the power of God.
God bless you all,
Rick
More info on Prem.
http://gospelgo.com/a/dz/prem.htm
(http://gospelgo.com/a/dz/prem.htm)
I will leave you with this verse:
1Co 2:5
That your faith should not stand in the wisdomofmen, but in the power of God.
Charisma
12-05-2011, 03:24 AM
Hey Rick!
Thank you for sharing about Prem. What an inspiration!
Hi CWH,
Leprosy is spread by long term contact and why should Jesus be afraid of leprosy if He can cure all illnesses.I completely agree that Jesus had no reason to be afraid of leprosy. In some parts of the world it survives apart from the human body, and, some strains are more virulent than others.
It was said that an angel would stir the pool of Siloam at certain timings so that whoever enters it during those times would be cured of all sickness. Good point. He didn't contradict the man in John 5, which suggests an angel really did come and stir the waters.
You seem to be suggesting that when Jesus spoke 'the word' to heal a person not present, that perhaps He was instructing an angel to go and touch the person? Are you? It's food for thought. But, it's not what I understand when I'm praying for God to touch another person in healing. I'm expecting HIM to do it!
But we do know that the Bible describes Jesus touching them to be healed, if command alone unaided could cure diseases, why don't Jesus and His apostles used command only instead of touch to heal the sick, raised the dead and cast out "demons"?He did.
Matthew 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed... 13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, [so] be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
Mark 7: 28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.This story raises the question (in light of your comment about angels) of whether an an angel can cast out a demon. I see no scripture to support such an idea. When angels appear in both the OT and NT, they are messengers. Yes they are very strong, but, are they ever given credit for affecting the behaviour of demons, or (for that matter), given credit for healing?
Matthew 17:15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. 17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. 18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. The account in Mark 9 doesn't say Jesus touched the boy, either, but it makes a clearer separation between deliverance from the demon, and healing.
Mark 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, 7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. 8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man, [thou] unclean spirit. 9 And he asked him, What [is] thy name? And he answered, saying, My name [is] Legion: for we are many. 10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. 11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. 12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. 13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave.Here again there is no record of Jesus touching Legion. (On a point of interest, Legion had already offered worship to God. V6 says 'He' ran and worshipped Him. It was not the demons who were 'worshipping' Him, although they recognised His power over them.)
Try talking to people of the 1st century or pre-schoolers and see if they understand about bacteria and the causes of diseases or not. I'm not sure what your point is, in this sentence, for we don't need to know the aetiology of an illness or disease to be able to pray as Jesus did. The fact that in the last hundred years bacteriology has developed has made no difference to the power of God or the effects of obedience to Him through faith.
Every blessing to you, brother. :)
Charisma
12-05-2011, 03:39 AM
Hi Rose,
I'm not disputing that chemical imbalance can be corrected by medication. Of course it may be.
When a person who was healthy, then has experiences which traumatise them, they instinctively try to rescue themselves. God has given us bodies which self-heal to a certain extent. I mean, we may be left with a scar from a physical wound, just as we may die if the wound becomes infected with something which cannot be treated successfully (or, we may need an amputation).
With wounds to the spirit, mind or soul, there are attempts by the person to recover, but many times this takes the form of self-protection rather than actual healing. It is in this state of not dealing effectively with either the wound or the causes of the wound(s), that people become bent out of shape physcologically. The pain is in their inner man, and constantly bearing such pain does have physical costs, some of which may be the development of schitzophrenia, or paranoia, or personality disorder, or violent behaviour (I'm sure you get my drift by now.) of which a characteristic is changes in the brain chemistry, having further effect on the body.
A person can push guilt, for instance, so far away, that they don't feel guilty any more, but actually, they have promoted to themselves a numbing of their conscience, which then shows itself in harsh behaviours totally unrelated to the original cause of their guilt (which guilt may not be justified, but they took it upon themselves).
These kinds of psychological changes have associated neurochemistry, which God can fix. Not only the initial wound, but the damage a person can do to themselves while trying to cope with psychological pain, may lead to demon activity, and one demon can lead to more. Not only does this person need deliverance from the spirit(s) which helped them survive their psychological pain, but they need to be healed from the neurological changes which have taken place since the initial wounding.
Medication may be able to deal with the neurological changes, but while demons are holding territory in the person's life, they cannot experience a permanent cure.
heb13-13
12-05-2011, 06:47 AM
Hey Rick!
Thank you for sharing about Prem. What an inspiration!
I'm not sure what your point is, in this sentence, for we don't need to know the aetiology of an illness or disease to be able to pray as Jesus did. The fact that in the last hundred years bacteriology has developed has made no difference to the power of God or the effects of obedience to Him through faith.
Every blessing to you, brother. :)
Thank you, Charisma.
Prem was a cool brother.
I think what CWH might be saying is that preschoolers can't understand about sickness, bacteria, diseases, et al. But whether they can or not I would not liken New Testament adults to preschoolers. Man has been creating poultices and using herbs for ages because they do indeed know about sickness and diseases.
Your point that bacteriology and the medical establishment (by extension) "has made no difference to the power of God or the effects of obedience to Him through faith", is very good.
Have a great day,
Rick
Hi Beck,
Sorry, I did not mean to overlook your question. I believe that every place in the NT where Jesus cast out a demon...He cast out a demon.
Hi Rick,
So we would have a general belief that these are true literal events that Jesus and his disciples casted out evil spirits. We also have some that believe that these events describe those of different types of psychological disorders. While I somewhat believe these events describe a parable of sort. Here we have at least three ways of interperting those passages that speak of demon possession.
Rick I wanted to thank you for telling us that inspirational testimony of Prem.
I go back to how I would read those passages that speak of casting out evil spirits and apply that to a parable. I mentioned the work of John Dominic Crossan and found this youtube it may well help us understand a little more and why I also see these as parables.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF7zmPS9IIA
In this Jesus commanded them to go and preach that the Kingdom of God is at hand, heal the sick, clean the lepers, cast out devils, raise the dead: freely you have received freely give. I understand much of these to be a metaphor of the sinful condition of the people.
Hi Rick,
In this Jesus commanded them to go and preach that the Kingdom of God is at hand, heal the sick, clean the lepers, cast out devils, raise the dead: freely you have received freely give. I understand much of these to be a metaphor of the sinful condition of the people.
Hi Beck,
In comparing what Jesus focused on in the Gospels (commanding the disciples to go and heal the sick, and cast out demons), with Paul's ministry where the focus was on salvation, and freedom from the law one can see a very different approach to preaching the Kingdom of God. It's very interesting that Paul rarely spoke of casting out demons, whereas one of the focal points of Jesus's ministry was casting out demons.
All the best,
Rose
Hi Beck,
In comparing what Jesus focused on in the Gospels (commanding the disciples to go and heal the sick, and cast out demons), with Paul's ministry where the focus was on salvation, and freedom from the law one can see a very different approach to preaching the Kingdom of God. It's very interesting that Paul rarely spoke of casting out demons, whereas one of the focal points of Jesus's ministry was casting out demons.
All the best,
Rose
Hi Rose, I'm not sure if there is any differences, but maybe in the way it was written. The Gospel the Kingdom message is delivered through parables by Jesus. I'm also considering that even those events not label as parable may well be written as a story to relay the Kingdom message by the four synoptic Gospels.
As I know of Paul never used the method of story telling to explain the Kingdom of God, but his writing do employ metaphors and symbolic meaning.
You would think that there was an epidemic of demon possessions, but soon there was very little to none mentioned by Paul. That another reason to think that there is more that what can be read in those passages. For I know that 'sickness' is what Jesus said that he was the doctor to cure the sick and heal the broken hearted (Mark 2:17) and (Luke 4:18). Here Jesus tells us whom the sick where...They were those that are spiritual sick.
17When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
We can see the spiritual nature of these that are sick and dead throughout scriptures. I'm thinking the same for those possessed by evil spirit (demons) and the lepers.
How else would the first century saint tell of the life times of Jesus, but by parables? A story written in prose or verse.
heb13-13
12-06-2011, 02:46 PM
Hi Rose, I'm not sure if there is any differences, but maybe in the way it was written. The Gospel the Kingdom message is delivered through parables by Jesus. I'm also considering that even those events not label as parable may well be written as a story to relay the Kingdom message by the four synoptic Gospels.
As I know of Paul never used the method of story telling to explain the Kingdom of God, but his writing do employ metaphors and symbolic meaning.
You would think that there was an epidemic of demon possessions, but soon there was very little to none mentioned by Paul. That another reason to think that there is more that what can be read in those passages. For I know that 'sickness' is what Jesus said that he was the doctor to cure the sick and heal the broken hearted (Mark 2:17) and (Luke 4:18). Here Jesus tells us whom the sick where...They were those that are spiritual sick.
17When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
We can see the spiritual nature of these that are sick and dead throughout scriptures. I'm thinking the same for those possessed by evil spirit (demons) and the lepers.
How else would the first century saint tell of the life times of Jesus, but by parables? A story written in prose or verse.
Hi Beck,
It is hard to escape the fact that Jesus was not just an excellent storyteller for the people witnessed manifestations with their own eyes that indicated great power.
Luk 4:36
And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out.
Mat 9:6
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
Mat 9:8
But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
Mat 10:1
And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Kind regards,
Rick
Hi Beck,
It is hard to escape the fact that Jesus was not just an excellent storyteller for the people witnessed manifestations with their own eyes that indicated great power.
Luk 4:36
And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out.
Mat 9:6
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
Mat 9:8
But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
Mat 10:1
And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Kind regards,
Rick
Hi Rick,
I agree Jesus was a Master storyteller, but as to his disciples been given the power to heal the sick and raise the dead. You would think that them rasing the dead from their graves would have made a great
deal of popularity. However you see no case of this written, but more so it may well be how Paul spoke of raising the dead.
Ephesians 2:1-3
1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Paul could easily said that their 'demons' had been casted out of them as well as the dead being rasied. Again as to what you mentioned those instances show the power of God through Christ. Like unto how the day of penetcost is described as having fire and wind from heaven. It's a way to show the power of God.
To those that were blind and now can see the disciples described Jesus taking mud and putting it in the man's eyes and told him to go wash himself. What can be taken from this 'event' or parable is the the blind man was unclean and told to go wash himself therefore by washing he begun to see.
Jesus said the same thing to the Pharisees that they said that they could see, but Jesus said that they were blind leaders of the blind. So you can see that not all can be taken literally.
heb13-13
12-06-2011, 04:27 PM
Hi Rick,
I agree Jesus was a Master storyteller, but as to his disciples been given the power to heal the sick and raise the dead. You would think that them rasing the dead from their graves would have made a great deal of popularity.
I'm not sure if it would have been that popular or convincing.
Luk 16:27
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house.
Luk 16:28
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent
Luk 16:31
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
However you see no case of this written, but more so it may well be how Paul spoke of raising the dead.
Act 20:9
And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10
And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Act 20:11
When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
Act 20:12
And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.
Ephesians 2:1-3
1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (He means spiritually dead here. I was physically alive before I was born-again).
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (How does he work in the children of disobedience?).
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Paul could easily said that their 'demons' had been casted out of them as well as the dead being raised. Again as to what you mentioned those instances show the power of God through Christ. Like unto how the day of penetcost is described as having fire and wind from heaven. It's a way to show the power of God.
Act 13:10
And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
Act 13:11
And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
Here is a case where a physical manifestation took place. Just as the sick were healed physically and spiritually and demons were expelled from people's bodies, blindness was brought upon this man. You cannot spiritualize this because he had to be led around by hand. Well, I suppose you could spiritualize anything. But what about experience, Beck. Have you ever had the occasion to pray or minister to a man with a demon that wanted help? Have you ever known a brother or sister that seemed to have a "stronghold" in them because no matter how hard they prayed or tried, they could not get free from it? What about yourself? We are our own best experts, right? Have you had strongholds? Have you experienced the power of Satan and the Power of God? I have and it took the prayer of deliverance (not hokey stuff) to be set free. We think a person with a demon is a "frothing at the mouth demoniac but that is not so". There are people with strongholds in every walk of life, because they have opened themselves up to the powers of darkness. Today, we call them addictions.
It is when you believe the Word and act upon it that it is further "explained" to you and you witness the reality of God's Word.
To those that were blind and now can see the disciples described Jesus taking mud and putting it in the man's eyes and told him to go wash himself. What can be taken from this 'event' or parable is the the blind man was unclean and told to go wash himself therefore by washing he begun to see.
So, was the man physically blind or just spiritually blind? And did he just need to wash himself in Christ's blood or in a sink with soap? I'm confused.
Jesus said the same thing to the Pharisees that they said that they could see, but Jesus said that they were blind leaders of the blind. So you can see that not all can be taken literally.
Of course and I have never said that everything is to be taken literally.
When men are physically blind I take it literally.
When men are spiritually blind I take it "literally". :winking0071:
When men need to wash their hands before they eat (on the Sabbath), I understand what that means. Physical.
When men need to wash the inside of their cup, (spiritual) that means their heart is unclean.
I think I get it. But what I don't do is spiritualize everything in the Bible that is clearly in the physical realm. That would mean that men with physical sicknesses could not be prayed for, for physical healing or men in bondage to demon spirits could not be set free in Jesus name.
Many times you need more than just words to help men break free from the powers of darkness. Satan's works must be met with superior force and the Cross is the focal point of his defeat.
Often there is a spiritual reason for many of the things we see in the physical realm. Remember, supernatural agents (God, angels and demons). come and go freely in and out of the physical realm and we are spiritual as well as physical beings.
Rick
Hi Rose, I'm not sure if there is any differences, but maybe in the way it was written. The Gospel the Kingdom message is delivered through parables by Jesus. I'm also considering that even those events not label as parable may well be written as a story to relay the Kingdom message by the four synoptic Gospels.
As I know of Paul never used the method of story telling to explain the Kingdom of God, but his writing do employ metaphors and symbolic meaning.
You would think that there was an epidemic of demon possessions, but soon there was very little to none mentioned by Paul. That another reason to think that there is more that what can be read in those passages. For I know that 'sickness' is what Jesus said that he was the doctor to cure the sick and heal the broken hearted (Mark 2:17) and (Luke 4:18). Here Jesus tells us whom the sick where...They were those that are spiritual sick.
17When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
We can see the spiritual nature of these that are sick and dead throughout scriptures. I'm thinking the same for those possessed by evil spirit (demons) and the lepers.
How else would the first century saint tell of the life times of Jesus, but by parables? A story written in prose or verse.
Hi Beck
Doesn't it seem a bit odd for Jesus to say that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, when it says there is none who are righteous?
Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luke 5:23 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Rom. 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rose
Hi Beck
Doesn't it seem a bit odd for Jesus to say that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, when it says there is none who are righteous?
Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luke 5:23 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Rom. 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rose
Yes it is odd in a sence that the Phraisees and Sadducees thought that they were righteous. :lol: Jesus wasn't calling them to repent. It is those doctrines of men and their leaven that have infected 'possessed' the weak and the poor. Jesus came to these to heal and to cast out those evil spirits.
John in Revelation spoke of the Harlot that filled her cup up with abominations and filthiness of her fornication. Whom the kings of the earth have committed forincation, and made drunk with the wine of her forination. These are reserved for damnation.
Charisma
12-07-2011, 03:04 AM
Hi all participants and readers,
I'm not managing to keep up with this thread fully, but want to comment (Beck) on this short summary you made:
So we would have a general belief that these are true literal events that Jesus and his disciples casted out evil spirits. We also have some that believe that these events describe those of different types of psychological disorders. While I somewhat believe these events describe a parable of sort. Here we have at least three ways of interperting those passages that speak of demon possession. First, I am not suggesting that demons and psychological pain are the same thing. If my post gave this impression, please give me the quote which misled you. My point is that they are, or may be, connected in those who have chemical imbalances in the brain.
Demons themselves cause conflict for the physical body, which the person will try to deal with by various means. One way they might try, is willpower, to stop them co-operating with demonically stimulated desires. Another way, may be to go along with the demon, believing (not that there is a demon at work, but) that the feelings they are having are normal, or, cannot be avoided, even though these feelings when acted out, make them socially less companionable - or even, unable to take part in normal social interaction. There are many subtleties to demonic influence. A person need not be 'possessed' by a demon, to have the life made miserable.
My comment on your parable theory, is that it suits all those people who don't want to believe demons are real, and, it understates the power of demons to ruin a life, and, it avoids the question of sin and sinning, when those are either the cause of another's pain, or, the outcome of being unable to control a demon.
It is notable that Jesus mentioned sin to certain people when He was healing them, but not to anyone out of whom He was casting a demon. This speaks to the inability of the demon's victim to resist - say, when a demon attacks a child's life - the predatory nature of demons in general - and, that there was no-one alive at that time who could shift a demon out of a person's life, apart from Jesus and those to whom He gave the authority.
So, back to the parable idea. Let's say that to have a demon is equivalent to having a stone in one's shoe which one cannot remove. Observers see one is limping. Kind people offer to help. The sufferer (with the stone in his shoe) is grateful. Gradually, needing to be helped becomes a lifestyle. The person develops a strange way of walking which is the most comfortable they can do, but, it gives them a back problem, and their muscles have to compensate even further. No-one knows that the reason they can't walk normally, is a stone in their shoe, but the parable can be made, using the humility of the person who has to ask for help, and the benificence of those who give up time and money to be helpful to the disabled person. Great story! Everyone can learn about the importance of altruism.
Then Jesus comes along and says, 'Take off your shoe and give it to me'. He shakes the stone out of the shoe and gives it back to the person. 'Now, walk straight!' He instructs, and to everyone's amazement, the person can't hobble any more, and doesn't need help any more. Wow!
What happened to the parable? It was a kind of lie, and, most certainly, from the point of view of the person now walking straight, it was a second best solution, because now, the person is genuinely free from the cause of the disablement.
I strongly believe that Jesus didn't abuse the power of words. (He Himself is 'the Word'. He understood words better than any of us.) When He told a parable, it was a parable with an inescapable spiritual truth embedded in it. When He healed, the sick person became well. When He told a demon to leave, the demon obeyed.
heb13-13
12-07-2011, 07:49 AM
Then Jesus comes along and says, 'Take off your shoe and give it to me'. He shakes the stone out of the shoe and gives it back to the person. 'Now, walk straight!' He instructs, and to everyone's amazement, the person can't hobble any more, and doesn't need help any more. Wow!
What happened to the parable? It was a kind of lie, and, most certainly, from the point of view of the person now walking straight, it was a second best solution, because now, the person is genuinely free from the cause of the disablement.
I strongly believe that Jesus didn't abuse the power of words. (He Himself is 'the Word'. He understood words better than any of us.) When He told a parable, it was a parable with an inescapable spiritual truth embedded in it. When He healed, the sick person became well. When He told a demon to leave, the demon obeyed.
Hi Charisma,
Very well stated. I do agree.
Also, wanted to say to Beck that Jesus was calling the Pharisees to repentance. However, He had to use a little different way of communicating to them (religious hypocrites). They did not think they needed anything. Those that are liars and following the Father of lies, will always think that Jesus is naive and stupid. This is the fruit of religious pride.
Rick
Hi all participants and readers,
I'm not managing to keep up with this thread fully, but want to comment (Beck) on this short summary you made:
First, I am not suggesting that demons and psychological pain are the same thing. If my post gave this impression, please give me the quote which misled you. My point is that they are, or may be, connected in those who have chemical imbalances in the brain.
Hi Charisma,
Understood thanks for clarifying.
My comment on your parable theory, is that it suits all those people who don't want to believe demons are real, and, it understates the power of demons to ruin a life, and, it avoids the question of sin and sinning, when those are either the cause of another's pain, or, the outcome of being unable to control a demon.
I strongly believe that Jesus didn't abuse the power of words. (He Himself is 'the Word'. He understood words better than any of us.) When He told a parable, it was a parable with an inescapable spiritual truth embedded in it. When He healed, the sick person became well. When He told a demon to leave, the demon obeyed.
As you know some of his parables he didn't come out and say it was a parable. Mark 4:33-34 indicates that Jesus always spoke in parables when having a multitude of people around him and when his disciples were alone with him he would expound all things unto them.
We also would have to determine whither he was speaking of sickness as in the case of sinners that need to repent.(Mark 2:17) I'm assuming the same for lepers and demons (evil spirits).
My thought is just as the sheep and goats are a metaphor of the righteous and unrighteous nations that would be the case as well for hunger, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and in prison.
Metaphor's
•Hunger: Man shall not live by bread alone(Matthew 4:4), I am the Bread of Life(John 6:35), Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matthew 5:6).
•Thirsty: Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matthew 5:6), But those who drink the water I give will never be thirsty again (John 4:14)
•Stranger: Go ye to the loss sheep of Israel (Matthew 10:6) Go ye to the highways and hedges and compel to come in, that my house maybe filled (Luke 14:23)
•Naked: Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments lest he walk naked and they see his shame (Rev.16:15),...white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed and the shame of they nakedness do not appear(Rev.3:18)
•Sick: They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick (Matthew 9:12), 23Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? 24But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.(Luke 23-24)
•Prison: But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.(Gal.3:22), Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.(Gal.3:23)
heb13-13
12-07-2011, 03:46 PM
Hi Charisma,
Understood thanks for clarifying.
As you know some of his parables he didn't come out and say it was a parable. Mark 4:33-34 indicates that Jesus always spoke in parables when having a multitude of people around him and when his disciples were alone with him he would expound all things unto them.
We also would have to determine whither he was speaking of sickness as in the case of sinners that need to repent.(Mark 2:17) I'm assuming the same for lepers and demons (evil spirits).
My thought is just as the sheep and goats are a metaphor of the righteous and unrighteous nations that would be the case as well for hunger, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and in prison.
Metaphor's
•Hunger: Man shall not live by bread alone(Matthew 4:4), I am the Bread of Life(John 6:35), Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matthew 5:6).
•Thirsty: Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matthew 5:6), But those who drink the water I give will never be thirsty again (John 4:14)
•Stranger: Go ye to the loss sheep of Israel (Matthew 10:6) Go ye to the highways and hedges and compel to come in, that my house maybe filled (Luke 14:23)
•Naked: Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments lest he walk naked and they see his shame (Rev.16:15),...white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed and the shame of they nakedness do not appear(Rev.3:18)
•Sick: They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick (Matthew 9:12), 23Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? 24But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.(Luke 23-24)
•Prison: But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.(Gal.3:22), Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.(Gal.3:23)
Hi Beck,
I think people back then knew the difference between when Jesus was telling a story (parable) and when He was taking action.
When you tell a story you don't expect people to say, "Wow, with power He commands the demons". No, you usually expect them to say what they did say, "What do you mean...Can you explain that to us.....Why do you speak in parables....?" But when He took action and delivered people from the powers of darkness, you did not hear anyone say, "Why do you speak in parables?"
All the best,
Rick
Hi Beck,
I think people back then knew the difference between when Jesus was telling a story (parable) and when He was taking action.
When you tell a story you don't expect people to say, "Wow, with power He commands the demons". No, you usually expect them to say what they did say, "What do you mean...Can you explain that to us.....Why do you speak in parables....?" But when He took action and delivered people from the powers of darkness, you did not hear anyone say, "Why do you speak in parables?"
All the best,
Rick
The problem is how can we tell the difference? Each author of the Gospels had their on agenda. Matthew wrote his story of Jesus as to show the Messiah, likewise Mark the story of Jesus as the Servant...etc each having their own. What is there to say that in their storytelling of Jesus that they themselves didn't employ parables, metaphor's in literature.
Jesus often said "To him who have a ear to hear" meaning that there was some that could not hear (understand) what he was saying as the deaf and dumb. Jesus said he came to those blind so that they might see. And this is after Jesus healed a man that was blind, the Pharisees asked "Are we blind also?"
John 9:39-41
39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Unlike Isaiah 35:5-10 prophesy where Mark give references of the dumb shall speak and deaf ears openned. Should we also read the remaining of Isaiah as literal or figurative?
5 Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
6 Then will the lame leap like a deer,
and the mute tongue shout for joy.
Water will gush forth in the wilderness
and streams in the desert.
7 The burning sand will become a pool,
the thirsty ground bubbling springs.
In the haunts where jackals once lay,
grass and reeds and papyrus will grow.
8 And a highway will be there;
it will be called the Way of Holiness;
it will be for those who walk on that Way.
The unclean will not journey on it;
wicked fools will not go about on it.
9 No lion will be there,
nor any ravenous beast;
they will not be found there.
But only the redeemed will walk there,
10 and those the LORD has rescued will return.
They will enter Zion with singing;
everlasting joy will crown their heads.
Gladness and joy will overtake them,
and sorrow and sighing will flee away.
Charisma
12-09-2011, 05:16 PM
I'm assuming the same for lepers and demons (evil spirits). Dear Beck,
There is no need to assume anything.
What you ought to do is patiently read the gospels making a note of every specific healing, every specific casting out of a demon, and every specific 'other', and then compare the terms on which Jesus carried out each kind. The apostles were making mental notes the whole time they were watching Him. They knew when they didn't understand (as Rick said) because then, they asked Him to explain.
By the time He sent out the seventy, they knew exactly what to do. If you read all the gospels thoroughly and slowly, you too would have known what to do if you were obeying Jesus' instructions. This is not rocket science. You have sufficient intelligence to read all these details for yourself.
What you mustn't do (for God) is to fill in what you think are, (or must be) gaps ,left by the gospel writers.
If God has not put it in scripture already, you don't have any God-given right to make up what you think is missing. That includes 'assume' anything.
I can almost guarantee that if you do this exercise properly, you will be able to shelve at least one or two long-held doctrines, because you will find nothing in the Bible to support them - either in the OT or the NT. If I'm wrong, please tell me three of the doctrines you did not have to shelve.
Lord willing, I'll be here when you're ready to share your findings.
:pop2:
Dear Beck,
There is no need to assume anything.
What you ought to do is patiently read the gospels making a note of every specific healing, every specific casting out of a demon, and every specific 'other', and then compare the terms on which Jesus carried out each kind. The apostles were making mental notes the whole time they were watching Him. They knew when they didn't understand (as Rick said) because then, they asked Him to explain.
I understand we read the bible very differently. I see the writers expressing the life of Jesus in allegorical terms. Much the same way it was written of the Messiah to heal the broken hearted (sick) to open the blinded eyes (revelation) and to free the captives (in prison, in bondage).
"The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, Because He did anoint me; To proclaim good news to the poor, Sent me to heal the broken of heart, To proclaim to captives deliverance, And to blind receiving of sight, To send away the bruised with deliverance" (Luke 4:18 YLT)
The healing, setting free, receving of sight by the blind and deliverance all have to do with the old covenant and not the physical flesh of man, but the spirit and soul of man.
Charisma
12-10-2011, 02:19 PM
Hi Beck,
Forgive me, but I have no idea why you think the portion of Isaiah which Jesus read out at the start of His ministry, was anything other than part of the proclamation of the New Covenant.
I understand we read the bible very differently. I see the writers expressing the life of Jesus in allegorical terms. Much the same way it was written of the Messiah to heal the broken hearted (sick) to open the blinded eyes (revelation) and to free the captives (in prison, in bondage).
"The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, Because He did anoint me; To proclaim good news to the poor, Sent me to heal the broken of heart, To proclaim to captives deliverance, And to blind receiving of sight, To send away the bruised with deliverance" (Luke 4:18 YLT)
The healing, setting free, receving of sight by the blind and deliverance all have to do with the old covenant and not the physical flesh of man, but the spirit and soul of man. For instance, what is allegorical about Jesus being nailed to a cross?
Please tell me?
Hi Beck,
Forgive me, but I have no idea why you think the portion of Isaiah which Jesus read out at the start of His ministry, was anything other than part of the proclamation of the New Covenant.
Right, he came to heal the sick, to set free those in prison, to open the eyes of the blind these are all allegorical of the new covenant. So a story says that the sick was healed and the blind eyes opened how shall be understand theses events? Literally or allegorical?
You see the bible used these allegorical terms to relate the kingdom of God. There is a literal portion to the meaning, but the image isn't alway what is meant to be taken literal.
Like for instance the feeding of the five thousand. The multitude in the wilderness having no bread.( Do you see the comparison?) The number of them was 5000 ( 5, 50, 500, 5000 are symbolic) They had no bread other than what God (Jesus) give them. (Also notice that Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep) He would also tell his disciples to feed them, they reply saying they had not enough money save for only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. (again symbolic) Jesus makes them to sit down by 50's in a group. And after all was full the disciples took up the fragments of 12 baskets (again symbolic) so that no piece would be left.(symbolic)
For instance, what is allegorical about Jesus being nailed to a cross?
Please tell me?
I should have said this, that the writers expressed his 'miracles' in allegorical terms.
heb13-13
12-10-2011, 08:39 PM
Right, he came to heal the sick, to set free those in prison, to open the eyes of the blind these are all allegorical of the new covenant. So a story says that the sick was healed and the blind eyes opened how shall be understand theses events? Literally or allegorical?
You see the bible used these allegorical terms to relate the kingdom of God. There is a literal portion to the meaning, but the image isn't alway what is meant to be taken literal.
Like for instance the feeding of the five thousand. The multitude in the wilderness having no bread.( Do you see the comparison?) The number of them was 5000 ( 5, 50, 500, 5000 are symbolic) They had no bread other than what God (Jesus) give them. (Also notice that Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep) He would also tell his disciples to feed them, they reply saying they had not enough money save for only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. (again symbolic) Jesus makes them to sit down by 50's in a group. And after all was full the disciples took up the fragments of 12 baskets (again symbolic) so that no piece would be left.(symbolic)
I should have said this, that the writers expressed his 'miracles' in allegorical terms.
Hi Beck,
The only problem I have with that is the Luke said the events were delivered to him by eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:2)
Do you know anyone that relates eyewitness events in allegories? I don't. People don't record or journal events like that. Eyewitness means you tell what you saw (and heard of course).
Jesus' birth to Mary was a miracle, right? It is the first miracle in the NT. Do you think it was allegory or real?
Best to you,
Rick
Charisma
12-11-2011, 01:46 PM
Right, he came to heal the sick, to set free those in prison, to open the eyes of the blind these are all allegorical of the new covenant. So a story says that the sick was healed and the blind eyes opened how shall be understand theses events? Literally or allegorical?
You see the bible used these allegorical terms to relate the kingdom of God. There is a literal portion to the meaning, but the image isn't alway what is meant to be taken literal.
Like for instance the feeding of the five thousand. The multitude in the wilderness having no bread.( Do you see the comparison?) The number of them was 5000 ( 5, 50, 500, 5000 are symbolic) They had no bread other than what God (Jesus) give them. (Also notice that Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep) He would also tell his disciples to feed them, they reply saying they had not enough money save for only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. (again symbolic) Jesus makes them to sit down by 50's in a group. And after all was full the disciples took up the fragments of 12 baskets (again symbolic) so that no piece would be left.(symbolic)Hi Beck,
Echoing Rick's concern, I would say that God has seen to it that it's impossible to make this - that in the OT things were only allegory - (and many) other generalisations from the Old Testament. When Isaiah prophesied the words which Jesus read out in the synagogue that day, Isaiah was speaking forth an eternal truth.
By that I mean that in the Spirit - that is, in God, what Jesus read out has always been the whole truth. It is necessary to 'see' the OT narrative in that light, to be able to make sense of the OT miracles which occurred through Elijah and Elisha - and Moses, and Aaron, and Samuel, and David.
These were moderated by God in the way that Jesus explains, recorded in John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Also
Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; 26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, [a city] of Sidon, unto a woman [that was] a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
2 Kings 4: 32 And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, [and] laid upon his bed. 33 He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD. 34 And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. 35 Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.
Jesus came to show us something about the nature of God in man, knowing that He would make it possible for men to receive His death and resurrection, and at the same time, possible for those who hear His call to faith, to receive the Holy Spirit in a new way - the indwelling Holy Spirit.
In the OT, regarding demons, there were two things going on. In the first, God had the power to send an evil spirit to trouble someone like Saul, who had been disobedient directly to God's command of him. Saul did not get a second chance.
The second thing was the operation of a spiritual law. God had given them the Law to keep them safe in His care, through Moses at Sinai; and Moses had even had to kill those brethren who had not been obedient to their own commitment to God's word to them. Even knowing this, and that idolatry of every kind was prohibited, the people had turned to various forms of idolatry, (ie stopped looking to God for their salvation), down through the generations... many, many times. Whenever they worshipped idols, they engaged with demons (according to Paul' analysis in 1 Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils), in so doing, also committing various abominations, depending on which 'god' was receiving 'worship'. This exclusivity which we see in the New Testament is different from how God dealt with the leaders in the OT.
If you would like me to expound upon that difference, in a future post, I will, if no-one else has done so.
Please note, I am not for a minute implying there is no allegory in the OT. There is. But it's essential to work out which is only allegory (if there is such a thing), and which is allegorical only when compared to New Covenant reality. There is far more overlap between the two, than you infer, and this post touches only the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
heb13-13
12-11-2011, 03:31 PM
And Beck, it is not as though God has kept a shroud on the nature and workings of the powers of darkness.
He has shown us exactly what we need to know. And through experience, what we learn in the Bible is confirmed.
Take for instance Satan coming to God one day to accuse Job to His face.
Did you notice the words that came out of Job's wife? It was pretty much the same conversation that took place in heaven.
Satan spoke his accusations to Job's wife's mind and she in turn carried that message to Job. Satan works through people just like the Spirit of God does.
All the best,
Rick
Hi Beck,
The only problem I have with that is the Luke said the events were delivered to him by eyewitnesses. (Luke 1:2)
Do you know anyone that relates eyewitness events in allegories? I don't. People don't record or journal events like that. Eyewitness means you tell what you saw (and heard of course).
These books of Matthew, Mark and Luke all parallel in some sence. Given that Mark had Matthew's as a copy the Luke would had both Matthew and Mark's to give him source. Luke seems to draw from Mark more maybe becasue of the language rather than Matthew which is in Hebrew. So I'm not sure just how much Luke used these eyewitnesses when having these scrolls. So one would have to take into account the language and writing style.
Jesus' birth to Mary was a miracle, right? It is the first miracle in the NT. Do you think it was allegory or real?
Best to you,
Rick
The birth as a miracle? If you're saying that a 'virgin' birth a son. Didn't that happen also in the years of Ahaz? Was it not Isaiah's son that was named Imanuel? And a virgin as a young woman?
Real, but what is it really saying? It seems to be using an allegory.
Hi Beck,
Echoing Rick's concern, I would say that God has seen to it that it's impossible to make this - that in the OT things were only allegory - (and many) other generalisations from the Old Testament. When Isaiah prophesied the words which Jesus read out in the synagogue that day, Isaiah was speaking forth an eternal truth.
I'm sorry Charisma I have the least of idea what you are trying to say.
And Beck, it is not as though God has kept a shroud on the nature and workings of the powers of darkness.
He has shown us exactly what we need to know. And through experience, what we learn in the Bible is confirmed.
Take for instance Satan coming to God one day to accuse Job to His face.
Did you notice the words that came out of Job's wife? It was pretty much the same conversation that took place in heaven.
Satan spoke his accusations to Job's wife's mind and she in turn carried that message to Job. Satan works through people just like the Spirit of God does.
All the best,
Rick
And what would you call that spirit? One could look at Peter likewise. Jesus told Peter 'satan get thee behind me' Peter having the spirit of satan. Peter was thinking from the flesh the carnal mind. Now would Jesus need to cast out that evil spirit from Peter?
Charisma
12-11-2011, 06:09 PM
Didn't that happen also in the years of Ahaz? Was it not Isaiah's son that was named Imanuel? And a virgin as a young woman?Hi Beck,
Please could you quote the verses you have in mind?
Many thanks.
I'm sorry Charisma I have the least of idea what you are trying to say. I suppose I'm trying to say that the very real events involving named people in the OT are more than allegory. You had said:
Originally posted by Charisma
There is no need to assume anything.
What you ought to do is patiently read the gospels making a note of every specific healing, every specific casting out of a demon, and every specific 'other', and then compare the terms on which Jesus carried out each kind. The apostles were making mental notes the whole time they were watching Him. They knew when they didn't understand (as Rick said) because then, they asked Him to explain.
I understand we read the bible very differently. I see the writers expressing the life of Jesus in allegorical terms. Much the same way it was written of the Messiah to heal the broken hearted (sick) to open the blinded eyes (revelation) and to free the captives (in prison, in bondage).
"The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, Because He did anoint me; To proclaim good news to the poor, Sent me to heal the broken of heart, To proclaim to captives deliverance, And to blind receiving of sight, To send away the bruised with deliverance" (Luke 4:18 YLT)
The healing, setting free, receving of sight by the blind and deliverance all have to do with the old covenant and not the physical flesh of man, but the spirit and soul of man.
What I'm trying to show you, is that not only did Jesus really (not allegorically) release the captives, heal the blind, the dumb, the deaf and the lame, in a spiritual way, but in a physical way.
And, these things had happened in the OT already, through various national leaders (moving in the power of God, just like Jesus did). They were not allegorical in the OT either.
Please can you re-read my post and see if it makes more sense, now?
Blessings, brother. :pray:
heb13-13
12-11-2011, 07:02 PM
And what would you call that spirit? One could look at Peter likewise. Jesus told Peter 'satan get thee behind me' Peter having the spirit of satan. Peter was thinking from the flesh the carnal mind. Now would Jesus need to cast out that evil spirit from Peter?
Exactly!! You got it. An accusatory spirit whispers his lies about God character to Job's wife. He already maligned God and Job face to face with God.
Same with Peter, a demonic spirit plants "suggests" strongly an idea to Peter's carnal mind. And Peter receives it as his thought.
You do know, don't you that not all of your thoughts are your thoughts?
Eventually, I would like to get continue down the road on this suject of demons.
Have a great week,
Rick
Hi Beck,
Please could you quote the verses you have in mind?
Many thanks.
I didn't mean to get side tracked, but here's that verse Isaiah 7:14. (typology)
I suppose I'm trying to say that the very real events involving named people in the OT are more than allegory. You had said:
What I'm trying to show you, is that not only did Jesus really (not allegorically) release the captives, heal the blind, the dumb, the deaf and the lame, in a spiritual way, but in a physical way.
Okay, I see you're claiming there are two sides to these the physical and spiritual, but dosen't that negate the allegorically part?
"demonstrative form of representation explaining meaning other than the words that are spoken. Allegory communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. "
Exactly!! You got it. An accusatory spirit whispers his lies about God character to Job's wife. He already maligned God and Job face to face with God.
Same with Peter, a demonic spirit plants "suggests" strongly an idea to Peter's carnal mind. And Peter receives it as his thought.
You do know, don't you that not all of your thoughts are your thoughts?
Eventually, I would like to get continue down the road on this suject of demons.
Have a great week,
Rick
I've understood that already, but would Jesus need to cast out that evil spirit 'demon' out of Peter is what I'm driving at? Isn't these the same 'evil spirits, demons, devils, unclean spirits' that Jesus had casted out of many?
Charisma
12-12-2011, 02:52 PM
Hi Beck,
There is only one Satan. He can be in only one place at a time.
but would Jesus need to cast out that evil spirit 'demon' out of Peter is what I'm driving at?I don't believe so, because Satan is a predator. He's always moving on to the next victim. The type of him in Genesis 14:21 is hungry for souls.
When the gospel says that Satan had entered into Judas, it is clear that Satan didn't force Judas to betray Jesus. Judas had been tempted by the money on offer, and, had moaned about the money wasted when the alabastar box was broken. All that Satan did on that evening, in encouraging Judas, had been permitted by God the Father. John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
When Jesus looked at Peter after Peter had upbraided the Lord for what He'd just shared with them, Jesus spoke to Satan, commanding him to shift into a subsidiary place (behind Him). Jesus explained to Peter what had been going on, but until after Pentecost, Peter had no power to resist it. Jesus then remarks that He had seen Satan fall as lightning from heaven. In other words, Jesus already saw Satan as a defeated foe in principle, even although Jesus still had work to do on the cross.
When it comes to demons, they, too, are subject to the name of Jesus, for the same reason. But not all demons have a permanent residence in a person, as we tend to think of as 'demon-possession', just as Satan doesn't inhabit just one person the whole time. He walks to and fro on the earth like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Hi Beck,
There is only one Satan. He can be in only one place at a time.
I don't believe so, because Satan is a predator. He's always moving on to the next victim. The type of him in Genesis 14:21 is hungry for souls.
When the gospel says that Satan had entered into Judas, it is clear that Satan didn't force Judas to betray Jesus. Judas had been tempted by the money on offer, and, had moaned about the money wasted when the alabastar box was broken. All that Satan did on that evening, in encouraging Judas, had been permitted by God the Father. John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
When Jesus looked at Peter after Peter had upbraided the Lord for what He'd just shared with them, Jesus spoke to Satan, commanding him to shift into a subsidiary place (behind Him). Jesus explained to Peter what had been going on, but until after Pentecost, Peter had no power to resist it. Jesus then remarks that He had seen Satan fall as lightning from heaven. In other words, Jesus already saw Satan as a defeated foe in principle, even although Jesus still had work to do on the cross.
When it comes to demons, they, too, are subject to the name of Jesus, for the same reason. But not all demons have a permanent residence in a person, as we tend to think of as 'demon-possession', just as Satan doesn't inhabit just one person the whole time. He walks to and fro on the earth like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Hi Charisma,
What would then be your understanding of 'fallen angels' as demons? I've come to the understanding that fallen angels should have been interpreted as fallen messengers. I discussed this Here. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1919-Context-of-Jude-1-6)
There seems to be a connection that these which are bond in darkness. Darkness is used in the spiritual sence of lack of knowledge or the rejection of that knowledge as the truth. As Paul used it that they should not be as the children of the darkness (night). In this way it rather seems to indicate that they had a choice to be the children of the light or the children of the darkness. At one point (Eph 5:8) Paul told them that they were once in darkness, but know are the light in the Lord. To have no fellowship with the unfaithful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Are these fallen angels (demons) bond in the bottomless pit of darkness until judgment day? Is that why the demons that where called Legion asked Jesus was it not that day?
As Rick mentioned and I agree to that we move on in this discussion. So in my studying and gathering more info about demons I come across these connections.
Demon equakes to spirit, unclean spirit(s), evil spirit(s) and devil(s).
Unclean is symbolic of Goat, Swine, Frogs, and Lepers.
Haunts denotes the Deep, Sea, Desert, Tombs and Mountains.
I also noticed that when Jesus spoke of the demons he then related them to unclean spirits and or devils in the KJV. So I gather that these are interchangeable and synonymous with man.
So one passage that deals with demons (unclean spirits) I would like for us to take a deeper look into is from Matthew 12 were Jesus enters the synagogue after his disciples plucked the ears of corn to eat on the sabbath. Jesus then answers the scribes and Pharisees question for a sign. The part I would like to deal with is Matthew 12:43-45
43When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
My first thought would be why had Jesus sudden change to speaking about unclean spirits as in answering their question of a sign? But as you read on we come to realize that the disciples wanted to know why Jesus was speaking unto them in parables?(Matthew 13:10) Jesus spoke the parables about Beelzebub and unclean spirits on the same day as He told that of the sower (Mt. 12:46; 13:1). The large amount of parabolic language used that day therefore prompted their question.
So to the meaning behind this parabolic story of the unclean spirits. First we notice that Jesus said to them, "Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation"
Careful reading indicates that 'the unclean spirit' is synonymous with the man, as a deaf demon refers to a deaf man in v. 22 of the same chapter. 'When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places...' Walking through a wilderness and deciding to return to one’s house is clearly language applicable to a man. This is all confirmed by the fact that Jesus is almost certainly alluding to a verse in the Septuagint version ( which was the Bible in common use in Christ’s time) at Proverbs 9:12 Septuagint version (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Proverbs/index.htm) which is omitted. This verse clearly speaks of a man, not a spirit, '(the scorner of instruction) walks through a waterless waste, through a land that is desert, and with his hands garners barrenness'.
The 'spirit' often refers to the attitude of mind (e.g. Dt. 2:30; Prov. 25:28; Is. 54:6; 61:3; Ez. 18:31; Mk. 14:38; Lk. 2:40; 2 Cor. 2:13; 12:18; Eph. 4:23). An 'unclean spirit' may possibly refer to and unclean state of mind, which would fit the context in vs. 34-36. Because, as a man 'thinketh in his heart, so is he' (Prov. 23:7), the spirit would be synonymous with the man. Thus the parable would describe a man’s attitude of mind being cleansed and then his going into an even more degenerate state.
The man, representing the Jews, who would not heed the teaching of Christ, walked through 'dry places'. This may recall apostate Israel in the wilderness, who also 'tempted Christ' (1 Cor. 10: 9), thereby refusing to obey the teaching of Moses, who represented Christ (Dt. 18:18). God led Israel 'through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits, through a land of drought, and of the shadow of death. This exactly recalls the language of Proverbs 9:12 in the Septuagint - 'through a waterless waste, through a land that is desert...barrenness'. Notice that Israel in the wilderness sought for the 'rest' of the kingdom, but never found it (Heb. 3:11). Similarly, the man in Matthew 12: 43 went through the dry wilderness 'seeking rest, and findeth none'.
The man decided to return to his house. This must have reference to v. 29, spoken shortly before, which says that the strong man of a house must be bound before the contents of his house can be taken away.
Thus the house to which the man returned was empty all the goods of the strong man had been taken away. This may have been symbolized by Jesus cleansing the temple (Mark. 11:15-17). He described the temple to the Jews as 'your house' (Matthew 23:38). The man, representing apostate Israel, would call the temple 'my house'. Christ’s cleansing of the temple at Passover time would have mirrored the Jewish custom, based on Exodus 12:19, of the firstborn sweeping the leaven from the house. Jesus cleansed the temple, His 'Father’s house' . Some comments drawn from this source (http://www.realdevil.info/5-9.htm)
heb13-13
12-18-2011, 05:52 PM
Hi Beck,
I don’t see how the spirit is ever likened to the mind or thoughts of a man. The mind is where the thoughts take place and this is pretty much laid out in the Scriptures. The Scriptures talk often of the 'thoughts of the mind', not 'thoughts of the spirit'. The Scriptures also talk about the heart and mind being interchangeable but I have never seen where the mind and spirit are interchangeable.
Also, the Bible talks about being vexed in the spirit but never vexed in the mind. Or the spirit of heaviness but not the mind of heaviness.
So an unclean spirit is not the same as an unclean mind in my opinion. If the Scriptures are going to talk about an unclean mind or wicked heart then it will say so. At least this is what I see and this is my understanding.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (no mention of an unclean spirit, but rather thoughts of heart were evil).
Deu 15:9 Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee.
Nothing about 'wicked spirit', rather 'wicked heart', which is in keeping with heart and mind being interchangeable.
Jas 2:4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
Nothing about evil spirits. Notice the plainness of speech.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Not out of the spirit of man, but out of the heart come evil thoughts.
Jer 4:14 O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?
Again, nothing about wash thine spirit from wickedness. So, I cannot find anything about 'thoughts of the spirit' or 'thoughts from my spirit'. Now, let’s look at how certain spirits are described.
Gen 1:2 Spirit of God – We know that God is separate from man
Exo 28:3 I have filled with the spirit of wisdom
Num 5:14 spirit of jealousy come upon him
Num 24:2 spirit of God came upon him
Notice the similarities between Num 5:14 and 24:2. In each case an external spirit came upon someone.
2Ch 21:16 Moreover the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines,
Next verse describes the spirit of the Philistines.
2Ch 21:17 And they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king's house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons.
Isa 28:6 spirit of judgement
Isa 29:10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
Isa 61:3 the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness
Hos 4:12 spirit of whoredoms hath caused them to err,
Hos 5:4 for the spirit of whoredoms is in the midst of them
Zec 12:10 spirit of grace and of supplications:
Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
Luk 4:33 And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
Luk 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
Notice in 13:12 that Jesus did not counsel her to 'think' differently, but rather 'loosed' her from the spirit of infirmity.
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, - a spirit, be it good or evil is evidently something that you must receive.
Act 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
What is the spirit of the world. It is many, many things and one thing we know from this verse is that the spirit of the world has nothing in common with the spirit of God.
2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
1Jn 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
We can look at next our demons are separate from men. But, please share your thoughts first and whether you think when spirits are talked about it is referring to a man’s thoughts. I contend that evil spirits don’t like to be known but they knew that Jesus knew them. He had the discernment and they knew that they could not hide from Him. Some Believers have this kind of discernment and demons know it and they will manifest because they know that they are "seen".
Luk 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
Notice that you don’t rebuke thoughts and tell thoughts not to speak. If you want someone not to speak then you speak to them. Here it says, Devils came out crying. If it was thoughts then looking at the rest of the scriptures, thoughts would have been mentioned.
Mar 1:34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
Why would Jesus cast thoughts out of people and then tell the thoughts not to speak? If thoughts were being cast out of people then these thoughts are not going to speak on their own, right? That would be kind of weird.
Deu 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
They were not sacrificing unto thoughts. What they were sacrificing to were personalities in direct opposite of another personality, God.
We can look closer at the nature and character of these 'devils' next in the NT, if you like.
Rick
heb13-13
12-18-2011, 07:57 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I thought I would start at the beginning and see where we diverge. I broke this down into a series of questions that you can probably answer with a very short response. In most cases you can answer Yes or No. If you answer No, can you please give a short explanation? Also, if you quote my statements it is much easier to read your responses.
Gen 1:26 -- In the beginning Adam was created in the image of God. He had a total innocence and a pure heart with no impure motives (holy and blameless).
Do you see this in the Bible? Do you believe it?
Gen 2:8-9,15-17 -- Was Adam given a choice to choose between the tree of life or the tree of death? Did God say "You shall surely die" if you eat of the tree of death? Now the hearts of Adam and Eve are tested.
Gen 3:1 -- Did Satan pervert and twist the Word of God? Compare what Satan said with what God said in Gen 2:16-17 (Indeed, has God said).
Gen 2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:2-3 -- Eve did not resist Satan's perversion of God's Word. Do you see this? Do you believe the "serpent" was Satan?
Gen 3:2
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Did Eve change God's words by saying "nor touch it, lest you die?" Did God say "You shall surely die"? Now we come to a direct contradiction of the Word of God. Satan entices and tempts Adam and Eve with false words -- another doctrine.
Genesis 3:4 -- And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall NOT surely die:
Did God say in Genesis 2:17 "You shall surely die"?
Did Satan say "You surely shall not die"? (Hath God really said?)
Could this be the first doctrine of Satan in the Bible?
Is this like the doctrines of demons?
Do demons carry out the plans, thoughts and schemes of Satan?
Could a doctrine of Satan (or a doctrine of demons) be to speak contrary to what God says? (Hath God really said?).
Did Satan repudiate and contradict the words of God? [Please make note of this. Compare this with Acts 13:45-46.]
Act 13:45
But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Act 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Do you see how the spirit of Satan working in the "Children of Disobedience?"
Do you see how it worked in Eve?
Does the wrath of God come upon the Children of Disobedience? See Col 3:6. (Interesting correlation: Gen 3:6 and Col 3:6).
WHAT WAS THE TREE OF DEATH FROM WHICH EVE ATE?
Genesis 3:6 -- Notice, this tree was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise. Could this be the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the boastful pride of life?
Did Eve choose with her heart life or death?
Did God say "You shall surely die"?
Genesis 3:7 -- This is very important. Is sin and death NOW working in them? <--------------------- IMPORTANT :D
Was Eve led astray by a different spirit?
Did the serpent deceive Eve with another doctrine? Another gospel?
Could this be like receiving another Jesus? Read Gen 3:13.
The serpent had deceived (beguiled) Eve with another doctrine, right?
Do you lose the likeness and image of God by having a rebellious and impure heart?
Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Did sin and death spread to all men through Adam?
Is sin and death the rebellious, cursed nature of Satan?
Every person is born with this same cursed nature of Satan. Therefore, every man walks in the image and likeness of Satan. His heart loves and lives for this cursed nature. He is in total darkness, and he does not know that Satan is his master and that death and judgement is upon him.
Colossians 3:5-9 -- Do the lusts of the flesh mentioned in verse 5 and verse 8 represent the character of God or the rebellious sin nature of Satan?
Does your Bible say that wrath and judgement are upon these things? God has not changed today, has He?
Isn't wrath and judgement still on those who practice these things?
Do you believe that this sin and death nature is the lusts and deeds of the flesh?
Adam and Eve obeyed Satan rather than God.
Do you become conformed to the image of the master whom you obey;
Rom 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Galatians 5:19 -- "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident...." The deeds of the flesh represent the cursed nature of Satan.
Some of the deeds of the flesh are:
PRIDE.......so is Satan
EGO...........so is Satan
REBELLION......so is Satan
SELFISHNESS....so is Satan
HATE....so is Satan
ANGER....so is Satan
MURDER....so is Satan
TEMPER.....so is Satan
UNFORGIVENESS....so is Satan
GOSSIP....so is Satan
JEALOUSY....so is Satan
ENVY....so is Satan
STRIFE....so is Satan
SLANDER....so is Satan
CRITICISM....so is Satan
IMMORALITY....so is Satan
LYING...so is Satan
Are we on the same track so far? If not, where did we diverge? And don't worry, I don't intend or want to argue, I just want to see where we are at. It would be helpful to me and I hope what I wrote is helpful to you (as far as understanding where I am coming from). :)
Abundant blessings to you,
Rick
kathryn
12-18-2011, 08:36 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I thought I would start at the beginning and see where we diverge. I broke this down into a series of questions that you can probably answer with a very short response. In most cases you can answer Yes or No. If you answer No, can you please give a short explanation? Also, if you quote my statements it is much easier to read your responses.sounds like fun, Rick! I like it much more, studying these things like this!
Gen 1:26 -- In the beginning Adam was created in the image of God. He had a total innocence and a pure heart with no impure motives (holy and blameless).
He was innocent, yes...but he didn't have an incorruptible heart. All things had to be divided, as part of the process of Covenant. It began with the light divided from the darkness...and all things, ALL things...including thoughts/spirit. Adam's fall was like the fall of David's Tabernacle. It had to "fall" in division, in order to be Glorified as One.
Do you see this in the Bible? Do you believe it?
I think I probably answered that above.
Gen 2:8-9,15-17 -- Was Adam given a choice to choose between the tree of life or the tree of death? Did God say "You shall surely die" if you eat of the tree of death? Now the hearts of Adam and Eve are tested.
Gen 3:1 -- Did Satan pervert and twist the Word of God? Compare what Satan said with what God said in Gen 2:16-17 (Indeed, has God said).
Gen 2:16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:2-3 -- Eve did not resist Satan's perversion of God's Word. Do you see this? Do you believe the "serpent" was Satan?
No...the Serpent is Wisdom. Wisdom had to be divided . Wisdom is the tree of Life...the divided tree, the knowledge of good and evil. Satan is a divided spirit that has no agreement with the Holy WHOLE/ONE Spirit. We eat of his fruit, until we finish the refinement stage. "WHEN I be lifted up...AS THE SERPENT/SON OF GOD...I will drag all men to myself
Gen 3:2
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Did Eve change God's words by saying "nor touch it, lest you die?" Did God say "You shall surely die"? Now we come to a direct contradiction of the Word of God. Satan entices and tempts Adam and Eve with false words -- another doctrine.
Genesis 3:4 -- And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall NOT surely die:
Did God say in Genesis 2:17 "You shall surely die"?
Did Satan say "You surely shall not die"? (Hath God really said?)
Could this be the first doctrine of Satan in the Bible?
Is this like the doctrines of demons?
Yes, anything that twists and preverts the word of God, is a doctrine of demons.
Do demons carry out the plans, thoughts and schemes of Satan?
Yep.....and they spawn division...divided thoughts/spirits
Could a doctrine of Satan (or a doctrine of demons) be to speak contrary to what God says? (Hath God really said?).
Did Satan repudiate and contradict the words of God? [Please make note of this. Compare this with Acts 13:45-46.]
Act 13:45
But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Act 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Do you see how the spirit of Satan working in the "Children of Disobedience?"
Do you see how it worked in Eve? yep
Does the wrath of God come upon the Children of Disobedience? See Col 3:6. (Interesting correlation: Gen 3:6 and Col 3:6).
yep again. And those children are the spawn of satan....the divided thoughts/spirits that inhabit God's children, until they KNOW HIM.....HIS UNCONDITIONAL, ALL SAVING LOVE FOR ALL OF MANKIKD.
WHAT WAS THE TREE OF DEATH FROM WHICH EVE ATE?
Genesis 3:6 -- Notice, this tree was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise. Could this be the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the boastful pride of life?
Did Eve choose with her heart life or death?
she had no concept of life and death at this point in her developement! So no, she didn't choose with her heart. She chose from the nice looking fruit. She was choosing from her God-given gift of thirst for knowledge. They were set up Rick! It was all part of the process. This is where you need to study the Law. Alot of this stuff comes much clearer into focus. It's the most prophetic book in the bible, as it reveals what was fulfilled at the Cross.
Did God say "You shall surely die"?yes
Genesis 3:7 -- This is very important. Is sin and death NOW working in them? <--------------------- IMPORTANT :D
Was Eve led astray by a different spirit?
yes
Did the serpent deceive Eve with another doctrine? Another gospel? yes
Could this be like receiving another Jesus? Read Gen 3:13.yes
The serpent had deceived (beguiled) Eve with another doctrine, right? right
Do you lose the likeness and image of God by having a rebellious and impure heart?
No..because it is your VIRGIN subconcious mind where His image/likeness and name resides. The triune nature of the body/soul/spirit....is the outer court, Holy Place, Holy of Holies. Or...1st/2nd/3rd Heaven. The rebellion takes place (our battle with the Old man within us) in the Holy Place...the mid-ground..the soul. When the circumcised heart(High Priest) consummates with the subconcious(Holy of Holies)...there is no Holy Place or Outer Court (mortality) left. We are like David's Tabernacle...just the Holy of Holies; a fully integrated spirit/soul/body.
Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Did sin and death spread to all men through Adam?
Is sin and death the rebellious, cursed nature of Satan?
yep...and I might add, "cursed because divided"
Every person is born with this same cursed nature of Satan.
]We are born like Eve, innocent, with the faculty of receiving thoughts/spirit of both the HOLY SPIRIT/MIND and the cursed/divided mind. Therefore, every man walks in the image and likeness of Satan.
[/COLOR]
His heart loves and lives for this cursed nature. He is in total darkness, and he does not know that Satan is his master and that death and judgement is upon him.
well...that's what divided people do, until they re-mem-ber their AT-ONE-MENT
Colossians 3:5-9 -- Do the lusts of the flesh mentioned in verse 5 and verse 8 represent the character of God or the rebellious sin nature of Satan?
the rebellious sin nature of satan....his evil, divided thoughts that have inhabited our imaginations
Does your Bible say that wrath and judgement are upon these things? God has not changed today, has He?
THANK GOD, NO
Isn't wrath and judgement still on those who practice these things?
NO..Jesus took all the wrath on the Cross. His wrath now, is upon the things that keep His children from KNOWING Him....the evil, vain imaginations that would believe their Father could throw them in Hell for eternity....Give up on His children, when HE had to let them fall, in order to raise them up!
Do you believe that this sin and death nature is the lusts and deeds of the flesh?
the "flesh" ...the unclean doctrines...eating food that hasn't been "pre- digested". Swine..cloven hooved (divided hoof...double mindedness that holds back the DOUBLE WITNESS AS ONE. We STAND on a divided foundation/hoof until we cast down the vain imaginations.
Adam and Eve obeyed Satan rather than God.
Adam and Eve were following God's perfect will. Again...you need to study the Law in more depth Rick. It is all in there. And it was all fulfilled by Christ at the cross.
Do you become conformed to the image of the master whom you obey
; For a time.
Rom 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Galatians 5:19 -- "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident...." The deeds of the flesh represent the cursed nature of Satan.
Some of the deeds of the flesh are:
PRIDE.......so is Satan
EGO...........so is Satan
REBELLION......so is Satan
SELFISHNESS....so is Satan
HATE....so is Satan
ANGER....so is Satan
MURDER....so is Satan
TEMPER.....so is Satan
UNFORGIVENESS....so is Satan
GOSSIP....so is Satan
JEALOUSY....so is Satan
ENVY....so is Satan
STRIFE....so is Satan
SLANDER....so is Satan
CRITICISM....so is Satan
IMMORALITY....so is Satan
LYING...so is Satan
Are we on the same track so far? If not, where did we diverge? And don't worry, I don't intend or want to argue, I just want to see where we are at. It would be helpful to me and I hope what I wrote is helpful to you (as far as understanding where I am coming from). :)Thanks Rick! PS..I hope yer not taking my yelling at ya about hell too seriously. Anything I write is coming from a mother hen heart that just wants to peck until she gets everyone laying and clucking in satisfaction:D Crikey...now that might sound condescending...but you're going to have to take my word on it, that it's anything but.
Abundant blessings to you,
Rick
kathryn
12-18-2011, 08:46 PM
Rick..next time you write, could you just stick to either bold or otherwise...no color? It's impossible to work with, when you're replying. Some of my answers came out in blue...some in black..:-) thanks!
Richard Amiel McGough
12-18-2011, 09:14 PM
Rick..next time you write, could you just stick to either bold or otherwise...no color? It's impossible to work with, when you're replying. Some of my answers came out in blue...some in black..:-) thanks!
Hint:
If you have trouble with too much text formatting, you can highlight the text you want to clear and hit the "Remove Format" button second from the left on the top line of the editor icons. It has two A's and a red X. I use it all the time.
kathryn
12-18-2011, 09:19 PM
Time is eternity divided.
Death is Life divided.
Sin is a divided "Bull's eye". When you shoot your arrow and miss the bull's eye...you've sinned or missed the mark. (the intended plan and purpose)
Sin is a divided eye...or two eyes that don't focus.
Our hearts have been divided, our minds, our very atoms.
Charisma
12-19-2011, 05:47 AM
Rom 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Jesus keeps it simple:
John 8:34 Jesus answered them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Hi Kathryn,
Although it's true that 'desire followeth the eye', it's clear from the narrative in Genesis 3 that Eve hadn't even noticed the fruit before the serpent spoke to her.
The 'law' which was in action during that conversation was that words communicate to our hearts, just as what we speak, communicates our hearts. This is a very simple symmetry which God has placed in creation.
When Paul said, 'Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God', Romans 10:17, he was talking about the dunamis of the word of God being the power to create faith where there may have been none before - 1 Corinthians 1:28b and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Although we see from Genesis that God had commanded Adam about the trees before Eve was formed, it seems unlikely that Eve was left out of the walks which God took with Adam in the garden.
Nevertheless, the responsibility for the obedience of both of them, rested with Adam as Eve's head. Scripture in Leviticus 18 makes clear that the woman becomes one flesh with the man, and it's the man that other men have to deal with. The woman is not expected to take care of herself if she has a husband. (And if she doesn't have a husband, she is still 'one flesh' with her father and mother, while they live.)
I disagree strongly with the way (note my choice of words) you explain what you believe, even though I can see it's a carefully thought out thesis by the people from whom you are hearing it. It supports the 'dual nature' theory, even (it seems), implying that 'Wisdom' is an entity separate from God, and that the 'Serpent' represents it - divided between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and .... what ...? the tree of life?
The problem with what you put forth (if I have 'heard' correctly what you wrote back to Rick), is that it doesn't accord with scripture's declaration about God, or about the serpent, or about their natures and relationship with each other. You frequently ask for us to 'see' things 'in the Law', which may well be there, as far as the Law goes. But, God has revealed far more than the Law, in Jesus Christ, or, put another way, He has revealed the Law fully, in Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
The other thing I want to express to you, is that any idea that there is a division within God Himself, is a lie.
I can't figure out if this is partly what you're saying, because much of (what you say) is resting on negative images - the opposite of God - the strong implication being that somehow God is the other side of something. Whereas, God is totally pure, holy, undivided, uncreated, light without darkenss or shadow, living water without death (and so on). If there is any thought in your mind that this is otherwise, please be aware that Jung put forth that the divine and the profane exist as poles of the same entity. There is nothing in the Bible which accords with that view.
Likewise, 'the virgin subconscious mind' is also a lie.
When Adam disobeyed God, he knew immediately that he felt different about both himself, and God. Adam had experienced both being in fellowship with God, and, being out of fellowship with God.
Adam's immediate descendants did not have this advantage. Their only relief from their sense of separation was in peace offerings, and a certain kind of obedience to God's ongoing spoken word to them - for many centuries before the Law had been given.
Today, we, too, are born separated from fellowship with God. It is not one's 'virgin subconscious mind' which is aware of Him; we sense our separation from Him because He cannot come to us, because of our sin, and, He has given us 'conscience', regardless of not having the law of love written on our hearts - until we are in a fit state (through a new relationship with God through Jesus Christ), spiritually, to receive the Holy Spirit.
Yes, in God there are emotions and the outworking of those in His actions. But in Him, they are pure. His anger is never unrighteous. His grief is never tinged or absorbed with self-pity. His sorrow is a perfect expression of sorrow, sorrowing for only right reasons in proper circumstances with genuine cause. This is not a flaw in God. These emotions are dark in unregenerate humans because they are usually entirely selfish. The one nearly redeeming power in mankind, is to love another more than self - sometimes - but it falls very short of the love of God in Christ Jesus.
Our capacity to 'know' God, is reserved in a profound part of our beings. This depth is always seeking to 'know' something, and it can be filled in very many ways apart from God. These can seem deeply satisfying - and they are for a season - but they may be far from the template given in the New Testament by the apostles.
Not only does John say we 'are cleansed from all unrighteousness' (1:1:7), but he says in 1:3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
You don't have to agree with John, but I have found his words true, and, I find them at quite a variance with the ideas you put forward.
kathryn
12-19-2011, 06:15 AM
Rom 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Jesus keeps it simple:
John 8:34 Jesus answered them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Hi Kathryn,
Although it's true that 'desire followeth the eye', it's clear from the narrative in Genesis 3 that Eve hadn't even noticed the fruit before the serpent spoke to her.
The 'law' which was in action during that conversation was that words communicate to our hearts, just as what we speak, communicates our hearts. This is a very simple symmetry which God has placed in creation.
When Paul said, 'Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God', Romans 10:17, he was talking about the dunamis of the word of God being the power to create faith where there may have been none before - 1 Corinthians 1:28b and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Although we see from Genesis that God had commanded Adam about the trees before Eve was formed, it seems unlikely that Eve was left out of the walks which God took with Adam in the garden.
Nevertheless, the responsibility for the obedience of both of them, rested with Adam as Eve's head. Scripture in Leviticus 18 makes clear that the woman becomes one flesh with the man, and it's the man that other men have to deal with. The woman is not expected to take care of herself if she has a husband. (And if she doesn't have a husband, she is still 'one flesh' with her father and mother, while they live.) Hi Charisma...when the woman is one flesh with the man, they have one Head...Christ...and they learn of that Head through MUTUAL submission to one another. The "becoming one flesh" means ONE in agreement or double witness. It is a type and shadow of the ONE Christ (who are "two"...Bride and Bridegroom)
I disagree strongly with the way (note my choice of words) you explain what you believe, even though I can see it's a carefully thought out thesis by the people from whom you are hearing it. It supports the 'dual nature' theory, even (it seems), implying that 'Wisdom' is an entity separate from God, and that the 'Serpent' represents it - divided between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and .... what ...? the tree of life? I haven't heard this from anyone Charisma, except my heart/mind as I have been going along with this. I took a course in Levitical Law...and learned much from that...otherwise I have been taught entirely on my own. It has only been the past two years that I have began to communicate these things in any depth on the forum...and only the last year that I have found others of like mind. In discussing these things with them, my understanding has grown in leaps and bounds. I understand why you are feeling this way...but again...both you and Rick need to show me in scripture where you are disagreeing with me. Please show me scripturally...who the serpent is...and how it relates to satan.
The problem with what you put forth (if I have 'heard' correctly what you wrote back to Rick), is that it doesn't accord with scripture's declaration about God, or about the serpent, or about their natures and relationship with each other. You frequently ask for us to 'see' things 'in the Law', which may well be there, as far as the Law goes. But, God has revealed far more than the Law, in Jesus Christ, or, put another way, He has revealed the Law fully, in Jesus Christ.Well..if that was the case...Jesus would not have had to OPEN the disciples eyes, after the resurrection, and take them BACK into the Law of Moses, to show how He was revealed. We are no different. If anything..it is MUCH more vital that the Holy Spirit do the same with us because at least they were familiar with the Law in the 1st century. The church has tossed it out the window because they think that it is no longer applicable being that we're in the age of Grace. The problem is...the Law CONSUMMATES with Grace...and we have to know "WHO" we are consummating with.
Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. If we can't SEE the shadow, we're certainly not going to see the Entity casting the shadow.
The other thing I want to express to you, is that any idea that there is a division within God Himself, is a lie. Please show me where I ever said there was any division within God .
I can't figure out if this is partly what you're saying, because much of (what you say) is resting on negative images - the opposite of God -what are you seeing as negative images Charisma? the strong implication being that somehow God is the other side of something. Whereas, God is totally pure, holy, undivided, uncreated, light without darkenss or shadow, living water without death (and so on). If there is any thought in your mind that this is otherwise, please be aware that Jung put forth that the divine and the profane exist as poles of the same entity. There is nothing in the Bible which accords with that view.No...again...God ..the ONE...is a completely integrated WHOLE.
Likewise, 'the virgin subconscious mind' is also a lie.
I need to have 2 witnesses to that in typology Charisma. What is the Holy of Holies in your mind? If you want to seriously study this...we have to use the biblical criteria for determining Truth. You will also have to give a corresponding witness in His creation to back it up.
When Adam disobeyed God, he knew immediately that he felt different about both himself, and God. Adam had experienced both being in fellowship with God, and, being out of fellowship with God.
And your point was?
Adam's immediate descendants did not have this advantage. Their only relief from their sense of separation was in peace offerings, and a certain kind of obedience to God's ongoing spoken word to them - for many centuries before the Law had been given.You don't think they were able to hear from God? How did Abraham hear Him?
Today, we, too, are born separated from fellowship with God. What gives you this idea? It is not one's 'virgin subconscious mind' which is aware of Him; we sense our separation from Him because He cannot come to us, because of our sin, and, He has given us 'conscience', regardless of not having the law of love written on our hearts - until we are in a fit state (through a new relationship with God through Jesus Christ), spiritually, to receive the Holy Spirit.Scripture please
Yes, in God there are emotions and the outworking of those in His actions. But in Him, they are pure.Yes they are...but it is YOU who is providing for the definition of Pure...not Him. His anger is never unrighteous.Never His grief is never tinged or absorbed with self-pity. His sorrow is a perfect expression of sorrow, sorrowing for only right reasons in proper circumstances with genuine cause. This is not a flaw in God. These emotions are dark in unregenerate humans because they are usually entirely selfish. The one nearly redeeming power in mankind, is to love another more than self - sometimes - but it falls very short of the love of God in Christ Jesus.I agree...but we need to understand what "self" is, using the scriptural definition
Our capacity to 'know' God, is reserved in a profound part of our beings. Yes....the virgin subconcious. This depth is always seeking to 'know' something, and it can be filled in very many ways apart from God. No...again...only the High Priest could enter "her". These can seem deeply satisfying - and they are for a season - but they may be far from the template given in the New Testament by the apostles.The template or plummet was Laid in the small beginning...in the Law. It goes down in the MOTHER/Bride...the New Jerusalem. The New Testament expands on it.
Not only does John say we 'are cleansed from all unrighteousness' (1:1:7), but he says in 1:3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Please give us your scriptural definition of sin and righteousness.
You don't have to agree with John, but I have found his words true, and, I find them at quite a variance with the ideas you put forward. I agree with John 100 percent...and I've never found myself at variance with anything he has said.
kathryn
12-19-2011, 07:30 AM
Charisma and Rick....one area that is causing much confusion with you both, is how our triune nature corresponds to Temple/Tabernacle typology and how this in turn, corresponds to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd heaven. You must do a careful study, particularily of the entrances.."sides" . You both seem to think that satan has access to the Holy of Holies...or the 3rd heaven. There was NO way the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies through the Holy Place. (let alone satan through the UNcircumcised High Priest....our UNcircumcised Heart)
You both must be able to provide a scriptural foundation, in definition, for the serpent, satan , demons...and what is "spirit". Then, you must be able to support it using the passage describing our spiritual warfare in 2 Corinthians 10.
One of the wonderful advantages in studying the law, is that it gives you a clear understanding of what unclean doctrine is, in the types of creatures that were considered UNclean...and why.
I'm not being critical here...but the two of you are limping along without some very basic foundational understanding. I love to discuss these things with you both...but we need to get back to some basic definitions before we can continue.
heb13-13
12-19-2011, 10:19 AM
Rick..next time you write, could you just stick to either bold or otherwise...no color? It's impossible to work with, when you're replying. Some of my answers came out in blue...some in black..:-) thanks!
Hi Kathryn,
Yes, next time I write you I will do that. (that would be this time. :winking0071:)
Now, with respect to Satan and the 3rd heaven, I did provide scriptures. I would like to see you provide more scriptures, too. We all know that there are 3 heavens talked about. The third heaven being the "highest heaven" and abode of God and His angels. The second heaven being the earth.
With that in mind - Where did Satan meet the Lord?
Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
He came to the 3rd heaven from the 2nd heaven. Do you see that Satan was on the earth (Job 2:2)?
Job 2:2
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Simple, easy, cut and dried. :yo:
If Satan came from earth, (the second heaven, creation) then where did He meet the Lord?
All the best,
Rick
kathryn
12-19-2011, 10:33 AM
Hi Kathryn,
Yes, next time I write you I will do that. (that would be this time. :winking0071:)
Thanks Rick. Greatly appreciated:thumb:
Now, with respect to Satan and the 3rd heaven, I did provide scriptures. I would like to see you provide more scriptures, too.It's not enough to provide scriptures. We can make the written Logos agree with anything we want. We need to get down to the basic definitions...and work from there. We all know that there are 3 heavens talked about. The third heaven being the "highest heaven" and abode of God and His angels. The second heaven being the earth. The second heaven is the realm of the "air"...which is first and foremost...in the Holy Place or realm of the soul. Satan is the prince of the "power of the air". Our minds are a conduit for spirits/thought. We must have a circumcised Heart, before we can fully "conduct" the Holy Spirit...and have the Holy Spirit conduct us. The 3 parts of the Temple are also related to the 3 baptisms we go through...water /air/Spirt/wind/ and Fire/Spirit.
With that in mind - Where did Satan meet the Lord? In the garden/mind. The Holy Place. The 2nd heaven.
Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
He came to the 3rd heaven from the 2nd heaven. Do you see that Satan was on the earth (Job 2:2)?
Again Rick...you need to establish some foundations here. All of this takes place on earth. The Tabernacle and Temple were firmly laid ON EARTH. Satan is the "father of lies" who dwells on earth, within each of us, in the "garden" of our minds.
Job 2:2
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Simple, easy, cut and dried. :yo:
I agree. Now..maybe you can take what I've said above...and if you disagree...please show me your version of the garden, the 3rd heaven, etc.
All the best,you too!
Rick
heb13-13
12-19-2011, 11:00 AM
Hi Kathryn,
You put our entire discussion in quotes, so when I went to "reply to quote", I got nothing. Quote what I say then put your remarks below them. Don't quote the entire discussion and put your remarks in bold. It is really difficult to read because that means other people should not "boldify" anything they write to you because you answer them in bold and it will be hard for others to figure out who is saying what. Richard gave a post on how to do this. It is really simple. I will see if I can find it. Now, I will work on separating these comments for my benefit and the benefit of the Readers.
Rick said: Now, with respect to Satan and the 3rd heaven, I did provide scriptures. I would like to see you provide more scriptures, too.
Kathryn said: It's not enough to provide scriptures. We can make the written Logos agree with anything we want. We need to get down to the basic definitions...and work from there.
Providing scriptures is our starting point, isn't it. Now, I think I see what you are doing. But I want to see if you are consistent with your typology.
Is the earth we are living on physical?
Are we physical?
It seems that you don't think the garden was physical so to my thinking, this is our first disconnect.
You say the earth is physical and we are but the garden was not. The garden is in our mind which is the 2nd heaven.
So earth is not the second heaven. Earth is this round ball we are living on, right? Or is earth our bodies?
Rick said: We all know that there are 3 heavens talked about. The third heaven being the "highest heaven" and abode of God and His angels. The second heaven being the earth.
Kathryn said:The second heaven is the realm of the "air"...which is first and foremost...in the Holy Place or realm of the soul. Satan is the prince of the "power of the air". Our minds are a conduit for spirits/thought. We must have a circumcised Heart, before we can fully "conduct" the Holy Spirit...and have the Holy Spirit conduct us. The 3 parts of the Temple are also related to the 3 baptisms we go through...water/air/Spirt/wind/and Fire.
The second heaven again, is not the earth but the realm of our soul. When someone is born-again they have a circumcised heart, right. God has put into them a new heart and removed the heart of stone. So, are you saying a newly born-again person is able to FULLY conduct the Holy Spirit? I know what "the Holy Spirit conducting us" means, what does "we can fully conduct the Holy Spirit" mean?
You lost me on the 3 parts of the Temple and the 3 baptisms and I will need further explanation.
Rick said: With that in mind - Where did Satan meet the Lord?
Kathryn said: In the garden/mind. The Holy Place. The 2nd heaven.
Rick:Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Rick says:He came to the 3rd heaven from the 2nd heaven. Do you see that Satan was on the earth (Job 2:2)?
Kathryn says: Again Rick...you need to establish some foundations here. All of this takes place on earth. The Tabernacle and Temple were firmly laid ON EARTH. Satan is the "father of lies" who dwells on earth, within each of us, in the "garden" of our minds.
So the earth is physical!!?? Satan dwells on the earth? That would be the 2nd heaven, right? Oh, I did not read far enough, he dwells in each of us, in the "garden" of our minds.
So Satan dwells in us? He doesn't just speak his thoughts to us, but dwells in us? Does that mean Wisdom dwells in us. You said, Satan is Wisdom.
Wisdom seems like a good thing and Satan seems like a bad thing.
Rick says:
Job 2:2
And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Rick says: Simple, easy, cut and dried. :yo:
Kathryn says: I agree. Now..maybe you can take what I've said above...and if you disagree...please show me your version of the garden, the 3rd heaven, etc.
Well, obviously I think I disagree with a lot. I don't see how you are consistent in what is not physical and merely typology/metaphors and what is physical and not typology. And how do you decide which is which?
Does Satan dwell in the "garden" of Jesus' mind? During his temptation in the wilderness, from what you write, if you are to be consistent, Satan was not a outside of Jesus, tempting Him, but inside the "garden" of His mind, part of Him, tempting Him.
In other words, what is physically real in the Bible and what is spiritual, or invisible (just as real, but not physical)?
Was Noah's Ark physical (I understand the typology of Jesus being our Ark, that would be typology).
How did you determine the Garden of Eden was typology and not physically real?
Was Samson a real person? When he brought down the temple of Dagon was that a real life story or typology? When his eyes were put out, was that real.
When Jesus referred to stories about Jonah, why would he talk as if they were real live events?
You know, all of these real live events have spiritual meaning behind them, we don't have to make everything that seems incredulous to us a typology.
I know that you think Satan is not real. That he is Wisdom (and you lost me there).
Are there any people in the Bible that were not real (such as Goliath)? Who in the Bible was made up to illustrate a spiritual lesson or meaning?
Are there any geographical places in the Bible that were not real, in the physical sense that people could see with their real, physical eyes?
If the garden was not real, when did things become real for Adam and Eve in the physical sense that they could touch, see, taste with their physical senses?
Were Cain and Abel real? Did Cain really kill Abel or was that a metaphor? When God says that His "wrath is upon the children of disobedience", is that a metaphor. What does that mean to you?
If you could give me your "rules" for determining if something is real in the physical sense or typology/metaphors that would be extremely helpful.
This is the foundation I need.
And Kathryn, if I have the Holy Spirit, how come I have never seen these foundational basics that you talk about? What does one have to do to see them? Find someone like you? Isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to lead us into all truth, if we come to Him with all of our heart, without ulterior motives?
You say Satan is a liar. Do you mean Wisdom is a liar? How can that be?
As you can see you have generated a lot of questions from me.
Rick: All the best,
Kathryn: you too!
Rick
kathryn
12-19-2011, 11:14 AM
Hi Rick...I'm sorry about that. I have difficulty with computer stuff. Rose told me how to do it a few days ago...but I still had problems.:confused: Perhaps you could tell me again and I'll give it another try.
heb13-13
12-19-2011, 11:35 AM
Hi Rick...I'm sorry about that. I have difficulty with computer stuff. Rose told me how to do it a few days ago...but I still had problems.:confused: Perhaps you could tell me again and I'll give it another try.
Kathryn,
View this post.
How To Quote Posts in Replies
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2599-How-to-quote-posts-in-replies.
Richard Amiel McGough
12-19-2011, 11:39 AM
Kathryn,
View this post.
How To Quote Posts in Replies
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2599-How-to-quote-posts-in-replies.
Thanks Rick! I wrote that post for a reason. I hope it helps.
Listen folks - if you have any questions about how to post in this forum, don't be shy! I would love to work with you until it makes sense. Believe me, it's not that hard. It might take a few minutes to get it, but ti will be worth it.
kathryn
12-19-2011, 11:53 AM
Hi Kathryn,
You put our entire discussion in quotes, so when I went to "reply to quote", I got nothing. Quote what I say then put your remarks below them. Don't quote the entire discussion and put your remarks in bold. It is really difficult to read because that means other people should not "boldify" anything they write to you because you answer them in bold and it will be hard for others to figure out who is saying what. Richard gave a post on how to do this. It is really simple. I will see if I can find it. Now, I will work on separating these comments for my benefit and the benefit of the Readers.
Hi Rick...I have all of my family coming for Christmas and am trying to get the place ready for their arrival...including all the other goodies that go along with it. It's the first time we've all been together in years, so it's going to be extra special. I take breaks to answer the posts...but if I have to figure out how to do the quotes right now...it isn't going to happen. What is simple to you...isn't to me. So...if you don't mind me inserting my comments, until the Christmas rush is over...I'd love to answer them, otherwise...maybe we could pick it up then?
Providing scriptures is our starting point, isn't it. Now, I think I see what you are doing. But I want to see if you are consistent with your typology.
Is the earth we are living on physical?
Are we physical?
It seems that you don't think the garden was physical so to my thinking, this is our first disconnect.
You say the earth is physical and we are but the garden was not. The garden is in our mind which is the 2nd heaven.
So earth is not the second heaven. Earth is this round ball we are living on, right? Or is earth our bodies?
The second heaven again, is not the earth but the realm of our soul. When someone is born-again they have a circumcised heart, right. God has put into them a new heart and removed the heart of stone. So, are you saying a newly born-again person is able to FULLY conduct the Holy Spirit? I know what "the Holy Spirit conducting us" means, what does "we can fully conduct the Holy Spirit" mean?
You lost me on the 3 parts of the Temple and the 3 baptisms and I will need further explanation.
So the earth is physical!!?? Satan dwells on the earth? That would be the 2nd heaven, right? Oh, I did not read far enough, he dwells in each of us, in the "garden" of our minds.
So Satan dwells in us? He doesn't just speak his thoughts to us, but dwells in us? Does that mean Wisdom dwells in us. You said, Satan is Wisdom.
Wisdom seems like a good thing and Satan seems like a bad thing.
Well, obviously I think I disagree with a lot. I don't see how you are consistent in what is not physical and merely typology/metaphors and what is physical and not typology. And how do you decide which is which?
Does Satan dwell in the "garden" of Jesus' mind? During his temptation in the wilderness, from what you write, if you are to be consistent, Satan was not a outside of Jesus, tempting Him, but inside the "garden" of His mind, part of Him, tempting Him.
In other words, what is physically real in the Bible and what is spiritual, or invisible (just as real, but not physical)?
Was Noah's Ark physical (I understand the typology of Jesus being our Ark, that would be typology).
How did you determine the Garden of Eden was typology and not physically real?
Was Samson a real person? When he brought down the temple of Dagon was that a real life story or typology? When his eyes were put out, was that real.
When Jesus referred to stories about Jonah, why would he talk as if they were real live events?
You know, all of these real live events have spiritual meaning behind them, we don't have to make everything that seems incredulous to us a typology.
I know that you think Satan is not real. That he is Wisdom (and you lost me there).
Are there any people in the Bible that were not real (such as Goliath)? Who in the Bible was made up to illustrate a spiritual lesson or meaning?
Are there any geographical places in the Bible that were not real, in the physical sense that people could see with their real, physical eyes?
If the garden was not real, when did things become real for Adam and Eve in the physical sense that they could touch, see, taste with their physical senses?
Were Cain and Abel real? Did Cain really kill Abel or was that a metaphor? When God says that His "wrath is upon the children of disobedience", is that a metaphor. What does that mean to you?
If you could give me your "rules" for determining if something is real in the physical sense or typology/metaphors that would be extremely helpful.
This is the foundation I need.
And Kathryn, if I have the Holy Spirit, how come I have never seen these foundational basics that you talk about? What does one have to do to see them? Find someone like you? Isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to lead us into all truth, if we come to Him with all of our heart, without ulterior motives?
You say Satan is a liar. Do you mean Wisdom is a liar? How can that be?
As you can see you have generated a lot of questions from me.
Rick
heb13-13
12-19-2011, 12:22 PM
I haven't heard this from anyone Charisma, except my heart/mind as I have been going along with this. I took a course in Levitical Law...and learned much from that...otherwise I have been taught entirely on my own. It has only been the past two years that I have began to communicate these things in any depth on the forum...and only the last year that I have found others of like mind. In discussing these things with them, my understanding has grown in leaps and bounds. I understand why you are feeling this way...but again...both you and Rick need to show me in scripture where you are disagreeing with me. Please show me scripturally...who the serpent is...and how it relates to satan.
Ok, plain speech Kathryn. Here is the scripture you were asking for.
Now, if you would kindly show us in scripture where the old serpent is Wisdom. :pop2:
Rev 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
That's right, the old serpent called the Devil and Satan, deceiveth the whole world, starting with Eve.
Oh, here is one more (double-witness :winking0071:).
Rev 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Blessings,
Rick
Charisma
12-19-2011, 12:29 PM
Hi Kathryn,
Thanks for your reply to me early today. I see that Rick has his own way of raising the same issues that bother me.
You have asked me for scripture on certain points, and I could do that, if what you mean is, you are going to start using the Bible's language to express yourself, but I'm not prepared to quote verses which you then effectively take out of my hands and retranslate into the meta-language you use to express yourself.
The apostle Paul never mentioned 'an uncircumcised High Priest'. Neither did Jesus. If that 'character' is in the Bible, then it is you who needs to show groups of verses (to cover different varieties of picture language), which tell me in the Bible's language what you have in your mind. This is no more than asking you to acknowledge that I speak a different language than you. You assert that your's is biblical too, but, it is very far from what God gave the prophets. Is there any need for it to be so removed from the ground of truth He has provided in Himself?
I do think you could make it easier for yourself to communicate, if you wouldn't throw so many extra-biblical terms together in one post. If they (those terms you use) have any meaning at all, it is in how they express what God has already said in scripture.
It is this connection I am asking for... nice and slow... because I will be comparing what you say with what God has said. God restricted Himself in His personal communication with people in the Bible, always showing Himself to understand the issues from both man's point of view, and His own, His own being far more important than ours.
I will try to show from what I wrote earlier, that I think you missed some of my points - like, I didn't say God stopped speaking to Adam, is one of them.
In summary, if you don't understand why I've posted a Bible verse, then I can explain that, if you tell me. We may find that you agree already, which would be great :) but if we don't, then I need you to reply with the Bible verses which say something different - not with your extra-biblical terminology. It will be good practice for both of us to become more familiar with God's way of thinking.
kathryn
12-19-2011, 01:25 PM
Ok, plain speech Kathryn. Here is the scripture you were asking for.
Now, if you would kindly show us in scripture where the old serpent is Wisdom. :pop2:
Rev 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
That's right, the old serpent called the Devil and Satan, deceiveth the whole world, starting with Eve.
Oh, here is one more (double-witness :winking0071:).
Rev 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Blessings,
Rick
Hi Rick (and Charisma)....The key word here is OLD serpent. It is referring the the "old" serpent that tempts the "old" man within us, during the refining process. The OLD serpent is wisdom divided, and once it "eats" it tail , the tail becomes the HEAD.(Wisdom consummated. in a fully integrated spirit/soul/body)
This concept is all through scripture and typology. However...I need to know how both you and Charisma see the process of division in the garden. Do you see Adam as the type of the masculine spirit from which the feminine soul, Eve , is divided from? If we can't establish this, there is no point in going much farther into typology until we can.
Adam/Eve were given Dominion over the earth. They were the original type of the High Priest /Priestess, King/Queen of earth who administered God's will on earth. They were to "be fruitful and multiply". We have to see this first in the realm of spirit, before we can understand how it integrates with matter/earth. It is the LOINS of the mind, through which we are fruitful and multiply...and it is through the Loins of the Mind, that we initially take back Dominion over the earth (and the fowls of the air(vain imaginations) before it is worked out through the physical realm, in and through the 2nd Adam.
So...if you could both let me know where your understanding is here, I will know where to begin to answer your questions. Does this sound ok to you both?
All the best, Kathryn
Hi Beck,
I don’t see how the spirit is ever likened to the mind or thoughts of a man. The mind is where the thoughts take place and this is pretty much laid out in the Scriptures. The Scriptures talk often of the 'thoughts of the mind', not 'thoughts of the spirit'. The Scriptures also talk about the heart and mind being interchangeable but I have never seen where the mind and spirit are interchangeable.
My thought was more toward Ephesians 4:23 "And be renewed in the spirit of your mind"
We can look closer at the nature and character of these 'devils' next in the NT, if you like.
Rick
What have you to say about the parable that Jesus used of the casting out of demons in Matthew 12:43-45?
Charisma
12-19-2011, 05:21 PM
Hi Charisma,
What would then be your understanding of 'fallen angels' as demons? I've come to the understanding that fallen angels should have been interpreted as fallen messengers. I discussed this Here.
There seems to be a connection that these which are bond in darkness. Darkness is used in the spiritual sence of lack of knowledge or the rejection of that knowledge as the truth. As Paul used it that they should not be as the children of the darkness (night). In this way it rather seems to indicate that they had a choice to be the children of the light or the children of the darkness. At one point (Eph 5:8) Paul told them that they were once in darkness, but know are the light in the Lord. To have no fellowship with the unfaithful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Hi Beck,
I've just read your short thread on Jude 1:6 and other verses in Jude and elsewhere, such as this which you said:
I see them as those born from the line of Seth when men began to call upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26). They were not of the line of Cain, who was cursed by God and cast out to be a vagabond on the earth. The line of Seth, from whom Noah came, should have been messengers of God, preachers of righteousness, just as Noah was. But instead we find they left their natural habitation and made marriages with the unnatural or ungodly line of Cain. Thereby polluting the Godly seed, becoming wicked, violent and corrupt. This is why God sent the flood to destroy all flesh, and to begin again with the linage of Noah leading to the birth of Christ. For me, it is very simple to sort out the discussion which Christians seem to entertain themselves by, about men and angels; this way. This is the teaching of Jesus Christ. We do not need to guess, and there is not higher authority.
Mark 12:23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
What we learn from this passage is, that angels are not given in marriage. That is a complete declaration of truth. It is not open to negotiation.
Therefore (just in passing), in Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown. The same became men which were of old, men of renown.
Regarding angels, we learn what they are in Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? See also Psalm 2.
This is an important passage of scripture for those who have been taught (or want to believe) that Jesus was an angel, or, that He was not a complete man, or, that He was not completely God. The writer sets angels in one category and 'the Son' in another - higher than the angels. 'Let all the angels of God worship Him'.
Regarding the placing of angels instead of people into the text in Ephesians, there is nothing in the context to justify that. Paul is writing to a church - a group of believers. From start to finish he anchors them in Christ, now part of the commonwealth of Israel with access by the Holy Spirit to the Father, and now separate from Gentiles who don't believe in Jesus. By the time Paul gets to chapter four he has prayed for them twice, (We don't pray for angels.) and begun to give them practical advice about how to comport themselves to the glory of Christ.
In chapter five, v 9, he refers to the fruit of the Spirit. This is something that only those who are grafted into Christ, can bear. Only in chapter six, v 12, does he specifically mention non-human powers - and principalities (realms of domination by spiritual powers) - and the rulers of darkness of this world.
Are these fallen angels (demons) bond in the bottomless pit of darkness until judgment day? Is that why the demons that where called Legion asked Jesus was it not that day? The people in Ephesians aren't demons, if that's what you're asking.
Matthew 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? [B]art thou come hither to torment us before the time? I want to comment on this, because we know that a third of the angels fell when Lucifer was cast out of heaven, presumably because they were following him, instead of worshipping God, and his tail dragged them down with him. So, they have become subject to him, by obeying his leadership, and he's 'the father of lies', according to Jesus.
One of the strange things about the encounters of Jesus with these spirits, is that the spirits appear to be bound to tell the truth about Jesus. Nevertheless, when Jesus is met by Satan in the wilderness, Satan doesn't have that problem, he is as full of lies as ever, and twists the truth of reality in everything he says to Jesus, as he tries (unsuccessfully) to unhinge Him mentally.
It is true that 'angel' means 'messenger', and this is a key meaning picked up at the end of Hebrews 1, 'Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?' v 14 So, we see that in general, angels are lower than both Jesus Christ, and people, although they are much stronger than us.
God has permitted demons to afflict people who refuse to bow to Him in obedience, and sometimes He directs them, but usually, it's simply a spiritual law in action. The earth has been infested with demons (since before Adam was formed), and the whole globe parceled up (divided) under Satan's command, so that those who do not come under the shadow of God's wings, are vulnerable to them.
In time past, the Law represented the shadow of His wings. Now, Jesus Christ Himself is our strength, if we abide in Him and walk in the light as He is in the light.
heb13-13
12-19-2011, 05:25 PM
Hi Rick....The key word here is OLD serpent. It is referring the the "old" serpent that tempts the "old" man within us, during the refining process. The OLD serpent is wisdom divided, and once it "eats" it tail , the tail becomes the HEAD.(Wisdom consummated. in a fully integrated spirit/soul/body)
Yes, but doesn't "old" in Old serpent speak to chronology (time), as in old age? Where here is it identified with the Old Man?
And in the Garden, when the old serpent, Devil, Satan was speaking with Eve, there was no existence of any "Old Man", yet.
All you merely did just was say, "Old serpent as in Old man"? How do you link these two together. Why not Old serpent as in Old Testament?
This concept is all through scripture and typology.
What concept? Concept of Old? Concept of old serpent = old mind? When the old serpent was talking to Adam, it could not have been Adam's old mind (nature) yet, since he was pure and innocent. So help me here, Kathryn.
However...I need to know how both you and Charisma see the process of division in the garden.
Division? I see the concept of Separation. Is that what you mean by Division. Charisma has a point Kathryn that you need to use the language of the Bible. Does your concept of Division correlate with the Bible's concept of Separation?
Do you see Adam as the type of the masculine spirit from which the feminine soul, Eve , is divided from? If we can't establish this, there is no point in going much farther into typology until we can.
Ok look, I see Adam as a MAN and Eve as a WOMAN. God is not trying to be tricky here. Adam is not a type of masculine spirit, he is a man. Eve is a woman. One is masculine and one is feminine. God made them man and woman. I thought you said "spirit" is "thought", so how could Adam, who is a man be a type of masculine thought (same for Eve).
I know about basic types such as Moses and Joseph are types of Christ. Even the Ark is a type of Christ.
But how is a man (Adam) a type of (himself) the masculine spirit? Typology is meant to bring forth a different meaning or type, not the same thing.
Adam is masculine, is man, therefore already has a masculine soul. What do you mean he is a type of a masculine spirit?
Jesus is not a type of a spirit of Jesus. He is JESUS. Adam is Man, he is masculine. So, you lost me there, but I sense that is important for you to introduce the concept of "masculine spirit" and this is how you are doing it.
Adam/Eve were given Dominion over the earth.
Agreed!
They were the original type of the High Priest /Priestess, King/Queen of earth who administered God's will on earth.
I don't see any Biblical concept of High Priestess in the Bible (in God's economy) so how can Eve be a type of that? In Christ, there is neither male nor female and we are all Priests unto our God.
They were to "be fruitful and multiply". We have to see this first in the realm of spirit, before we can understand how it integrates with matter/earth. It is the LOINS of the mind, through which we are fruitful and multiply...and it is through the Loins of the Mind, that we initially take back Dominion over the earth (and the fowls of the air(vain imaginations) before it is worked out through the physical realm, in and through the 2nd Adam.
So...if you could both let me know where your understanding is here, I will know where to begin to answer your questions. Does this sound ok to you both?
All the best, Kathryn
First of all, "girding up the loins of the mind" means to strenghthen your mind, your actual mind against the onslaughts of Satan. So, how are you using "LOINS of the mind" in this instance?
To be fruitful and multiply first and foremost was meant for Adam and Eve to procreate and fill the earth with physical offspring. Spiritually speaking, yes, it means to be fruitful in the Spirit and to make disciples for Christ.
How do we take back dominion of the earth through the Loins of the Mind? And what does "taking back dominion OVER the earth" mean to you? What does that look like?
Jesus said the "fowls of the air" are not imaginations but the Wicked One (See Parable of the Sower).
Asking questions seems to be working for you and me. I know this will be a slow process and don't get frustrated, but every word that someone speaks or writes I listen or read very closely and I don't want to assume that I know what your are saying, so I will ask for clarification.
By the way, good job on using the quotes!! I think you've got it.
Best to you, Kathryn and I look forward to your answers.
Rick
Charisma
12-19-2011, 05:40 PM
Hi Beck, Rick and Kathryn,
Yes, but doesn't "old" in Old serpent speak to chronology (time), as in old age? Where here is it identified with the Old Man?
And in the Garden, when the old serpent, Devil, Satan was speaking with Eve, there was no existence of any "Old Man", yet.
All you merely did just was say, "Old serpent as in Old man"? How do you link these two together. Why not Old serpent as in Old Testament?
Kathryn touched on this earlier, in a mention of the prince of the power of the air, but I would like to expand further, although the only justification for what I'm about to say is, that if there was a place to go, Satan would have gone there. I believe he was cast out of heaven before the foundation of the earth (at least), but, being thus exiled, he has a special interest in the earth when it was created, because God placed man there - a creature in His own image. Otherwise, Satan could have gone anywhere else in the universe - but, he didn't.
He is the original prehistoric monster, and that alone qualifies him as 'old'.
We didn't have an 'old man', until a new man had become available - rather like the Old Covenant only becoming 'old', when the New Covenant had arrived.
Charisma
12-19-2011, 06:02 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I don't know if my reply to this question will arrive before or after Rick's, but we'll all know what the other thinks soon enough! :)
Do you see Adam as the type of the masculine spirit from which the feminine soul, Eve , is divided from? If we can't establish this, there is no point in going much farther into typology until we can.First, I want to point out that your second sentence is based on the false premise that unless 'we' can see things the way you 'see' them, we cannot proceed further in the discussion.
What is to prevent you, Kathryn, seeing things the way Rick and I see them? And what if, there is more consistency in the way we see them?
The Holy Spirit says 'Amen', or, He doesn't say 'Amen', and that is part of His function. If there is no truth in the words coming forth - not just from you, but from any poster, the Holy Spirit cannot witness to it.
I do agree that it's possible to make little bits of the Bible say things they don't, especially if we cut out huge chunks so as to be left with a particular doctrinal recipe. But, we should know better than that, that God is not impressed when we treat His word that way, and we should know HIM better than that, that He has set His word above His name, and it will endure for ever. It is we who have to find out what He's saying.
When debz arrived on BWF, and posted in the thread about about Male Bias in the Bible, I agreed with her post. I didn't carry on reading the thread though, so I can only vouch for her first post (which was about Adam and Eve).
The best rule for understanding scripture is in Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God.
If we begin there, it is possible to get through the whole book with less rather than more misunderstanding.
So, Elohiym made Adam in His own image - male and female created He them. The 'model' for Adam, was the Son of God - the One who would become a perfect Man, even though when He did come, Paul dubs Him the last Adam. But that's because of the changes which took place in Adam because of the fall, and that afterwards, instead of bearing children in God's likeness, he bore children in his own likeness.
So, are you suggesting that Adam didn't have a soul? That only Eve had a soul? And that Eve didn't have a spirit? Or, something else?
Anyway, which verses in the Bible suggest what you suggested above?
heb13-13
12-19-2011, 06:05 PM
My thought was more toward Ephesians 4:23 "And be renewed in the spirit of your mind"
What have you to say about the parable that Jesus used of the casting out of demons in Matthew 12:43-45?
Hi Beck,
Demons are personalities -- Mark 1:25. "And Jesus rebuked him (the demon) and said (to the demon), Hold thy peace and come out of him." The following pronouns, indicating personality, are used when applied to demons: he, him, us, we, they, them, thou, my. These words refer, not to influences, but to personalities.
Demons have the sense of ownership. -- "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places seeking rest and finding none he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out." My house indicates the demon's sense of ownership which he was loath to give up though he had been cast out. Demons are loath to give up territory which they have conquered and occupied. The momentum of possession is strong in their consciousness.
Strategy. -- "I will return to my house whence I came out." And when he returns he finds a surprise. His former house is cleansed, swept and garnished, and alone he is conscious of inability to re-enter but, nothing daunted, he thinks on the desirability of reinforcements. "Then goeth he and taketh to him seven other spirits" (the reinforcements needed on the line of his attack) "more wicked than himself." The demon is successful. "And they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first." Luke 11:24-26. Note the intelligence the demon exhibits, the reasoning, the wise planning of his counter attack, the going for reinforcements, the recognition of his inability alone to re-enter, the calculation of how many reinforcements would be needed to successfully re-enter, the breaking down of the man's defenses, and the successful re-embodiment in the demon's former home, the man's heart.
Will Power. -- Strong will power is ascribed to the demons in the above narrative: "I will return" to my house. There is such persistency of will power that all obstacles are carried before it. The strong, stubborn self-will that will not give up, even when clearly shown to be in error, is demon inspired.
Demons are represented in the gospels as having the power of speech, "And the unclean spirits when they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried, saying, Thou art the son of God." They cried, that is, the demons use the voice of the one possessed.
This same reference gives them the power of sights: "And when they saw Him." The philosophy of it we can not explain. We believe the record. But there is no more difficulty in believing that demons can see, than believing that the eyes of the Lord, who is without body or parts, who is a Spirit, can run to and fro through the earth beholding the evil and the good: "Thou God seest me." The fact is, Jesus addressed demons as seeing, hearing, intelligent personalities, with powers of judgment, discrimination and memory, like any other personality. He charged the demons not to make him known. To fulfill such a charge they must be intelligent personalities, with powers of mind and communication. Demons are not mere Satanic influences. They have all the characteristics attributed to them that go with personality. The replies of the demons to Jesus were couched in intelligent language. Matt. 8:29.
Demons have sensibilities of fear: "And they besought Him that He would not command them to go out into the deep." There is shrinking fear denoted here on the part of the demon. Whether they dreaded the casting out into the deep or just the fact of being exorcised, or cast out, is not said. I rather think they dreaded being disembodied, losing their home or place of refuge or rest in the man indwelt because in the conversations held between Jesus and the demons frequently they reveal the dread or fear of disembodiment, terming it "tormenting us before our time." They preferred embodiment even in the lower animals, the swine, to being cast out to roam in the dry places.
Demons Have Desire. -- So the devils besought him saying, "If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine." Matt. 8:31. Here we have definite place of abode. "The Scriptures reveal other characteristics of demons as their intelligent power of decision, Matt. 12:44, their power of agreement with other spirits, their degree of wickedness, Matt. 12:45; their power of rage, Matt. 8:28, their strength. Mark 5:4, their ability to possess a human being either as one (Mark 1 :26), or a thousand (Mark 5:9), their use of a human being either as their medium for divining the future (Acts 16:16) or as a great miracle worker by their power." This last reference lets light on the apparent power in Christian Science and Spiritism, and all fake healings and manifestations.
Destructiveness
The demon teareth him, throweth him into the fire, and into the water and driveth into violent, unreasonable rage (it may perchance be about some very trifling matter). The Garadene illustrates the destructiveness of evil spirits. He was forced to lacerate himself. Again, demons lack the sense of decency and inspire their victim to go nude, to wear no clothes. This fact may throw some light on nudity in modern dress and styles, as also the nudity in so-called high art, which is low art. Demons are unclean and lustful. Christ calls them "foul spirits," "unclean spirits." Thus they work in the realm of lust.
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/holiness/Zepp/Demon/DALindex.htm
All the best,
Rick
kathryn
12-19-2011, 06:39 PM
Yes, but doesn't "old" in Old serpent speak to chronology (time), as in old age? Where here is it identified with the Old Man?
Hi Rick..I'm really sorry to be inserting this in the post rather than the quotes, but I simply don't have the time right now to try to figure it out. From what you've written in your post, I'm actually wondering if maybe we should leave this until after Christmas when there's more time to devote to it. We have some huge fundamental differences here.
And in the Garden, when the old serpent, Devil, Satan was speaking with Eve, there was no existence of any "Old Man", yet.
In order to understand our identity in the 2nd Adam...or the NEW man, we have to look at the "old" 1st Adam. This is what I mean by "old".
All you merely did just was say, "Old serpent as in Old man"? How do you link these two together. Why not Old serpent as in Old Testament?I know, sorry. My priority in the post, was finding out where you stood with the Adam/Eve/spirit/soul concept. It wasn't to explain the serpent. As I said...this is going to take some time...and unfortunately...I don't have much of it at the moment.
What concept? Concept of Old? Concept of old serpent = old mind? When the old serpent was talking to Adam, it could not have been Adam's old mind (nature) yet, since he was pure and innocent. So help me here, Kathryn.
Adam was innocent...but he wasn't purified. He had a corruptible heart. The heart is an aspect of the mind. There are 3 stages to redemption. Adam was in day 1.
Division? I see the concept of Separation. Is that what you mean by Division. Charisma has a point Kathryn that you need to use the language of the Bible. Does your concept of Division correlate with the Bible's concept of Separation?
Ok..if you like separation better , that works for me. The whole process of cutting Covenant is seen in the passing of the light through ONE animal. If we want to understand how the process of redemption moves in us, through the Old Covenant...into the New...the 1st Adam to the 2nd...and old man to new..we need to understand what this means. We see this division or separation beginning in the Genesis account, when Eve is taken from the rib of Adam. If you look at the word for "side" in the Holy Place..or soul realm...it is "rib". These are all spiritual concepts that we must understand before we can go anywhere with the study of satan/demons. As I said...I think it best that we leave it for after Christmas. Once you begin to see that it is all laid out on a grid of 3, corresponding to our triune nature...spirit, soul, body...it becomes much clearer. It's just establishing the grid that takes a bit of time and the plummet has to begin in the Law to see what was fulfilled and how.
Ok look, I see Adam as a MAN and Eve as a WOMAN. God is not trying to be tricky here.
I beg to differ. He loves to conceal things. It is part of Glorification. He's one Wascally Wabbit:winking0071:
Adam is not a type of masculine spirit, he is a man. Eve is a woman. One is masculine and one is feminine. God made them man and woman. I thought you said "spirit" is "thought", so how could Adam, who is a man be a type of masculine thought (same for Eve).
Adam and Eve are the 1st type of the Bridegroom/High Priest and Bride who "rule and reign" . (you will be Kings and Priests) Dominion means to reign AND tread down. What are we treading down?
I know about basic types such as Moses and Joseph are types of Christ. Even the Ark is a type of Christ.
Yes...but there is more to it. The ark contained the rod/penis...the seed/like coriander , and the two TESTES/stones...Testimony. It sat in the "womb" of the Temple(feminine).
But how is a man (Adam) a type of (himself) the masculine spirit? We are spirit beings in earthen vessels. It is the "earthen vessels" that God uses in type and shadowTypology is meant to bring forth a different meaning or type, not the same thing.Typology is self confirming. All types following the primary type in the law (where the plummet is laid) will compliment and deepen the meaning throughout scripture. They will also reveal the 3 stages of redemption. The heart/spirit is masculine...which is why it says the heart must be circumcised...and the mind "renewed". This hails back to the High Priest who had to be circumcised to enter the Holy of Holies on Atonement.
Adam is masculine, is man, therefore already has a masculine soul. What do you mean he is a type of a masculine spirit?
The Temple is feminine Rick. It is entered by the circumcised masculine "heart"/spirit.
Jesus is not a type of a spirit of Jesus. He is JESUS. Adam is Man, he is masculine.Jesus walked in the power of the Double Witness. He only did what He saw His Father do. He represented the circumcised heart consummated with the renewed mind/virgin subconcious. He walked in Gods image..male/female. So, you lost me there, but I sense that is important for you to introduce the concept of "masculine spirit" and this is how you are doing it.
Agreed!
I don't see any Biblical concept of High Priestess in the Bible (in God's economy) so how can Eve be a type of that?Eve is the 1st type of the Jerusalem/mother/bride. In Christ, there is neither male nor female and we are all Priests unto our God.
that simply means full integration...not neutered; no division between the two. They are One.
First of all, "girding up the loins of the mind" means to strenghthen your mind, your actual mind against the onslaughts of Satan. So, how are you using "LOINS of the mind" in this instance?
I mean Loins as the generative part. The part that is able to give Life (birth) . This is in temple typology as well.
To be fruitful and multiply first and foremost was meant for Adam and Eve to procreate and fill the earth with physical offspring. Spiritually speaking, yes, it means to be fruitful in the Spirit and to make disciples for Christ.
How do we take back dominion of the earth through the Loins of the Mind? And what does "taking back dominion OVER the earth" mean to you? What does that look like?
coming into full agreement with the Mind of Christ. Casting down the vain imaginations taking them captive to the obedience of Christ. This is all speaking of the mind and thoughts/spirit. Dominion also carries the connotation of "scraping out". All of the elements in the Temple...the altar (heart) staves, pipes to the bowl of the candlestick, all had to be hollow. This is the emptying of ourselves (of the vain imaginations.
Jesus said the "fowls of the air" are not imaginations but the Wicked One (See Parable of the Sower).
Yes...same thing. Tell me Rick...what does this verse mean to you: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. The rod became the serpent when it was lifted up. What is your understanding of this? How do you reconcile the serpent/son of God ?
Asking questions seems to be working for you and me. I know this will be a slow process and don't get frustrated, but every word that someone speaks or writes I listen or read very closely and I don't want to assume that I know what your are saying, so I will ask for clarification.
I really appreciate this Rick. Again..sorry about the quotes.
By the way, good job on using the quotes!! I think you've got it. I didn't do anything!:D
Best to you, Kathryn and I look forward to your answers.Bless you Bro!
Rick
kathryn
12-19-2011, 06:47 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I don't know if my reply to this question will arrive before or after Rick's, but we'll all know what the other thinks soon enough! :)
First, I want to point out that your second sentence is based on the false premise that unless 'we' can see things the way you 'see' them, we cannot proceed further in the discussion.
What is to prevent you, Kathryn, seeing things the way Rick and I see them?Hi Charisma...I'm really sorry if I'm sounding arrogant in this. I'm just trying to get to some foundational definitions here, because if we don't , we're just throwing out our understanding without a foundation of agreement underneath us. And what if, there is more consistency in the way we see them?
The Holy Spirit says 'Amen', or, He doesn't say 'Amen', and that is part of His function. If there is no truth in the words coming forth - not just from you, but from any poster, the Holy Spirit cannot witness to it.
I do agree that it's possible to make little bits of the Bible say things they don't, especially if we cut out huge chunks so as to be left with a particular doctrinal recipe. But, we should know better than that, that God is not impressed when we treat His word that way, and we should know HIM better than that, that He has set His word above His name, and it will endure for ever. It is we who have to find out what He's saying.
When debz arrived on BWF, and posted in the thread about about Male Bias in the Bible, I agreed with her post. I didn't carry on reading the thread though, so I can only vouch for her first post (which was about Adam and Eve).
The best rule for understanding scripture is in Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God.
If we begin there, it is possible to get through the whole book with less rather than more misunderstanding.
So, Elohiym made Adam in His own image - male and female created He them. The 'model' for Adam, was the Son of God - the One who would become a perfect Man, even though when He did come, Paul dubs Him the last Adam. But that's because of the changes which took place in Adam because of the fall, and that afterwards, instead of bearing children in God's likeness, he bore children in his own likeness.
So, are you suggesting that Adam didn't have a soul? That only Eve had a soul? And that Eve didn't have a spirit? Or, something else?Hopefully you'll see what I was saying in my post to Rick
Anyway, which verses in the Bible suggest what you suggested above?
heb13-13
12-19-2011, 07:04 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I really don't have time to clean your post up so that is why you see nothing here regarding your latest post. I could have sworn that you figured it out because that one post (#83) looked great.
I did understand quite a bit of what you were talking about in your post. See, if you talk like the Bible communicates I can understand. I did not say I agree with everything, but I do understand that language.
I do have a few questions and I think you are right, we should put it off till after Christmas. Better still, until the New Year.
Have a great rest of the year and thanks for hanging in there with Charisma and I,
Rick
heb13-13
12-19-2011, 10:54 PM
Adam was innocent...but he wasn't purified. He had a corruptible heart. The heart is an aspect of the mind. There are 3 stages to redemption. Adam was in day 1.
Why would Adam need to be purifed if he was already pure and innocent. Do you mean that Adam needed to be tested, like our faith is tested? You think God wanted Adam to learn obedience by denying his flesh (Heb 5:9)?
Ok..if you like separation better , that works for me.
It's not that I like separation better, but that is what the Bible speaks about.
The whole process of cutting Covenant is seen in the passing of the light through ONE animal. If we want to understand how the process of redemption moves in us, through the Old Covenant...into the New...the 1st Adam to the 2nd...and old man to new..we need to understand what this means.
Yes, that would be great to know what "Passing of the light through ONE animal" is about. I may understand it already, but evidently not in your words/language. Charisma came up with a pretty good phrase for your language when she called it a meta-language. I agree with her, but as long as you are giving me language lessons then I will hang with you.
We see this division or separation beginning in the Genesis account, when Eve is taken from the rib of Adam.
We see separation on many levels don't we? We see separation throughout Creation. We read what God says is GOOD. This theme of separation is what God eventually uses to teach us about Holiness. Evil and Good separated. Holy from the Unholy and Profane. Ok, I am getting off on a tangent. Back to your statements.
Eve was taken from Adam but they were If you look at the word for "side" in the Holy Place..or soul realm...it is "rib".
You lost me here. Did you mean to type some more words? Can you show me a scripture or two. What do you mean by Holy Place? Tabernacle, Temple? Are you talking about the side walls in the Temple are called a "rib". How do you know this?
These are all spiritual concepts that we must understand before we can go anywhere with the study of satan/demons. As I said...I think it best that we leave it for after Christmas. Once you begin to see that it is all laid out on a grid of 3, corresponding to our triune nature...spirit, soul, body...it becomes much clearer. It's just establishing the grid that takes a bit of time and the plummet has to begin in the Law to see what was fulfilled and how.
Ok, after Christmas, we'll talk, I mean the New Year. New Year is better for me. I really want to see why the "plummet line" begins in the Law, especially since we are all children of Abraham by faith and he was before the Law. And the law of separation was given to us in Creation and many other things were introduced to us in Genesis.
And still don't know if you think Satan and demons are fallen angels which are spiritual beings. But I guess we'll get to that because you can't really say that right now, right? You want to develop something that shows me what they are (to you), I don't know, something else, thoughts or something.
OK, let this discussion rest till later,
Rick
kathryn
12-19-2011, 11:33 PM
Hi Rick....Your first question was "Why did Adam have to be purified when he was already pure and innocent."
He was innocent...as we all are when we're born but in order for God to Glorify/purify/perfect His Sons/Daughters....the light which was separated from the darkness, had to then "move through the pieces" of our Atoms/Adams. This (the Glorification of matter) was why all Creation had to be separated or divided. This is the process of the cutting of the Covenant...and the passing of the smoking torch/light, between the pieces.
Both men and women, when they have finished the refining process, will have a consummated or integrated heart/mind. Both Adam and Eve had a male/heart spirit and feminine soul. However...in type, Adam represents the male/spirit...Eve, the feminine soul...which is separated. In the 3rd phase or day of redemption, "Eve" is moved back into Adam. We become One, as Jesus prayed to the Father, before the Cross. When He was pierced in his side...it broke through or separated (pierced) the membrane of the heart, bringing forth blood and water. This allowed His Bride/Body to "return"...or be re-mem-bered back to Him, in At-one-ment.
This separation included our virgin subconscious mind, from our conscious mind. (or Holy of Holies, from the Holy Place). This was why Jesus said we must become "like a child". A child is born thinking inductively, from the subconscious. When David's Tabernacle is "raised" from its "fallen" state...the outer court (mortality) and the Holy Place is no longer standing. We become the Mind of Christ, within a fully integrated body/soul/spirit. (David's Tabernacle, unlike Mose's Tabernacle, only had a Holy of Holies. There was no veil, no curtains...no sacrificial system. BOTH men and women were allowed to enter. Both Tabernacles were in use at the same time.)
Rick: You lost me here. Did you mean to type some more words? Can you show me a scripture or two. What do you mean by Holy Place? Tabernacle, Temple? Are you talking about the side walls in the Temple are called a "rib".yes How do you know this? It is the definition of the word "side" in the description of the Holy Place. I will find it and include it when I've finished this. By the Holy Place...I mean the second or MIDDLE part of the layout of the Temple/Tabernacle: the outer court/Holy Place/Holy of Holies. (keep that "middle" in mind, because it is one of the most important concepts in typology. It describes our "midst" which must be purified. It is the "midst" of the Jordan, the "midst" of the candlesticks...etc. It is where the Light passes between our "pieces" that have been separated.)
[quote}These are all spiritual concepts that we must understand before we can go anywhere with the study of satan/demons. As I said...I think it best that we leave it for after Christmas. Once you begin to see that it is all laid out on a grid of 3, corresponding to our triune nature...spirit, soul, body...it becomes much clearer. It's just establishing the grid that takes a bit of time and the plummet has to begin in the Law to see what was fulfilled and how. [/quote]
Ok, after Christmas, we'll talk, I mean the New Year. New Year is better for me. I really want to see why the "plummet line" begins in the Law, especially since we are all children of Abraham by faith and he was before the Law. And the law of separation was given to us in Creation and many other things were introduced to us in Genesis.
After the resurrection, Jesus opened the disciples eyes by revealing Himself in the Law of Moses. He wasn't taking them back under it; He was revealing Himself in it and showing them what had just been given back to them, and what He had fulfilled at the Cross. Remember David said he loved God's Law. It is far from just a set of rules. You can't understand the Revelation of Jesus Christ, without the plummet.
And still don't know if you think Satan and demons are fallen angels which are spiritual beings. But I guess we'll get to that because you can't really say that right now, right? You want to develop something that shows me what they are (to you), I don't know, something else, thoughts or something. I didn't say they weren't fallen angels...I just want to get on some common foundation first.:winking0071:
OK, let this discussion rest till later,
Rick
kathryn
12-19-2011, 11:37 PM
Rick, this was taken from a post on the Matt. 17:27 thread . It will explain the "rib" .
[QUOTE=Bob May;36707]Hi Kathryn and all,
First, let me ask where is the description of David's Tabernacle?
Hi Bob..sorry for the delay in answering this. As you've already noticed, there is little in scripture describing the physical appearance of David's Tabernacle. What is to be found is in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. We know it was a tent pitched on Mt. Zion...a curtain or curtains stretched out, encircling the ark which stood in the midst of the tent/tabernacle. There was no outer court or Holy Place and no sacrificial system in place. It is a type of the Holy of Holies, as it held the ark and therefore we must look at the pattern given for the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle of Moses,(which was in use at the same time with the sacrificial system in place) to understand it.
For the sake of brevity, I'll just examine one area, one word ..."side". The word "side" in the description the Outer Court is "katheph". In relation to the human body, this is the "shoulders" (3802)
In the Holy Place, the word "side" is "tesla" which is the "rib". (6763)
For the Holy of Holies, it is "yerekah" (3411) from root (3409) ..to be soft/loins or generative part..."thigh" .
The Tabernacle/temple as we've discussed in previous posts, is a type of the feminine body. The ark, (a type of egg/ovum) in which were the rod (penis) tablets of TESTImony (stones.testes..testicles) and manna (seed..like coriander)
When you remove the outer court and the Holy Place, you are left with the two sides or "thighs" at the western end and the "womb"/Holy of Holies containing the Ark. Keep in mind that there was no access to the Holy of Holies, from the Holy Place. The only way in was between the sides or thighs of the western curtain or veil.
Hopefully this will be enough to give you the gist of it for now.
I'll try to comment on the rest of your posts evening. Weekends are hectic around here...and I've already been bumped off twice trying to post this:-)
Edit Post Reply With Quote
kathryn
12-20-2011, 06:56 AM
Rick: I really want to see why the "plummet line" begins in the Law, especially since we are all children of Abraham by faith and he was before the Law. And the law of separation was given to us in Creation and many other things were introduced to us in Genesis.
Just wanted to mention that God's Law is describing the eternal character and purposes of God. Jesus was slain before the foundation of the World. We are so used to reading the written Logos sequentially from our conscious mind which reasons deductively.
So...looking at it from this perspective, the plummet line goes down in the eternal heart of His character and purposes. The knowledge of the Law was given for the same reason the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in Adam's "midst"....to RIPEN the condition of iniquity (separation) within mankind, so the "tares"(carnal mindsets) could be removed and burnt and the "wheat" harvested and placed in the "barn".
The knowledge of good and evil wasn't bad in itself. It was death to Adam/Eve because their heart/mind had yet to be consummated with Light (integrated) to understand it. The Law is Spiritual..of the HOLY, WHOLE Spirit, and can only be understood by Him. The whole process of redemption is a "weighing" of thoughts/spirit, with our inner divine Law in our virgin subconscious. The Word made Flesh has always been "in and through" us. As we grow in knowledge and understanding of God Love, this Law is made flesh on the tablets of our Heart.
The 1st Adam had to die, just as the 2nd Adam. However, the "seed" of the 2nd Adam, when fully matured, turns around that "integrated circuit" and raises the "seed" of the 1st Adam.
heb13-13
12-20-2011, 08:40 AM
Hi Kathryn,
I just wanted to acknowledge that I read your posts and will re-read later when I have some time. I guess we will continue :lol:, but maybe at a slower pace.
Have a great day,
Rick
kathryn
12-20-2011, 10:55 AM
Hi Kathryn,
I just wanted to acknowledge that I read your posts and will re-read later when I have some time. I guess we will continue :lol:, but maybe at a slower pace.
Thanks Dear Bro...and thanks again for your patience, willingness and openness. You are an inspiration! PS...5th week and still holding with that prayer:winking0071:
Have a great day,
Rick
Hi Beck,
I've just read your short thread on Jude 1:6 and other verses in Jude and elsewhere, such as this which you said:
For me, it is very simple to sort out the discussion which Christians seem to entertain themselves by, about men and angels; this way. This is the teaching of Jesus Christ. We do not need to guess, and there is not higher authority.
Mark 12:23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
What we learn from this passage is, that angels are not given in marriage. That is a complete declaration of truth. It is not open to negotiation.
Therefore (just in passing), in Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown. The same became men which were of old, men of renown.
Regarding angels, we learn what they are in Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? See also Psalm 2.
This is an important passage of scripture for those who have been taught (or want to believe) that Jesus was an angel, or, that He was not a complete man, or, that He was not completely God. The writer sets angels in one category and 'the Son' in another - higher than the angels. 'Let all the angels of God worship Him'.
Hi Charisma,
Have you considered the discussion by Rose in the thread Luke 20:27-38 and the resurrection. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?704-Luke-20-27-38-and-the-resurrection&highlight=resurrection) She refers back Don Preston's book "Then comes the End". Which I think is a great insight into what Jesus was saying about marriage in the new age, But as to angels (Messengers) it relates to those that bring the word of God to his people. In many of these cases that 'angel' is used it denotes these Messengers to which some are known as False Messengers. Case in point is those in the wilderness that taught that they couldn't take the promise land (Heb.3-4) and in Noah's day to which Peter said that there were angles ( False Messengers/ Prophets) among them even as there shall be false teachers among you. (2 Peter 2:1-22)
The high places that these Messangers had was that of the likes of a Prophet or those of the Temple like unto the Preist of even the High Preist. These Messengers are therefore in higher positions that man. Paul taught that they were rulers in high places of darkness.
Regarding the placing of angels instead of people into the text in Ephesians, there is nothing in the context to justify that. Paul is writing to a church - a group of believers. From start to finish he anchors them in Christ, now part of the commonwealth of Israel with access by the Holy Spirit to the Father, and now separate from Gentiles who don't believe in Jesus. By the time Paul gets to chapter four he has prayed for them twice, (We don't pray for angels.) and begun to give them practical advice about how to comport themselves to the glory of Christ.
In chapter five, v 9, he refers to the fruit of the Spirit. This is something that only those who are grafted into Christ, can bear. Only in chapter six, v 12, does he specifically mention non-human powers - and principalities (realms of domination by spiritual powers) - and the rulers of darkness of this world.
The people in Ephesians aren't demons, if that's what you're asking.
I believe you missed understood me. I agree that Paul was teaching the Ephesians that they should walk by faith through the Spirit and that they would come against the wickeness of this world. That they would battle not against flesh and blood, but against evil spirits, spiritual wickedness. The power of the rulers of darkness those that sit in high places governing over them. So I'm not saying that the saints at Ephesians were demons, but that those children of disobedence having not Christ in them is what brings about their persecutions as an evil spirit (demon) having their father Satan. Therefore put on the whole armour of God for it is an spiritual warfare.
It is true that 'angel' means 'messenger', and this is a key meaning picked up at the end of Hebrews 1, 'Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?' v 14 So, we see that in general, angels are lower than both Jesus Christ, and people, although they are much stronger than us.
We all should be able to discern the spirits to see which it is, good or evil.
God has permitted demons to afflict people who refuse to bow to Him in obedience, and sometimes He directs them, but usually, it's simply a spiritual law in action. The earth has been infested with demons (since before Adam was formed), and the whole globe parceled up (divided) under Satan's command, so that those who do not come under the shadow of God's wings, are vulnerable to them.
In time past, the Law represented the shadow of His wings. Now, Jesus Christ Himself is our strength, if we abide in Him and walk in the light as He is in the light.
Do you see how Paul spoke of the evil spirits that sit in high places. Paul just had told the Ephesians that they would sit together with Christ in heavenly (high) places. What to you are these high places from a scriptual point of view?
Hi Beck,
This same reference gives them the power of sights: "And when they saw Him." The philosophy of it we can not explain. We believe the record. But there is no more difficulty in believing that demons can see, than believing that the eyes of the Lord, who is without body or parts, who is a Spirit, can run to and fro through the earth beholding the evil and the good: "Thou God seest me." The fact is, Jesus addressed demons as seeing, hearing, intelligent personalities, with powers of judgment, discrimination and memory, like any other personality. He charged the demons not to make him known. To fulfill such a charge they must be intelligent personalities, with powers of mind and communication. Demons are not mere Satanic influences. They have all the characteristics attributed to them that go with personality. The replies of the demons to Jesus were couched in intelligent language. Matt. 8:29.
Hi Rick,
You do realize that you are using metaphoric language (eyes of the Lord, who is without body or parts, who is a Spirit, can run to and fro through the earth beholding the evil and the good) and trying to deem it to be literal.
[/U]Destructiveness
The demon teareth him, throweth him into the fire, and into the water and driveth into violent, unreasonable rage (it may perchance be about some very trifling matter). The Garadene illustrates the destructiveness of evil spirits. He was forced to lacerate himself. Again, demons lack the sense of decency and inspire their victim to go nude, to wear no clothes. This fact may throw some light on nudity in modern dress and styles, as also the nudity in so-called high art, which is low art. Demons are unclean and lustful. Christ calls them "foul spirits," "unclean spirits." Thus they work in the realm of lust.
http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/e-books/holiness/Zepp/Demon/DALindex.htm
All the best,
Rick
As I go over more from that book it seems that I disagree more and more. Case in point is his understanding of Luke 16 about the Rich man and Lazarus He tries to apply that literally when it's a parable and here how he attemps to apply not wearing clothes and nudity to lustfullness of the physical body. I don't see that at all, but rather see that to mean they were showing their sins.(symbolically) The same application that Jesus used in Revelation to the church at Laodicea if they bought of God in that they would be given white reinments (righteousness) rather than showing their nakeness (sins).
So from the very start (if you agree with him) his applications are in error.
heb13-13
12-21-2011, 10:04 AM
Ok, plain speech Kathryn. Here is the scripture you were asking for.
Now, if you would kindly show us in scripture where the old serpent is Wisdom. :pop2:
Rev 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
That's right, the old serpent called the Devil and Satan, deceiveth the whole world, starting with Eve.
Oh, here is one more (double-witness :winking0071:).
Rev 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Blessings,
Rick
Another witness from God's Word regarding who the "old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan" is. "A murderer from the beginning."
Jesus called Satan the "ruler of this world" (John 12:31).
He also identified Satan as the "prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2).
In Revelation 9:11, John calls Satan the "angel of the bottomless pit." This describes Satan's future. But, until that time Peter warns that, "your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8).
The Greek word for "adversary" is "One who stands against."
In Matthew 13:39, Jesus describes Satan as "the enemy that sows." According to the parable, God is the farmer that sows good seed in our hearts and lives. By contrast Satan comes along afterwards and sows bad seeds that bring forth weeds, choking out the life that God has sown.
Jesus uses an even stronger condemnation against Satan and his work. He calls the devil both a murderer and a liar:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning (serpent of old), and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44).
When the book of Job opens, we find Satan at God's throne, accusing Job, a righteous servant of the Lord. In this scene, the devil is prefigured as "the accuser of the brethren," as John calls him in Rev 12:10, "who accuses them day and night before our God."
In Genesis 3, we find in Scripture the words of warfare. After the Fall, God told the devil:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman (church), and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen 3:15 )
The "woman" here represents the church of Jesus Christ and Satan has waged war with her ever since.
Who is the "offspring" mentioned in Gen 3:15?
Paul explains that the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say "and to offsprings", referring to many, but rather referring to one. "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal 3:16).
The battle is not between Satan and Man but between Satan and Christ!
kathryn
12-21-2011, 10:15 PM
Hi Rick...I am well aware of the verses that you've quoted above...and I'm aware of how you are translating them. If you're content with this understanding, without going deeper into the foundation...you're conversing with wrong person.
heb13-13
12-21-2011, 11:46 PM
Hi Rick...I am well aware of the verses that you've quoted above...and I'm aware of how you are translating them. If you're content with this understanding, without going deeper into the foundation...you're conversing with wrong person.
Hey Kathryn,
They have already been translated. Do you mean interpreting them? I'm glad you said conversing because then you are the right person and that is what we should do. So, how do you interpret those verses?
All the best,
Rick
kathryn
12-21-2011, 11:55 PM
Hey Kathryn,
They have already been translated. Do you mean interpreting them? I'm glad you said conversing because then you are the right person and that is what we should do. So, how do you interpret those verses?
All the best,
Rick
Rick...I think it was your turn to comment on what I had written in my previous 3 posts. And...I asked you a specific question you've never answered. How do you reconcile the verse: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself." The OT type for this, is the rod/serpent. Please explain this to me.
heb13-13
12-22-2011, 12:08 AM
Rick...I think it was your turn to comment on what I had written in my previous 3 posts. And...I asked you a specific question you've never answered. How do you reconcile the verse: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself." The OT type for this, is the rod/serpent. Please explain this to me.
Kathryn, sorry I forgot. Will get to that.
Travelling tomorrow, maybe tomorrow night.
Be well,
Rick
heb13-13
12-22-2011, 10:34 PM
Kathryn, sorry I forgot. Will get to that.
Travelling tomorrow, maybe tomorrow night.
Be well,
Rick
Hi Kathryn,
I did not forget. Packed In the morn, travelled in the afternoon and worked on my reply to you after dinner. Not quite done but I expect to get it to you tomorrow.
Thanks for your wonderful patience,
Rick
Here is a good overview of the origins of Satan...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-gbOnWj6Mw&feature=share
heb13-13
12-23-2011, 08:49 AM
Rick...I think it was your turn to comment on what I had written in my previous 3 posts. And...I asked you a specific question you've never answered. How do you reconcile the verse: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself." The OT type for this, is the rod/serpent. Please explain this to me.
Hi Kathryn,
Ok, here is the verse you wanted me to take a look at. This is how I understand this verse.
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (This he said, signifying what death he should die' (John 12:32, 33).
In John 3:14,15, Jesus connects His lifting up to the 'serpent' that Moses lifted up in the wilderness.
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life' (John 3:14, 15).
"And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived' (Num. 21:6-9)
So, Numbers 21:6-9 is the transaction to which Christ was alluding to in John 3:14, 15.
The object in both cases was to save men from perishing. If a serpent bites you and it is not treated it will result in the death of the body. The same is true for the effects of sin; unpardoned and uncleansed from the heart, will be the ruin of the soul. One will perish.
Christ is lifted up, so that sinners, believing in him may not perish, but may have eternal life. Perish in this context cannot mean annihilation, for it must be the opposite of eternal life, and this is eternal life is clearly much more than eternal existence. It must be eternal joy and happiness - real life in the sense of all-surpassing enjoyment, and the opposite of this would be eternal misery and this is presented under the term "perish." It is common throughout the scriptures to present the contrast a state of endless misery and suffering with one of endless joy and happiness.
Two things that we can observe between the serpent of brass and Christ.
1. From the verse in John 12, it is plain that Jesus is referring to His being raised up from the earth on the cross at His crucifixion. Christ must be lifted up as the serpent was in the wilderness.
2. Jesus is held up as a remedy for sin, even as the serpent of brass was as a remedy for a poison. Throughout the Bible we can see sin represented as a sickness/disease. And for this spiritual malady Jesus Christ had the 'healing' power to bring recovery to the 'sick'. He stated that the 'Son of man has power to forgive sin' and He could cleanse the soul from the pollution of sin. Jesus always and ever claimed to have this power directing men to rely upon Him and come to Him as the remedy for their sin.
This is how the serpent of brass was a type of Christ. Whoever looked upon this serpent was healed. And Christ does not heal from punishment only, otherwise the analogy for healing loses its importance, but Jesus cleanses a man from the pollution of sin (corrupted morals). He heals the soul and restores it to health. This is true wholeness.
"Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.' (Matt 1:21)
His power is available to save a soul from the uttermost and to cleanse and purify the soul.
'Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:' (1 Pet 1:22)
Christ and the serpent were both held up as a full and comprehensive remedy. In neither case was any assistance needed by man. The cure was all-sufficient to look to God’s provision. The Hebrew children were only to look in a very simple way to the pole with the serpent on it and they would receive their cure from the bite. This was an indication of faith when they looked (expectantly) on this pole to receive their cure.
So, Christ is also to be lifted up as a present remedy against the 'serpents' bite and as the cure was immediate in Moses day the cure is immediate when one looks upon Christ, in faith. To be sure, many are drawn to look upon Christ, but NOT all men look upon Him in faith.
And so today, we hold Jesus Christ 'up' as the one crucified for the sins of men and that whosoever will, may come, but no one is forced or 'dragged' to come to Jesus. You cannot find that anywhere in Scripture.
When you look at the whole counsel of God you will see that it is a free choice given to men to 'look upon the serpent of brass as well as Christ'. And not only must a man look toward the serpent of brass/Christ, but he must exercise faith. No man is forced to exercise faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice. For faith must be exercised by each individual, coming from their own volition, their own will.
If in Moses’ time many were seen to still be dying after having looked upon the Serpent of brass who could have believed Moses’ instructions that 'every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live?' I am sure many Hebrews could see with their own two eyes many living witnesses who had the scars of those snake bites, but had been healed by looking upon the pole. Each and every case should have encouraged those who had not been cured yet. Jesus Christ represents Himself as the only One ready and willing and able to save. And this is sustained by the testimony of His living witnesses, too.
Not only is Christ lifted up to be looked upon but how we 'look' at Christ, is the key.
Men looked upon the serpent, expecting divine power to heal them. Even in the days of Moses those men understood that the serpent was only a type, not the very cause in itself of salvation.
When it is said in John 12, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me," ALL is obviously universal in scope but it is language that is denoting a great multitude. If it was strictly universal it would be at variance with the preponderance of Bible truth. I will draw a very great number of people, a vast "multitude that no man can number." There is nothing here in this one verse contextually speaking that implies the strictly universal interpretation that ALL men WILL look to Jesus and be saved. We know that is not true, for all men DO NOT look upon Jesus Christ in faith to be saved from their sins.
'And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved' (Acts 2:21).
Men must decide to call, you cannot call for them and you cannot make men call.
The serpent of brass was designed to try the faith of the Israelites. God often put their faith to the test, and often used His wisdom to educate their faith and to draw it out and develop it. The Lord did many and various things to prove them. Now they had sinned. Fiery serpents came out among them and many were bitten and poisoned, dying on every hand. God said, Make a serpent of brass and set it upon a pole, and raise it high before the eyes of all the people. Now let those that are suffering look upon this serpent and they shall live. This was designed to put their faith to the test.
I suppose that it is conceivable that many perished through unbelief, although the provision of God for their 'salvation' (healing) was most abundant. Nothing much has changed today, has it? Has the heart of man changed towards the 'foolishness' of God? We can see in today’s world that the heart of man has not changed. The Hebrew children look at a serpent of brass and they might say with scorn, 'what does Moses take us for, complete idiots?' Perhaps like today, some philosophize on the matter. 'Isn’t it better, more reasonable and logical that we trust our own tried and true physicians than these 'myths and superstitions?' What divine connection can any man envision about looking upon a piece of brass and being healed of a serpent’s bite?
Especially in today’s world, although if you take away the technology I don’t think man is much different than any other century the last 2,000 years. In fact, he may be worse off with all of his 'enlightenment.' And of course his 'enlightenment' juxtaposed against the great hypocrisy in today’s Christendom certainly does not help him to see clearly. But, God is able to communicate to men and show them the truth. His truth is denied for many and various reasons and most often exchanged for lies. But each man will stand before God one day and will be forced to face his own responsibility and decisions that HE MADE in the face of the truth that he was shown. Even today, with all of the confusion that is abounding, men are still getting soundly saved. To be sure, the Enemy has sown confusion for millennia and yet the Holy Spirit is able to cut through all the fog of doubt and reach a man’s heart.
Many now blow off the gospel of Jesus Christ wondering how anything good, let alone healing can come of faith in a man that died on a cross. It is true, that they hear that some are healed and that people testify that they 'looked to Jesus and were made whole', but they regard these accounts as mere fanatical delusion.
The main problem is that they can see none of their own philosophy in the gospel. But, is this any more strange than a man bitten by a poisonous serpent, who by God’s command to look upon a serpent of brass is healed?
The simplicity of the gospel causes many to stumble and TO NOT BELIEVE. They want something more intellectual, logical, reasonable! They want to understand it completely and they will not trust what they cannot explain. This is why many stumble at the doctrine of holiness and sanctification which is by faith in Jesus Christ. Something so simple, a child could understand it. But their philosophy does not allow them to see it.
And that brings us full circle. Men are to look to Jesus that they may not perish but may have everlasting life. But in this 'looking' they must exercise faith in Him. Faith that brings restoration of relationship to God, healing from the effects of sin and salvation for their soul.
The natural man always seeks to take some credit for his salvation as he works out some form of self-righteousness for he cannot and will not trust Christ alone. It does not seem logical or practical for him. He has been told by the 'enlightened masters' that he is really a pretty good guy and things are not as bad as they seem. That within him is everything he needs to flourish and be happy.
When the serpent of brass was up, there is no doubt that many perished because they would not accept and act upon such a simple plan of 'salvation'. Just like today, many put off the decision to 'look upon' the pole/cross because they did not and would not realize their danger. Others that saw men 'cured' might say 'This wasn’t done by the serpent of brass on the pole.' Those men which were supposedly cured probably did not have that much poison in them and would not have died anyway.' They assume that those who give credit to God for their cure are mistaken and that they really cured themselves by just deciding to be whole.
And so we see then and now that many perish from delay. Man wants to wait to see if he is in danger of dying. And yet they wait so long that it becomes too late as the poison of sin has taken its toll on them and they are so crazed that all they can do is lie down and die.
That is why NOW is always the acceptable Day of Salvation.
While 'Christians' are pointing their fingers at sinners they have tossed aside the doctrine of sanctification by faith in Christ. They have replaced the 'uplifted One' by their own persona and they draw men unto themselves. How can they hope to teach sinners with any clarity how to look upon Christ in simplicity and faith? The power of faith is absent in their own lives and all that is left for them to tell others about is the men that they are following. The blind leaders of the blind with the end result that both of them are falling into the ditch.
Jesus said, 'You shall know them by their fruits.'
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name
done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity' (Matt 7:21-23).
The man in Luke 18 shows us how to look upon Christ, not with physical eyes but the eyes of his heart.
'And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner' Luke 18:13.
Many blessings to you and Logan, Kathryn,
Rick
kathryn
12-24-2011, 08:33 AM
Rick:
This is how the serpent of brass was a type of Christ. Whoever looked upon this serpent was healed. And Christ does not heal from punishment only, otherwise the analogy for healing loses its importance, but Jesus cleanses a man from the pollution of sin (corrupted morals). He heals the soul and restores it to health. This is true wholeness.
Hi Rick...Sorry for the delay. I have a houseful ! (17 family and 9 dogs!) :lol: If you don't mind, I'd like you to go a little farther in this type. How do you understand the use of "brass" in scripture? How is Christ a type of brass?
Also...In the Genesis 3:15 verse that you included above
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel...
.could you explain what the "enmity" was...and how it crushes the head of the serpent's seed....and the "heel" or hinderpart of the woman's seed? What is the "head" of the serpent...and what is the hinderpart/heel of the woman? How does this fit with this description of the rod/serpent? :
Exo 4:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand:
What is the "tail" of the serpent of brass (as the Christ type) and why the tail and not the "head"? Where else in scripture do you find the concept of the "head" being "lifted up" and the "tail" becoming the "head"? How does that fit in the type?
kathryn
12-24-2011, 08:43 AM
And to everyone on the forum, members and guests...may your Christmas and the coming New Year be filled with the Love and Joy of God...!
And to everyone on the forum, members and guests...may your Christmas and the coming New Year be filled with the Love and Joy of God...!
Thank you Kathryn :signthankspin: May you and your family also have a very wonderful Christmas!
Rose
heb13-13
12-24-2011, 11:37 AM
Rick:
This is how the serpent of brass was a type of Christ. Whoever looked upon this serpent was healed. And Christ does not heal from punishment only, otherwise the analogy for healing loses its importance, but Jesus cleanses a man from the pollution of sin (corrupted morals). He heals the soul and restores it to health. This is true wholeness.
Hi Rick...Sorry for the delay. I have a houseful ! (17 family and 9 dogs!) :lol: If you don't mind, I'd like you to go a little farther in this type. How do you understand the use of "brass" in scripture? How is Christ a type of brass?
Hey Kathryn,
I understand, no need for apologies. So much for waiting after Christmas. We just can't stay away from each other. :winking0071:
Also...In the Genesis 3:15 verse that you included above
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel...
.could you explain what the "enmity" was...and how it crushes the head of the serpent's seed....and the "heel" or hinderpart of the woman's seed? What is the "head" of the serpent...and what is the hinderpart/heel of the woman? How does this fit with this description of the rod/serpent? :
The Seed of the Woman was Jesus born of Mary and there was enmity between Jesus and Satan.
Enmity = Satan actively opposed with much hostility the Son of God and anything or anyone that God loved.
On the cross of Calvary, the world government and religion bruised the heel of the Son of Man, Jesus (He could not be destroyed), but at the same time Jesus crushed the head of Satan, (destroying his works)taking upon Himself the death consequences of all men's sin. 1 John 3:8 says "the Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil." And Hebrews 2:14 goes on to say that "through death He (Jesus) rendered powerless the devil." The Lord Jesus Christ crushed the head of Satan and all we have today is the backlash of the tail ... still sqirming ... still rattling. But Satan is "done in" - conquered. That is why we refer to it as the "finished work" of Jesus Christ! And in our Christian experience, we see the backlash of the tail in the influence of the world, in the inner tendencies of the "flesh", in the patterns of sinfulness and selfishness in our soul. The apostle Paul wrote, 'The flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; they are opposites to one another' (Gal. 5:17). This refers to that same battle between Satan and God. When Christians try to fight against the flesh, suppress sin, and do battle with the devil, they are fighting a battle they cannot win – for it is not theirs to fight. 'The battle is the LORD’s' (I Sam. 17:47) … and the victory has already been won by the Lord Jesus Christ.
We can participate in His victory by faith, by allowing His indwelling Spirit to overcome our fleshly tendencies, habits, and addictions; by allowing His indwelling Spirit to wash over and envelop our spirit so completely that our desires and habits are transformed. The result of such transformation of mind and behavior is a testimony to the world, by which we 'prove (demonstrate, show forth) what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect' (Rom. 12:2).
The devil tries to prevent that transformation, of course. Satan is delighted by our confusion – when we try to fight against the flesh by our own strength and ingenuity. He knows that all our attempts by self-effort will ultimately fail.
What is the "tail" of the serpent of brass (as the Christ type) and why the tail and not the "head"? Where else in scripture do you find the concept of the "head" being "lifted up" and the "tail" becoming the "head"? How does that fit in the type?
The Tail represents fear as a tail of a snake cannot hurt anyone. That is why God told Moses to pick up the snake by the tail and not the head. The head represents what can really hurt and kill a person. But the tail is harmless. Satan's head was bruised and the prophetic came true. The Son of God was manifest to "destroy the works of the Devil." The tail can represent "lies" because it really cannot do anything except instill fear of hurt but not hurt itself. It can only cause you to hurt yourself by believing a "lie".
In Isaiah 9:15 false prophets were compared with the "tail" because they taught lies. It is true that if you believe the lie you are exchanging the truth of God.
Isa 9:15The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.
There are only two natures in this life and we reflect one or the other. We either reflect the Nature of God or the Nature of Satan. There is not a third nature that we can manufacture.
"The Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, (especially in his earlier theological writings) referred to God as 'the Wholly Other,' who is wholly other than man, despite the
anthropomorphic portrayals by which our finite minds attempt to conceive of a personal God. Referring to God as 'wholly other' than man does not imply any deistic
detachment, but it indicates that deity and humanity are categories of 'being' completely distinct from one another.
God is God, and man is man!
There is a constitutional difference between God and man – the difference between the infinite Creator who has intrinsic Being in Himself and the finite creature who has
extrinsic created 'being' derived from the Creator‐God."
Jim Fowler
Please read "Frequently Asked Questions" by Jim Fowler on this page. http://www.christinyou.net/pages/pdfs/FrequentlyAskedQuestionsEbook.pdf
and his other books.
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/BOOKS.htm
I recently found Jim's site, www.christinyou.net (http://www.christinyou.net) and I must say it is an awesome breath of fresh air. I will be using many of his quotes as it seems he has dealt with many things that have been or are being discussed on BWF. And I really like the way he thinks! He does go against much of modern traditional Christian thought, however, but for the positive in my opinion. My understanding of Creation has changed thanks to him. That would be the Creation booklet (below). http://www.christinyou.net/pages/pdfs/CreationEbook.pdf
Have a great rest of the year. The Lord is marvelous!!
All the best,
Rick
heb13-13
12-24-2011, 11:47 AM
Hi Everyone,
I modified my post before this one, a bit. Please look at the end of it. I posted some sources for my quotations. I have been incredibly blessed by Jim Fowler's site.
www.christinyou.net
What a great Christmas present!!
Rick
heb13-13
12-24-2011, 02:15 PM
One more thing that I forgot.
Brass = Pride
Brass plaques on headstones and Hollywood walk of fame.
Saul's armor contained a helmet of brass (for the head).
1 Samuel 17:38
38 And Saul armed David with his armour, and he put an helmet of brass upon his head; also he armed him with a coat of mail.
Rick
kathryn
12-26-2011, 06:33 AM
Hi Rick.....You didn't quite answer my questions as I asked them, so if you don't mind, I'm going to try to narrow this down again.
You mentioned that the "seed of woman" was Jesus. I don't disagree with this, but are you including all mankind in this?
Enmity...you said that it was hostility towards anyone God loved. Again...are you including all mankind ?
Where in scripture are you taking the understanding that the "tail" represents fear and that the tail is harmless? Where in scripture does this concept of the tail come from? Where is your understanding of satan in this...tail or head? Are you saying he is just a tail thrashing around? If so...when did the beheading take place?
You didn't mention what the heel/hinderpart of the woman was. Again...please show scripture specifically dealing with this in type.
I asked you where else in scripture/typology you found the "lifting up" concept of the "head".
You mentioned the "brass" helmet of Saul. I assume you are using Saul as a type of Christ in order to fit the type? If so...could you explain the difference between the Saul type and the Davidic type? Why would Saul be used in type, for the crucifixion? Saul committed suicide when he was overcome by his enemies.
David didn't wear a helmet or armor when he killed Goliath; in fact, specific mention is made that he chose not to...so why would brass (which also represents fetters, filthiness. lust, harlotry) be used to describe Christ who was lifted up to destroy the works of satan (of whom Goliath was a type)?
Why a serpent, for that matter?
Thanks Rick!
heb13-13
12-26-2011, 04:10 PM
Hi Rick.....You didn't quite answer my questions as I asked them, so if you don't mind, I'm going to try to narrow this down again.
You mentioned that the "seed of woman" was Jesus. I don't disagree with this, but are you including all mankind in this?
Enmity...you said that it was hostility towards anyone God loved. Again...are you including all mankind ?
Where in scripture are you taking the understanding that the "tail" represents fear and that the tail is harmless? Where in scripture does this concept of the tail come from? Where is your understanding of satan in this...tail or head? Are you saying he is just a tail thrashing around? If so...when did the beheading take place?
You didn't mention what the heel/hinderpart of the woman was. Again...please show scripture specifically dealing with this in type.
I asked you where else in scripture/typology you found the "lifting up" concept of the "head".
You mentioned the "brass" helmet of Saul. I assume you are using Saul as a type of Christ in order to fit the type? If so...could you explain the difference between the Saul type and the Davidic type? Why would Saul be used in type, for the crucifixion? Saul committed suicide when he was overcome by his enemies.
David didn't wear a helmet or armor when he killed Goliath; in fact, specific mention is made that he chose not to...so why would brass (which also represents fetters, filthiness. lust, harlotry) be used to describe Christ who was lifted up to destroy the works of satan (of whom Goliath was a type)?
Why a serpent, for that matter?
Thanks Rick!
Hey Kat,
Finally found this post that you deserve an answer to. But, I am plum tuckered out now and going to take the kids to a movie. Yeah,,,, FUN. :thumb:
Actually, I enjoy our give and take and sharpening of the swords. :yo:
Have a wonderful evening,
Rick
heb13-13
12-28-2011, 12:06 AM
Hi Rick.....You didn't quite answer my questions as I asked them, so if you don't mind, I'm going to try to narrow this down again.
You mentioned that the "seed of woman" was Jesus. I don't disagree with this, but are you including all mankind in this?
Jesus is the "seed" of Abraham and He is the "seed of the woman" - Gen. 3:15
Paul views Heb. singular "seed" as a collective noun with both singular and plural implications
Gal. 3:16 - "He does not say "seeds", as referring to many, but rather to one,..that is Christ"
Gal. 3:19 - - "the seed to whom the promise had been made"
No, not including all mankind in this. The Scriptures do not include all mankind.
Christians who are "in Christ" are spiritual descendants of Abraham. "Christians" not in Christ are not spiritual descendants of Abraham.
Rom. 4:16 - "the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
"
Rom. 9:8 - "it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants"
Gal. 3:7 - "those who are of faith are sons of Abraham"
Gal. 3:29 - "if you belong to Christ, then you Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
Gal. 4:28 - "children of promise"
Enmity...you said that it was hostility towards anyone God loved. Again...are you including all mankind?
Actually, I did say those He loved but the hostility is against those that love God). The non-christian is already hostile towards God so the enmity (hostility and animosity) is against Christ and those that are for Him (love Him).
Where in scripture are you taking the understanding that the "tail" represents fear and that the tail is harmless? Where in scripture does this concept of the tail come from?
Well, like you said God's creation teaches us things too and a snakes tail does not kill or destroy it only causes fear (which could be construed as lies). Looking at Revelation 12:4, "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born", Lucifer was able to sweep away a 3rd of the angels with his lies (join with me and we can overthrow God). Despite his rebellion he was limited sweeping away only a 3rd of the "stars" of heaven.
Where is your understanding of satan in this...tail or head? Are you saying he is just a tail thrashing around? If so...when did the beheading take place?
The "beheading" took place at Calvary when Jesus, an innocent and righteous man with no sin, was executed.
"The Son of God appeared that He might destroy the works of the devil" (I John 3:8),and "through death He rendered powerless the one having the power of death, that is the devil" (Heb. 2:14).
Throughout the Scriptures there is the image of a cosmic conflict between God and Satan, between good and evil. This is never portrayed as a dualism of equal powers (yin and yang), however, since God is omnipotent. "There was war in heaven" (Rev. 12:7) that caused "enmity between the serpent and the seed of woman" (Gen. 3:15), requiring that "the ruler of this world be cast out" (John 12:31).
The work of Christ accomplished victory over Satan. "He disarmed the rulers and authorities, having triumphed over them" (Col. 2:15). He is
"victorious over the beast" (Rev. 15:2). The Lion (Rev. 5:5) who is the Lamb (Rev. 17:14) has "overcome the world" (John 16:33) and the "Evil One" (I John 2:14). "He leads justice to victory" (Matt. 12:20). "Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 15:57).
You didn't mention what the heel/hinderpart of the woman was. Again...please show scripture specifically dealing with this in type.
Jesus was only "bruised" not destroyed. That would be the bruise of the heel. Satan's works were destroyed and was rendered powerless to all those who put their trust in Christ.
Jesus was sinless and was raised from the dead. Those who crucified Jesus were the seed of the serpent in figure and their wounding of Jesus was not fatal, but was as described in the figure 'you shall bruise his heel'. A wound to the heel is not a fatal wound. Sinful man had no power over God's will and Jesus' sinlessness brought his redemption and salvation to those who believe and are obedient to God's commandments.
I asked you where else in scripture/typology you found the "lifting up" concept of the "head".
Why don't you go ahead and show me.
You mentioned the "brass" helmet of Saul. I assume you are using Saul as a type of Christ in order to fit the type? If so...could you explain the difference between the Saul type and the Davidic type? Why would Saul be used in type, for the crucifixion? Saul committed suicide when he was overcome by his enemies.
No, I was just illustrating that brass is a type of pride.
David didn't wear a helmet or armor when he killed Goliath; in fact, specific mention is made that he chose not to...so why would brass (which also represents fetters, filthiness. lust, harlotry) be used to describe Christ who was lifted up to destroy the works of satan (of whom Goliath was a type)?
See answer before this.
Thanks Rick!
Your welcome.
Rick
kathryn
12-28-2011, 05:46 AM
Jesus is the "seed" of Abraham and He is the "seed of the woman" - Gen. 3:15
Paul views Heb. singular "seed" as a collective noun with both singular and plural implications
Gal. 3:16 - "He does not say "seeds", as referring to many, but rather to one,..that is Christ"
Gal. 3:19 - - "the seed to whom the promise had been made"
No, not including all mankind in this. The Scriptures do not include all mankind.
Hi Rick...it is "seed" singular, because there is only ONE man...the SECOND ADAM. All of mankind IS included in many other places in scripture.
Christians who are "in Christ" are spiritual descendants of Abraham. "Christians" not in Christ are not spiritual descendants of Abraham.
Rom. 4:16 - "the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
"
Rom. 9:8 - "it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants"
Gal. 3:7 - "those who are of faith are sons of Abraham"
Gal. 3:29 - "if you belong to Christ, then you Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
Gal. 4:28 - "children of promise"
The process of separation was still taking place when Jesus came on the scene. (he came to bring division in order to pull down the dividing wall: two sides of one coin) The difference in understanding we have...is what God was separating. It wasn't mankind from one another...we're all children of the promise...it was separating the Holy from the profane, making the crooked, straight. (or..in the typology of the crossing of the Jordan, the UPPER waters from the LOWER waters. Water is both a symbol of life and death)
Hagar the bondwoman and her son, is the carnal mind/nature of man that keeps us in captivity and "her" offspring birthed from the "loins" of her mind/nature. Of course this is the result of our mortality and causes us to sin(or miss the mark of what was intended), but this is the whole purpose of the purification of the firstfruits. The firstfruits sanctify the REST of the crop. When the "head" crowns, the whole Body (harvest) follows. It happens in 3 stages...but it is all ONE Body...the 2nd Adam. Jesus was the FIRST of the firstfruits.
The firstfruits are shown in type, as the 12 who return to the midst of the Jordan and the Ark and bring out the 12 stones on their shoulders. (government). This is the "catching up to meet Christ in the "air". They don't leave earth...they "enter" the purified "midst" and bring back the authority/dominion/birthright restored to them by the 2nd Adam.
Actually, I did say those He loved but the hostility is against those that love God). The non-christian is already hostile towards God so the enmity (hostility and animosity) is against Christ and those that are for Him (love Him).
No...the enmity...or enemy is between the woman's seed(Body of Christ) and the old serpent's seed. It crushes her heel/ hinderpart (tail) and the head of the OLD serpent. What was the "tail" then becomes the HEAD...CHRIST. (or...the Head is joined to His Body. The "circuit" is completed...or returned to the source of power from which it left (in the garden). The tail or hinderpart of the "woman" is swallowed up..."death is swallowed up in Victory". The outer court of the temple/tabernacle represents our mortal body(and the hinderpart or tail):
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
The dragon comes up from the "sea". Have you done a study on the laver/molten sea? Underneath it , on the stand, were the 12 oxen, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, with their hinderparts facing inwards in a circle. The circle or circuit (Galilee) is one of the most important types/symbols in scripture. It represents both the birth canal and the anus (hinderpart..tail) of the woman. I'm sure this will again be very foreign to you...but it isn't foreign to scripture. We're given our physical body as a type...both the comely and uncomely parts for a very good reason. It is key in understanding temple/tabernacle typology.
Well, like you said God's creation teaches us things too and a snakes tail does not kill or destroy it only causes fear (which could be construed as lies).yes...I realized you were doing this..and that's great. Looking at Revelation 12:4, "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born", Lucifer was able to sweep away a 3rd of the angels with his lies (join with me and we can overthrow God). Despite his rebellion he was limited sweeping away only a 3rd of the "stars" of heaven.
This is the cleansing of the 2nd heaven...or realm of the "air" where satan has been prince before the "birth". All of these images in Rev. carry a redemptive meaning...and are speaking of the process of restoration.
The "beheading" took place at Calvary when Jesus, an innocent and righteous man with no sin, was executed.
"The Son of God appeared that He might destroy the works of the devil" (I John 3:8),and "through death He rendered powerless the one having the power of death, that is the devil" (Heb. 2:14).
He did...but Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world....so satan was always a defeated foe...only used as a tool for a period of time.
Throughout the Scriptures there is the image of a cosmic conflict between God and Satan, between good and evil.
B]No...he was never a match for God Rick. WE have the battle with good and evil as long as we're eating from a divided doctrine...which is the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We are IN Christ and He gives US the Sword of the Spirit(Rhema/revelation) to deal with the head of the old serpent.
This dual "head" concept..the carnal head/mind and the HEAD or Mind of Christ is all through scripture. We see it in the story of Joseph who was imprisoned with the Baker and Butler. Joseph in prison is a type of the Body of Christ in the refinement process. The Baker is a type of our carnal mind/nature which must be placed in the" oven" to have the action of the leaven(iniquity) stopped. The Butler is the "cup bearer" or Holy Spirit/Mind of Christ.
Before the Feast of Pharaoh takes place..both the head of the Baker and the head of the Butler are "lifted up". The Baker is then hung (head severed from body) and the Butler/cup bearer RESTORED TO HIS ORIGINAL POSITION. We also see it in the parable of the tares and wheat. The two are planted as seeds...and left to grow side by side in the field. When they form HEADS...the tares are burnt, the wheat harvested into the barn. One remains, one is taken.
In levitical law...the donkey is a type of the church in the refinement process...before purification. It is a mixture...half mule, half horse...carnal/divine nature. The donkey had to be redeemed by a lamb or have its neck broken (as the Baker). Haman was a type of the carnal , as was Judas...both hung...or head severed from body in order that the TRUE HEAD can be restored.
[/B]
This is never portrayed as a dualism of equal powers (yin and yang), however, since God is omnipotent. "There was war in heaven" (Rev. 12:7) that caused "enmity between the serpent and the seed of woman" (Gen. 3:15), requiring that "the ruler of this world be cast out" (John 12:31).
The war has never been in the 3rd heaven where we are in Him, at the right hand of the Father. It's the 2nd heaven...between our ears.(or the "midst" of the two halves of the ONE animal, through which the smoking furnace and burning torch were passed, in the cutting of the Covenant)
The work of Christ accomplished victory over Satan. "He disarmed the rulers and authorities, having triumphed over them" (Col. 2:15). He is
"victorious over the beast" (Rev. 15:2). The Lion (Rev. 5:5) who is the Lamb (Rev. 17:14) has "overcome the world" (John 16:33) and the "Evil One" (I John 2:14). "He leads justice to victory" (Matt. 12:20). "Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 15:57).
Amen!
Jesus was only "bruised" not destroyed. That would be the bruise of the heel. Satan's works were destroyed and was rendered powerless to all those who put their trust in Christ.
Jesus was sinless and was raised from the dead. Those who crucified Jesus were the seed of the serpent in figure and their wounding of Jesus was not fatal, but was as described in the figure 'you shall bruise his heel'. A wound to the heel is not a fatal wound. Sinful man had no power over God's will and Jesus' sinlessness brought his redemption and salvation to those who believe and are obedient to God's commandments.
Why don't you go ahead and show me.
No, I was just illustrating that brass is a type of pride. Fair enough...but you still haven't explained how a brass serpent is related to Christ. He was lifted up "as" a brass serpent in type.
See answer before this.
Your welcome.
Rick
heb13-13
12-28-2011, 09:18 AM
Dear Kathryn,
There is so much I could say to your recent post and at the same time much that I would not comment on because I don't understand what you are saying. Confusion abounds and I see lots of mixture and there is so much of it that it seems a big task to separate (like a bird that got caught in an oil spill). So, I don't want to just keep going "tit for tat" with you or give you the impression that I am against YOU. I am not against YOU, just against (if you want to use that word) some of your concepts and teachings. I would very much appreciate it if you would allow me to gracefully bow out of this conversation? The other consideration is that there are so many other posts I would like to devote some time to and I have not been able to.
Maybe, in perusing your teachings along the way, something may "click".
Most kindly,
Rick
kathryn
12-28-2011, 09:27 AM
Dear Kathryn,
There is so much I could say to your recent post and at the same time much that I would not comment on because I don't understand what you are saying. Confusion abounds and I see lots of mixture and there is so much of it that it seems a big task to separate (like a bird that got caught in an oil spill). So, I don't want to just keep going "tit for tat" with you or give you the impression that I am against YOU. I am not against YOU, just against (if you want to use that word) some of your concepts and teachings. I would very much appreciate it if you would allow me to gracefully bow out of this conversation? The other consideration is that there are so many other posts I would like to devote some time to and I have not been able to.
Maybe, in perusing your teachings along the way, something may "click".
Most kindly,
Rick
Of course you can bow out Rick. I realize it's a lot and probably foreign to many. Good luck with your studies! Kathryn
Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2011, 10:39 AM
Jesus is the "seed" of Abraham and He is the "seed of the woman" - Gen. 3:15
Paul views Heb. singular "seed" as a collective noun with both singular and plural implications
Gal. 3:16 - "He does not say "seeds", as referring to many, but rather to one,..that is Christ"
Gal. 3:19 - - "the seed to whom the promise had been made"
No, not including all mankind in this. The Scriptures do not include all mankind.
Hey Rick,
Your conclusion does not necessarily follow because Paul's logic is obviously fallacious. That verse has bothered me from the first time I read it thirty years ago. The fact that Paul used a false argument has been recognized since the time of Jerome (5th century). Here is a good review of the problem from Barnes' Notes on the Bible (http://bible.cc/galatians/3-16.htm):
He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one ... - He does not use
the plural term, as if the promise extended to many persons, but he speaks in
the singular number, as if only one was intended; and that one must be the
Messiah. Such is Paul's interpretation; such is evidently the sentiment which he
intends to convey, and the argument which he intends to urge. He designs
evidently to be understood as affirming that in the use of the singular number
σπέρμα sperma (seed), instead of the plural σπέρματα spermata (seeds), there
is a fair ground of argument to demonstrate that the promise related to Christ
or the Messiah, and to him primarily if not exclusively. Now no one probably
ever read this passage without feeling a difficulty, and without asking himself
whether this argument is sound, and is worthy a man of candor, and especially of
an inspired man. Some of the difficulties in the passage are these:
(1) The promise referred to in Genesis seems to have related to the posterity
of Abraham at large, without any particular reference to an individual. It is to
his seed; his descendants; to all his seed or posterity. Such would be the fair
and natural interpretation should it be read by hundreds or thousands of persons
who had never heard of the interpretation here put upon it by Paul.
(2) the argument of the apostle seems to proceed on the supposition that the
word "seed" σπέρμα sperma, that is, posterity, here cannot refer to more than
one person. If it had, says he, it would be in the plural number. But the fact
is, that the word is often used to denote posterity at large; to refer to
descendants without limitation, just as the word posterity is with us; and it is
a fact, moreover, that the word is not used in the plural at all to denote a
posterity, the singular form being constantly employed for that purpose.
Anyone who will open Tromm's Concordance to the Septuagint, or Schmids'
Concordance on the New Testament will see the most ample confirmation of this
remark. Indeed the plural form of the word is never used except in this place in
Galatians. The difficulty, therefore, is, that the remark here of Paul appears
to be a trick of argument, or a quibble more worthy of a trifling Jewish Rabbi,
than of a serious reasoner or an inspired man. I have stated this difficulty
freely, just as I suppose it has struck hundreds of minds, because I do not wish
to shrink from any real difficulty in examining the Bible, but to see whether it
can be fairly met. In meeting it, expositors have resorted to various
explanations, most of them, as it seems to me, unsatisfactory, and it is not
necessary to detail them. Dr. Burner, Doddridge, and some others suppose that
the apostle means to say that the promises made to Abraham were not only
appropriated to one class of his descendants, that is, to those by Isaac, but
that they centered in one illustrious person, through whom all the rest are made
partakers of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.
This Doddridge admits the apostle says in "bad Greek," but still he supposes
that this is the true exposition. Noessett and Rosenmuller suppose that by the
word σπέρμα sperma (seed) here is not meant the Messiah, but Christians in
general; the body of believers. But this is evidently in contradiction of the
apostle, who expressly affirms that Christ was intended. It is also liable to
another objection that is fatal to the opinion. The very point of the argument
of the apostle is, that the singular and not the plural form of the word is
used, and that therefore an individual, and not a collective body or a number of
individuals, is intended. But according to this interpretation the reference is,
in fact, to a numerous body of individuals, to the whole body of Christians.
Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it
might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise
or learned men - Chandler. Borger endeavors to show that this was in accordance
with the mode of speaking and writing among the Hebrews, and especially that the
Jewish Rabbis were accustomed to draw an argument like this from "the singular
number," and that the Hebrew word זרע zera‛ "seed" is often used by them in this
manner; see his remarks as quoted by Bloomfield in loc.
But the objection to this is, that though this might be common, yet it is not
the less a quibble on the word, for certainly the very puerile reasoning of the
Jewish Rabbis is no good authority on which to vindicate the authority of an
apostle. Locke and Clarke suppose that this refers to Christ as the spiritual
head of the mystical body, and to all believers in him. LeClerc supposes that it
is an allegorical kind of argument, that was suited to convince the Jews only,
who were accustomed to this kind of reasoning. I do not know but this solution
may be satisfactory to many minds, and that it is capable of vindication, since
it is not easy to say how far it is proper to make use of methods of argument
used by an adversary in order to convince them. The argumentum a.d. hominem is
certainly allowable to a certain extent, when designed to show the legitimate
tendency of the principles advanced by an opponent.
And the article continued looking for a solution but found none. And so I feel that we have encountered a fatal flaw in the Bible.
Note also that some commentators (see underlined above) have adopted something close to Kathryn's solution, that the "seed" actually refers to all believers as opposed to Christ alone.
All the best,
Richard
heb13-13
12-28-2011, 10:45 AM
P.S. Let me answer your last question which was unanswered. Why was the Brass Serpent a Type of Christ?
Why was a Serpent used in the garden? Because that is what Satan was. A "Nachash", Seraphim, Serpent. It is very clear that Satan is a fallen angel.
In the Hebrew this being or person is called 'Nachash.' The Hebrew word Nachash is translated to "shine" (like brass) or whisper (as in enchantment). The Nachash was not a literal snake. The Nachash was, to use literal Hebrew, a 'shining enchanter.' He was also shrewd' (smooth or slick), as a descriptive term in the Hebrew for 'naked and cunning' in deceiving Eve.
This word is also used for angelic creatures called Seraphim in Isa 6:2 and 6:6. Seraphim are six winged angels who are the highest ranked angels known. Satan was a fallen Angel, he shone like brass and God is showing us who he was when He refers to him as Nachash, the serpent (shining enchanter).
From Fausett's.
Seraphim
Isaiah 6:2-3. ("God's attendant angels".) Seraphim (plural) in Numbers 21:6 means the "fiery flying (not winged, but rapidly moving) "serpents" which bit the Israelites; called so from the poisonous inflammation caused by their bites. Burning (from saraph "to burn") zeal, dazzling brightness of appearance (2 Kings 2:11; 2 Kings 6:17; Ezekiel 1:13; Matthew 28:3) and serpent-like rapidity in God's service, always characterize the seraphim. Satan's "serpent" (nachash) form in appearing to man may have some connection with his original form as a
seraph (singular) of light. The serpent's head symbolized wisdom in Egypt (2 Kings 18:4). Satan has wisdom, but wisdom not sanctified by the flame of devotion.
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21)
The serpent was a reminder and emblem of the curse (Gen 3:15). The one who is the sinner’s Savior was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh (Jesus is not Satan and Satan is not Jesus), Rom 8:3.
Brass is the metal that speaks of judgment and pride and Satan. Brass is also a type of Christ as it is harder than gold, silver or iron and pictures the strength of our Mighty God. On the cross, Christ bore our judgment for us. Note that the serpent was not effective in Moses’ hand, or on a shelf. It had to be 'lifted up" and likewise Christ had to be crucified. See John 3:14, 8:28, and 12:30-33.
A Standard implies authority and protection and a particular way of doing things."And He will lift up a standard for the nations, And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah, From the four corners of the earth." Isa 11:12 (Also, Isa 49:22, 59:19 and Isa 62:10).
The people had prayed, 'Take away the serpents!' But the Lord wants us to overcome the sting of death by faith. Looking to Him in faith because He overcame it. 'Look and live!' was the answer. We will not overcome the sting of death by ignoring the bites, or "beating" the serpents, concocting some special medicine (philosophy), or running away.
But what does man do? He will manufacture his own ointment to "heal" his wounds. Or, Man thinks that if he just ministers to others leaving God out of the equation, then by all of us helping each other (god is in all of us) out we will all be made whole. Many think they can fight the serpents. Some still think they can make an offering to the serpent on the pole and appease it's wrath.
"He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan" (2Ki 18:4).
Interesting isn't it that the people were told to look at the serpent on the pole. They were not told to look at Moses, yet many look at and towards their spiritual "leaders" today. Even many still look at Moses thinking the Law can save them (Hebrew Roots Movement).
Salvation came through looking by faith to the uplifted serpent in the center of the camp.
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isa 45:22).
"...not of works lest any man should boast" Eph 2:8-9.
And Kathryn, the serpent was not connected with the tabernacle in any way. No amount of "sacrifices" will save us from death.
The serpent was lifted up in the center of the camp so all anyone had to do was look. If you were lame or two weak to crawl that was ok. You just had to LOOK. Likewise, Christ is not far away, today. Just look with the eyes of faith.
The serpent was not lifted up in some hidden corner. It was lifted up in the center of the camp where all could see it and live. The brazen serpent was lifted up so those who were too weak to crawl to the pole could look and be healed. Christ is available today; He is not far way. John 12:32; Rom. 10:8-10.
Jesus said* to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).
'And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12)
Unless a sinner looks to Christ by faith, he or she is lost forever. That is what the Bible teaches!
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that PERISH foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign (objective evidence), and the Greeks seek after wisdom (reasoning and logic): But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor 1:18-25)
Rick
P.S. I was experimenting with superscript and if you think the scripture passages are too small, let me know.
heb13-13
12-28-2011, 11:12 AM
Hey Rick,
Your conclusion does not necessarily follow because Paul's logic is obviously fallacious. That verse has bothered me from the first time I read it thirty years ago. The fact that Paul used a false argument has been recognized since the time of Jerome (5th century). Here is a good review of the problem from Barnes' Notes on the Bible (http://bible.cc/galatians/3-16.htm):
And the article continued looking for a solution but found none. And so I feel that we have encountered a fatal flaw in the Bible.
Note also that some commentators (see underlined above) have adopted something close to Kathryn's solution, that the "seed" actually refers to all believers as opposed to Christ alone.
All the best,
Richard
Hi Richard,
I am pretty sure when Eve bore her first child she probably thought that she had given birth to the "seed" who would crush the head of the serpent. Her words were quite emphatic, "I have begotten the manchild, even Jehovah" (Gen. 4:1). Nope, that wasn't Jehovah! She thought God's promise of the "seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head" (Gen. 3:15) was being fulfilled. Little did she realize how long it would be until the "Seed" was manifested.
I think that God did not put the cross right outside of the garden and remedy man's problem right away because there had to be a process or preparation in which Man was to really "SEE" his sin and rebellion and also to understand that God keeps His word and His judgment is always just. By man's inability to keep the Law he was supposed to recognize his own insufficiency and depravity and come to the place where he would appreciate God's salvation by grace manifested in His Son, Jesus (the Seed).
We are His offspring by faith and could never bruise the serpent who had the sting of death
1Co 15:56
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
And who destroyed Him that had the power of death? Was it all of us who are children of God by faith, all Believers as you and Kathryn say?
Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
"He might" (Singular, context is Jesus, Heb 2:9) destroy him (singular personality) ... the devil.
Isa 25:8
He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.
Hos 13:14
I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
2Ti 1:10
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
All the best,
Rick
Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2011, 11:55 AM
Hi Richard,
I am pretty sure when Eve bore her first child she probably thought that she had given birth to the "seed" who would crush the head of the serpent. Her words were quite emphatic, "I have begotten the manchild, even Jehovah" (Gen. 4:1). Nope, that wasn't Jehovah! She thought God's promise of the "seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head" (Gen. 3:15) was being fulfilled. Little did she realize how long it would be until the "Seed" was manifested.
Hey there Rick,
I am familiar with that interpretation, but Eve's words are not nearly as "emphatic" as you suggest, else we would expect at least one translator would have followed your interpretation. As it is, all 16 major English translations listed on this page render it as something along the lines of "I have gotten a man from the LORD." The Hebrew reads:
qaniti (I have obtained) ish (a man) et-YHWH
The "et" preceding "Yahweh" could be the sign of the direct object, in which case your interpretation would follow, but all translators that I have checked interpret it as the preposition meaning "with" or "from" so it means "from the Lord." Here's Strong's definition:
Strong's 0854 'eth {ayth}
Meaning: 1) with, near, together with 1a) with, together with 1b) with (of relationship) 1c) near (of place) 1d) with (poss.) 1e) from...with, from (with other prep)
Now I admit that the Hebrew could be read as you suggest, but that would imply the doctrine that the Messiah would be Yahweh himself, and it does not seem reasonable to impose such a doctrine on the text of Genesis 4:1.
I think that God did not put the cross right outside of the garden and remedy man's problem right away because there had to be a process or preparation in which Man was to really "SEE" his sin and rebellion and also to understand that God keeps His word and His judgment is always just. By man's inability to keep the Law he was supposed to recognize his own insufficiency and depravity and come to the place where he would appreciate God's salvation by grace manifested in His Son, Jesus (the Seed).
Well, I don't think history has shown any such thing. On the contrary, if history has shown anything, it is that God's ways do not appear to be just at all. Even the concept that we are all born in sin because of our first parents transgression transgresses the true meaning of sin and righteousness, as recognized even within the Biblical text, as when Ezekiel says that the son shall not die for the father's sin.
We are His offspring by faith and could never bruise the serpent who had the sting of death
1Co 15:56
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
And who destroyed Him that had the power of death? Was it all of us who are children of God by faith, all Believers as you and Kathryn say?
Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
"He might" (Singular, context is Jesus, Heb 2:9) destroy him (singular personality) ... the devil.
Isa 25:8
He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.
Hos 13:14
I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
2Ti 1:10
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
All the best,
Rick
I don't understand why you quote those verses. There is no question that the Bible teaches that Jesus (singular) destroyed the works of the devil.
The problem is Paul's argument which is a very bad argument. Take a look again at the quote from Barnes' Notes on the Bible. All biblical scholars recognize this as a very serious problem. Paul was completely illogical when he appealed to the singular form of sperma (seed) since that is how sperma (seed) is used throughout the Bible when it is referring to multiple (plural) descendents.
And worse, Paul is inconsistent with his own argument since he himself uses the singular sperma to refer to all believers!
Romans 9:7 Neither, because they [plural] are the seed [singular] of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Here we see that Paul uses seed in the singular to refer to all believers. His argument in Galatians 3:16 makes no sense at all.
All the best,
Richard
duxrow
12-28-2011, 11:58 AM
Way to go, Rick. Anyone doubting Paul's Truth had better look to himself. Paul is one of those holy men who spoke/wrote as the Ghostwriter intended.
Another POV re the brass serpent is how it was physical--they had to turn their stiff ? necks. Now in the New Covenant we 'reflect' back and REPENT if we expect to be saved, born-again, transformed, translated, redeemed, delivered, or turned into a pillar of salt. amen? :yo:
Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2011, 01:00 PM
Way to go, Rick. Anyone doubting Paul's Truth had better look to himself. Paul is one of those holy men who spoke/wrote as the Ghostwriter intended.
Another POV re the brass serpent is how it was physical--they had to turn their stiff ? necks. Now in the New Covenant we 'reflect' back and REPENT if we expect to be saved, born-again, transformed, translated, redeemed, delivered, or turned into a pillar of salt. amen? :yo:
Hey there duxrow,
Did Rick write something that explained the logical fallacy in Paul's argument based on the singular use of "seed" (sperma)? If not, why do you say "way to go, Rick?" The problem with that passage has been recognized by all commentators, and no one, to my knowledge, has found an adequate solution. Are you saying all those commentators "better look to themselves?" They were only speaking truth about what they read in the Bible.
And where was the justice in turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? All she did was look back. The angels didn't warn her that it would be fatal, did they?
Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2011, 01:50 PM
Jesus is the "seed" of Abraham and He is the "seed of the woman" - Gen. 3:15
Paul views Heb. singular "seed" as a collective noun with both singular and plural implications
Gal. 3:16 - "He does not say "seeds", as referring to many, but rather to one,..that is Christ"
Gal. 3:19 - - "the seed to whom the promise had been made"
No, not including all mankind in this. The Scriptures do not include all mankind.
Christians who are "in Christ" are spiritual descendants of Abraham. "Christians" not in Christ are not spiritual descendants of Abraham.
Rom. 4:16 - "the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
"
Rom. 9:8 - "it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants"
Gal. 3:7 - "those who are of faith are sons of Abraham"
Gal. 3:29 - "if you belong to Christ, then you Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
Gal. 4:28 - "children of promise"
Hey there Rick,
Is there a problem with interpreting being "in Christ" and "in Adam" as speaking of those who are "spiritually minded" vs. those who are "carnally minded?" If not, then can we see Christianity teaching Universal Wisdom that applies to all people in all times, not just those who happened to be lucky enough to hear about the Bible?
There are many verses that appear to teach Universalism in the Bible. And there are others that appear to teach an eternal Duality with some "going up" and others "going down." So which verses should "dominate" and which should be reinterpreted? This is the most important question of all because the Bible is filled with apparently contradictory verses, so every interpreter must choose which "dominate" and which are then reinterpreted in terms of the dominate verses. Harold Camping (and all Calvinists) do this when they say that we are "dead in our sins" and cannot repent and believe until after God saves us! This is the problem of the ordo salutis (http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Ordo-Salutis/). Where do you come down on this. Do you think a person can choose to be saved? The Reformers would say "no." Only the elect will be saved. No one has any choice in this matter because God chose (elected) them before they were created.
Actually, I did say those He loved but the hostility is against those that love God). The non-christian is already hostile towards God so the enmity (hostility and animosity) is against Christ and those that are for Him (love Him).
Is that true, or is it just something you read in the Bible? I mean, if everyone is hostile to God, then no one would ever choose to get saved. And this, of course, brings us back to the Reformed doctrine of ordo salutis - no one would ever get saved if they had to "choose God" because everyone starts out as God's enemy and so would never choose him! You see, there is some logic to the Reformed position.
Well, like you said God's creation teaches us things too and a snakes tail does not kill or destroy it only causes fear (which could be construed as lies). Looking at Revelation 12:4, "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born", Lucifer was able to sweep away a 3rd of the angels with his lies (join with me and we can overthrow God). Despite his rebellion he was limited sweeping away only a 3rd of the "stars" of heaven.
First, the Bible does not teach a word about any fallen angel named "Lucifer." We should not propagate that error.
Second, the "stars of heaven" probably refer to the rulers of Israel, not angels. This conclusion is based on a careful study of the symbolic meaning of stars and the word "rule" which is introduced on the Fourth Day:
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule (memshalah) the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule (memshalah) over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
The word "rule" (memshalah) is used everywhere else in reference to either God's rule or governmental rule on earth, e.g. -
Psalm 145:13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion (memshalah) endureth throughout all generations.
1 Kings 9:19 19 And all the cities of store that Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion (memshalah).
And the stars are used to represent the "seed of Abraham" -
Genesis 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
There is a HUGE amount of "inference" and speculation involved in your interpretation of the Dragon in Revelation 12. I think it's pretty obvious that it represents the governmental power of Rome which persecuted Christians in cahoots with the false prophet (apostate Israel).
Throughout the Scriptures there is the image of a cosmic conflict between God and Satan, between good and evil. This is never portrayed as a dualism of equal powers (yin and yang), however, since God is omnipotent. "There was war in heaven" (Rev. 12:7) that caused "enmity between the serpent and the seed of woman" (Gen. 3:15), requiring that "the ruler of this world be cast out" (John 12:31).
It's curious that you would say that, since you presented God and Satan as the only "two characters" in the whole universe!
There are only two characters
in this Universe,
not one
and
not three
and these characters
cannot be ONE
as in
UNITY.
Flesh + Spirit = 1?
Good + Evil = 1?
Life + Death = 1?
Love + Hate = 1?
Sin + Righteousness = 1?
Lies + Truth = 1?
Holy + Unholy = 1?
Heaven + Hell = 1?
God + Satan = 1?
Your entire list is a list of Yin/Yang dualities.
I thought that was why you were rejecting God as the ultimate unity of all, because you believe there are things that are fundamentally "other" than God.
And this is my problem with you perception of ultimate Reality - it seems you think that it is fundamentally Dualistic. This elevates evil and Satan to the same ontological level of being as God. You say there is an eternal duality. Does this not mean that Satan and Evil and Lies are as eternal as God himself?
I see the same problem with your idea that there will be two places (heaven and hell) eternally separated. This implies that there will be an eternal unreconciled evil in God's universe.
The work of Christ accomplished victory over Satan. "He disarmed the rulers and authorities, having triumphed over them" (Col. 2:15). He is
"victorious over the beast" (Rev. 15:2). The Lion (Rev. 5:5) who is the Lamb (Rev. 17:14) has "overcome the world" (John 16:33) and the "Evil One" (I John 2:14). "He leads justice to victory" (Matt. 12:20). "Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 15:57).
You can have all that without a fundamental dualism. Could it not be that Satan and the Flesh are partial views of Reality, and they are "overcome" when a soul sees its true Self as united with God, beyond all Duality?
duxrow
12-28-2011, 02:10 PM
Hey there duxrow,
Did Rick write something that explained the logical fallacy in Paul's argument based on the singular use of "seed" (sperma)? If not, why do you say "way to go, Rick?" The problem with that passage has been recognized by all commentators, and no one, to my knowledge, has found an adequate solution. Are you saying all those commentators "better look to themselves?" They were only speaking truth about what they read in the Bible.
And where was the justice in turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? All she did was look back. The angels didn't warn her that it would be fatal, did they?
Lot's Wife, IMO, was a 'precept' introducing the theme of the salty believers. Some have too much salt, I think, but salt is to flavor the Word.
..and, I strongly suspect she didn't feel anything but warmth and light, absent from the body means to be present with your Lord. ha.
The "incorruptible seed" from 1Pet 1:23 in broad sense is the Bible itself -- the hidden leaven that has permeated all the world; first orally, and now published. Ps68:11 - hallelujah anyhow?:thumb:
Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2011, 02:18 PM
Lot's Wife, IMO, was a 'precept' introducing the theme of the salty believers. Some have too much salt, I think, but salt is to flavor the Word.
..and, I strongly suspect she didn't feel anything but warmth and light, absent from the body means to be present with your Lord. ha.
Yeah, I agree, some folks have too much salt! And others not enough. But Lot's wife? What does she have to do with the "salt" that represents the Christian witness? I don't see a connection there.
And it's nice you think she got saved. Why do you believe that? Most folks would probably see being turned to a pillar of salt as a kind of judgment from God. It certainly doesn't sound very nice.
The "incorruptible seed" from 1Pet 1:23 in broad sense is the Bible itself -- the hidden leaven that has permeated all the world; first orally, and now published. Ps68:11 - hallelujah anyhow?:thumb:
That's how I used to interpret it too. Or rather, the Seed was Christ, the Living Word revealed through the Bible, the Written Word. I always saw a strong analogy between the two.
Hey there duxrow,
Did Rick write something that explained the logical fallacy in Paul's argument based on the singular use of "seed" (sperma)? If not, why do you say "way to go, Rick?" The problem with that passage has been recognized by all commentators, and no one, to my knowledge, has found an adequate solution. Are you saying all those commentators "better look to themselves?" They were only speaking truth about what they read in the Bible.
And where was the justice in turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? All she did was look back. The angels didn't warn her that it would be fatal, did they?
And besides that, what about Lot? He offered his daughters to the men of Sodom and he didn't get so much as a slight reprimand :eek: Where is the justice in that?
duxrow
12-28-2011, 02:47 PM
OFFERED his daughters? Doesn't read that way to me -- he got drunk and hormones took over. The daughters seemed to think they weren't any more men left to be their husbands -- that the S&G destruction was world-wide maybe.. Makes for interesting and thoughtful reading, to me.:pop2:
Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2011, 03:08 PM
OFFERED his daughters? Doesn't read that way to me -- he got drunk and hormones took over. The daughters seemed to think they weren't any more men left to be their husbands -- that the S&G destruction was world-wide maybe.. Makes for interesting and thoughtful reading, to me.:pop2:
Rose was talking about the time when Lot offered his daughters to be raped by the mob ...
NIV Genesis 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
Charisma
12-28-2011, 03:19 PM
Hello - Kathryn, Rick, dux, Richard and all,
Beginning back on p7 I'm checking in to see if there are points I could or should answer.
To Kathryn,
You asked when you had ever said God is divided.
Well, because I'm basing my thesis on scripture only, you did by that standard, when you said:
No...the Serpent is Wisdom. Wisdom had to be divided . Wisdom is the tree of Life...the divided tree, the knowledge of good and evil. First, I don't accept that the serpent in Wisdom with a capital w, nor that wisdom has ever been divided - depending on how you're defining 'wisdom' - as long as not 'the serpent'. The NT says that all wisdom is hidden in Jesus Christ. There is also a spiritual gift of wisdom, and, Jesus said: But wisdom is justified of her children. Matthew 11:19 By 'children', Jesus means fruit.
Jesus spoke of fruit on a tree being the means to know which is a good tree, and which is an evil tree.
He most particularly never suggested that trees of different kinds would become one. He uses that picture as an irony, because he was speaking to those who KNEW what He was telling them was true in their own experience.
It seems ironic to be telling 21st century people the same thing, in an attempt to bring them out of fantasy, to reality. Luke 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Regarding the trees, in the Bible, the tree of life is Jesus Christ, and by association, so is the Tree on which He died.
In the Garden of Eden, the tree of life was reached by a different path than the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, even if there is a common path leading to where a choice has to be made to finish the journey at one tree or the other.
That's why Paul can say assuredly, that those who do not receive the love of the truth (love of the tree of life) can never find the tree of life. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. This is a group of verses which militate entirely against universalist interpretations.
So, when you emphatically state, 'No, the Serpent is Wisdom', followed by 'Wisdom is the tree of Life...the divided tree, the knowledge of good and evil,' you are speaking an entirely different language from scripture - but you seem unaware that you are.
You then say:
Satan is a divided spirit that has no agreement with the Holy WHOLE/ONE Spirit. This I can agree with you there, because the Holy Spirit only ever testifies of the Father, and the Son, and Jesus said: Mark 4:23 And he called them [scribes and Pharisees] , and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
We eat of his fruit, until we finish the refinement stage. This I don't agree. I am not eating of the tree of the knowledge of evil at all, although I may be lopping off its branches ready for burning. (Note, Jesus says 'men gather them'.) When John Baptist said: Luke 3:9 And [U]now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire, he was speaking ahead of the work of the cross, to cut down the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which the serpent once inhabited. Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Now, those who identify with Christ's death, have been released from the power of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and they abide in the true Vine, Jesus Christ, and they bring forth fruit unto holiness (Rom 6:22) - fruit unto God (Rom 7:4)- fruit that will remain. John 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
I hope you're beginning to see how different your 'gospel' is from Jesus Christ's and Paul the apostle's?
"WHEN I be lifted up...AS THE SERPENT/SON OF GOD...I will drag all men to myselfKathryn, the only 'dragging' of anything is the serpent, who goes on his belly, in the dust.
Men, burdened by sin, may seem to be dragging themselves to Jesus, but they do so willingly, when they see in Him the end of all their sorrows.
While we're talking about him (the serpent), Ezekiel 28 has a great deal to say about his mindset. I'm particularly fond of where he meets his end (which some through worship of him also experience), 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never [shalt] thou [be] any more. And so -
Death is swallowed up in victory. 1 Corinthians 15:54, Isaiah 25:8;
Our God is a consuming fire. Hebrews 12:29.
duxrow
12-28-2011, 03:22 PM
My error -- jumping to conclusions, thinking of the OTHER.. Scuse, plz. That WAS a horrific account and one I'm not wanting to justify in any way. But about the Seed of Gal 3, and the notoriety you speak of, it's the first I've heard of it. My view of the seed is that it was passed down from father-to-son all the way from Adam to Noah to David to Zorobabel -- but never to Jesus, because the seed from God was what impregnated Mary. *If I'm not on the wrong page again - ha* :confused:?
Richard Amiel McGough
12-28-2011, 03:45 PM
My error -- jumping to conclusions, thinking of the OTHER.. Scuse, plz. That WAS a horrific account and one I'm not wanting to justify in any way. But about the Seed of Gal 3, and the notoriety you speak of, it's the first I've heard of it. My view of the seed is that it was passed down from father-to-son all the way from Adam to Noah to David to Zorobabel -- but never to Jesus, because the seed from God was what impregnated Mary. *If I'm not on the wrong page again - ha* :confused:?
No worries bro! We all make mistakes. I'm glad you don't want to try to justify the unjustifiable. But it does evoke the question about why the Bible so strongly emphasizes that Lot was "righteous" -
2 Peter 2:7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds) -- 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,
What kind of "righteous" man would offer his two daughters to be raped by a mob? Something just ain't right here ...
As for Galatians 3:16 ~ that verse bugged me from the first time I read it because I knew it was bad logic. And as it turns out, it's bugged pretty much everyone who has ever read it, and it's extra weird because Paul himself frequently used the word "seed" in the singular to refer to all believers and not just Christ himself so he seemed to contradict himself on top of making a bad argument! Now it looks like a train wreck.
As for the "seed of David" - if the "seed" was passed down father to son, then the chain was broken at Mary and so how could Christ be called the "seed of David?" She was "David's see" but Christ was not. I don't know how folks solve this problem.
Rose was talking about the time when Lot offered his daughters to be raped by the mob ...
NIV Genesis 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
What kind of "righteous" man would offer his two daughters to be raped by a mob? Something just ain't right here ...
Genesis 19:6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, 'No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.
Homosexual sex with angels was considered as "this wicked thing" by righteous Lot.
I have said before and it is easy to understand why Lot offered his daughters. In the back of his head, Lot probably knew the homosexuals would not be interested in the opposite sex and that offer was probably a distraction so as to buy time for the angels to escape. The two men were angels (representatives from God), and it will be less sinful to let the men have sex with the opposite sex (in the event that they were interested in Lot's daughters) than to have sex with the same sex who were God's representatives. Lot would have offered himself if he was much younger then but the mob were only interested in the two young angels. Homosexual relationships with angels would have incur greater sin and wrath from God on these perverted homosexual men.
Imagine the President of the United States visiting your house and the men outside your house were forcing and insisting to have sex with him, what would you do? Perhaps offer yourself or your children or other alternatives so as to buy time for the President to escape or be rescue from the perverted homosexual mob (that would be a very heroic act!). It is a greater crime to rape the President of the United States than to rape a common US citizen.
God Blessed and wishing all a Happy New Year. :pray:
heb13-13
12-29-2011, 12:12 AM
No worries bro! We all make mistakes. I'm glad you don't want to try to justify the unjustifiable. But it does evoke the question about why the Bible so strongly emphasizes that Lot was "righteous" -
2 Peter 2:7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds) -- 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,
What kind of "righteous" man would offer his two daughters to be raped by a mob? Something just ain't right here ...
Hi Richard,
I too, had never thought of Lot as Righteous, but upon further reflection and more miles under my feet, I think I may understand a bit more than I previously did.
When Abraham answered the Lord's call and left Haran, Lot also left with him. This act by Abraham to leave his home (Haran) by faith for "the promised land", is referred to by Paul in Hebrews 11:8 as one of the great acts of faith. Lot was the nephew of Abraham and left Haran, also.
Heb 11:8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
If Abraham is credited with faith for leaving Haran, then why not Lot, too? It doesn't work to say he was younger and had no choice because his sister Milcah was left behind. So, Lot did have a choice and chose to leave with Abraham. This is no less faith than what Abraham exhibited. I think the only reason that Lot's faith was not talked about is because he did not continue to grow/mature spiritually. You could even say that his faith was deteriorating with his ongoing association with the Sodomites. Peter judges him "just" and "righteous" but as you continue to read about Lot you realize that "righteous" does not necessarily equate to being right. We see that in David's life, also. David's and Lot's righteousness is related to their heart's intent. The word vexed is used twice in 2 Peter 2:7-8. The first time it means that Lot was oppressed and the second time it means that he was tormented by the wickedness that surrounded him. However, his decisions were not right/correct decisions. So, Paul gives Abraham praise concerning his faith, but does not mention Lot. Abraham's faith continued to grow and mature.
Also, unlike Lot's son-in-laws, Lot did leave Sodom. His son-in-laws chose to stay but they thought Lot was mocking when he said they should leave. So, they probably thought Lot was a hypocrite. Yeah, why leave now, Lot? Also, Lot sat in the gate (Gen 19:1) and one that sat in the gate of a city was someone that usually had a place of prominence or is an elder or leader in the city. So, it seems that Lot had much invested in Sodom and must have had the acceptance of many in order to be raised up to "sit in the gate." Unlike his wife who looked back at Sodom, longingly, Lot did not look back. He also lied about his two daughters saying they never knew any men, Gen 19:8 (because he had son-in-laws), but he told the men outside "not to do this wicked thing". Lot seems very inconsistent and made a lot of bad decisions and was not right in many things. I think he was a man of weak faith whose heart was mainly captured by prosperity and position. He had moments of faith, but they were few and far between. Lot did not mature in the Lord.
Great question, Richard. My family and I had a very lively discussion about this tonight. My oldest daughter and wife don't know why Peter calls him righteous except maybe because Peter says Lot was vexed from the wickedness around him. I see that Lot had moments of faith in his life but he was not consistent. He made many wrong decisions, but God knows the heart and will always and only be the Judge of men's hearts.
We don't know about Lot's judgment in the Lord's eyes but we do know that God does not hide the story of Lot from us and we can learn from his mistakes (not to repeat them). But regarding Lot's judgement or ours, Paul's words in 2 Cor 8:12 are comforting. "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."
I did see your other rather lengthy question to me, today and it touches on many subjects so hang tight.
All the best my friend,
Rick
kathryn
12-29-2011, 02:29 AM
Rick:
Why was a Serpent used in the garden? Because that is what Satan was. A "Nachash", Seraphim, Serpent. It is very clear that Satan is a fallen angel.
Hi Rick...could you explain why you believe satan is a fallen angel?
kathryn
12-29-2011, 03:14 AM
[QUOTE=Charisma;39979]Hello - Kathryn, Rick, dux, Richard and all,
Beginning back on p7 I'm checking in to see if there are points I could or should answer.
To Kathryn,
You asked when you had ever said God is divided.
Well, because I'm basing my thesis on scripture only, you did by that standard, when you said:
First, I don't accept that the serpent in Wisdom with a capital w, nor that wisdom has ever been divided - depending on how you're defining 'wisdom' - as long as not 'the serpent'. The NT says that all wisdom is hidden in Jesus Christ. There is also a spiritual gift of wisdom, and, Jesus said: But wisdom is justified of her children. Matthew 11:19 By 'children', Jesus means fruit.
Hi Charisma....It is divided in how it is appropriated by the carnal mind. By the same token, it gives birth to divided thought. Please note...I never said that wisdom was the serpent; I said the serpent was wisdom divided.
Jesus spoke of fruit on a tree being the means to know which is a good tree, and which is an evil tree.
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't an "evil" tree. It was death to Adam and Eve because they lacked the ability to integrate the knowledge.
He most particularly never suggested that trees of different kinds would become one. He uses that picture as an irony, because he was speaking to those who KNEW what He was telling them was true in their own experience. No...He never said this because at that point in their progress of the renewal of mind, they couldn't "bear" the knowledge. Few can bear it still. Let me ask you something Charisma...have you ever wondered what the many things were that Jesus said He had to tell them, but they couldn't bear it at the time? Doesn't this suggest to you that the obvious you seem to demand, isn't all there is? It will NEVER contradict the written Logos but the Word made Flesh will transcend it.
It seems ironic to be telling 21st century people the same thing, in an attempt to bring them out of fantasy, to reality. Luke 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Regarding the trees, in the Bible, the tree of life is Jesus Christ, and by association, so is the Tree on which He died. Yes...and it's the river of Life that brings us death. What ultimately crucified Him was the carnal mind of man working in accordance with the will of God. I'm glad you're beginning to see the "two sided coin" concept.
In the Garden of Eden, the tree of life was reached by a different path than the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, even if there is a common path leading to where a choice has to be made to finish the journey at one tree or the other.
They were both in the MIDST of the garden. This is key in understanding the concept of the two trees. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, they appropriated Godly knowledge that they couldn't interpret or integrate. The knowledge of God is Life.
That's why Paul can say assuredly, that those who do not receive the love of the truth (love of the tree of life) can never find the tree of life. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. This is a group of verses which militate entirely against universalist interpretations.
divided from rhema and other scriptures, yes.
kathryn
12-29-2011, 07:47 AM
Just a few more comments on your post Charisma...you mentioned the "thorns" not producing figs (etc). It was the crown of thorns placed on Jesus' head that symbolizes the narrow way we are birthed into the Mind of Christ. (and it is indeed a wall or ring of fire)
It was Paul's thorn in his side, which God refused to remove, that was used as a tool to buffet his carnal mind.
Sinai, where the Law was given, means: my thorns.
There is nothing in creation that is evil in and of itself except a lie.
You can tame a serpent (James) but a tongue speaking lies(vain imaginations) from a carnal mind/uncircumcised heart, is evil and defiles us.
Pro 15:4 A WHOLEsome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.
Another question: Have you ever had a rhema/revelation word, that a person is a "child of wrath" or "damned" and therefore excluded in redemption? Or any rhema, for that matter, that did anything but enlarge your understanding of God's Love for you and His Creation? I assume you've been a believer for some time. If the answer is no, and I trust it is, don't you think it's time you questioned why?
duxrow
12-29-2011, 10:55 AM
:yo:So many intertwined subjects -- like a picture puzzle w each piece going in diff direction.
John 6:63 "My words are Spirit and they are Life" -- since he is The Word, makes good sense... but is it every word from Gen1:1 till Rev22:21, or just those in Red?
A seed, The Seed, or seed as dust -- a symantic merry-go-round IMO from "husbandman God" who planted us in His Creation. The earth gets reaped in Rev14:16.
God is also a husband, Isa54:5, and when Abraham sent his trusted servant to find a wife for Isaac; it's an allegory of how the Holy Spirit is now seeking wives for the Bridegroom. amen? (my 3cents for today)
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 11:26 AM
Another question: Have you ever had a rhema/revelation word, that a person is a "child of wrath" or "damned" and therefore excluded in redemption? Or any rhema, for that matter, that did anything but enlarge your understanding of God's Love for you and His Creation? I assume you've been a believer for some time. If the answer is no, and I trust it is, don't you think it's time you questioned why?
Hey there kathryn, :tea:
What makes you think that there is a difference between rhema vs. logos? The words are largely synonymous. For example:
Luke 1:20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words (logos), which shall be fulfilled in their season.
John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words (rhema)?
Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words (logos), of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
And here we have an example of the two being used absolutely synonymously:
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words (rhema), hath one that judgeth him: the word (logos) that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
This example seems to directly contradict the doctrine of the "rhema" as only "spoken" and "logos" as only written. Note that Jesus said he spoke the "logos."
Where did you get this doctrine of a difference between rhema and logos?
All the best,
Richard
heb13-13
12-29-2011, 11:44 AM
Rick:
Why was a Serpent used in the garden? Because that is what Satan was. A "Nachash", Seraphim, Serpent. It is very clear that Satan is a fallen angel.
Hi Rick...could you explain why you believe satan is a fallen angel?
Hi Kathryn,
Satan is a fallen angel first and foremost because the Scriptures and Jesus say so.
Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Rev 12:7
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Cast out of heaven. It says and his angels with him)
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy HIM that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (referred to with a personal pronoun)
1John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (only a spiritual being can sin).
Rick
kathryn
12-29-2011, 11:48 AM
Hey there kathryn, :tea:
What makes you think that there is a difference between rhema vs. logos? The words are largely synonymous. For example:
Luke 1:20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words (logos), which shall be fulfilled in their season.
John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words (rhema)?
Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words (logos), of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
And here we have an example of the two being used absolutely synonymously:
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words (rhema), hath one that judgeth him: the word (logos) that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
This example seems to directly contradict the doctrine of the "rhema" as only "spoken" and "logos" as only written. Note that Jesus said he spoke the "logos."
Where did you get this doctrine of a difference between rhema and logos?
All the best,
Richard
Hi Richard...I should have further categorized that as a "proceeding" word. (as in Matt. 4:4) It is the word that divides soul and marrow. You know when it happens.
kathryn
12-29-2011, 11:53 AM
Hi Kathryn,
Satan is a fallen angel first and foremost because the Scriptures and Jesus say so.
Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Rev 12:7
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Cast out of heaven. It says and his angels with him)
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy HIM that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (referred to with a personal pronoun)
1John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (only a spiritual being can sin).
Rick
Ok Rick...I was wondering if you were interpreting Lucifer to be satan. Just testing the waters Bro:winking0071:
duxrow
12-29-2011, 11:56 AM
:winking0071:agree they're nearly synonymous -- both translated as WORD, and unless you check with concordance you won't know which is being used.
rhema is the utterance, and logos is the logic: like saying 'be sure brain is on before engaging mouth' (or in my case, engaging response..ha)
heb13-13
12-29-2011, 12:06 PM
Hello - Kathryn, Rick, dux, Richard and all,
Beginning back on p7 I'm checking in to see if there are points I could or should answer.
To Kathryn,
You asked when you had ever said God is divided.
Well, because I'm basing my thesis on scripture only, you did by that standard, when you said:
First, I don't accept that the serpent in Wisdom with a capital w, nor that wisdom has ever been divided - depending on how you're defining 'wisdom' - as long as not 'the serpent'. The NT says that all wisdom is hidden in Jesus Christ. There is also a spiritual gift of wisdom, and, Jesus said: But wisdom is justified of her children. Matthew 11:19 By 'children', Jesus means fruit.
Jesus spoke of fruit on a tree being the means to know which is a good tree, and which is an evil tree.
He most particularly never suggested that trees of different kinds would become one. He uses that picture as an irony, because he was speaking to those who KNEW what He was telling them was true in their own experience.
It seems ironic to be telling 21st century people the same thing, in an attempt to bring them out of fantasy, to reality. Luke 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Regarding the trees, in the Bible, the tree of life is Jesus Christ, and by association, so is the Tree on which He died.
In the Garden of Eden, the tree of life was reached by a different path than the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, even if there is a common path leading to where a choice has to be made to finish the journey at one tree or the other.
That's why Paul can say assuredly, that those who do not receive the love of the truth (love of the tree of life) can never find the tree of life. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. This is a group of verses which militate entirely against universalist interpretations.
So, when you emphatically state, 'No, the Serpent is Wisdom', followed by 'Wisdom is the tree of Life...the divided tree, the knowledge of good and evil,' you are speaking an entirely different language from scripture - but you seem unaware that you are.
You then say:
This I can agree with you there, because the Holy Spirit only ever testifies of the Father, and the Son, and Jesus said: Mark 4:23 And he called them [scribes and Pharisees] , and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
This I don't agree. I am not eating of the tree of the knowledge of evil at all, although I may be lopping off its branches ready for burning. (Note, Jesus says 'men gather them'.) When John Baptist said: Luke 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire, he was speaking ahead of the work of the cross, to cut down the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which the serpent once inhabited. Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Now, those who identify with Christ's death, have been released from the power of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and they abide in the true Vine, Jesus Christ, and they bring forth fruit unto holiness (Rom 6:22) - fruit unto God (Rom 7:4)- fruit that will remain. John 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
I hope you're beginning to see how different your 'gospel' is from Jesus Christ's and Paul the apostle's?
Kathryn, the only 'dragging' of anything is the serpent, who goes on his belly, in the dust.
Men, burdened by sin, may seem to be dragging themselves to Jesus, but they do so willingly, when they see in Him the end of all their sorrows.
While we're talking about him (the serpent), Ezekiel 28 has a great deal to say about his mindset. I'm particularly fond of where he meets his end (which some through worship of him also experience), 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never [shalt] thou any more. And so -
Death is swallowed up in victory. 1 Corinthians 15:54, Isaiah 25:8;
Our God is a consuming fire. Hebrews 12:29.
That was a very good post, Charisma. I would like to elaborate on the "trees" and "fruit" and man as a "faith creature" wholly dependent on another spiritual being for his identity and FRUIT.
You see, man is a dependent and contingent being and must derive (receive) his character, behaviour and spiritual condition from another spiritual being. He cannot create or make it up just like he cannot create the character and behavior of God (Fruit). Man cannot create good fruit or bad fruit. He receives either good fruit or bad fruit from one of two spiritual sources (spiritual being).
We were given the freedom of choice (two trees in the garden) in which to choose to be dependent on God and derive our spiritual condition from Him (spiritual being) or choose to be dependent on Satan (spiritual being) and derive (receive) our spiritual condition from him. You cannot derive/receive your spiritual condition from God a spiritual being and then if you choose to stop receiving from God you cannot make up your own spiritual condition, character or behavior. You must be deriving your spiritual condition, behaviour and character then from another being that has an evil, anti-God character. Again, Man is not self-generative and ony God has "absolute" free-will in which he can create. Man has free-choice (it is free-will but limited in that it receives what it chooses but cannot create out of nothing. Therefore man cannot create evil, he just receives it (spirit) and acts upon it and was given that choice in the garden. Man expresses the evil or good that he receives. Man is a receptable for the Holy Spirit and Life or the Evil Spirit and Death. But, it is his choice from which he derives/receives his spiritual condition.
Man could not create his evil character (rotten fruit) he had to receive it from a spiritual being who already had that character. Man is a faith creature and functions by "receiving" from one source or another. Man's choice determined whether he would receive his identity and behavior from the spiritual source of God or Satan.
"The two trees were placed in the middle of the garden in which to focus man's attention on them. God was not tempting man. "Let no man say, 'I am being tempted by God,' ...for God does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). God made man a "choosing creature" and was giving man the opportunity to function as the choosing creature that He had created him to be. This is love and the opposite would be akin to creating robots. Rose started a post once about Yahweh and Hitler and in it there was a slight deviation and we were talking about what we would have done if we were in God's place during the creation of man. Actually, nothing works if you don't at some point give man the choice to be who you created him to be, A CHOOSING CREATURE. You don't give robots or dolls, choices. Man would have to live with the consequences of his choices. In that sense you could say that God was "testing" man. God has a right to test everything that He creates, doesn't He? So God tested man, whether man would choose to be man as God intended man to be, deriving all his life (spiritual condition and behavior, fruit) from God. God was actually giving Adam the opportunity to doubt that he needed God in order to function as intended.
But think about it, we are faith creatures that operate on receptivity just like the trees. Why does God talk about good fruit and bad fruit.
John 15:4
Abide in me, and I in you. [U]As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
No more can ye, except ye abide in me. We receive our fruit from abiding in "someone" not something.
This is the easiest way to realize that man is either drawing his source of character, behaviour and identity from another spiritual being (A Vine).
It all comes down to what Vine (spiritual being) we are receiving our fruit from. Man cannot generate that which does not exist, he can only abide in it, receive it.
We receive by faith because we are receptacles. You are and become what you receive. The Spirit of Christ or the spirit of the world and Satan is the prince/god of this world.
Rev 18:4
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
James 1:21
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, [B]and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
2Co 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [I]if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Blessings to all,
Rick
kathryn
12-29-2011, 12:22 PM
Rick: God made man a "choosing creature" and was giving man the opportunity to function as the choosing creature that He had created him to be
God made man to be a choosing creature , certainly, but it takes 3 stages of redemption before he is able to choose properly. Adam and Eve were in phase 1 and certainly weren't making a choice from maturity...no more than a child could choose to drive a car when they couldn't reach the gas and brake.
This is where you need to get into a foundational study of the Law Rick. Until you do, you'll never see how God set them up to fall, and in doing so, obligated Himself in His Law, to redeem them. (ALL of mankind). Someone mentioned this would make God a sinner...well....the New Jerusalem mother marries her sons which would be incest if you read it the wrong way too. We were imputed with Adam's sin. How do you explain that one away in the court of Law?
Charisma
12-29-2011, 12:34 PM
Hello Richard,
I want to link you to a post on sermonindex.net, in which the matter you raise is addressed:
As for the "seed of David" - if the "seed" was passed down father to son, then the chain was broken at Mary and so how could Christ be called the "seed of David?" She was "David's see" but Christ was not. I don't know how folks solve this problem.Jacob or Heli?
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=6310&forum=36&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0
Ron Bailey's biblebase.com, has resources (and a forum). He posts by the name philologos on sermonindex, and on p2 of the thread above, refers readers to
'14 'studies' on tracing the Seed in the Old Testament. This is the notes to No 9 and is entitled "a man of rest and a house of rest" (http://mp3.biblebase.com/workmanworkshops/The%20Seed_09.PDF). You might find it easier to print them out so that you can compare the genealogies side by side.
You'll find the rest of the series here. (http://wiki.biblebase.com/index.php/Old_Testament_Introduction.)'
As for Galatians 3:16 ~ that verse bugged me from the first time I read it because I knew it was bad logic. And as it turns out, it's bugged pretty much everyone who has ever read it, and it's extra weird because Paul himself frequently used the word "seed" in the singular to refer to all believers and not just Christ himself so he seemed to contradict himself on top of making a bad argument! Now it looks like a train wreck. I wouldn't call it a train wreck - unless you were just in a bad mood when you wrote that :winking0071:
It's good that you were 'bugged' by that verse. God knows how to get your attention. :winking0071:
I proceed with caution here, because the 'logic' is all in the Bible, and I feel certain you are aware of all the verses I might use to show you, but, some revelations don't come to us until we start looking for answers with our hearts. It's at those moments we seem to see extra clearly, whether a course of action has been profitable for our souls, or merely an education (tree of knowledge of good and evil) - a worthy pastime (entertainment of no constructive value whatever), or, a pure waste of time - a delay, a hindrance to meaningful progress towards knowing truth.
Jesus Christ, the seed, was a one and only. The phrase 'only begotten' is closer to 'one of a kind' or 'in a class of His own', than simply 'only Son' as we would understand that in a human family. As such, the use of the singular is appropriate. Neither is it Paul's invention, although it is given to him to write about it in the NT. John also does and Peter.
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
If the seed is incorruptible, it will never die.
This is the difference between the 'incorruptible seed' God sows in a life, and natural human 'seed', which will die sooner or later.
No matter what quality of Jesus Christ's life is being described in the Christian, including eternal life itself, it all arises from the 'incorruptible seed' - His seed planted in the corruptible man. From Him (the incorruptible seed) flows a stream of the knowledge of God, the spiritual gifts, and, the power to fulfil God's purposes in that life.
John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
It's a very simple equation, essential for understanding Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
A good way to understand God's will in this, is the parallel between
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
and
Mark 1:40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth [his] hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean. 42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
The leper had heard he could receive a clean life. He had to approach Christ and ask for it. Christ's unhesitatiing response is: 'I will'.
Charisma
12-29-2011, 12:46 PM
Hi Kathryn,
Before I answer your replies to my post yesterday, in your question to Rick about Lucifer and Satan, what is your position, please? Would you not say they are the same being at different points in their history?
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
{O Lucifer: or, O day star}
heb13-13
12-29-2011, 12:54 PM
Rick: God made man a "choosing creature" and was giving man the opportunity to function as the choosing creature that He had created him to be
God made man to be a choosing creature , certainly, but it takes 3 stages of redemption before he is able to choose properly. Adam and Eve were in phase 1 and certainly weren't making a choice from maturity...no more than a child could choose to drive a car when they couldn't reach the gas and brake.
This is where you need to get into a foundational study of the Law Rick. Until you do, you'll never see how God set them up to fall, and in doing so, obligated Himself in His Law, to redeem them. (ALL of mankind). Someone mentioned this would make God a sinner...well....the New Jerusalem mother marries her sons which would be incest if you read it the wrong way too. We were imputed with Adam's sin. How do you explain that one away in the court of Law?
Genesis 3:15 is God's first promise (His committment) of redemption.
Charisma
12-29-2011, 12:58 PM
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the kind word about my post.
I would just like to comment on one thing you said - about man receiving fruit. I would more call it sap. What d'you think?
So then, when we abide in Jesus Christ, the true Vine, we become producers of good fruit - the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, faith, gentleness, meekness, temperance.
If we are not abiding in Jesus Christ, the true Vine, we produce (as you implied) the fruit of the evil father of our spirits (John 8:44) unto death (both in us, and in others).
heb13-13
12-29-2011, 01:15 PM
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the kind word about my post.
I would just like to comment on one thing you said - about man receiving fruit. I would more call it sap. What d'you think?
So then, when we abide in Jesus Christ, the true Vine, we become producers of good fruit - the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, faith, gentleness, meekness, temperance.
If we are not abiding in Jesus Christ, the true Vine, we produce (as you implied) the fruit of the evil father of our spirits (John 8:44) unto death (both in us, and in others).
Yeah, I think that works well. SAP is ok as long as we don't produce it but rather receive it. We cannot produce anything. And the SAP produces FRUIT so to me the SAP is the Holy Spirit.
We become producers of good fruit only by virtue of abiding in the Vine (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit being in us. We are the branch that the fruit is hung off of. We are the receptacles or "holders" or containers for the fruit. It is the dynamic Life of Christ in us that produces fruit that "remains."
But always our CHOICE who we derive our spiritual life from. It has always been that way since the Garden.
John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Blessings,
Rick
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 01:25 PM
Hi Richard,
I too, had never thought of Lot as Righteous, but upon further reflection and more miles under my feet, I think I may understand a bit more than I previously did.
When Abraham answered the Lord's call and left Haran, Lot also left with him. This act by Abraham to leave his home (Haran) by faith for "the promised land", is referred to by Paul in Hebrews 11:8 as one of the great acts of faith. Lot was the nephew of Abraham and left Haran, also.
Heb 11:8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
If Abraham is credited with faith for leaving Haran, then why not Lot, too? It doesn't work to say he was younger and had no choice because his sister Milcah was left behind. So, Lot did have a choice and chose to leave with Abraham. This is no less faith than what Abraham exhibited. I think the only reason that Lot's faith was not talked about is because he did not continue to grow/mature spiritually. You could even say that his faith was deteriorating with his ongoing association with the Sodomites. Peter judges him "just" and "righteous" but as you continue to read about Lot you realize that "righteous" does not necessarily equate to being right. We see that in David's life, also. David's and Lot's righteousness is related to their heart's intent. The word vexed is used twice in 2 Peter 2:7-8. The first time it means that Lot was oppressed and the second time it means that he was tormented by the wickedness that surrounded him. However, his decisions were not right/correct decisions. So, Paul gives Abraham praise concerning his faith, but does not mention Lot. Abraham's faith continued to grow and mature.
Also, unlike Lot's son-in-laws, Lot did leave Sodom. His son-in-laws chose to stay but they thought Lot was mocking when he said they should leave. So, they probably thought Lot was a hypocrite. Yeah, why leave now, Lot? Also, Lot sat in the gate (Gen 19:1) and one that sat in the gate of a city was someone that usually had a place of prominence or is an elder or leader in the city. So, it seems that Lot had much invested in Sodom and must have had the acceptance of many in order to be raised up to "sit in the gate." Unlike his wife who looked back at Sodom, longingly, Lot did not look back. He also lied about his two daughters saying they never knew any men, Gen 19:8 (because he had son-in-laws), but he told the men outside "not to do this wicked thing". Lot seems very inconsistent and made a lot of bad decisions and was not right in many things. I think he was a man of weak faith whose heart was mainly captured by prosperity and position. He had moments of faith, but they were few and far between. Lot did not mature in the Lord.
Great question, Richard. My family and I had a very lively discussion about this tonight. My oldest daughter and wife don't know why Peter calls him righteous except maybe because Peter says Lot was vexed from the wickedness around him. I see that Lot had moments of faith in his life but he was not consistent. He made many wrong decisions, but God knows the heart and will always and only be the Judge of men's hearts.
We don't know about Lot's judgment in the Lord's eyes but we do know that God does not hide the story of Lot from us and we can learn from his mistakes (not to repeat them). But regarding Lot's judgement or ours, Paul's words in 2 Cor 8:12 are comforting. "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."
I did see your other rather lengthy question to me, today and it touches on many subjects so hang tight.
All the best my friend,
Rick
Hey Rick,
That's great that you and your family had a "lively discussion" about this. It is an old problem. It looks like you got your material from this article http://www.heraldmag.org/literature/bio_6.htm, is that correct? It lays out a very similar argument.
It's funny that you bring up David, because I have the same problem with the Biblical statements concerning the idea that he "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD" -
1 Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
This verse seems very strange. If we spell out the sins involved in the "matter of Uriah" we see coveting, adultery, deceit, and murder. Right there we have gross violations of four of the ten commandments! And sense he ignored God in all this, we have five violations. And what about the 70,000 Israelites that lost their lives as a direct result of the census he ordered? And what about his many wives? Was that "right in the eyes of the Lord" too? If so, then the Christian doctrine of monogamy is contrary to God's heart, or God changed his morality.
I still don't understand why the Bible would say that Lot was righteous, let alone emphasize it three times in a single verse. And to add to the confusion, the Jewish tradition is that Lot was very wicked! Here's what the Jewish Encyclopedia says (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10122-lot):
Lot is generally represented by the Rabbis in an unfavorable light. When the quarrel arose between his shepherds and those of Abraham (Gen. xiii. 7), there was a quarrel between Abraham and Lot also. The latter sent his flocks to graze in fields that did not belong to him; and when Abraham, induced by the complaints of the wronged owners, remonstrated, Lot showed himself rebellious (Targ. of pseudo-Jonathan and Yer. to Gen. xiii. 7; Pesiḳ. R. 3 [ed. Friedmann, pp. 9b-10a]; Gen. R. xli. 6-7). Lot, while separating himself from Abraham, separated himself from God also, saying, "I have no desire either in Abraham or in his God" (Gen. R. xli. 9-10). It was only after the wicked ("rasha'") Lot had left Abraham that God spoke again to the latter (Pesiḳ. R. l.c.; comp. Gen. xiii. 14). Lot was given over to lust; therefore he chose Sodom as his residence (Pesiḳ. R. l.c.; Gen. R. xli. 9), and his daughters' act of incest was due to his neglect. The account of it was therefore read every Saturday in the synagogues as a warning to the public (Nazir 23b; Gen. R. li. 12).
It looks like 2 Peter could be propagating a competing Jewish tradition concerning Lot.
And all this leads to the one question of greatest importance. Why did God fail to report anything that would make Lot look righteous if he intended us to know, as in 2 Peter, that Lot was so very righteous? And what does this tell us about the meaning of "righteousness?" I would never deliberately write anything so confusing. Is there any reason for us to believe that God would really choose to be the author of such confusion? Why then does anyone choose to believe the Bible is divinely inspired and without error?
As for "learning from Lot's mistakes" - sure, that's great! I can learn from Hitler's and Judas' mistakes too without claiming that they were "righteous."
As for God "judging men's hearts" - again, that's fine, but why would God tell us that Lot was so very righteous if it did not show in his life? What does that teach me about "biblical" righteousness other than it is totally disconnected from the normal meaning of that word? And this goes back to the most fundamental problem I have with the Biblical teaching on righteousness and the Gospel itself. The meaning of "righteous" has no meaning when sinners are declared "righteous" when in fact they are not. If the word "righteous" does not mean, as John says, "to do righteousness" then what does it mean? Christians have invented the logically incoherent idea of being "positionally righteous" while in fact being a sinner. That seems to me to be the primary source of the moral corruption we see in professing Christians. They have no insight to the meaning of righteousness at all. It has been disconnected from its true meaning.
Great chatting my friend! Maybe this will lead to another good conversation with your family.
All the best,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 01:32 PM
Hi Richard...I should have further categorized that as a "proceeding" word. (as in Matt. 4:4) It is the word that divides soul and marrow. You know when it happens.
How does that make any difference? The logos "proceeds" from the mouth of God just like the rhema. What makes you think there is a difference between the two words? I showed how they are used synonymously. Where did you get this doctrine?
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 01:36 PM
Hi Richard...I should have further categorized that as a "proceeding" word. (as in Matt. 4:4) It is the word that divides soul and marrow. You know when it happens.
Again, we have a contradiction with your doctrine. The word that is "proceeding" is rhema whereas the word that divides soul and marrow is logos.
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 02:08 PM
The words rhema and logos are used synonymously in these passages:
Luke 9:44 Let these sayings (logos) sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. 45 But they understood not this saying (rhema), and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying (rhema).
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words (rhema), hath one that judgeth him: the word (logos) that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words (rhema), the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word (logos).
Acts 10:36 The word (logos) which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all) 37 That word (rhema), I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
Note in the last example "the word" (logos) is referred to as "that word" (rhema).
Note also in the second example, the logos is said to be the word that Christ spoke. And we see the same thing in the third example where the logos is the word that was heard.
kathryn
12-29-2011, 04:11 PM
How does that make any difference? The logos "proceeds" from the mouth of God just like the rhema. What makes you think there is a difference between the two words? I showed how they are used synonymously. Where did you get this doctrine?
Hi Richard...I didn't get it anywhere. It's something I've taken for granted (gulp). I've used rhema to describe the experience of revelation...the "a ha" moment when something suddenly clicks into place that you've read over and over with no understanding. Thanks for the tutorial.
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 04:35 PM
Hi Richard...I didn't get it anywhere. It's something I've taken for granted (gulp). I've used rhema to describe the experience of revelation...the "a ha" moment when something suddenly clicks into place that you've read over and over with no understanding. Thanks for the tutorial.
OK - I hope it helped!
I thought it important to clear this up because there is a big "rhema vs. logos" doctrine invented by the Word of Faith folks. Like most of their doctrines, it has no foundation in Scripture.
One final example. Both logos and rhema are used to describe God's act of creation:
John 1:3 All things were made by him [the logos]; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word [rhema] of God...
All the best!
Richard
kathryn
12-29-2011, 05:17 PM
Thanks! So..is there a hebrew or greek word for the "a ha" moment? How did the whole rhema concept start?
Timmy
12-29-2011, 05:28 PM
Righteous Lot?
How so?
What then can we say that Abraham, our physical ancestor, has found? If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to brag about — but not before God. For what does the Scripture say?
Abraham believed God,
and it was credited to him for righteousness. (Gen. 15.6)
Now to the one who works, pay is not considered as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does not work, but believes on Him who declares the ungodly to be righteous, his faithfulness [towards God] is credited for righteousness.
Likewise, David also speaks of the blessing of the man God credits righteousness to apart from works:
How joyful are those whose lawless acts are forgiven
and whose sins are covered!
How joyful is the man
the Lord will never charge with sin! (Ps. 32.1-2)
~Romans 4.1-8
The Middle-Eastern custom is to regard anyone who crosses your threshold INVITED more highly than you and yours, crossing the threshold representing entrance into covenant with the dwellers therein. This is still a common practice in the Middle-East today, where once entering a house INVITED, whether an enemy or not, they are to be regarded more highly than anybody else there. Something about "entertaining angels unaware" enters the picture right here.
Consider the violation of Tamar in this regard and you can see why the need for the goel
--(:"Blood Avenger" (in the KJV), though that really is not what it means at all)--
to settle accounts.
Sincerely,
Tim Timmy Tim Tim
p.s. Psalm 25.14
Timmy
12-29-2011, 05:51 PM
P.S. Let me answer your last question which was unanswered. Why was the Brass Serpent a Type of Christ?
Why was a Serpent used in the garden? Because that is what Satan was. A "Nachash", Seraphim, Serpent. It is very clear that Satan is a fallen angel.
In the Hebrew this being or person is called 'Nachash.' The Hebrew word Nachash is translated to "shine" (like brass) or whisper (as in enchantment). The Nachash was not a literal snake. The Nachash was, to use literal Hebrew, a 'shining enchanter.' He was also shrewd' (smooth or slick), as a descriptive term in the Hebrew for 'naked and cunning' in deceiving Eve.
This word is also used for angelic creatures called Seraphim in Isa 6:2 and 6:6. Seraphim are six winged angels who are the highest ranked angels known. Satan was a fallen Angel, he shone like brass and God is showing us who he was when He refers to him as Nachash, the serpent (shining enchanter).
From Fausett's.
Seraphim
Isaiah 6:2-3. ("God's attendant angels".) Seraphim (plural) in Numbers 21:6 means the "fiery flying (not winged, but rapidly moving) "serpents" which bit the Israelites; called so from the poisonous inflammation caused by their bites. Burning (from saraph "to burn") zeal, dazzling brightness of appearance (2 Kings 2:11; 2 Kings 6:17; Ezekiel 1:13; Matthew 28:3) and serpent-like rapidity in God's service, always characterize the seraphim. Satan's "serpent" (nachash) form in appearing to man may have some connection with his original form as a
seraph (singular) of light. The serpent's head symbolized wisdom in Egypt (2 Kings 18:4). Satan has wisdom, but wisdom not sanctified by the flame of devotion.
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21)
The serpent was a reminder and emblem of the curse (Gen 3:15). The one who is the sinner’s Savior was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh (Jesus is not Satan and Satan is not Jesus), Rom 8:3.
Brass is the metal that speaks of judgment and pride and Satan. Brass is also a type of Christ as it is harder than gold, silver or iron and pictures the strength of our Mighty God. On the cross, Christ bore our judgment for us. Note that the serpent was not effective in Moses’ hand, or on a shelf. It had to be 'lifted up" and likewise Christ had to be crucified. See John 3:14, 8:28, and 12:30-33.
A Standard implies authority and protection and a particular way of doing things."And He will lift up a standard for the nations, And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah, From the four corners of the earth." Isa 11:12 (Also, Isa 49:22, 59:19 and Isa 62:10).
The people had prayed, 'Take away the serpents!' But the Lord wants us to overcome the sting of death by faith. Looking to Him in faith because He overcame it. 'Look and live!' was the answer. We will not overcome the sting of death by ignoring the bites, or "beating" the serpents, concocting some special medicine (philosophy), or running away.
But what does man do? He will manufacture his own ointment to "heal" his wounds. Or, Man thinks that if he just ministers to others leaving God out of the equation, then by all of us helping each other (god is in all of us) out we will all be made whole. Many think they can fight the serpents. Some still think they can make an offering to the serpent on the pole and appease it's wrath.
"He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan" (2Ki 18:4).
Interesting isn't it that the people were told to look at the serpent on the pole. They were not told to look at Moses, yet many look at and towards their spiritual "leaders" today. Even many still look at Moses thinking the Law can save them (Hebrew Roots Movement).
Salvation came through looking by faith to the uplifted serpent in the center of the camp.
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isa 45:22).
"...not of works lest any man should boast" Eph 2:8-9.
And Kathryn, the serpent was not connected with the tabernacle in any way. No amount of "sacrifices" will save us from death.
The serpent was lifted up in the center of the camp so all anyone had to do was look. If you were lame or two weak to crawl that was ok. You just had to LOOK. Likewise, Christ is not far away, today. Just look with the eyes of faith.
The serpent was not lifted up in some hidden corner. It was lifted up in the center of the camp where all could see it and live. The brazen serpent was lifted up so those who were too weak to crawl to the pole could look and be healed. Christ is available today; He is not far way. John 12:32; Rom. 10:8-10.
Jesus said* to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).
'And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12)
Unless a sinner looks to Christ by faith, he or she is lost forever. That is what the Bible teaches!
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that PERISH foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign (objective evidence), and the Greeks seek after wisdom (reasoning and logic): But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor 1:18-25)
Rick
P.S. I was experimenting with superscript and if you think the scripture passages are too small, let me know.
NETZER=BRANCH (out of root)
NESACH=WHISPERER
NAZARETH=THE REGION OF THE SERPENTINE
They are all interconnected.
Faucett is not so spot on if the allusion that Lucifer (HYLL) is considered to be a seriph; because he is a cherib<==(highest (Kappa Phenomena)).
Satan, the word, is just a Latin way of saying "States Attourney"...go figure: "accuser of the bretheren."
The rest makes more than perfect sense.
CIAO!
Little Timmy
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 06:00 PM
Thanks! So..is there a hebrew or greek word for the "a ha" moment? How did the whole rhema concept start?
The closest word in Hebrew might be "hey" which means "behold." It's the name of the fifth letter which is a lot like "aha." The Greek equivalent is "ide" (behold). But I don't recalll the idea of the "aha" moment being mentioned as such anywhere in Scripture. Can you?
I don't know the origin of the rhema vs. logos teaching, but I do know it was taught by the Pentecostalists like Kenneth Hagen back in the 70s and more recently has been popularized by the self-appointed "apostles" of the New Apostolic Reformation. It looks like they made it up to justify all the new unbiblical teachings they continuously invent. They say that the "rhema" word from God supercedes the "logos" of the written word. Here are a couple quotes from Peter C. Wagner of the NAR:
"Pentecostal theologians have made the helpful suggestion of distinguishing the logos word of God from the rhema word of God.... The rhema is regarded as a more immediate word from God which we do not find in the 66 books of the Bible."
"...a valid source of divine knowledge comes through what some would call extrabiblical revelation. I daresay that the standard- brand evangelical doctrine of logos only that we were taught might now find a place on an endangered doctrines list, about to become extinct."
I found these quotes here (http://beyondgrace.blogspot.com/2010/10/logos-v-rhema-round-two.html).
Timmy
12-29-2011, 06:08 PM
Hey Rick,
Your conclusion does not necessarily follow because Paul's logic is obviously fallacious. That verse has bothered me from the first time I read it thirty years ago. The fact that Paul used a false argument has been recognized since the time of Jerome (5th century). Here is a good review of the problem from Barnes' Notes on the Bible (http://bible.cc/galatians/3-16.htm):
And the article continued looking for a solution but found none. And so I feel that we have encountered a fatal flaw in the Bible.
Note also that some commentators (see underlined above) have adopted something close to Kathryn's solution, that the "seed" actually refers to all believers as opposed to Christ alone.
All the best,
Richard
Re:Gal. 3.16
Since it was not recognized as a flaw by those who were closest to Jesus, maybe, just maybe, our own understandings of this statement are mis-enlightened.
What is clearly recognized here is all the times so so many well meaning people have misunderstood what Paul was actually writing.
Peter himself makes this disclaimer about many a folks misunderstanding concerning both the comprehensive teachings of Paul and Paul's coverage of things foretold in scripture:
"Therefore, dear friends, while you wait for these things, make every effort to be found at peace with Him without spot or blemish. Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures." (II Pet. 3.14-16)
. . .and i am clueless as well as yet concerning this. . .but hopefully it will come clear when checked out and understood.
God Bless you Richard
who searches out the scriptures like nobody i have yet to meet F2F,
Lil' Timmy
Timmy
12-29-2011, 06:15 PM
The closest word in Hebrew might be "hey" which means "behold." It's the name of the fifth letter which is a lot like "aha." The Greek equivalent is "ide" (behold). But I don't recalll the idea of the "aha" moment being mentioned as such anywhere in Scripture. Can you?
I don't know the origin of the rhema vs. logos teaching, but I do know it was taught by the Pentecostalists like Kenneth Hagen back in the 70s and more recently has been popularized by the self-appointed "apostles" of the New Apostolic Reformation. It looks like they made it up to justify all the new unbiblical teachings they continuously invent. They say that the "rhema" word from God supercedes the "logos" of the written word. Here are a couple quotes from Peter C. Wagner of the NAR:
"Pentecostal theologians have made the helpful suggestion of distinguishing the logos word of God from the rhema word of God.... The rhema is regarded as a more immediate word from God which we do not find in the 66 books of the Bible."
"...a valid source of divine knowledge comes through what some would call extrabiblical revelation. I daresay that the standard- brand evangelical doctrine of logos only that we were taught might now find a place on an endangered doctrines list, about to become extinct."
I found these quotes here (http://beyondgrace.blogspot.com/2010/10/logos-v-rhema-round-two.html).
Hey kath and RAM,
Those false 'profits' are dead in the water wrong. Hagin pretty much limited it to mean one thing and ran with it. Those following in the wake expanded on it.
Rhema, if it is truly rhema, is in confirmation of logos, logos superceedent and superior to rhema.
AHHA,
Timmy
kathryn
12-29-2011, 06:20 PM
The closest word in Hebrew might be "hey" which means "behold." It's the name of the fifth letter which is a lot like "aha." The Greek equivalent is "ide" (behold). But I don't recalll the idea of the "aha" moment being mentioned as such anywhere in Scripture. Can you?
I don't know the origin of the rhema vs. logos teaching, but I do know it was taught by the Pentecostalists like Kenneth Hagen back in the 70s and more recently has been popularized by the self-appointed "apostles" of the New Apostolic Reformation. It looks like they made it up to justify all the new unbiblical teachings they continuously invent. They say that the "rhema" word from God supercedes the "logos" of the written word. Here are a couple quotes from Peter C. Wagner of the NAR:
"Pentecostal theologians have made the helpful suggestion of distinguishing the logos word of God from the rhema word of God.... The rhema is regarded as a more immediate word from God which we do not find in the 66 books of the Bible."
"...a valid source of divine knowledge comes through what some would call extrabiblical revelation. I daresay that the standard- brand evangelical doctrine of logos only that we were taught might now find a place on an endangered doctrines list, about to become extinct."
I found these quotes here (http://beyondgrace.blogspot.com/2010/10/logos-v-rhema-round-two.html).
Thanks Richard...I obviously picked it up somewhere...but have no idea where. What about "proceeding"....as it is in direct contrast with the word satan was using in the wilderness. It seems to imply an immediacy compared the static.
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 06:25 PM
NETZER=BRANCH (out of root)
NESACH=WHISPERER
NAZARETH=THE REGION OF THE SERPENTINE
They are all interconnected.
Faucett is not so spot on if the allusion that Lucifer (HYLL) is considered to be a seriph; because he is a cherib<==(highest (Kappa Phenomena)).
Satan, the word, is just a Latin way of saying "States Attourney"...go figure: "accuser of the bretheren."
The rest makes more than perfect sense.
CIAO!
Little Timmy
Nazareth is probably from the root for "branch" or "guard" (no one really knows). Where did you get the idea it meant "region of the serpentine?"
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 06:37 PM
Thanks Richard...I obviously picked it up somewhere...but have no idea where. What about "proceeding"....as it is in direct contrast with the word satan was using in the wilderness. It seems to imply an immediacy compared the static.
The word "proceeding" doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with "immediacy vs. static." And neither does it seem to have anything to do with the word satan was using because Christ was merely quoting the word written many centuries earlier in the Torah:
Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
The word "proceedeth" appears because Christ was quoting that passage. It does not seem to have anything to do with either "immediacy" or the words spoken by satan.
Timmy
12-29-2011, 07:22 PM
Nazareth is probably from the root for "branch" or "guard" (no one really knows). Where did you get the idea it meant "region of the serpentine?"
'Eldred Flowers' mentioned it to me first, and speculatively, a friend who is now an anthropologist/historian over there was asked. He confirmed what 'Eldred' had told me and more.
It WAS (first) a (nearly dessert region (in Israel) where travelers passed through on a road towards Jerusalem. It was known for swindlers, charlatans, and occultists--(particularily gnostics known as Serpentines (of the two varieties most predominant at that time, recalled correctly, it was the type/belief-system gnostic starting with an O--i forgot their now known name.)) The name came from the school of Hellenistic gnostics active in that area at that time: "The Serpentines" or the Koine Gk. rendition of the Hebrew word trans-morphed into English as Nazareth, those who dwelled in that region being Nazarenes. (Galil[ee] was at the very edge of this region)
That's what has been told here, but has not been explored further. 'Eldred' is known for sometimes spinning some tall tales, yet this historian friend is not.
For what it's worth, take it or leave it.
Just tryin' to add to the mix.
Timmy
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 08:11 PM
'Eldred Flowers' mentioned it to me first, and speculatively, a friend who is now an anthropologist/historian over there was asked. He confirmed what 'Eldred' had told me and more.
It WAS (first) a (nearly dessert region (in Israel) where travelers passed through on a road towards Jerusalem. It was known for swindlers, charlatans, and occultists--(particularily gnostics known as Serpentines (of the two varieties most predominant at that time, recalled correctly, it was the type/belief-system gnostic starting with an O--i forgot their now known name.)) The name came from the school of Hellenistic gnostics active in that area at that time: "The Serpentines" or the Koine Gk. rendition of the Hebrew word trans-morphed into English as Nazareth, those who dwelled in that region being Nazarenes. (Galil[ee] was at the very edge of this region)
That's what has been told here, but has not been explored further. 'Eldred' is known for sometimes spinning some tall tales, yet this historian friend is not.
For what it's worth, take it or leave it.
Just tryin' to add to the mix.
Timmy
Thanks Timmy,
I was curious if you had any solid information I could check out myself. It sounds like that idea is rather speculative - based on things you've heard but can't confirm. That's cool. Thanks for adding to the mix.
Richard
kathryn
12-29-2011, 08:18 PM
The word "proceeding" doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with "immediacy vs. static." And neither does it seem to have anything to do with the word satan was using because Christ was merely quoting the word written many centuries earlier in the Torah:
Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
The word "proceedeth" appears because Christ was quoting that passage. It does not seem to have anything to do with either "immediacy" or the words spoken by satan.
Proceeding has the connotation of flowing like a river. I'm not sure the fact that it was a verse written centuries earlier makes any difference, if it was the appropriate answer. Satan was using the word as well, but unlike Jesus, wasn't hearing the Father. Anyway...regardless, I certainly won't be using "rhema" in the context I was using it. Thanks again Richard.
heb13-13
12-29-2011, 09:47 PM
Hey Rick,
Your conclusion does not necessarily follow because Paul's logic is obviously fallacious. That verse has bothered me from the first time I read it thirty years ago. The fact that Paul used a false argument has been recognized since the time of Jerome (5th century). Here is a good review of the problem from Barnes' Notes on the Bible (http://bible.cc/galatians/3-16.htm):
And the article continued looking for a solution but found none. And so I feel that we have encountered a fatal flaw in the Bible.
Note also that some commentators (see underlined above) have adopted something close to Kathryn's solution, that the "seed" actually refers to all believers as opposed to Christ alone.
All the best,
Richard
Hi Richard,
I like what Jim Fowler says about Galatians 3:16 and onward.
3:16 Specifically identifying his analogy, Paul explains that "the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed." He is referring to the promises of God to Abraham in Genesis 12-24, specifically cited in vss. 6 and 8 above, and linked with the promises of the Spirit (3:3,14) in Joel 2:28 and Ezek. 36:27. Paul viewed all of the promises of God to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ (cf. II Cor. 1:20; II Tim. 1:1; II Pet. 1:4).
The startling part of Paul's interpretation of the promised "seed" (Greek word spermati), offspring or descendants of Abraham (Gen. 13:15,18; 17:7,8,19; 21:12; 22:18; 24:7) was his narrow focus on the singular number of the Hebrew noun for "seed." "He does not say, 'and to seeds,' as to many, but to one, 'and to your seed,' that is Christ." As in English and Greek, the singular Hebrew noun can refer to an individual "seed" or serve also as a
collective singular of plurality. It can refer to a single offspring of Abraham (ex. Ishmael, Gen. 21:13), or all of the offspring of Abraham, both physically and spiritually (3:29). Despite the obvious references to innumerable multiplicity (Gen. 13:16; 15:5; 16:10; 22:17) of descendants, thus obviating the collective singular interpretation of "seed," Paul chooses to focus on the individual singular interpretation in order to link such with Christ as the
promised descendant of Abraham.
Jewish theology would have found Paul's hermeneutic appalling and indefensible. The Jews prided themselves in their physical and racial ancestry from Abraham to form a multitudinous nation linked to "father Abraham." But even within Jewish interpretation Paul could have cited the precedent of God's covenant promise to David to "raise up your seed who will establish his kingdom forever" (II Sam. 7:12,13), which was interpreted within Jewish theology as the
Messianic "son of David," and was thus used by Paul himself in his preaching in the southern Galatian city of Antioch of Pisidia, noting that "from the seed of David, according to promise, God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus" (Acts 13:23). Paul could also have referred to the earlier Messianic promise of the "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15) defeating diabolic descendancy. Paul was certainly not out of line to employ this interpretation of the individual
singular "seed," even though some have considered his argument as a weak diversionary documentation of semantic hair-splitting, or as a "spiritualizing" tendency.
Paul's objective was not to engage in grammatical or semantic technicalities, but to reveal that the promised descendancy of Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and therefore in all who are identified with Christ as Christians. It is the Christological fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises that is important, not the physical and biological fulfillment in the Jewish race. Much Judaizing eschatology today could be put to rest by consistency with Paul's inspired Christological interpretation. In the physical genealogical lineage Jesus was the ultimate and preeminent descendant of Abraham (Matt. 1:2; Lk. 3:34), but as the promised individual Messianic "seed" He fulfilled the divine promises to Abraham, to allow the collective singular of Abrahamic "seed" to apply, as God intended from the beginning, to all Christians "in Christ"
(3:29; Rom. 4:13-18). The ultimate intent of God's promises to Abraham were
Christological rather than biological.
3:17 Apparently recognizing that his argument is somewhat convoluted, Paul attempts to clarify by writing, "What I am saying is this:" the point I am trying to make is that of precedent priority alluded to in the analogy of human contract (15). "The Law, which came
four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously
ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." The Judaizers in Galatia retained the Judaic perspective that exalted the Mosaic Law even above the Abrahamic promise. Although they appealed to Abraham as their racial father, the patriarchal period was viewed primarily as a preliminary prelude to the Mosaic receipt of the Law. The tablets of the Law were tangible and concrete, giving definitive parameters of obligatory performance and providing a distinctive
national identity as "the people of the Law." The Law was primary and preeminent in Jewish theology, regarded as eternal and immutable, and thus elevated as a deified idolatrous end in itself. That is why Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me..." (Jn. 5:39,40).
Paul seeks to establish the precedence and priority of the Abrahamic covenantal promises in relation to the Mosaic covenant of Law. The promises preceded the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai by a chronological period of four hundred and thirty years according to Paul's calculation. Though many have debated the precise number of years, it is probably impossible and unnecessary to seek exact calculations. God told Abraham that his descendants would be
"enslaved and oppressed four hundred years" (Gen. 15:13), as quoted by Stephen (Acts 7:6) in his recitation of Hebrew history. Exodus records that "the sons of Israel lived in Egypt four hundred and thirty years" (Exod. 12:40). The imprecision of annual calculations results from not knowing where within the series of God's promises to Abraham (Gen. 12-23) the calculation should commence. The interval of time is not the important issue, however, for Paul is emphasizing the precedence and priority of the divine promise to Abraham rather
than the period of time between the promise and the Law. Since the "covenants of promise" (cf. Eph. 2:12) were duly ratified and validated by God unto Abraham, the later introduction of the Law covenant with Moses did not sever (5:4), abolish (5:11) or nullify (cf. Rom. 4:14) the earlier promise. Such illegitimacy of covenant practice (3:15) would cast God as a dishonest covenant broker, willing to break His fiduciary relationships through chicanery or sleight-of-hand by altering His agreements or conditioning His covenants, thus reneging on His promises and untrue to His Word. Paul obviously considered such contrariety of the character of God unthinkable.
If you would like to read more of his commentary on Galatians 3:15-29, I think this is one commentary you probably have not read.
The Precedence of God's Promises
Paul explains that the promises of God to Abraham preceded the Law of God given to Moses.
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/galpgp.html
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 10:46 PM
Proceeding has the connotation of flowing like a river. I'm not sure the fact that it was a verse written centuries earlier makes any difference, if it was the appropriate answer. Satan was using the word as well, but unlike Jesus, wasn't hearing the Father. Anyway...regardless, I certainly won't be using "rhema" in the context I was using it. Thanks again Richard.
Hey there Kathyrn,
I agree that the word "proceeding" has a sense of something like a river flowing. But that would apply equally to whether it is the rhema or the logos that is flowing from the mouth of God.
It is interesting that the original Hebrew of Deut 8:3 doesn't actually mention the word "word" at all. It literally says that man shall live by kol-motza pe-Yahweh, that is by "ALL (kol) that FLOWS OUT (motza) of the mouth of the Lord." The word motza is used elsewhere to speak of the waters flowing out from a spring, and is actually translated as "spring":Isaiah 58:11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring (motza) of water, whose waters fail not.
This fits wonderfully with the image of God's word as water, as in "cleansing with the water of the word."
Very interesting topic!
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
12-29-2011, 10:58 PM
Hi Richard,
I like what Jim Fowler says about Galatians 3:16 and onward.
Jewish theology would have found Paul's hermeneutic appalling and indefensible. The Jews prided themselves in their physical and racial ancestry from Abraham to form a multitudinous nation linked to "father Abraham." But even within Jewish interpretation Paul could have cited the precedent of God's covenant promise to David to "raise up your seed who will establish his kingdom forever" (II Sam. 7:12,13), which was interpreted within Jewish theology as the
Messianic "son of David," and was thus used by Paul himself in his preaching in the southern Galatian city of Antioch of Pisidia, noting that "from the seed of David, according to promise, God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus" (Acts 13:23). Paul could also have referred to the earlier Messianic promise of the "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15) defeating diabolic descendancy. Paul was certainly not out of line to employ this interpretation of the individual
singular "seed," even though some have considered his argument as a weak diversionary documentation of semantic hair-splitting, or as a "spiritualizing" tendency.
Paul's objective was not to engage in grammatical or semantic technicalities, but to reveal that the promised descendancy of Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and therefore in all who are identified with Christ as Christians. It is the Christological fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises that is important, not the physical and biological fulfillment in the Jewish race. Much Judaizing eschatology today could be put to rest by consistency with Paul's inspired Christological interpretation. In the physical genealogical lineage Jesus was the ultimate and preeminent descendant of Abraham (Matt. 1:2; Lk. 3:34), but as the promised individual Messianic "seed" He fulfilled the divine promises to Abraham, to allow the collective singular of Abrahamic "seed" to apply, as God intended from the beginning, to all Christians "in Christ"
(3:29; Rom. 4:13-18). The ultimate intent of God's promises to Abraham were
Christological rather than biological.
Hey there Rick,
That's some good research, but there is one problem. Paul could have communicated all that wihtout erroneously basing his argument on the singular vs. plural use of the word seed. That was his error. Obviously, the singular word seed can be used for an individual or a group. In Galatians 3, Paul wanted to emphasize the singular application in regards to Christ. That's all good. The problem is that the he based his argument on the supposed difference between a plural vs. singular use of seed. That was his error.
Paul seeks to establish the precedence and priority of the Abrahamic covenantal promises in relation to the Mosaic covenant of Law. The promises preceded the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai by a chronological period of four hundred and thirty years according to Paul's calculation. Though many have debated the precise number of years, it is probably impossible and unnecessary to seek exact calculations. God told Abraham that his descendants would be
"enslaved and oppressed four hundred years" (Gen. 15:13), as quoted by Stephen (Acts 7:6) in his recitation of Hebrew history. Exodus records that "the sons of Israel lived in Egypt four hundred and thirty years" (Exod. 12:40). The imprecision of annual calculations results from not knowing where within the series of God's promises to Abraham (Gen. 12-23) the calculation should commence. The interval of time is not the important issue, however, for Paul is emphasizing the precedence and priority of the divine promise to Abraham rather
than the period of time between the promise and the Law. Since the "covenants of promise" (cf. Eph. 2:12) were duly ratified and validated by God unto Abraham, the later introduction of the Law covenant with Moses did not sever (5:4), abolish (5:11) or nullify (cf. Rom. 4:14) the earlier promise. Such illegitimacy of covenant practice (3:15) would cast God as a dishonest covenant broker, willing to break His fiduciary relationships through chicanery or sleight-of-hand by altering His agreements or conditioning His covenants, thus reneging on His promises and untrue to His Word. Paul obviously considered such contrariety of the character of God unthinkable.
If you would like to read more of his commentary on Galatians 3:15-29, I think this is one commentary you probably have not read.
The Precedence of God's Promises
Paul explains that the promises of God to Abraham preceded the Law of God given to Moses.
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/galpgp.html
That's all fine as far as it goes. Galatians 3 seems like a terrible mess - I've seen endless confusion over it. But I don't think we would ever find a solution to the singular vs. plural problem by working through the whole chapter. I think the only "solution" is to admit that Paul made a blunder here.
Great chatting!
Richard
kathryn
12-30-2011, 05:59 AM
Hey there Kathyrn,
I agree that the word "proceeding" has a sense of something like a river flowing. But that would apply equally to whether it is the rhema or the logos that is flowing from the mouth of God.
It is interesting that the original Hebrew of Deut 8:3 doesn't actually mention the word "word" at all. It literally says that man shall live by kol-motza pe-Yahweh, that is by "ALL (kol) that FLOWS OUT (motza) of the mouth of the Lord." The word motza is used elsewhere to speak of the waters flowing out from a spring, and is actually translated as "spring":Isaiah 58:11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring (motza) of water, whose waters fail not.
This fits wonderfully with the image of God's word as water, as in "cleansing with the water of the word."
Very interesting topic!
Richard
Yes...it would apply equally to the rhema or logos...but the flow would be determined by the state of mind or conduit of the person receiving it. Satan is referred to as one who "resists". If you take this into the realm of electricity and an electric circuit...the resister is in opposition to the flow. (hey...I wonder if this could somehow relate to how the observer changes the flow of electrons in the double slit experiment in quantum physics? )
Wow...that's very interesting about Deut 8:3. Thank you for pointing that out! It fits wonderfully with the "lamed"/tongue as the only connecting letter between the voice of God (qowl) and the Kol, joining the two together in one flow through the mouth. It's the renewal of the mind/circumcision of the heart that tames the tongue....so we have the visual of the proceeding word or flow through and over the "conduit", in the Hebrew. Amazing!
kathryn
12-30-2011, 09:08 AM
Interesting too, being that you mentioned Hey as being the closest to the "a ha" moment of revelation...that Deuteronomy is on the 5th spoke of the biblewheel...the Hey!
kathryn
12-30-2011, 10:02 AM
Richard:
It is interesting that the original Hebrew of Deut 8:3 doesn't actually mention the word "word" at all. It literally says that man shall live by kol-motza pe-Yahweh, that is by "ALL (kol) that FLOWS OUT (motza) of the mouth of the Lord." The word motza is used elsewhere to speak of the waters flowing out from a spring, and is actually translated as "spring":Isaiah 58:11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring (motza) of water, whose waters fail not.
This fits wonderfully with the image of God's word as water, as in "cleansing with the water of the word."
I've been thinking of how profound that the "word" is missing in this! It's revealing the heart/mind of et Kol or the All, in perfect agreement or One with the Heart/Mind of God!
kathryn
12-30-2011, 11:03 AM
...or, in other words, it's "springing" forth from the midst of the All.
If the "word" had been in there, it still would have revealed separation between the two.
kathryn
12-30-2011, 11:38 AM
Just looked up "83" in the databank....to see it Deut: 8:3 applied somehow. It does!
http://www.biblewheel.com/gr/gr_83.asp
Richard Amiel McGough
12-30-2011, 06:25 PM
Just looked up "83" in the databank....to see it Deut: 8:3 applied somehow. It does!
http://www.biblewheel.com/gr/gr_83.asp
Yep - that really impressed me years ago when I noticed it.
Charisma
01-04-2012, 06:18 PM
I agree that the word "proceeding" has a sense of something like a river flowing. But that would apply equally to whether it is the rhema or the logos that is flowing from the mouth of God.
It is interesting that the original Hebrew of Deut 8:3 doesn't actually mention the word "word" at all. It literally says that man shall live by kol-motza pe-Yahweh, that is by "ALL (kol) that FLOWS OUT (motza) of the mouth of the Lord." The word motza is used elsewhere to speak of the waters flowing out from a spring, and is actually translated as "spring":Isaiah 58:11 And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring (motza) of water, whose waters fail not.
This fits wonderfully with the image of God's word as water, as in "cleansing with the water of the word."Hi Richard,
Thanks for this illumination. I appreciate your insight. :signthankspin:
Hi Rick,
I liked what you posted (#172) from Jim Fowler on Gal 3:16 and its historical context. All he did was expand on Paul's thesis by explanation for those who are less familiar with the narrative.
With regard to elevating the law above the promise, the start of Romans 10 comes to mind. I can see there could be a wide difference amongst Christians about that, especially if coming from a cessationist angle. Whereas I would say that if the Jesus, the Lawgiver-Lawkeeper is in the believer - the presence of the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit - then that which God has revealed of His nature and character through the Law, is fully in the focus of those who desire to become like Jesus, who of God 'is made unto us righteousness...' (1 Corinthians 1:30, 2 Corinthians 5:21).
Silence
01-06-2012, 11:36 AM
Hey there Rick,
That's some good research, but there is one problem. Paul could have communicated all that wihtout erroneously basing his argument on the singular vs. plural use of the word seed. That was his error. Obviously, the singular word seed can be used for an individual or a group. In Galatians 3, Paul wanted to emphasize the singular application in regards to Christ. That's all good. The problem is that the he based his argument on the supposed difference between a plural vs. singular use of seed. That was his error.
That's all fine as far as it goes. Galatians 3 seems like a terrible mess - I've seen endless confusion over it. But I don't think we would ever find a solution to the singular vs. plural problem by working through the whole chapter. I think the only "solution" is to admit that Paul made a blunder here.
Great chatting!
Richard
Hello Richard & Rick,
In Galatians 3:16 the words Paul is contrasting are spermati and spermasin. As mentioned earlier in the thread, spermati can be taken as a singular term designating reference to a plurality, or it can be strictly singular. From what I can gather, spermasin must refer to a plurality. This form of the word is not even used in the septuagint. I don't know if Paul was basing his argument on the Hebrew text or the septuagint, but one thing that occured to me as I have been looking at these verses in Galatians and Genesis is the obvious contrast between the first and last parts of Genesis 22:17. The first part is an obvious reference to a large plurality (stars of heaven and sand on the shore). The second half has to be seen as singular due to the reference to "His enemies". From what I can gather, this is singular in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint. What is interesting is that in Galatians, Paul uses the word "spermati" in reference to the promises made, but in the septuagint, in Genesis 22:17 the word "sperma" is used in both the first and second half of the verse, once in each of it's possible meanings (once as a singular description of a plurality and once as a strictly singular term). Then in v. 18 we finally see the word Paul used in Galatians, "spermati", where it is used in describing the source of a blessing to all the nations of the earth. I don't know what the difference between "sperma" and "spermati" is. Could the "ti" at the end be a way of referring back to the last previous mention of the root word? In this case, that would necessitate seeing "spermati" as singular.
kathryn
01-06-2012, 12:10 PM
Hello Richard & Rick,
I think Paul expected that people would pick up on the singular grammar at the end of Genesis 22:17 that makes it clear that the "Seed" being spoken of, who would possess the gates of HIS (not THEIR) enemies, clarifying that "Seed" is meant to be seen as one person, and not taken as a singular form of a plurality.
There are other clues that Paul has one particular Person in mind throughout the chapter. V 22 says that "all are confined together in sin" and then contrasts that with faith in one individual - Christ.
V.13 speaks in context of what one individual did that redeems all others who believe in Him. That redemption is part of the blessing that is included in "the Seed". Paul would more than likely assume that his readers would never interpret this substitutionary suffering on a tree as a curse to be referring to a group of people.
Since Paul's readers would have been familiar with the obvious reference to Genesis 22, he more than likely would have assumed that the mention of "Seed" in a singular sense from Gen. 22:17 would also bring v. 16 to mind " Because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son....". Abraham had many sons through through his different wives that were all his "seed". But the blessing came through only ONE.
Hi Silence...Jesus Christ was the 2nd Adam:
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
The singular "seed" is speaking of the 2nd Adam(plural)... Christ.
Charisma
01-06-2012, 02:47 PM
Hi Silence,
Thanks for presenting your research on Paul's use of 'spermati'.
The other unforgettable prophecy on which Paul is relying, is in what God said to the serpent in Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
If one wished to put forward the thought that 'seed' should be plural here, one is stuck with 'it' and 'his', to negotiate.
It's interesting that Eve and Adam saw a serpent. This makes what God said about the serpent's head and Eve's seed's heel, perfectly sensible, keeping the spiritual nature of the predicted victory, in view.
God did not say that a group of people or an army would tread on the serpent's head. The treading would be done by one person alone - whom we now know was Jesus Christ at Calvary.
kathryn
01-06-2012, 04:34 PM
Hi Silence,
Thanks for presenting your research on Paul's use of 'spermati'.
The other unforgettable prophecy on which Paul is relying, is in what God said to the serpent in Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
If one wished to put forward the thought that 'seed' should be plural here, one is stuck with 'it' and 'his', to negotiate.
It's interesting that Eve and Adam saw a serpent. This makes what God said about the serpent's head and Eve's seed's heel, perfectly sensible, keeping the spiritual nature of the predicted victory, in view.
God did not say that a group of people or an army would tread on the serpent's head. The treading would be done by one person alone - whom we now know was Jesus Christ at Calvary.
Hi Charisma....Could you explain who Christ's seed is referring to in the verse below:
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
And perhaps you could give us your interpretation of the verse I gave above?:
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
heb13-13
01-06-2012, 06:51 PM
Hi Kathryn,
Happy New Year!!
I will throw my two-cents in real quick and hope I am not upsetting your discussion with Charisma.
For 1Cor 15:22 it will be understood when you take the whole counsel of God that "in Christ shall all be made alive", refers to all those "in Christ" or ALL those who believe or are children of the faith of Abraham. For you cannot be made spiritually alive against your consent. It was the Lord's doing to die for us and then to give salvation (He is Salvation) to us, but it must be our doing to receive His Life. Jesus talked much about receiving Him. This is a volitional act of our will "to receive" and then to continue "in Him" feeding on Him and abiding in Him.
We feed on Christ, He does not force-feed people.
Notice in 15:23 that the Scriptures no longer say ALL, but rather "they that are His at his coming". That would be those that are "in Christ". Those that have willingly chosen Christ.
1 Cor 15:23
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
For Isa 53:10, Believers are Jesus' offspring and He will see His seed, His offspring every day. His life was prolonged wasn't it? He did not die but rose again to live eternally by His Father's side. Jesus Christ lives today and everyday and He is seeing His offspring (seed) coming into the Kingdom of God by faith. The pleasure of the Father is prospering in the hand of Christ the Head of the Church.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and bywhom are all things, in bringing many (did not say all men) sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Back to you and Charisma,
Blessings to you,
Rick
kathryn
01-06-2012, 07:24 PM
Hi Kathryn,
Happy New Year!!
I will throw my two-cents in real quick and hope I am not upsetting your discussion with Charisma.Not at all Rick!
For 1Cor 15:22 it will be understood when you take the whole counsel of God that "in Christ shall all be made alive", refers to all those "in Christ" or ALL those who believe or are children of the faith of Abraham. For you cannot be made spiritually alive against your consent. It was the Lord's doing to die for us and then to give salvation (He is Salvation) to us, but it must be our doing to receive His Life. Jesus talked much about receiving Him. This is a volitional act of our will "to receive" and then to continue "in Him" feeding on Him and abiding in Him.Yes, I realize this Rick...and it does say that every knee shall bow doesn't it? This happens in stages...but eventually all the 2nd Adam will be birthed. Those in the 1st Adam didn't consent to having Adam's mortality/sin imputed on them either. No matter how you slice the mustard....all are made alive in Christ, the 2nd Adam, just as all were made mortal in Adam.
We feed on Christ, He does not force-feed people.
Notice in 15:23 that the Scriptures no longer say ALL, but rather "they that are His at his coming". That would be those that are "in Christ". Those that have willingly chosen Christ.
1 Cor 15:23
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
For Isa 53:10, Believers are Jesus' offspring and He will see His seed, His offspring every day. His life was prolonged wasn't it? He did not die but rose again to live eternally by His Father's side. Jesus Christ lives today and everyday and He is seeing His offspring (seed) coming into the Kingdom of God by faith. The pleasure of the Father is prospering in the hand of Christ the Head of the Church.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and bywhom are all things, in bringing many (did not say all men) sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Back to you and Charisma,
Blessings to you,
Rick
heb13-13
01-07-2012, 12:38 PM
Hi Kathryn,
Universalism is "another gospel" according to the Bible. The Scriptures cannot be clearer to me.
1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive.
And this "ALL" is qualified in 1 Cor 15:23. Indeed, the Bible qualifies what it says in many places. There is no confusion about what the Bible says about the destiny of the righteous and unrighteous.
1Cor 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward THEY THAT ARE CHRIST'S at his coming.
"They that are Christ's".
And when you look at the rest of the Scriptures, (because you cannot isolate a few scriptures to create a doctrine when they don't agree with other scriptures) you will see who "are Christ's" and there exists the "just" and the "unjust" and there are two and only two eternal destinations for these two groups of people.
Those that receive Christ are Christ's and we know that not all men receive Christ.
John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and YE RECEIVE ME NOT: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Many will be sons but not ALL.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many (did not say all men) sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
The problem with Universalism is that it ignores large portions of Scriptures while isolating others and imposes it's eisegesis on the scriptures.
There is clearly a resurrection unto damnation.
John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have
done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Some will be resurrected to everlasting contempt.
Dan 12:2
2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Not ALL are written in the Book of Life
Rev 20:12, 15
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another
book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were
written in the books, according to their works.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (KJV)
The nations shall be separated and many will be consigned to everlasting fire.
Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then
shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Matthew 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
The Wicked will be severed (separated) from the Just.
Matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Matthew 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Hell is not just for the Devil and his angels but for ungodly men.
2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
More judgment for "ungodly men".
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jude 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the Lake of Fire.
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Those not written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. Those found in the book will inherit the eternal kingdom of God. Pretty clear to me.
Rev 21:7-8
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
But those not in the book:
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (KJV)
The Bible is not a compilation of mixed up views that don't agree with one another. It is completely unified in all of its teaching and expresses but one view. The Bible teaches the resurrection and judgement of all and that there will be two and only two destinies for all men. One destiny for the righteous (in Christ) and one destiny for the unrighteous on the day of judgment.
Both of these destinys are eternal:
Matt 25:46
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
The Bible is not being evasive and if we love people we will tell them the truth. Jesus had no problem telling the truth. He certainly wasn't popular for it, was He?
All the best,
Rick
kathryn
01-07-2012, 01:31 PM
Rick:
1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive.
And this "ALL" is qualified in 1 Cor 15:23. Indeed, the Bible qualifies what it says in many places. There is no confusion about what the Bible says about the destiny of the righteous and unrighteous.
The "ALL" is qualified in the verse itself, very emphatically...FOR AS IN ADAM all die....EVEN SO in Christ shall all be made alive. The "all" in the 1st Adam is every mortal...no one excluded; even so or "AS IN"...all shall be made alive in Christ. You need to look at the big picture Rick...and from foundational study in the OT, before you can look at what you believe is saying otherwise.
Could you show me the root of the words you are interpreting as "everlasting" ?
heb13-13
01-07-2012, 01:48 PM
Rick:
1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive.
And this "ALL" is qualified in 1 Cor 15:23. Indeed, the Bible qualifies what it says in many places. There is no confusion about what the Bible says about the destiny of the righteous and unrighteous.
The "ALL" is qualified in the verse itself, very emphatically...FOR AS IN ADAM all die....EVEN SO in Christ shall all be made alive. The "all" in the 1st Adam is every mortal...no one excluded; even so or "AS IN"...all shall be made alive in Christ. You need to look at the big picture Rick...and from foundational study in the OT, before you can look at what you believe is saying otherwise.
Could you show me the root of the words you are interpreting as "everlasting" ?
Hi Kathryn,
I guess you can assert that I must look at the "big" picture and I can just make the assertion back to you that you need to look at the WHOLE picture. All the verses that I listed (and more).
We ain't going nowhere fast on this one, Kathryn. :)
I have presented more than enough, and yet I know nothing of your "big picture" in the LAW.
Your "plumbline" as you say that starts in the LAW.
I think we just disagree with each other on this and need to move on.
Rick
kathryn
01-07-2012, 06:23 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I guess you can assert that I must look at the "big" picture and I can just make the assertion back to you that you need to look at the WHOLE picture. All the verses that I listed (and more).
We ain't going nowhere fast on this one, Kathryn. :)
I have presented more than enough, and yet I know nothing of your "big picture" in the LAW.
Your "plumbline" as you say that starts in the LAW.
I think we just disagree with each other on this and need to move on.
Rick
Not my plumb line Rick...God's. The Law is the foundation of Grace. If you don't understand the Law you'll never fully understand Grace.
Anyway...we'll agree to disagree, as you say.:yo:
Blessings,
Kathryn
heb13-13
01-07-2012, 06:33 PM
Not my plumb line Rick...God's. The Law is the foundation of Grace. If you don't understand the Law you'll never fully understand Grace.
Anyway...we'll agree to disagree, as you say.:yo:
Blessings,
Kathryn
Do you mean know the law as in a lawyer or know the law as in no one is able to keep it.
Why would you think I don't understand Grace? Oh yeah, because your understanding of it is that ALL are saved. That belief actually destroys the cross of Christ. Why walk with Jesus everyday if we will all be saved?
You destroy grace in it's true meaning, too.
Have a good night,
Rick
Charisma
01-07-2012, 06:40 PM
Hi Kathryn,
Thank you for inviting me to offer a comment. I want to be very clear to you, that what I'm posting is not 'my' 'opinion'. It is what the Bible states completely independently of any ideas of my own. The apostle Paul several times mentions the renewing of the spirit of the mind (as you also do), and the purpose of this is that we shall come to God's point of view in every situation and circumstance, as a habit of thinking, such, that if we don't know what He thinks about a thing, we won't presume to attribute to Him an opinion that He hasn't expressed. And if He has expressed an opinion, no matter how that upsets our neat and tidy doctrinal compartments, we will allow Him to re-educate us according to His doctrine.
I'm with Rick on the general point of view that scripture cannot retain its consistency, while supporting universalism. Of the scriptures which the Lord has brought to my heart while preparing to reply to you, Rick has not quoted a single one. So, I'll begin in 1 Cor 15 as you requested, beginning with the Rick's comment:
And this "ALL" is qualified in 1 Cor 15:23. Indeed, the Bible qualifies what it says in many places. There is no confusion about what the Bible says about the destiny of the righteous and unrighteous.
1Cor 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward THEY THAT ARE CHRIST'S at his coming.
"They that are Christ's".I would say the division between 'they are that are Christ's' and they that are not Christ's, begins even earlier in the chapter, in v 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
We see from these verses that Paul is comparing the condition of those who have believed (in Christ's resurrection), with the condition they would be in if Christ had not been raised from the dead. He says - not hypothetically, 'ye are yet in your sins'.
Paul's argument may seem indirect, because he's dealing with the lie that Christ didn't rise from the dead, but, the meaning is the same with regard to whether a person has believed in Him or not.
This is the vital distinction to see. It is only those who are 'in Christ' through having believed the gospel message (which is something we could discuss at length another time), who will receive the life which is in Christ. All those who remain outside Christ, one day will 'perish' v 18.
It is impossible to jump in at v 22 where Paul is reaching the conclusion of his thesis, without including the reasoning which led him to that conclusion. Or, if you do ignore his logic, any agreement with his conclusion must unreliable, if based on non-biblical explanations.
I noticed that you underlined 'all' in v 22, and, as long as we are both - you and me - in agreement with the whole of Paul's thesis, then we are in agreement with each other. Having been not 'in Christ' at one time in my life, I can testify that there is a huge difference between the two conditions of existence - heart and mind and soul.
The other factor I wish to bring to your attention is, that God Himself does not change. In the OT He routinely destroyed idolaters, sometimes sending prophets to specific generations to challenge them. This is the same God who is going to look at your heart and mine on the day of judgement, and having sacrificed His Son for our salvation, I cannot see one vestige of evidence in scripture, that He is suddenly going to start overlooking the unwashed-in-His-blood hearts before Him on that day.
It would be diabolically opposed to the revelation He gave of Himself in the garden of Eden, when He brought His word to pass that Adam would die for his sin, and for the very reason that the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden...' Genesis 3 it is surely impossible that at the end of time, He would forget why He'd expelled Adam from the first place?
It is essential that a person repents from sin. This is a spiritual act. A mental assent that God cannot tolerate sin is not repentance. Repentance changes a person on the inside, and God uses the season(s) of repentance to deepen the seeker/believer's appreciation of the sinfulness of sin, and his/her appreciation of the gulf it creates between mankind and our Holy God. The only remedy for sin is radical in spiritual terms: death. The death of Jesus Christ was an event in eternity which made an end of sin; and there is only one way we can participate in that victory - it is by acknowledging our own need of participation in His death.
In Tyndale's NT, he had (I think) a better turn of phrase than the KJV in Romans 6:5 For if we be graft(ed) in death like unto Him, even so must we be in the resurrection. The two are inseparable. There will be no 'resurrection of the just' [EDIT] Correction: the 'resurrection of the just' does apply to the OT saints - those who obeyed God's voice, whether before the Law was given or during the era of the Old Covenant; but we are here discussing whether a person in the New Covenant era can be saved without being 'in Christ'. I believe the appearance of Jesus Christ - the promised Messiah - changed cosmic history for ever. [end edit] for those who have not been grafted into Christ's death. It's a spiritual impossibility. The resurrection is where the life is - eternal life. It's why the early disciples were happy to die for the sake of the gospel - because they had absolute assurance that like as Christ had been raised from among the dead, so would they be. Note again: some of the dead will not be raised to eternal life. Rick quoted both Jesus and Daniel saying the same thing. Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
I do acknowledge there are several places in the NT where the writer points out that Jesus Christ died for the sin of the whole world. This is true. But the obdurate hearts of some of those to whom this message was taken, necessitated the preacher pleading with them to turn to Christ, so as to receive the benefits of His death and resurrection. As Paul said, 'it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe'. 1 Cor 1
Now, I want to show you some other verses which are incompatible with universalism. The first place is Psalm 37:7 Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. {Rest in: Heb. Be silent to} 8 Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. 9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
35 I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. {a green...: or, a green tree that groweth in his own soil} 36 Yet he passed away, and, lo, he [was] not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found. 37 Mark the perfect [man], and behold the upright: for the end of [that] man [is] peace. 38 But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off. 39 But the salvation of the righteous [is] of the LORD: [he is] their strength in the time of trouble. 40 And the LORD shall help them, and deliver them: he shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in him.
Then, there is this comparison made in
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
{call...: Heb. say concerning evil, It is good, etc} Woe. Woe Woe. God is serious.
For now, the last verses I want to show you are interesting because they are one of the clearest agreements from a piece of OT scripture with NT. It's important to understand the context of these verses, namely, God's warning Israel not to commit idolatry with the people of the land to which they are being sent to possess it: Leviticus 18 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which [were] before you, and the land is defiled; ) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that [were] before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that [ye] commit not [any one] of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I [am] the LORD your God.
In the OT, 'prosperity' was a physical thing - it was the blessing of God in material things. Gold was not a problem, if it was honestly obtained. But in the NT, prosperity is spiritual; it's about laying aside the physical which will perish, for spiritual treasure in heaven that cannot be stolen and cannot fade away. Yes, God gives most us more than enough of this life's goods, but they are not what we are to focus on, or they prevent us from knowing God the way He wants to be known by us. In the NT there are several places where darkness, or idolatry, or materialism, are associated with spiritual blindness, rejection of God's light, choices to please self rather than God. Here is one: 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Jesus says here: 'and knowest not that ..' He said a similar thing in John 4 to the Samaritan woman at the well: 22a Ye worship ye know not what' And here hangs the whole of scripture: who will you worship?
There are, as Rick keeps saying, only two worship systems. One leads to eternal life, and the other leads to eternal death.
In my next post I'll look at the question about 'seed'.
kathryn
01-07-2012, 07:08 PM
Hi Kathryn,
Thank you for inviting me to offer a comment. I want to be very clear to you, that what I'm posting is not 'my' 'opinion'. It is what the Bible states completely independently of any ideas of my own. The apostle Paul several times mentions the renewing of the spirit of the mind (as you also do), and the purpose of this is that we shall come to God's point of view in every situation and circumstance, as a habit of thinking, such, that if we don't know what He thinks about a thing, we won't presume to attribute to Him an opinion that He hasn't expressed. And if He has expressed an opinion, no matter how that upsets our neat and tidy doctrinal compartments, we will allow Him to re-educate us according to His doctrine.
I'm with Rick on the general point of view that scripture cannot retain its consistency, while supporting universalism. Of the scriptures which the Lord has brought to my heart while preparing to reply to you, Rick has not quoted a single one. So, I'll begin in 1 Cor 15 as you requested, beginning with the Rick's comment:
I would say the division between 'they are that are Christ's' and they that are not Christ's, begins even earlier in the chapter, in v 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
We see from these verses that Paul is comparing the condition of those who have believed (in Christ's resurrection), with the condition they would be in if Christ had not been raised from the dead. He says - not hypothetically, 'ye are yet in your sins'.
Paul's argument may seem indirect, because he's dealing with the lie that Christ didn't rise from the dead, but, the meaning is the same with regard to whether a person has believed in Him or not.
This is the vital distinction to see. It is only those who are 'in Christ' through having believed the gospel message (which is something we could discuss at length another time), who will receive the life which is in Christ. All those who remain outside Christ, one day will 'perish' v 18.
It is impossible to jump in at v 22 where Paul is reaching the conclusion of his thesis, without including the reasoning which led him to that conclusion. Or, if you do ignore his logic, any agreement with his conclusion must unreliable, if based on non-biblical explanations.
I noticed that you underlined 'all' in v 22, and, as long as we are both - you and me - in agreement with the whole of Paul's thesis, then we are in agreement with each other. Having been not 'in Christ' at one time in my life, I can testify that there is a huge difference between the two conditions of existence - heart and mind and soul.
The other factor I wish to bring to your attention is, that God Himself does not change. In the OT He routinely destroyed idolaters, sometimes sending prophets to specific generations to challenge them. This is the same God who is going to look at your heart and mine on the day of judgement, and having sacrificed His Son for our salvation, I cannot see one vestige of evidence in scripture, that He is suddenly going to start overlooking the unwashed-in-His-blood hearts before Him on that day. Hi Charisma....I haven't said that there isn't judgement....and everyone will go through the Baptism of Fire. There is not one person who will have any "self" left by the time this has completed.
It would be diabolically opposed to the revelation He gave of Himself in the garden of Eden, when He brought His word to pass that Adam would die for his sin, and for the very reason that the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden...' Genesis 3 it is surely impossible that at the end of time, He would forget why He'd expelled Adam from the first place?
It is essential that a person repents from sin. This is a spiritual act. A mental assent that God cannot tolerate sin is not repentance. Repentance changes a person on the inside, and God uses the season(s) of repentance to deepen the seeker/believer's appreciation of the sinfulness of sin, and his/her appreciation of the gulf it creates between mankind and our Holy God. The only remedy for sin is radical in spiritual terms: death. The death of Jesus Christ was an event in eternity which made an end of sin; and there is only one way we can participate in that victory - it is by acknowledging our own need of participation in His death.I've never said anything different Charisma.
In Tyndale's NT, he had (I think) a better turn of phrase than the KJV in Romans 6:5 For if we be graft(ed) in death like unto Him, even so must we be in the resurrection. The two are inseparable. There will be no 'resurrection of the just' [EDIT] Correction: the 'resurrection of the just' does apply to the OT saints - those who obeyed God's voice, whether before the Law was given or during the era of the Old Covenant; but we are here discussing whether a person in the New Covenant era can be saved without being 'in Christ'. I believe the appearance of Jesus Christ - the promised Messiah - changed cosmic history for ever. [end edit] for those who have not been grafted into Christ's death. It's a spiritual impossibility. The resurrection is where the life is - eternal life. It's why the early disciples were happy to die for the sake of the gospel - because they had absolute assurance that like as Christ had been raised from among the dead, so would they be. Note again: some of the dead will not be raised to eternal life. Rick quoted both Jesus and Daniel saying the same thing. Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
I do acknowledge there are several places in the NT where the writer points out that Jesus Christ died for the sin of the whole world. This is true. But the obdurate hearts of some of those to whom this message was taken, necessitated the preacher pleading with them to turn to Christ, so as to receive the benefits of His death and resurrection. As Paul said, 'it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe'. 1 Cor 1
Now, I want to show you some other verses which are incompatible with universalism. The first place is Psalm 37:7 Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. {Rest in: Heb. Be silent to} 8 Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. 9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
35 I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. {a green...: or, a green tree that groweth in his own soil} 36 Yet he passed away, and, lo, he [was] not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found. 37 Mark the perfect [man], and behold the upright: for the end of [that] man [is] peace. 38 But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off. 39 But the salvation of the righteous [is] of the LORD: [he is] their strength in the time of trouble. 40 And the LORD shall help them, and deliver them: he shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in him. No one is eternally cut off. "If I be lifted up, I will draw (drag) ALL men to myself." You are twisting scripture to suit your doctrine.
Then, there is this comparison made in
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
{call...: Heb. say concerning evil, It is good, etc} Woe. Woe Woe. God is serious.
For now, the last verses I want to show you are interesting because they are one of the clearest agreements from a piece of OT scripture with NT. It's important to understand the context of these verses, namely, God's warning Israel not to commit idolatry with the people of the land to which they are being sent to possess it: Leviticus 18 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which [were] before you, and the land is defiled; ) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that [were] before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that [ye] commit not [any one] of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I [am] the LORD your God.
In the OT, 'prosperity' was a physical thing - it was the blessing of God in material things. Gold was not a problem, if it was honestly obtained. But in the NT, prosperity is spiritual; it's about laying aside the physical which will perish, for spiritual treasure in heaven that cannot be stolen and cannot fade away. Yes, God gives most us more than enough of this life's goods, but they are not what we are to focus on, or they prevent us from knowing God the way He wants to be known by us. In the NT there are several places where darkness, or idolatry, or materialism, are associated with spiritual blindness, rejection of God's light, choices to please self rather than God. Here is one: 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Jesus says here: 'and knowest not that ..' He said a similar thing in John 4 to the Samaritan woman at the well: 22a Ye worship ye know not what' And here hangs the whole of scripture: who will you worship?
There are, as Rick keeps saying, only two worship systems. One leads to eternal life, and the other leads to eternal death.Could you show me the root of the words "eternal" and "everlasting" in the verses you are using?
In my next post I'll look at the question about 'seed'.
Charisma
01-07-2012, 07:38 PM
Hello Kathryn,
As it's late (where I am), I will mainly lay out the verses on my mind, and we can discuss them further in more detail. This gives you a start on where I'm coming from in scripture (and there are many others, too).
You asked my interpretation of 'seed' in Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. {thou...: or, his soul shall make an offering}
The way that most strikes me to read 'he shall see seed', is in the context of John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
There is both the singular seed (not necessarily wheat) being given a new body (the plant) which brings forth fruit (multiple ears of grain, in this case) - seed: Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Yes, the prolongation of 'his' days, is a reference to the resurrection of Christ. It is also that the life of God on the earth which was made manifest by Him, continues in His Body, the Church.
As far as my research shows, the 'seed' in Isaiah 53:10 is not necessarily singular. Rick already mentioned that Jesus has children. Here are some verses about that:
Isaiah 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me [are] for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
Hebrews 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will'.
Psalm 22:29 All [they that be] fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul. 30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. 31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done [this].
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever
If it is Jehovah who shall see seed, this also makes sense, not merely because of the unity between the Father and the Son, but because the Father sowed the Son into death, that He might bring forth a great harvest of sons: Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Ephesians 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places], 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
There is no getting away from the connection between Jesus Christ and the saints, or, that He told us no-one could come to Him except the Father draw them, and, that those who know the Father can do so only because the Son has made Him known to them. (Matt 11:27)
kathryn
01-08-2012, 04:37 AM
Charisma:
There is no getting away from the connection between Jesus Christ and the saints, or, that He told us no-one could come to Him except the Father draw them, and, that those who know the Father can do so only because the Son has made Him known to them. (Matt 11:27)
Hi Charisma....I agree with the above. I never said anything contrary to this.
Now, if you could provide the root words for the verses you are quoting that speak of "everlasting" torment/hell etc. it would be appreciated.
kathryn
01-08-2012, 05:25 AM
Do you mean know the law as in a lawyer or know the law as in no one is able to keep it. The Law is spiritual and reveals the eternal character and purpose of God, Rick. AFTER the resurrection, Jesus OPENED the eyes of the disciples to show them how He was revealed in the Law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms. Don't you think this is a good indicator that we should be able to do the same?
He wasn't taking them back under it...He was showing them what He had just fulfilled. Most of the Christian church today know nothing of how Christ is revealed in the Law and as a result, have no idea that their doctrines aren't supported in the foundation of Scripture. Neither do they fully understand what was redeemed for them at the Cross.
Why do you suppose David loved God's Law and meditated on it day and night, if it was just a bunch of rules no one was able to keep? Until you allow the Holy Spirit to lead you through it, all you will be capable of doing is to continue to quote NT scripture to fit any doctrine you wish.
What does "rightly dividing" the Word of God mean to you?
Why would you think I don't understand Grace? Oh yeah, because your understanding of it is that ALL are saved. That belief actually destroys the cross of Christ. Odd then that one of the central verses on the Cross speaks of drawing(dragging) ALL mankind to Himself: "If I be lifted up, I will draw ALL men to myself." Why walk with Jesus everyday if we will all be saved? Because I want to be in the first resurrection. I want to be an "overcomer", because I have seen and tasted His goodness and joy and Love and couldn't walk otherwise if I tried. We are all motivated by Love Rick. When we "see" it...we'll walk into the mouths of Lions before we'll deny it. This isn't a virtue of ours, it is something that is woven into our very being. Our ability to respond is also God given. He hardens the hearts of some, makes "enemies" of some for the sake of others; He subjected mankind to vanity (perverseness/depravity) that we might know Harmony! Jesus died on the Cross to make the "crooked" straight! You don't think He knows exactly how to draw His creation into perfect Harmony/Oneness without the loss of one of His/Her children? His Hope would be a pretty meager thing if that were the case!
Once you can see the big picture, you can stop concerning yourself (and dividing mankind) into who is rebellious and who isn't, who is "chosen" and who isn't...and start truly standing in agreement or harmonizing with His perfect Will and purposes(that all men be saved)...or in WHOLE-hearted "witness" to His character and purposes. This is when the Power of God will begin to accompany His Word on earth...and the "Love of God can be shed abroad(gush forth, spill out) in our hearts" (Rom. 5.5)
You destroy grace in it's true meaning, too.
Have a good night,
Rick
heb13-13
01-08-2012, 08:37 AM
Hi Kathryn,
I know how God's character is revealed in the Law. I showed that in the thread, "Can You Be Righteous". I also showed how it was revealed in Creation.
What you are saying is that no one knows but you, how He is revealed in the Law because if we did, then we would come to the same conclusion as you regarding the eternal disposition of the just and the unjust and our understanding of Satan and Hell.
If anyone disagrees with you, it is simply because they don't have your light.
What is so hard to understand about that? Your message comes through crystal clear as far as I can tell.
Why don't you start a thread about your teaching so that we all have something else to look at besides "you don't know this or that, because you don't understand God's Law". Ok, I think we have heard that a million times, now. Lay out your teaching.
All the best,
Rick
kathryn
01-08-2012, 08:59 AM
Hi Kathryn,
I know how God's character is revealed in the Law. I showed that in the thread, "Can You Be Righteous". I also showed how it was revealed in Creation.
What you are saying is that no one knows but you, how He is revealed in the Law because if we did, then we would come to the same conclusion as you regarding the eternal disposition of the just and the unjust and our understanding of Satan and Hell.
If anyone disagrees with you, it is simply because they don't have your light.
What is so hard to understand about that? Your message comes through crystal clear as far as I can tell.
Why don't you start a thread about your teaching so that we all have something else to look at besides "you don't know this or that, because you don't understand God's Law". Ok, I think we have heard that a million times, now. Lay out your teaching.
All the best,
Rick
I'm sorry if it comes across that way Rick. I was simply answering your questions on why the Law was important, which you have asked me more than once. What category is your thread "Can you be righteous in?" I have never seen it...sorry.
As far as your understanding of satan and hell....I have tried to bring in foundational teaching in this...beginning with simple definitions, which you ignore and then carry on with more NT verses.
How about answering my question on the root word for "everlasting" and "eternal" describing your belief that God sends people to roast in eternal fire? I've already showed you how such a concept violates His Law and therefore His character and purposes but you disagreed with it. Until you show me some foundational witnesses to your point of view...there isn't anywhere to go from here.
Charisma
01-08-2012, 01:28 PM
Good afternoon, Kathryn,
I haven't read all of your replies yet, but this is at the top of a page, so I thought I'd quickly respond.
Hi Charisma....I agree with the above. I never said anything contrary to this.
Now, if you could provide the root words for the verses you are quoting that speak of "everlasting" torment/hell etc. it would be appreciated.
About the OT saints (just as an example), I mentioned it to correct the statement which, had I not mentioned it, would have been open to dispute. Not every thing I'm going to say (in my posts), is a direct rejection of things you've said, although some may well be. I'm hoping we don't disagree about everything! But I know too, that unless I offer you a context in which to understand a statement which may seem to be contrary to something you think you've said, you can't really hold it against the template of scripture in the same way as I believe I am.
(I hope that reads okay. If it's not clear, please say so and I'll try a different way to explain what I mean.)
I have not done a whole-Bible study on 'eternal' and 'everlasting', but mostly they mean the same thing, which Young translates as 'age-during'.
I didn't mention torment or hell - but Jesus does - a lot of times.
Charisma
01-08-2012, 01:37 PM
Hi Kathryn,
To Rick, you said (amongst other things)
I've already showed you how such a concept violates His Law(The concept being 'roast in eternal fire' in your words.)
So, I have a question for you, to answer (if you would be so kind) with 'yes' or 'no'. Have you read Deuteronomy from cover to cover?
Thanks in advance.
kathryn
01-08-2012, 02:06 PM
Good afternoon, Kathryn,
I haven't read all of your replies yet, but this is at the top of a page, so I thought I'd quickly respond.
About the OT saints (just as an example), I mentioned it to correct the statement which, had I not mentioned it, would have been open to dispute. Not every thing I'm going to say (in my posts), is a direct rejection of things you've said, although some may well be. I'm hoping we don't disagree about everything! But I know too, that unless I offer you a context in which to understand a statement which may seem to be contrary to something you think you've said, you can't really hold it against the template of scripture in the same way as I believe I am.
(I hope that reads okay. If it's not clear, please say so and I'll try a different way to explain what I mean.)
I have not done a whole-Bible study on 'eternal' and 'everlasting', but mostly they mean the same thing, which Young translates as 'age-during'.
I didn't mention torment or hell - but Jesus does - a lot of times.
Hi there Charisma...thanks for the definition...and yes, Jesus does mention hell, but not in the manner much of the church interprets it to mean, and particularily as "age-during".
kathryn
01-08-2012, 02:07 PM
Hi Kathryn,
To Rick, you said (amongst other things)
(The concept being 'roast in eternal fire' in your words.)
So, I have a question for you, to answer (if you would be so kind) with 'yes' or 'no'. Have you read Deuteronomy from cover to cover?
Thanks in advance.
Yes, I have Charisma. Why do you ask?
all the best,
Kathryn
Charisma
01-08-2012, 03:16 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I ask because I wonder if you think God doesn't mean what He says about the curses which were to come upon those (many) who did not obey His voice?
Perhaps you could say something about how you understand that option (being cursed and or killed for their disobedience), which God gave at the same time as He commanded 'life for evermore' to those few who would obey Him, please?
Additionally, do you believe those whom God killed for their disobedience, will also be saved at the resurrection? (If so, how does that work?)
Thanks again.
Charisma
01-08-2012, 03:18 PM
Hi Charisma....
...and everyone will go through the Baptism of Fire. There is not one person who will have any "self" left by the time this has completed. Please could you lay out the scriptures from which you get this meaning?
Thanks again.
heb13-13
01-08-2012, 03:24 PM
Please could you lay out the scriptures from which you get this meaning?
Thanks again.
Hey Kathryn,
Just to make things quick. I am in agreement with Charisma so far (including her answers to your questions).
Blessings to you,
Rick
kathryn
01-08-2012, 03:55 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I ask because I wonder if you think God doesn't mean what He says about the curses which were to come upon those (many) who did not obey His voice?
Perhaps you could say something about how you understand that option (being cursed and or killed for their disobedience), which God gave at the same time as He commanded 'life for evermore' to those few who would obey Him, please?
Additionally, do you believe those whom God killed for their disobedience, will also be saved at the resurrection? (If so, how does that work?)
Thanks again.
Hi Charisma...first of all, we have to understand that God does not judge apart from Love, which is who He is. The Law was called the "fiery" law and the biblical meaning of fire is clearly a symbol of cleansing and purification. It is always restorative. As the early church leader, Clement of Alexandria wrote in the second century:
"Fire is conceived of as a beneficent and strong power, destroying what is base, preserving what is good; therefore this fire is called "wise" by the prophets.
Punishment is, in its operation, like medicine; it dissolves the hard heart, purges away the filth of uncleaness, and reduces the swellings of pride and haughtiness; thus restoring its subject to a sound and healthful state" (did you know Charisma, that for a few hundred years after Jesus, the majority of the church believed in the salvation of all mankind? It wasn't until the early part of the 5th century that the view of sinners being punished endlessly became popular)
I believe all will be saved yes, but that isn't to say there isn't a reckoning and a punishment after death and the judgement. All I'm saying is that it is not eternal punishment and it is always restorative.
kathryn
01-08-2012, 04:11 PM
Please could you lay out the scriptures from which you get this meaning?
Thanks again.
Hi Charisma...Chapter 12 of Luke should be a good start. Jesus said in Luke 12:49 that He had come to "send fire on earth"...but the whole chapter also describes the judgement/punishment issue as well:
http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=42&cnum=12&vnum=49&InContext=Yes#v49
There are many types in the OT that confirm this Baptism of Fire but I will leave it at this for now.
Charisma
01-08-2012, 04:23 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I'm finding it easier to take your replies one by one. The original post I made is on p20.
No one is eternally cut off.... Leaving aside John 12:32 which you placed between the two sentences I've retained to discuss, 'no-one is eternally cut off', is like saying a person is not really dead when they die. To be 'cut off' in God's terminology does mean 'for ever' - however many ages that will be. As Rick reminded us, there are going to be some people whose names are not in the book of life (tree of life, as some mss have.)
1 Samuel 25:29 Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, [as out] of the middle of a sling.
Psalm 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Psalm 52:1 Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? the goodness of God [endureth] continually.
2 Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully.
3 Thou lovest evil more than good; [and] lying rather than to speak righteousness. Selah.
4 Thou lovest all devouring words, O [thou] deceitful tongue.
5 God shall likewise destroy thee for ever, he shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of [thy] dwelling place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah.
6 The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him:
7 Lo, [this is] the man [that] made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, [and] strengthened himself in his wickedness.
8 But I [am] like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever.
9 I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done [it]: and I will wait on thy name; for [it is] good before thy saints.
You are twisting scripture to suit your doctrine.I don't think so, perhaps needless to say. I take my doctrine of the surface of the pages of scripture. When God says He's going to cut off a person for a particular kind of sin, I simply believe that's what He'll do. You rely heavily on the use of the word 'all', but you separate it from all qualifying contexts, and that's more than problematic; it's unsound interpretation.
Here are further texts to raise question marks beside your belief that all men will be saved.
Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Then, there is this chapter from Ezekiel, which speaks for itself. Please read the whole, not just the verses I've hightlighted.
Ezekiel 13:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD; {that prophesy out...: Heb. that are prophets out of their own hearts} 3 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! {follow: Heb. walk after} {and...: or, and things which they have not seen} 4 O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts. 5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD. {gaps: or, breaches} {made...: Heb. hedged the hedge} 6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made [others] to hope that they would confirm the word. 7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith [it]; albeit I have not spoken? 8 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I [am] against you, saith the Lord GOD. 9 And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD. {assembly: or, secret, or, counsel} 10 Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and [there was] no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered [morter]: {a wall: or, a slight wall} 11 Say unto them which daub [it] with untempered [morter], that it shall fall: there shall be an overflowing shower; and ye, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall rend [it]. 12 Lo, when the wall is fallen, shall it not be said unto you, Where [is] the daubing wherewith ye have daubed [it]? 13 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even rend [it] with a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall be an overflowing shower in mine anger, and great hailstones in [my] fury to consume [it]. 14 So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered [morter], and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered, and it shall fall, and ye shall be consumed in the midst thereof: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD. 15 Thus will I accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with untempered [morter], and will say unto you, The wall [is] no [more], neither they that daubed it; 16 [To wit], the prophets of Israel which prophesy concerning Jerusalem, and which see visions of peace for her, and [there is] no peace, saith the Lord GOD.
17 Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou against them, 18 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the [women] that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive [that come] unto you? {armholes: or, elbows} 19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear [your] lies? 20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make [them] fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, [even] the souls that ye hunt to make [them] fly. {to make...: or, into gardens} 21 Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD. 22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: {by...: or, that I should save his life: Heb. by quickening him} 23 Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD.
22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad;
and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life.
v 22 completely states how I feel about the doctrine of universalism; it contradicts so much scripture, it is impossible for me to believe God intends this interpretation.
kathryn
01-08-2012, 05:34 PM
You are twisting scripture to suit your doctrine.
I don't think so, perhaps needless to say. I take my doctrine of the surface of the pages of scripture. When God says He's going to cut off a person for a particular kind of sin, I simply believe that's what He'll do. You rely heavily on the use of the word 'all', but you separate it from all qualifying contexts, and that's more than problematic; it's unsound interpretation.
Yes...I realize you take your doctrine from the surface Charisma. That's a major part of the problem here. It is fine to believe God is going to do what He says He is going to do....and you can (and do) find a whole host of scripture to back it up...but if it doesn't witness to His purposes and character in His Law...its man made doctrine. God's Law is clear...judgement is always in direct proportion to the sin...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Restitution payments are always figured mathematically and are a multiple of the crime.(Ex. 22: 1-4) Jesus paid the debt for the sin of all mankind and it required 3 days in death. Between these two witnesses, where do we find the doctrine that man pays more for his sins than Jesus did for ALL sin?
Could you please tell me your understanding of the Book of Life? Thank you.
Charisma
01-08-2012, 05:37 PM
Hi Kathryn,
There are two points I wish to raise and address by way of further refuting universalism.
The first point, was picked up from reading the words of a universalist who seemed to believe that God, in calling us into sonship, intends to give us the same qualities and status as Jesus Christ - which this man took to mean we can do what we like; we can make things, decide things, change things, seemingly without reference to the Father. Basically, we would be gods. (I may have misnderstood, but, I don't think so.)
As this is the very situation Jesus came to challenge, I cannot agree that when God makes, calls and treats us as sons, it will look in any way different (in spiritual meaning) than it did for Jesus, except for the very obvious, (repeated more than once in scripture) difference that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, the Creator, and we are His creations. He formed us from the dust. And, despite that Jesus took upon Him the likeness of sinful flesh, He was, nevertheless, without sin, the spotless Lamb of God. These we will never be. The cross we are called to embrace does a different work in us, than Christ's cross, although both contain that element of the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. (Acts 2:23)
Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! [Let] the potsherd [strive] with the potsherds of the earth.
Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
10 Woe unto him that saith unto [his] father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
The second point I wish to discuss is Israel, in Isaiah 45:25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. Here we have that word 'all' again, but we also have the qualifying phrase, 'in the Lord', which parallels 'in Christ', in meaning.
Remembering that Jacob means twister, and that God put him through a long and relentless transformation process, and yet was not satisfied with him, the difference it made to Jacob - despite all the supernatural occurrences through which he had lived - to wrestle with the angel at Penuel, was that he'd had his own transforming (physically damaging) revelation of God, and a personal conversation with Him. Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. {Peniel: that is, The face of God} 31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh. Jacob had made a deal with God twenty years earlier, and they had both kept their side of the contract. Therefore, when Isaiah later says the Redeemer shall come to Sion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob (59:20) the use of the name 'Jacob' signifies the natural state of men, because Israel (God prevails) signifies the understanding of a spiritual man. 'The seed of Israel', then, is about more than natural descendency, and this is what Paul is at pains to explain in Romans 9.
Those naturally descended from Jacob, in becoming known as 'the children of Israel', knew that they were calling upon God for the blessing He had promised those who obey His voice, but their history, as predicted by Moses, bore out that many of their hearts were unwilling to yield to Him. As an example, the time of Elijah is well-documented, when God had reserved to Himself only seven thousand men who had not capitulated to Baal. The many kings who 'made Israel to sin', in various kinds of idolatry, brought God's wrath, and usually destruction, on the whole population.
Romans 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; 5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28 For he will finish the work, and cut [it] short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. 29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
I think it's valid to ask why Paul quotes Isaiah again, about being 'ashamed'? Is it not because Jesus said: Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. This is the reason Paul states at the beginning of the Roman epistle he is not ashamed of having believed on the stone which the builders rejected. Jesus Himself said: Matthew 21:'... Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
How do you explain the salvation of those who have been ground to powder by the Lord Himself? Would it not be fighting against God?
kathryn
01-08-2012, 08:02 PM
Hi Charisma....if you don't mind, I'll leave commenting on your post above. We have enough differences without going there at the moment. Let's stick to one topic at a time. I would really like to know how you understand the Book of Life and how you come to your understanding.
Charisma
01-09-2012, 04:34 PM
Hello Kathryn,
I'm on p21, beginning to answer your replies.
Hi Charisma...first of all, we have to understand that God does not judge apart from Love, which is who He is. The Law was called the "fiery" law and the biblical meaning of fire is clearly a symbol of cleansing and purification. It is always restorative. As the early church leader, Clement of Alexandria wrote in the second century:
"Fire is conceived of as a beneficent and strong power, destroying what is base, preserving what is good; therefore this fire is called "wise" by the prophets.
Punishment is, in its operation, like medicine; it dissolves the hard heart, purges away the filth of uncleaness, and reduces the swellings of pride and haughtiness; thus restoring its subject to a sound and healthful state" (did you know Charisma, that for a few hundred years after Jesus, the majority of the church believed in the salvation of all mankind? It wasn't until the early part of the 5th century that the view of sinners being punished endlessly became popular)
I believe all will be saved yes, but that isn't to say there isn't a reckoning and a punishment after death and the judgement. All I'm saying is that it is not eternal punishment and it is always restorative. 'did you know Charisma, that for a few hundred years after Jesus, the majority of the church believed in the salvation of all mankind?'
No I didn't - in the way your question reads - but it could be argued that so does God believe in the salvation of all mankind - and it's all mankind that is at fault for not believing in the Saviour by whom He had reconciled the world to Himself.
You said of the Law: 'It is always restorative'. Is that what you would say to the widow of a man who had been put to death legitimately under the Law? Please explain to me how he had been restored by the operation of the Law?
'we have to understand that God does not judge apart from Love'.
Of course this is true. But His love does not over-rule His other qualities - like Light, Life, Truth, and holiness - which are all perfectly integrated in God, along with His freedom to exercise righteous anger, wrath, vengeance and instantaneous judgement.
The OT has several instances of those who died instantly after disobeying an instruction. In what way did God's 'love' restore them?
Charisma
01-09-2012, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Kathryn,
...and everyone will go through the Baptism of Fire. There is not one person who will have any "self" left by the time this has completed.
Originally posted by Charisma
Please could you lay out the scriptures from which you get this meaning?
Hi Charisma...Chapter 12 of Luke should be a good start. Jesus said in Luke 12:49 that He had come to "send fire on earth"...but the whole chapter also describes the judgement/punishment issue as well:
http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Data...ontext=Yes#v49
There are many types in the OT that confirm this Baptism of Fire but I will leave it at this for now. Hi Kathryn,
You really have not answered the question. One chapter in the NT and a vague sweeping of the arm over the Old, is not a laying out of the scriptures from which is derived a doctrine of such serious consequences to those who embrace it; nor does it amply give account of those scriptures which it seems to contradict.
If there is a pattern in scripture, it is that the life of Jesus Christ fully fulfilled the types and shadows in the OT. The problem found with the statements you make is not their plausibility, but their implausibility when placed against the whole Book.
In the end, you don't have to convince me, or Rick, or anyone of why you believe what you believe, and I don't blame you at all for wanting to not have to spend hours explaining it, only to find we are still in disagreement. But, for myself, I need to challenge the basis on which anyone can believe what you've expressed so far, because Jesus Himself came preaching the gospel of repentance, and He is the only way to escape the wrath to come. This (that I've just written) is not a minority view in the NT. Peter, John and Paul are in complete agreement about it.
For you, or anyone, to put forward a view which is so different, that the necessity of the fulfilment of the OT which Jesus Christ accomplished, is then rendered pointless, is the main problem, (and you rarely mention Jesus). It's as if He needn't have existed for your doctrines to stand.
Charisma
01-09-2012, 05:35 PM
You are twisting scripture to suit your doctrine.
I don't think so, perhaps needless to say. I take my doctrine of the surface of the pages of scripture. When God says He's going to cut off a person for a particular kind of sin, I simply believe that's what He'll do. You rely heavily on the use of the word 'all', but you separate it from all qualifying contexts, and that's more than problematic; it's unsound interpretation.
Yes...I realize you take your doctrine from the surface Charisma. That's a major part of the problem here. It is fine to believe God is going to do what He says He is going to do....and you can (and do) find a whole host of scripture to back it up...but if it doesn't witness to His purposes and character in His Law...its man made doctrine. God's Law is clear...judgement is always in direct proportion to the sin...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Restitution payments are always figured mathematically and are a multiple of the crime.(Ex. 22: 1-4) Jesus paid the debt for the sin of all mankind and it required 3 days in death. Between these two witnesses, where do we find the doctrine that man pays more for his sins than Jesus did for ALL sin?
Could you please tell me your understanding of the Book of Life? Thank you. 'I realize you take your doctrine from the surface Charisma.' That doesn't make it shallow.
'It is fine to believe God is going to do what He says He is going to do....and you can (and do) find a whole host of scripture to back it up...but if it doesn't witness to His purposes and character in His Law...its man made doctrine.' This I can agree.
Romans 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above]: ) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
As Paul moves on through his argument, he is at pains to connect his thesis to that of Isaiah's. The centrality of believing in Jesus Christ as the only means to salvation is his main theme throughout the Roman epistle. How does this differ from 'His purpose and character in His Law'?
God's Law is clear...judgement is always in direct proportion to the sin...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Restitution payments are always figured mathematically and are a multiple of the crime.(Ex. 22: 1-4) Jesus paid the debt for the sin of all mankind and it required 3 days in death. Between these two witnesses, where do we find the doctrine that man pays more for his sins than Jesus did for ALL sin?I don't find that doctrine in scripture either, and I don't believe universalism is the solution to the problem.
The problem is the in the stubbornness (imagination) and idolatry (unbelief) of those who refuse to come to Jesus Christ in an appropriately contrite condition of heart, acknowledging their need of Him as the Door to eternal life. The victory over sin and death which Jesus wrought is an incalculable treasure to those who lay hold on it. But for those who don't lay hold on it, it remains outside their experience. And Jesus Himself said they would be accounted as sinners for not having believed on Him.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
In other words, the only way for a person to be freed from their burden of sin - that which condemns them - is through faith in Jesus Christ.
John 3: 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
God already poured His heart out to mankind in Jesus Christ. He has already destroyed generation after generation who would not keep His Law. He brought the necessity for all thoses death to an end, in the death of His Son Jesus. God can do no more. He doesn't need to.
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
kathryn
01-09-2012, 05:59 PM
Hello Kathryn,
I'm on p21, beginning to answer your replies.
'did you know Charisma, that for a few hundred years after Jesus, the majority of the church believed in the salvation of all mankind?'
No I didn't - in the way your question reads - but it could be argued that so does God believe in the salvation of all mankind - and it's all mankind that is at fault for not believing in the Saviour by whom He had reconciled the world to Himself. As in Adam all died, even so in Christ (the 2nd Adam) shall all be made alive. Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess....why do you keep focusing on the stages of mankind moving from darkness into light? It's like you're looking at a parade from street level and zeroed in on just one part of it.
You said of the Law: 'It is always restorative'. Is that what you would say to the widow of a man who had been put to death legitimately under the Law? Please explain to me how he had been restored by the operation of the Law?There is restoration after death as well Charisma. Some walk into the fire willingly during their time on earth , others don't.
'we have to understand that God does not judge apart from Love'.
Of course this is true. But His love does not over-rule His other qualities - like Light, Life, Truth, and holiness - which are all perfectly integrated in God, along with His freedom to exercise righteous anger, wrath, vengeance and instantaneous judgement.
The OT has several instances of those who died instantly after disobeying an instruction. In what way did God's 'love' restore them?
kathryn
01-09-2012, 06:02 PM
'I realize you take your doctrine from the surface Charisma.' That doesn't make it shallow.
'It is fine to believe God is going to do what He says He is going to do....and you can (and do) find a whole host of scripture to back it up...but if it doesn't witness to His purposes and character in His Law...its man made doctrine.' This I can agree.
Romans 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above]: ) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
As Paul moves on through his argument, he is at pains to connect his thesis to that of Isaiah's. The centrality of believing in Jesus Christ as the only means to salvation is his main theme throughout the Roman epistle. How does this differ from 'His purpose and character in His Law'?
I don't find that doctrine in scripture either, and I don't believe universalism is the solution to the problem.
The problem is the in the stubbornness (imagination) and idolatry (unbelief) of those who refuse to come to Jesus Christ in an appropriately contrite condition of heart, acknowledging their need of Him as the Door to eternal life. The victory over sin and death which Jesus wrought is an incalculable treasure to those who lay hold on it. But for those who don't lay hold on it, it remains outside their experience. And Jesus Himself said they would be accounted as sinners for not having believed on Him.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
In other words, the only way for a person to be freed from their burden of sin - that which condemns them - is through faith in Jesus Christ.
John 3: 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
God already poured His heart out to mankind in Jesus Christ. He has already destroyed generation after generation who would not keep His Law. He brought the necessity for all thoses death to an end, in the death of His Son Jesus. God can do no more. He doesn't need to.
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
I don't know what to say to the above Charisma. I'm really not sure what you're trying to convey to me. Sorry!
kathryn
01-09-2012, 06:07 PM
Hi Kathryn,
You really have not answered the question. One chapter in the NT and a vague sweeping of the arm over the Old, is not a laying out of the scriptures from which is derived a doctrine of such serious consequences to those who embrace it; nor does it amply give account of those scriptures which it seems to contradict. Hi Charisma....please note: I said it was a "good start". I will happily provide the OT scriptures and types. Just give me awhile. I have a busy evening.
If there is a pattern in scripture, it is that the life of Jesus Christ fully fulfilled the types and shadows in the OT. The problem found with the statements you make is not their plausibility, but their implausibility when placed against the whole Book.You'd have to be more specific here . What statement in particular?
In the end, you don't have to convince me, or Rick, or anyone of why you believe what you believe, and I don't blame you at all for wanting to not have to spend hours explaining it, only to find we are still in disagreement. But, for myself, I need to challenge the basis on which anyone can believe what you've expressed so far,That's great Charisma! I appreciate your need to challenge! because Jesus Himself came preaching the gospel of repentance, and He is the only way to escape the wrath to come. This (that I've just written) is not a minority view in the NT. Peter, John and Paul are in complete agreement about it.
For you, or anyone, to put forward a view which is so different, that the necessity of the fulfilment of the OT which Jesus Christ accomplished, is then rendered pointless, is the main problem, (and you rarely mention Jesus). It's as if He needn't have existed for your doctrines to stand.
kathryn
01-10-2012, 08:49 AM
Good morning Charisma,
Before I get into the types in the OT that speak of the purification process of fire, I'd like you to clarify a few things you have said to this point.
I asked you the definition of everlasting/eternal in the verses you were quoting and you replied with : "age-during".
You then said that in God's terminology, this meant "forever", "however many ages that might be".
Could you clarify this please? Are you saying there is a limit to the ages? How are you defining God's "forever" exactly and where are you taking the definition from?
You then went on to say (at least I think you did) that you didn't see or believe the doctrine that man had to pay more for his sins than Jesus paid for ALL sin on the cross(or that the Law required)....and yet you continue to say that there are some who are cut off for the sin of unbelief, etc. etc. and consigned to everlasting fire. Could you clarify this for me?
You quoted the verse that says that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believeth. What about those who don't believe? How are they judged?
Sin is defined as "lawlessness" or "transgression of the Law"...so, would you say that at the judgement, the "books" used to judge, would be the Law?
Charisma
01-11-2012, 05:48 PM
Hi Kathryn,
I asked you the definition of everlasting/eternal in the verses you were quoting and you replied with : "age-during".
You then said that in God's terminology, this meant "forever", "however many ages that might be".
Could you clarify this please? Are you saying there is a limit to the ages? How are you defining God's "forever" exactly and where are you taking the definition from?I don't think your request for a definition of 'eternal' and 'everlasting' was attached to specific verses, so what I meant by 'age-during' is that when those words (eternal and everlasting) appear in the KJV, they are both able to be translated 'age-during'. By this I understand that whatever pronouncement has been made, will be in force until the end of the age to which it is being applied.
Here are three references to 'the world to come'.
Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Luke 18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
It seems to me in light of these verses, that 'everlasting' or 'eternal' life, is a quality of life which is not terminated by the end of an age.
Is that clearer?
You then went on to say (at least I think you did) that you didn't see or believe the doctrine that man had to pay more for his sins than Jesus paid for ALL sin on the cross(or that the Law required)....and yet you continue to say that there are some who are cut off for the sin of unbelief, etc. etc. and consigned to everlasting fire. Could you clarify this for me?Hmm.
Let me start separately from your question.
You are starting from a theory, that because Jesus died for all men, therefore all will be saved, disregarding completely that God is looking for a consensual Bride. I suppose that raises the question of who will be 'in' the Bride, of all those who WILL be saved because they complied either with the Law, or, by obeying John Baptist's call or Jesus Christ's call (and His disciples' call) to repent. So, leaving aside all that about the Bride, what I have never seen you acknowledge - but perhaps you do - is God's sovereign right to deal with the people who did not obey His voice - before the Mosaic Law. (To be clear, I am not denigrating the Mosaic Law, or the possibility that it contains a template for the fulfilment of all of time as we know it, but the PURPOSE of the Law, was to bring to men's attention their sinful condition. It was about their RELATIONSHIP with God. And yet, it was imperfect, as MEN did not want to remain in relationship with God through the Law.)
And so, biblical history shows us that God has breaking points which cause Him to act in unprecedentted ways. For instance, He could so no longer tolerate the wickedness and violence on earth, that He repented (to Himself) of having made mankind at all. BUT: Noah - one man - found favour in seeking God, and God made a sovereign choice to use Noah to secure an inheritance for Himself in Noah's descendants. Then, God destroyed the rest of the human race apart from Noah's family, and those who had already died 'naturally'.
Then there was an era of replenishing the earth. Noah's sons overlapped Abrahams call by at least two hundred years. There cannot have been a person alive who did not know about the Flood, why it had happened, and what God's views about sin were. Job took this very seriously, making a sacrifice for each of his children every day, just in case one of them should forget to do so for himself. This did not protect these adults from God allowing them to lose their lives during Satan's testing of Job. My point is, death is not the end for those who are in right-standing with God at the time of their death.
But, there have been many who were not in right standing with God at the time of their death, for whom death is, effectively the end, because the consequences for their choices in this life, are eternal. That is why it's important to find Jesus NOW, in this life, so the consequence is eternal life, rather than eternal death. (We are all going to go through a transformation, whether natural death precedes it or not - and then the judgement.
But: 1 Thess 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him )
Regarding those who died under the Mosaic Law, because they had committed sins worthy of death by God's decree, I cannot see how you can state that 'the Law is always restorative'.
But in Jesus Christ - the Lawgiver-Lawkeeper - there can be restoration for those repenting of sin. But for those not repenting of sin, there can be no restoration - because God cannot tolerate sin in His presence, and, He has shown Himself historically, unwilling to force anyone to be in fellowship with Him. He has pled with countless generations, but He has never compromised on the matter of their obedience to His voice as the ONLY means of being blessed by Him. It is not possible to read the OT and imagine that even those of Israel and Judah escaped His punishments. And when they are raised for judgement, their choices will count against them.
This is not making them pay twice for their sins. God is under no obligation to forgive anyone. He chooses to because He loves, He provided a sacrifice for us, and because He wants mankind to be in fellowship with Him again - of their own choice.
Isaiah 30:15 5 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!
There is no reason given in the Bible that the unchanging God would at some point in the future allow those who rejected Him, to come into His presence for anything other than their final acknowledgment of His Kingship, Lordship, and righteous judgements against them.
The God who destroyed those refusing to worship Him under the Old Covenant, is the same God who requires worship under the New Covenant. The terms of the Covenants have changed - the latter being better than the former - but the God whom both Covenants reveal, has not changed at all. It is the fact of His desire to bring an end to sin which is what shows men's hearts. Those in agreement with God are blessed, and those who prefer sin and death over fellowship and eternal life, will also receive the eternal outworking of their conscious choices.
What is unfair about that?
You quoted the verse that says that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who believeth. What about those who don't believe? How are they judged? I think I've just explained that in my previous comments.
A good example of this is in John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Acts 1:16 Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Note: God did not predestine Judas to destruction, but, He did fortell that Judas would choose unrighteousness.
Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, 2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? 3 [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have [occasion] any more to use this proverb in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live? 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Can you see the simple truth that it is the kindness of God to have found ways to maintain a relationship with Himself, despite the fact that each and every one is heading for a natural death courtesy of Adam's transgression? Thus, the fact of the eternal death of those who choose to make good the death in which they were born, by rejecting God's proffers, is not an extra penalty; neither is it a punishment?
God has commanded the blessing - the reversal of death - even life forevermore - and those who choose death will get death.
Sin is defined as "lawlessness" or "transgression of the Law"...so, would you say that at the judgement, the "books" used to judge, would be the Law?
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
In an earlier post I think I quoted the verse from David's story, in which the bundle of life is mentioned. There is a little discussed notion in the minds of some who read closely, that the spiritual principle of eternal life was established when the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, so, that those who do not lay hold of it have to have their name blotted out of the book of life, as much as (not rather than) those who receive (or have received) God's word and obeyed it - in whatever generation they happened to have been born, have established that their name is written in the Lamb's book of life. I'm showing you this so you can think about it. I'm not stating it as a widely taught doctrine, or even as a doctrine at all. It's more an observation of the logic which could be applied to verses which are in the Bible.
My great difficulty with theology and with doctrine, is if there are no Bible verses to support a teaching, or, the teaching depends heavily on one man's interpretation or imaginiation of what certain verses might mean, or, there are multitudinous other verses which show the opposite.
So, I can't see anything in Revelation about the books of the Law being used to judge.
The OT has a very simple template for who God is saving: it is those who mourn over the sins of His people - and their own sins.
Sin, in the face of God's holiness and His intolerance of sin, and how each person receives or rejects His provision for their salvation from sin, is of utmost interest to God. When one sinner repents, He rejoices in the presence of the angels. Why? Because He shed His blood for us.
David M
01-12-2012, 03:38 AM
Hello Kathryn and Charisma
With interest I have been reading your comments. I would have posted earlier but it took some time to get registered and approved. I see now that this dialogue between you is probably coming to its end.
As you will see from the number of posts, this is my first post on the forum. My intention is always to impart the Truth of God’s Word as I understand it and comes as a result of studying God’s Word for many years. God’s Word does not change; only our understanding of it changes. It is difficult to write short reply and not make it like sound bites. I do not want to start a different line of argument here and do not expect to be agreed nor do I not want to start a new line of argument. I have to state God’s Truth as I understand it.
I have read most of the content of the last 22 pages of this thread which started off discussing Demons and is now talking about Universalism. As I have been reading the contributions from the different members I have been trying to work out who has the best grasp of God’s Truth. It is evident from the posts in this thread, that some contributors get hung up on a particular aspect of their thinking which is not in line with the Truth.
It is good that we all search for the Truth of God’s Word and we examine everything that is said against God’s Word. I shall say some things which others will not agree with and I would not be so arrogant as to think that I know God’s Truth any more than anyone else, but I have a duty to preach the Gospel and teach the Truth as I understand it. We have to serve God (Josh 24:14) in sincerity and in truth and also we have to work out our own salvation (Phil2:12) with fear and trembling. In doing so we have to be humble as Jesus was humble and conform to Jesus’ way of thinking as Paul writes; (Phil2:5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: This is part of what it means to be a true Christian or a true follower of the Lord Jesus. All things that Jesus heard from his Heavenly Father he told his disciples and the same has come down to us through God’s Word.
I came across another church recently which I thought was excellent for its interpretation of prophecy and teaching of baptism. However, I was disappointed to find that their understanding of the nature of Jesus and the Devil are wrong, but they will not admit they are wrong any more than we hang on to our own views when we think we have the truth and everyone else is wrong. One universalism I think we can all agree on is this; we can all be wrong, but we cannot all be right.
I have to confess that I do not have an explanation for every verse in the Bible; I am still searching for answers in the Bible in which the Bible so often answers itself. We ought to agree that where the Bible has lots of verses which convey the same meaning then if there is one verse appears to contradict all the others, we should keep searching until we find the interpretation that fits. God does not lie; God has not set out to confuse us. However, unless one begins to understand the language of scripture and see with the eyes of faith, the Word of God will not be understood and remain a mystery. Heed this warning; (2Pet 3:16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
I can sympathize with your view Kathryn to some extent. I cannot impose on God my limitation on who I think will be saved by the Grace of God. We are taught not to judge others and leave all judgment to God and Jesus. Whoever God raises from the dead and whoever inherits the Kingdom of God, it is for God to decide. Those who are raised to life to stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ, God has given all judgement into the hand of Jesus. We cannot speculate on who will and who will not be in the Kingdom of God, rather we should concentrate on those things that we are clearly instructed to do and which are essential for our own salvation. As Jesus said; (Matt 8:22) Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. Let’s leave all judgement to God who knows (Rom 2:16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.
We can have the knowledge and understanding of God’s Truth yet if we do not put our belief and knowledge to doing good works following the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, then our faith without works is dead (James 2:20). At the same time as we go about our daily lives doing good works and living a Christ-like life, we can increase our understanding of God’s Word and come to know more about the prophecies to be fulfilled in which God will fulfil His purpose. God rules in the Kingdoms of men (Dan 4:17) know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. Do not be misled by erroneous teaching about Satan doing this). God says (Isa 45:7); 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Please get this in context (as all scripture must be taken in context). I will make this a subject of another thread, but God’s Holy Angels do His Will in Heaven. Read the Lord ’s Prayer (Matt 6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. The Bible (God’s Word) is consistent and therefore, to say an Holy Angel of God rebelled and did not obey God or do His Will is a lie and is not the Truth. A more plausible explanation of Satan needs to be understood. Unlike human nature, God’s Holy Angels do as God instructs them and has given them power to do; God’s Holy Angels do not have the choice to obey or not.
I think on the subject of Universalism, I have to agree with Charisma. The Kindgom of God on the earth to come is not inclusive of all who have ever lived. The teaching of Jesus in his parables of the Kingdom is very clear on this and there are many verses that can be quoted in support of this. Just a couple of verses for now (Matt 22:14) For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matt7:13) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Just how few will be in the Kingdom compared to the billions of people who have ever lived? Jesus says; (John 14:2) In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. This is not to say the places are unlimited. If we know the places are limited and there might be fewer than we think, that should make us more determined to be one of the few who are given a place.
Sadly, there are too many in the world who do not want to know God and do not want to be saved by Him. For this reason, these reprobates as they are called, God does give up on them. Please read Romans chapters 1 and 2 that make this perfectly clear.
God wants all men and women to obey Him and come to knowledge of the Truth by which they are saved. That knowledge brings you to know God and His only begotten Son Jesus. God does not want anyone to perish; (2 Pet 3:9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
God’s offer of salvation is open to all who will accept it (on God’s terms). God knows the vast majority will not accept Him. Jesus died so that all might live, but not all will accept God or Jesus. The promise of God spoken by Jesus which is the great promise of God made to all is not without conditions. These conditions are not accepted by everyone and therefore not everyone (all) will be saved. Read and understand John 3:16 very carefully; For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
This clearly indicates that salvation cannot be universal. Only if ALL believeth in him can ALL be saved and we simply know that this is not the case. It is all the believers who will be saved.
For the majority, the wages of their sin is death and that is exactly what they will receive.
(Jude 1:24) Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.
kathryn
01-12-2012, 09:41 AM
[QUOTE=Charisma;40270]Hi Kathryn,
I don't think your request for a definition of 'eternal' and 'everlasting' was attached to specific verses, so what I meant by 'age-during' is that when those words (eternal and everlasting) appear in the KJV, they are both able to be translated 'age-during'. By this I understand that whatever pronouncement has been made, will be in force until the end of the age to which it is being applied.
Here are three references to 'the world to come'.
Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Luke 18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
It seems to me in light of these verses, that 'everlasting' or 'eternal' life, is a quality of life which is not terminated by the end of an age.
Is that clearer?
Good Morning Charisma....You've brought up more than one topic here...so I will comment one at a time so the posts aren't too long. You did use several verses pertaining to the "everlasting nature" of punishment. I think we need to examine this in a little more detail being that you are consigning a good portion of mankind to this punishment that you say means only a few will be saved..
As I'm sure you know, the NT books were written in Greek , or in some cases, in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. The NT writers often quote from the OT...usually from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT that was used widely during the time of Christ.
In Hebrews 1:8, the author quotes from Psalm 45:6. "Olam" is translated by the Greek word "aion". (age-during). Compare Hebrews 5:6 and Psalm 110:4. This is the closest Greek equivalent and therefore was used in the Septuagint. So...we can safely say that aion is meant to convey the same meaning as the Hebrew concept of olam.
One of the most obvious NT verses where aion refers to an age is in Matt. 13 where Jesus is interpreting his own parables. In order to show the contrast between aion and kosmos, have a look at vs. 38:
And the field is the world (kosmos) ; and for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one, (39) and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age (aion); and the reapers are angels. (40) Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. (aion).
The KJ version says "the end of the world" but verses 39 and 40 should read AGE rather than "world".
Ages have both a beginning and end. Heb. 11:3 says : (3) by faith we understand that the worlds (aionas, "ages") were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. Aionas is simply the plural of [I]aion in the Greek. It says God "framed" the ages; therefore the ages had a beginning. This is also witnessed in Heb. 1:2:
(2) In these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (aionas, "ages")
The author of Hebrews is telling us that Jesus created the ages of time. Time didn't exist before creation...it is a created thing. Paul makes reference to a promise of God that He made BEFORE time began. Titus 1:2:
(2) In the hope of eternal (aionian) life, which god, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago (pro chronon aionion, "before the ages began")
Here is Young's literal translation:
(2) upon the hope of life age-enduring, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages.
Many have interpreted this as a reference to immortality, but strictly speaking it is a specific promise of immortality IN THE TABERNACLES AGE given to those who inherit Life in the FIRST resurrection.(not the general resurrection at the end of the thousand years.) These are the "few" who are chosen...the overcomers/barley company/first fruits/Bride who "rule and reign" with Him during the Tabernacle Age. Jesus obtained the FACT of salvation for all men, but the TIMING of salvation differs and depends on which squadron (Greek: tagma) one is in. 1 Cor. 15:22 and 23 say:
(22) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (23) But each in his own order.
The first "squadron" are called to "rule and reign" with Him (Rev. 20:4-6) The second group are those raised along with unbelievers (John 5:28, 29; Luke 12:46) at the Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11-13) The second group misses the 1st resurrection and are "saved yet so as through fire". (1 Cor. 3:15). The 3rd group are the unbelievers, after their time of judgement has been completed, for there WILL be a Jubilee at the end of time according to the Law, wherein ALL creation will be set free in the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Rom. 8:21)
The "Upward call of God" that Paul refers to in Phil. 3:11 is described as being the "out-resurrection" (exanastasis). It's the only time in the NT that he puts an "ex" in front of the usual word for resurrection. (anastasis).
Here are some examples of "olam" from the OT that clearly show it is referring to an "age" and not eternity:
In Jonah 2:6, the prophet is praying for deliverance out of the belly of the great fish: (6) I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever (OLAM), but thou has brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my god. Obviously he was only in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights.
Here are a few from the Psalms , should you wish to study it further. Ps. 78:66, 79:13, 86:12, 89:1, 110:4, 112:6, 115:8.
There is a distinction between Universalism and Restorationism. This is a quote from Dr. Stephen Jones who coined the phrase "Restorationism": Universalism makes no provision for judgement, or accountability for past actions and renders spiritual growth as unnecessary and irrelevant in the end. Restorationism recognizes the reality and seriousness of sin, pays its full penalty as the law demands for the ultimate reconcilliation of creation, yet saves believers by faith and unbelievers through judments, discipline and spiritual growth.
The judgements of God are established in the Law. There is NO sin worth of torture in a literal fire. The Jubilee law limited the time of enslavement and disinheritance to a max. of 49 years. (Lev. 25:10). The justice of God does not include endless punishment and neither does the Grace of God come without justice.
kathryn
01-12-2012, 09:52 AM
David: ello Kathryn and Charisma
With interest I have been reading your comments. I would have posted earlier but it took some time to get registered and approved. I see now that this dialogue between you is probably coming to its end.
As you will see from the number of posts, this is my first post on the forum. My intention is always to impart the Truth of God’s Word as I understand it and comes as a result of studying God’s Word for many years. God’s Word does not change; only our understanding of it changes. It is difficult to write short reply and not make it like sound bites. I do not want to start a different line of argument here and do not expect to be agreed nor do I not want to start a new line of argument. I have to state God’s Truth as I understand it.
A hearty welcome to the forum, David! :welcome:
Looking forward to your participation!
heb13-13
01-12-2012, 02:44 PM
A more plausible explanation of Satan needs to be understood. Unlike human nature, God’s Holy Angels do as God instructs them and has given them power to do; God’s Holy Angels do not have the choice to obey or not.
Hey David,
Welcome!
You are referring to the doctrine of Theodicy. Why was there an origination of evil and where did it come from if God is Good and there is no evil in Him? Here is a little bit from the Divine Drama of Love.
From Act 3:
God is a God of LOVE who never gives up on man. He is not against us, or 'out to get us' and 'make us pay.'
Now that doesn’t mean that there are not consequences of our choices, but these should be understood as consequences of our choices, rather than punitive consequences that God imposes. Yes, God’s love can be a 'tough love' that holds us accountable for our choices.
We must not conceive of God as a devil who demands his due. Christian theology is sadly in need of a theodicy (an understanding of the origin of evil) that recognizes that death, and hell, and sin, and ungodliness and corruption are derived ek diabolos, 'out of the devil.' They are not to be blamed directly on God.
We can hear God’s heart of Love in the garden when He asked Eve, 'What is this you have done?' Behind the question one can almost detect the pain of betrayal.
But God respected their choice to reject Him. He allowed mankind to unite with the one who is 'a liar and the father of lies' (Jn. 8:44). He allowed the originator of sin, the 'god of this fallen world' (II Cor. 4:4), 'the prince of the power of the air,' to be the spirit-being who 'worked in the sons of disobedience' (Eph. 2:2).
The drama continued. Cain killed Abel because he derived what he did from the devil 'who was a murderer from the beginning' (Jn. 8:44; I Jn. 3:12). The dramas on the side-stages got more selfish and more sordid. At one point God’s heart
was so grieved that He said, 'I’m sorry I ever made them' (Gen. 6:6).
Yet, all the time, because God IS Love, He kept pursuing those He had made for His love. Though many times they promised that they loved God, they were repeatedly unfaithful, time and again.
The prophets came voicing God’s loving heart in their messages:
Isaiah 25:6-8 - 'the Lord of Hosts will prepare a banquet of rich fare for all the peoples...the Lord will swallow up that veil that shrouds all the peoples, the pall thrown over all the nations; he will swallow up death for ever. Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from every face and remove the reproach of his people from the whole earth.'
Isa. 30:18 - 'the Lord is waiting to show you His favour; He yearns to have pity on you.'
Isa. 66:18 - 'I shall come to gather all nations and races, and they shall come and see My glory.'
Hosea 11:1 - 'When Israel was a boy, I loved him; I called my son out of Egypt; but the more I called, the further they went from me; ... It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I who had taken them in my arms; but they did not know...that I led them with bonds of love – that I had lifted them like a little child to My cheek, that I had bent down to feed them
Hosea 14:4 - 'I will heal their apostasy; of My own bounty I will love them'
Malachi 1:2 - 'I have loved you,' says the Lord. But you say, 'How hast Thou loved us?'
Malachi 3:13,14 - 'You have used hard words about Me,' says the Lord, and then you ask, 'How have we spoken against Thee?' You have said, 'It is useless to serve God; what do we gain from the Lord of Hosts by observing His rules and behaving with deference?' (Last page of Old Testament).
Then there were 400 years of relative silence. It almost appeared that the curtain had come down on the Divine Drama – that the love relationships was not being pursued by God or man.
From Act 2:
The issue in Act One is that God is Love. The issue in Act Two is 'others', for love must flow to 'others'. The phrase 'the heavens and the earth' is broad enough to include heavenly beings or angelic beings. Such creatures are not specifically addressed in Genesis 1, but they are alluded to elsewhere in Scripture, as we shall see.
The eternal Triune God of Love is inclusive. He is not exclusive, trying to 'cut others out'. He desires to invite 'others' to
participate in His interaction. That is what Love does! He wants to draw 'others' into the joy, and the laughter, and the love of Trinitarian relationships.
God created a 'heavenly host' of 'others' – spirit beings who could participate in the relationalism of interactive Trinitarian Love. Since love cannot be forced or coerced, these created heavenly/angelic beings were created with freedom of choice. They were free to choose to spurn and reject the love of God.
Lucifer, the 'light-bearer', chose to do just that. The Scriptural evidence is somewhat sketchy, as God did not see fit to give us all the details of the angelic betrayal and divorce, but we can look at some of the Scriptures that were recorded:
Isa. 14:12-15 (KJV) – 'How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, who didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. I will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit.'
II Pet. 2:4 - 'God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment...'
Jude 6 - 'And the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.'
John Milton, in his classic of English Literature, Paradise Lost, captures the imagery of the great betrayal of God’s Love.
'Author of evil, unknown till thy revolt ...
How hast thou disturbed
Heaven’s blessed peace, and unto Nature brought
Misery, uncreated till the crime
Of thy rebellion. How hast thou instilled
Thy malice into thousands, once upright
And faithful, now proved false
...
Heaven casts thee out.'
Lucifer, the 'light-bearer', created to bear the Light and Love of God Himself, became Satan, the devil, the Evil One, by his choice to reject the Love of God. What prompted him to do this? Where did he come up with such an idea? We do not know. This is the great puzzle of theodicy. This angel was not tempted by another. So, this was not the derivation of evil and selfishness from another, but the origination of evil. Lucifer chose to spurn the Love of God, to attempt to become 'like the Most High God' (a 'power-trip'), and in so doing became the origin and personification of all self-oriented evil. He became the opposite of love – selfishness. He had the 'I-disease' - 'I will be like the Most High God.'
What Lucifer really did was to call into question the very character of God – to question and deny that God’s love was unconditional, unselfish, and totally other-oriented. 'God does not love like that.' 'God is selfish!' 'God is holding
something back from us.' And he convinced a host of other heavenly beings to join him in the rejection of God’s Love.
What have we seen in Act Two? God’s loving relationship with heavenly beings is spurned. The love relationship God desired with these angelic 'others' was rejected. There was a betrayal. A great divorce took place. But this was an important part of the drama – the necessary opposite was introduced.
The 6-parts of the Divine Drama are quite good, if you want to have a look.
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/divinedrama.html
All the best,
Rick
David M
01-13-2012, 11:14 AM
Hello Rick
thank you for your long reply, but I was not thinking of Theodicy. I do not agree that God does not give up on people. The Bible is explicit that He does. God knows men's hearts and what they are capable of. For example, God did not harden Pharaoh's heart at the time of the plagues but God did things whereby Pharaoh hardened his own heart. This is how God rules in the Kingdoms of men. God does not need a Satan (as falsely taught) to do His work or make men and women more corrupt than they are already. Men and women influence one antother by the things they do and say. Who knows what seeds God plants in the minds of people in order to bring about His purpose and prove to those who believe and watch that God is ruling in the kingdoms of men.
God says; "I create evil" as I have already quoted in my first post. The nature of God must include all his attributes. God can instruct His Holy Angels to do work that can be construed as Satan's work, but this is an Angel obeying God. Angels " do His will in Heaven" as well doing His will on earth. It is only men and women who do not the will of God. The wonderful achievement of the Lord Jesus Christ was that he overcame the devil (the propensity to sin) that is in all of us. God proved that with the right guidance it was possible for a man who was not God but was conceived by God to live a sinless life.
God's kingdom is not divided which it would be if Satan is a fallen Angel. A more plausible explanation does not include fallen Angels. This subject can be the start of new thread. God is fulfilling His plan and purpose and will thwart the evil acts of man. I see no place for a fallen Angel to be Satan. I can see how the personification of the Devil or Satan is a convenient way of likening how this evil spirit within disperate human beings can be likened to acting in the World. Personification should be recognized for what it is.
For now, God does give up on people; here are a couple of quotes referring to reprobates; Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. These are people who will not be invited into the Kindgdom of God to come.
To believe God will save everyone is believing in Universalism which is the reason I joined this thread and have already given my reasons as to why this cannot be true.
I will try to reason everything from the Bible rather than refer to literature which is not of God.
It is good to hear your response, but what you have quoted does not lead me to think differently.
It will be interesting to see what others think.
Thanks once again.
David
Charisma
01-13-2012, 02:12 PM
Hi David,
Thanks for weighing in here. I'm not sure whether I will reply in detail, just yet, as I owe Kathryn a response first.
But, I wonder whether your two beliefs - 1) in Jesus not being God, and 2) not in an external (to the heart of man) spiritual authority called Satan, makes you a Christadelphian?
Or, something else?
Or, you simply don't find grounds for either of these in the thesis you prefer, despite the evidence scripture offers that Jesus is God, and, that Satan is a free roaming spirit of ill intent towards God and His creations?
Charisma
01-13-2012, 03:48 PM
Hello Kathryn,
Sorry so long getting back to reply.
Originally posted by Kathryn
'I realize you take your doctrine from the surface Charisma.'
Originally posted by Charisma
That doesn't make it shallow.
'It is fine to believe God is going to do what He says He is going to do....and you can (and do) find a whole host of scripture to back it up...but if it doesn't witness to His purposes and character in His Law...its man made doctrine.'
This I can agree.
Romans 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above]: ) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
As Paul moves on through his argument, he is at pains to connect his thesis to that of Isaiah's. The centrality of believing in Jesus Christ as the only means to salvation is his main theme throughout the Roman epistle. How does this differ from 'His purpose and character in His Law'?
I don't find that doctrine in scripture either, and I don't believe universalism is the solution to the problem.
The problem is the in the stubbornness (imagination) and idolatry (unbelief) of those who refuse to come to Jesus Christ in an appropriately contrite condition of heart, acknowledging their need of Him as the Door to eternal life. The victory over sin and death which Jesus wrought is an incalculable treasure to those who lay hold on it. But for those who don't lay hold on it, it remains outside their experience. And Jesus Himself said they would be accounted as sinners for not having believed on Him.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
In other words, the only way for a person to be freed from their burden of sin - that which condemns them - is through faith in Jesus Christ.
John 3: 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
God already poured His heart out to mankind in Jesus Christ. He has already destroyed generation after generation who would not keep His Law. He brought the necessity for all thoses death to an end, in the death of His Son Jesus. God can do no more. He doesn't need to.
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
I don't know what to say to the above Charisma. I'm really not sure what you're trying to convey to me. Sorry!
All I am trying to show is, there are two groups of people - those who hear and believe, and those who hear and don't believe.
What is troubling about Universalism is its willingness to make God's judgements from the garden of Eden onwards, seem unnecessary. The fact is, God judged sin in Christ Jesus, and the only place for salvation from sin is IN Christ Jesus.
Those people who opt to remain outside Christ Jesus cannot expect to saved, and for Universalism to conjure a rearrangement of cosmic facts according to its own discomfort with eternal justice, is the kind of lying to the unsaved which God detests - crying 'Peace' where there is none.
There is a distinction between Universalism and Restorationism. This is a quote from Dr. Stephen Jones who coined the phrase "Restorationism": Universalism makes no provision for judgement, or accountability for past actions and renders spiritual growth as unnecessary and irrelevant in the end. Restorationism recognizes the reality and seriousness of sin, pays its full penalty as the law demands for the ultimate reconcilliation of creation, yet saves believers by faith and unbelievers through judments, discipline and spiritual growth.Interesting. Thank you for explaining the difference he sees.
I suppose if you believe this then you can ignore all the same reasons against it, for which Universalism should be ruled out.
Now, please, show at least two scriptures each, (especially quoting Jesus Christ, the Prophet of the New Covenant), for the salvation of unbelievers 'through' 'judgements', 'discipline' and 'spiritual growth'?
Thank you.
I have more to reply to the rest of your post, and will follow up with tonight.
Charisma
01-13-2012, 05:21 PM
Hi Kathryn,
Please bear with this long post, because I can't see where to break it up - although I could have quoted less scripture in full; but I quote scripture for the sake of those world-wide who may not have a Bible of their own, so that they may fully follow the discussion.
It has been helpful for myself to work through this topic, so I thank you for your patience, and trust it is useful for you also. There is one section of your post I have not dealt with - the order you propose in the resurrection. This seemed like a large topic, and I'm not at this stage fully ready to engage it, but do feel free to explain with scripture, why you have accepted Dr Jones' thesis on these things. (I know why I don't.)
Good Morning Charisma....You've brought up more than one topic here...so I will comment one at a time so the posts aren't too long. You did use several verses pertaining to the "everlasting nature" of punishment. I think we need to examine this in a little more detail being that you are consigning a good portion of mankind to this punishment that you say means only a few will be saved..
As I'm sure you know, the NT books were written in Greek , or in some cases, in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. The NT writers often quote from the OT...usually from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT that was used widely during the time of Christ.
In Hebrews 1:8, the author quotes from Psalm 45:6. "Olam" is translated by the Greek word "aion". (age-during). Compare Hebrews 5:6 and Psalm 110:4. This is the closest Greek equivalent and therefore was used in the Septuagint. So...we can safely say that aion is meant to convey the same meaning as the Hebrew concept of olam.
One of the most obvious NT verses where aion refers to an age is in Matt. 13 where Jesus is interpreting his own parables. In order to show the contrast between aion and kosmos, have a look at vs. 38:
And the field is the world (kosmos) ; and for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one, (39) and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age (aion); and the reapers are angels. (40) Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. (aion).
The KJ version says "the end of the world" but verses 39 and 40 should read AGE rather than "world".
Ages have both a beginning and end. Heb. 11:3 says : (3) by faith we understand that the worlds (aionas, "ages") were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [I]Aionas is simply the plural of aion in the Greek. It says God "framed" the ages; therefore the ages had a beginning. This is also witnessed in Heb. 1:2:
(2) In these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (aionas, "ages")
The author of Hebrews is telling us that Jesus created the ages of time. Time didn't exist before creation...it is a created thing. Paul makes reference to a promise of God that He made BEFORE time began. Titus 1:2:
(2) In the hope of eternal (aionian) life, which god, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago (pro chronon aionion, "before the ages began")
Here is Young's literal translation:
(2) upon the hope of life age-enduring, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages.I know that time is created, and without it there would be no 'ages'. In that respect, I agree that the use of 'everlasting' and 'eternal' as a means of describing 'time' is not helpful.
I said: 'It seems to me in light of these verses, that 'everlasting' or 'eternal' life, is a quality of life which is not terminated by the end of an age.'
Are your references to 'ages' really in answer to my use of 'eternal' + life and 'everlasting' + life, or, do you think the Bible is telling us about 'life' which is limited by the 'age' in which it is experienced by the believer?
If I had said 'the life of God in the believer' (as I do further down this post) would that have been a better choice of words on my part?
The 'life' that is 'in God', which comes to believers through the Holy Spirit (wherby we cry, 'Abba, Father'), is not in the same category as time, though; whichever 'age' is in progress (in relation to time), the life of God is separate from that, (although we know that 'God's life' is operating within time, space and place, in our experience). Please tell me if you agree with this or not, thanks.
Moving on to 1 Corinthians 15:23 - 'Each in his own order' I want to draw to your attention the context in which Paul makes the statement, as he is setting it against those who will not be 'in Christ', and who will not experience resurrection to 'life'.
Young's Literal Translation
20 And now, Christ hath risen out of the dead--the first-fruits of those sleeping he became, 21 for since through man [is] the death, also through man [is] a rising again of the dead, 22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive, 23 and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence, 24 then--the end, when he may deliver up the reign to God, even the Father, when he may have made useless all rule, and all authority and power-- 25 for it behoveth him to reign till he may have put all the enemies under his feet-- 26 the last enemy is done away--death; 27 for all things He did put under his feet, and, when one may say that all things have been subjected, evident that He is excepted who did subject the all things to him, 28 and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to Him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.
Who do you believe are the Christ's enemies, to whom Paul refers?
According to Restorationism, it cannot be possible that God is going to destroy them, so, do you believe Paul is lying, here?
The first "squadron" are called to "rule and reign" with Him (Rev. 20:4-6) The second group are those raised along with unbelievers (John 5:28, 29; Luke 12:46) at the Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11-13) The second group misses the 1st resurrection and are "saved yet so as through fire". (1 Cor. 3:15). The 3rd group are the unbelievers, after their time of judgement has been completed, for there WILL be a Jubilee at the end of time according to the Law, wherein ALL creation will be set free in the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Rom. 8:21)Beginning with the last clause of the last sentence, Romans 8:21 is accepted. Apart from the redemption of our bodies, we are already in 'the glorious liberty of the children of God' - according to Hebrews 10:14, at least.
The clause before that, leaves Restorationism with many questions. Here is Romans 7:4 through to Romans 8:9: (YLT)
4 So that, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of the Christ, for your becoming another's, who out of the dead was raised up, that we might bear fruit to God; 5 for when we were in the flesh, the passions of the sins, that [are] through the law, were working in our members, to bear fruit to the death; 6 and now we have ceased from the law, that being dead in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter. 7 What, then, shall we say? the law [is] sin? let it not be! but the sin I did not know except through law, for also the covetousness I had not known if the law had not said: 8 `Thou shalt not covet;' and the sin having received an opportunity, through the command, did work in me all covetousness--for apart from law sin is dead. 9 And I was alive apart from law once, and the command having come, the sin revived, and I died; 10 and the command that [is] for life, this was found by me for death; 11 for the sin, having received an opportunity, through the command, did deceive me, and through it did slay [me]; 12 so that the law, indeed, [is] holy, and the command holy, and righteous, and good. 13 That which is good then, to me hath it become death? let it not be! but the sin, that it might appear sin, through the good, working death to me, that the sin might become exceeding sinful through the command, 14 for we have known that the law is spiritual, and I am fleshly, sold by the sin; 15 for that which I work, I do not acknowledge; for not what I will, this I practise, but what I hate, this I do. 16 And if what I do not will, this I do, I consent to the law that [it is] good, 17 and now it is no longer I that work it, but the sin dwelling in me, 18 for I have known that there doth not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh, good: for to will is present with me, and to work that which is right I do not find, 19 for the good that I will, I do not; but the evil that I do not will, this I practise. 20 And if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it, but the sin that is dwelling in me. 21 I find, then, the law, that when I desire to do what is right, with me the evil is present, 22 for I delight in the law of God according to the inward man, 23 and I behold another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin that [is] in my members. 24 A wretched man I [am]! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? 25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord; so then, I myself indeed with the mind do serve the law of God, and with the flesh, the law of sin. 8:1 There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit; 2 for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death; 3 for what the law was not able to do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, His own Son having sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did condemn the sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh, the things of the flesh do mind; and those according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit; 6 for the mind of the flesh [is] death, and the mind of the Spirit--life and peace; 7 because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity to God, for to the law of God it doth not subject itself, 8 for neither is it able; and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God. 9 And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ--this one is not His;
What you seem to have said is, that 'the children of God' with the rest of creation will enjoy a jubilee, but meanwhile, those who never believed in Jesus Christ, will be receiving restorative justice for the unbelief during their lifetimes, despite that they can never become Christ's.
So, what is the point of that, if they deliberately passed up their opportunity to become sons of God when it was offered to them as a free gift?
At what point will they have served their restorative sentence?
Who will decide that they've been corrected and restored sufficiently to be counted as worthy of bearing Christ's name as those in Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb,
and by the word of their testimony;
and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Frankly, I don't see it. Unless you can show me good strong evidence in the New Testament, Dr Jones' solution isn't even as good as the Law's, where at least there was a Day of Atonement every year, when sins not specifically listed under the other terms, were also covered by blood. That lack of blood in Dr Jones' Restorationism is flat out against the whole Book, where there is blood in the garden of Eden, right up till the cross, and then Jesus cried, 'It is finished!' He may try to lay the sins of unbelievers to Christ's blood in retrospect, but that would be to contradict the message of the whole New Testament, in which 'today is the day of salvation' - not yesterday.
Hebrews 10:3 (YLT) but in those [sacrifices] is a remembrance of sins every year, 4 for it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
12 And He, for sin one sacrifice having offered--to the end, did sit down on the right hand of God, -- 13 as to the rest, expecting till He may place his enemies [as] his footstool, 14 for by one offering he hath perfected to the end those sanctified; 15 and testify to us also doth the Holy Spirit, for after that He hath said before, 16 `This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws on their hearts, and upon their minds I will write them,' 17 and `their sins and their lawlessness I will remember no more;' 18 and where forgiveness of these [is], there is no more offering for sin.
Can you see that if there is no blood in the Millennial kingdom, because God has finished with it through Jesus Christ's death, then the sins of those who do not believe in Christ, cannot be mitigated one tiny bit (according to God's own 'law')? The day of salvation is finished for them. If their sins were not forgiven before they died, they cannot be forgiven afterwards.
Hebrews 9:27 and as it is laid up to men once to die, and after this--judgment. Here - in making up something to follow the judgement, Dr Jones has made up his own religion, with no foundation in God's book - even though he draw together a construction of Bible verses to support his proposal.
Let's look at the context of 1 Corinthians 3: (KJV)
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.
The above verses are describing only believers. Even believers who defile the temple of God will be destroyed. Can you see that? The believers who built with flimsy materials - saved by fire - come through the fire on their standing with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Here is ... Phillips Brooks (1835-1893), The Law of Growth [1902]
[I]Slowly, all through the universe, that temple of God is
being built. Wherever, in any world, a soul, by free-willed
obedience, catches the fire of God's likeness, it is set into
the growing walls, a living stone. When, in your hard fight,
in your tiresome drudgery, or in your terrible temptation, you
catch the purpose of your being and give yourself to God, and
so give Him the chance to give Himself to you, your life -- a
living stone -- is taken up and set into that growing wall.
Wherever souls are being tried and ripened, in whatever
commonplace and homely ways, there God is hewing out the
pillars for His temple. Oh, if the stone can only have some
vision of the temple of which it is to be a part forever, what
patience must fill it as it feels the blows of the hammer, and
knows that success for it is simply to let itself be wrought
into what shape the Master wills.
1 Kings 6:7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe [nor] any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.
This verse above militates against the preparation of a soul after death. The work is done early, that we be ready for our Lord when He comes.
Luke 12:46 the lord of that servant will come in a day in which he doth not look for [him], and in an hour that he doth not know, and will cut him off, and his portion with the unfaithful he will appoint.
You seem to be suggesting that the 'unfaithful' have a means of salvation 'in Christ'?
These questions may seem tiresome, but even if you don't answer them for me, I hope you will ask yourself just how much weight you can put in Dr Jones' ideas with respect to your own salvation.
I have listened to quite a few of the free tapes on his website, and I concluded that although the confidence he exudes is beguiling, especially when buttressed by much Bible knowledge, his departures from God's demonstrated and unmistakable requirement for blood to cover sin in the OT, and for Christ's blood to wash sin from the soul in the NT, are just that - beguilding. God's ample and merciful provisions cannot be over-ridden for the souls who do not or did not choose to go free of all punishment for sin during the season God has ordained for them to comply with those provisions - namely, their ordinary natural lifetime. These are the only ways the general penalty of death for sin could be removed in the experience of the believer.
And what of all the prophets who died giving God's word? What of Jesus Christ Himself, 'that Prophet', dying as a servant to the whole human race? Are we to rubbish the sacrifices of these men, by lowering the bar below God's legal limit - FAITH? Now we are to accept a kind of fleshly righteousness, which is merely a different kind of law-keeping, not God's Law (at that) who through His prophet Isaiah said, 'all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags'. Again I ask, who is going to decide when a sinner has been purified sufficiently to be 'saved', separate from the blood of the eternal sacrifice, Jesus Christ our Passover Lamb?
If the Law (kept perfectly by people like Paul, and many others) did not 'save' Paul, then Dr Jones' prescription for 'restorative' justice is a fabrication, found no-where in scripture. In fact, Dr Jones' method is more cruel than God's - for those who actively chose eternal death are to be forced into an unchosen relationship with Him - which God neither attempts nor desires, according to the OT.
Richard Amiel McGough
01-13-2012, 06:06 PM
All I am trying to show is, there are two groups of people - those who hear and believe, and those who hear and don't believe.
What is troubling about Universalism is its willingness to make God's judgements from the garden of Eden onwards, seem unnecessary. The fact is, God judged sin in Christ Jesus, and the only place for salvation from sin is IN Christ Jesus.
Those people who opt to remain outside Christ Jesus cannot expect to saved, and for Universalism to conjure a rearrangement of cosmic facts according to its own discomfort with eternal justice, is the kind of lying to the unsaved which God detests - crying 'Peace' where there is none.
Interesting. Thank you for explaining the difference he sees.
I suppose if you believe this then you can ignore all the same reasons against it, for which Universalism should be ruled out.
Now, please, show at least two scriptures each, (especially quoting Jesus Christ, the Prophet of the New Covenant), for the salvation of unbelievers 'through' 'judgements', 'discipline' and 'spiritual growth'?
Hi folks, :yo:
Charisma is right. There are only two kinds of people: Those who believe that Ultimate Reality (God) is non-dual, and those who don't! :p
I am, of course, of the former group. I believe Ultimate Reality (God) is Unity. The perception of Reality as dual is a state of consciousness that is only a fragment of the Vision of the Divine Unity of All. It is interesting that the duality of good and evil play a central role in the biblical explanation of our "fall" into this fragmented state of consciousness (Genesis 3). This explains why we feel separate from God. We are failing to see God as the all in all.
The Bible speaks of God as the "all in all" but there are those who dispute the meaning of that phrase. I think the fullest interpretation has a lot of support because there are other descriptions that cohere with the same idea, such as Christ being the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last. Those are "all encompassing" terms. And God is said to "work all in all" (1 Cor 12:6). And Christ is said to "fill all in all" (Eph 1:23). Thus we have many biblical witnesses supporting this concept, and beyond that we have the witness of our own minds since the best definition of God is the "Ground of Being" in whom we "live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). This is why the LXX translated I AM THAT I AM as "HO ONTOS" meaning "THE BEING" (Exodus 3:14). This is an essential meaning of the word "God" in my worldview.
And beyond all those reasons, many mystics (myself included) have directly experienced "God" as the Ground of Being, the All in All of Perfect Love and Universal Consciousness.
I'm not trying to convince, but rather to explain, my worldview and to help folks here expand their views and consider other possibilities. And if nothing else, knowing this view (the Perennial Philosophy) should be very helpful to everyone here since it is a major worldview, and I expect you all will be encountering it more frequently as more people wake up to its truth.
Richard
kathryn
01-13-2012, 07:23 PM
Hi folks, :yo:
Charisma is right. There are only two kinds of people: Those who believe that Ultimate Reality (God) is non-dual, and those who don't! :p
I am, of course, of the former group. I believe Ultimate Reality (God) is Unity. The perception of Reality as dual is a state of consciousness that is only a fragment of the Vision of the Divine Unity of All. It is interesting that the duality of good and evil play a central role in the biblical explanation of our "fall" into this fragmented state of consciousness (Genesis 3). This explains why we feel separate from God. We are failing to see God as the all in all.
The Bible speaks of God as the "all in all" but there are those who dispute the meaning of that phrase. I think the fullest interpretation has a lot of support because there are other descriptions that cohere with the same idea, such as Christ being the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last. Those are "all encompassing" terms. And God is said to "work all in all" (1 Cor 12:6). And Christ is said to "fill all in all" (Eph 1:23). Thus we have many biblical witnesses supporting this concept, and beyond that we have the witness of our own minds since the best definition of God is the "Ground of Being" in whom we "live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). This is why the LXX translated I AM THAT I AM as "HO ONTOS" meaning "THE BEING" (Exodus 3:14). This is an essential meaning of the word "God" in my worldview.
And beyond all those reasons, many mystics (myself included) have directly experienced "God" as the Ground of Being, the All in All of Perfect Love and Universal Consciousness.
I'm not trying to convince, but rather to explain, my worldview and to help folks here expand their views and consider other possibilities. And if nothing else, knowing this view (the Perennial Philosophy) should be very helpful to everyone here since it is a major worldview, and I expect you all will be encountering it more frequently as more people wake up to its truth.
Richard
Charisma and Rick....I'm letting Richard's post speak for me here and am going to respectfully bow out of this conversation. All the best...Kathryn
Charisma
01-14-2012, 07:21 AM
Hi Richard,
Interesting thoughts you have - sent me scurrying to my Bible for context :winking0071: .
Isn't there a bit of a problem putting good and evil beside each other, implying they are more equal in quality than they are? I mean, Jesus said, 'only God is good', and He also had said, 'I create evil'. Jesus had to partake of 'the likeness of sinful flesh' - the lowest common denominator - to show us that we could overcome evil, with divine help (Romans 8:13), but how many humans truly want to be god-like in the way that Jesus was?
I think you've take rather a liberty with the 'all in all' in 1 Cor 12, as it is strictly limited to the operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit through Christian believers. The 'all in all', is: the same God in each believer acting through the different gifts He has distributed within the Church.
1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
Likewise, in Ephesians 1:15 onwards, Paul is talking about Christ in the Church; it's one very long sentence, according to Green's Literal.
15 Because of this, hearing of your faith in the Lord Jesus and love toward all the saints, 16 I also do not cease giving thanks on your behalf, making mention of you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your mind having been enlightened, for you to know what is the hope of His calling, and what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us, the ones believing according to the working of His mighty strength 20 which He worked in Christ in raising Him from the dead; yea, He seated Him at His right hand in the heavenlies, 21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and lordship, and every name having been named, not only in this age, but also in the coming age; 22 and He "put all things under His feet" and gave Him to be Head over all things to the assembly, 23 which is His body: the fullness of the One filling all things in all; 2:1 and you being dead in deviations and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom we also all conducted ourselves in times past in the lusts of our flesh, doing the things willed of the flesh and of the understanding, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as the rest.
Surely, these demonstrate that the Unity in God is limited to those domains over which He has complete dominion, graciously including all the creatures who choose to come into agreement with the terms He has established for koinonia with Himself?
John 15:5 I am the Vine; you are the branches. The one abiding in Me, and I in him, this one bears much fruit, because apart from Me you are not able to execute, nothing. 6 Unless one remains in Me, he is cast out as the branch and is dried up; and they gather and throw them into a fire, and they are burned. 7 If you remain in Me, and My Words remain in you, whatever you desire you will ask, and it shall happen to you. 8 In this My Father is glorified, that you should bear much fruit; and you will be disciples to Me. 9 As the Father loved Me, I also loved you; continue in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments you will continue in My love, as I have kept My Father's commandments and continue in His love. 11 I have spoken these things to you that My joy may abide in you, and your joy may be full. 12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I loved you. 13 Greater love than this has no one, that anyone should lay down his soul for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 I no longer call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his lord does. But I called you friends, because all things which I heard from My Father I made known to you. 16 You have not chosen Me, but I chose you out and planted you, that you should go and should bear fruit, and your fruit remain, that whatever you should ask the Father in My name, He may give you. 17 These things I command you, that you love one another.
Clearly, God is most desirous of Unity, but not at the expense of authentic wholeness or perfection (completion).
Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 21 unto him glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, [B]forbearing one another in love; 3 endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 [there is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all. 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Charisma
01-14-2012, 07:39 AM
Charisma and Rick....I'm letting Richard's post speak for me here and am going to respectfully bow out of this conversation. All the best...KathrynHi Kathryn,
I appreciate the time you took to explain your position. Thank you for that.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:
so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned:
but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
heb13-13
01-14-2012, 08:38 PM
Hi Richard,
Interesting thoughts you have - sent me scurrying to my Bible for context :winking0071: .
Isn't there a bit of a problem putting good and evil beside each other, implying they are more equal in quality than they are? I mean, Jesus said, 'only God is good', and He also had said, 'I create evil'. Jesus had to partake of 'the likeness of sinful flesh' - the lowest common denominator - to show us that we could overcome evil, with divine help (Romans 8:13), but how many humans truly want to be god-like in the way that Jesus was?
Hi Charisma,
I am going to respond to the recent questioning with two quotes from James Fowler regarding Dualism and the Origin of Evil, because I cannot improve upon them.
1st Quote: Regarding Dualism
By indicating that either God or Satan indwells or rules over every human individual, is this not a dualistic understanding of the spiritual condition of mankind?
Some people seem to think that the positing of an either/or contrast necessarily creates or constitutes a dualism. I do not believe that to be correct.
In the either/or diametric polarity between God and Satan, there is definitely a duality – a contrast of two opposites: God – Satan; good – evil; truth – error; holy – sinful; love – self‐orientation. This is a fixed antithesis of character, and the two polar opposites cannot be brought together in integration or compromise.
But, this is not a dualism, or (as the question states) a 'dualistic understanding of the spiritual condition of mankind.'
The classic philosophical usage of the term 'dualism' applies to two mutually exclusive and absolutely equal forces that oppose one another and remain in a perpetual stalemate or standoff (thought not necessarily a static stasis without interaction). The Taoist dualism of yin/yang is an example of such dualism, and the Taijitu symbol used for such, pictures equal parts of two principles, each with a balancing portion of the other within. The two (the black and the white) are together within a larger inclusive circle, creating a duality within a unity – a dualism wherein they reside in everlasting juxtaposition – interdependent and interconnected – but forever balancing each other out.
The presence and activity of God or Satan within regenerate and unregenerate human individuals, is a polarized duality, but not a dualistic standoff where neither can overcome the other.
God, in Christ, has defeated the forces of evil. In the death of Jesus Christ, Satan has been rendered powerless (Heb. 2:14), and the works of the devil destroyed (I John 3:8). A cosmic victory has been won, when Christ 'disarmed and triumphed over the rulers and authorities of evil (Col. 2:15) by His death on the cross. No human individual need remain indwelt and enslaved by Satan. A spiritual exchange is available to all men, wherein they can be turned/converted from the dominion and authority of Satan to the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Acts 26:18), and experience 'Christ in them, the hope of glory' (Col. 1:27).
Henceforth, it can be declared of the Christian, 'Greater is He who is in you, than he who is in the world' (I Jn. 4:4)."
2nd Quote: Regarding The Origin of Evil
The origin of evil and its introduction into God’s created world has always been difficult to explain. Do you have a theological solution to this difficulty?
The origin and introduction of evil or sin into the perfect universe that the Righteous God created has been an issue of much debate throughout the history of Christian thought. The discussion of such is known as 'theodicy' in philosophical and theological circles.
In terms of trying to explain the origin of evil from a biblical perspective, with rather limited and debatable details, the question narrows down to a discussion of the origin of the Evil One. How did the Adversary, the devil, Satan, come into being?
Evil is contrary to the character of God – the antithesis of God’s character. If (since) God is the creator of all things, how did evil character enter into the cosmic arena?
God is the essential cause of all things (as the Creator), but He is not the culpable cause of evil that is contrary to His character. Since He generates all things ek autos (out of Himself), and in consistency with Himself – His character – we cannot blame evil on God! It is impossible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18); it is impossible for God to be the source of evil. Directly anyway!
But indirectly God did create derivative creatures with freedom of choice, and the first category of such creatures, that we know of, were the angelic beings – the angels. God Self‐limited Himself (as only God could do) to create angelic beings with a freedom of choice that could choose to derive all from Him – or refuse to do so. But what alternative derivative source was there?
That is the 'ultimate incongruity' – or what Karl Barth called the 'impossible possibility.'
Utilizing the historical narratives of Isa. 14:12‐15 and Ezek. 28:11‐19 with their apparent double entendres, along with the imagery of the Apocalypse (Rev. 12:3‐9), we surmise that Lucifer, the Light‐bearer, the Son of the Dawn, apparently had some form of leadership in the angelic hierarchy. Using his creaturely freedom of choice, he chose to reject the derivation and bearing of God’s Light. Where did that rejective rebellion come from? We do not know – it’s an ultimate incongruity.
But a LIE was born – 'I will be like the Most High God' (Isa. 14:14) – 'I will be an ‘independent self’; I will function ek autos (out of myself) as a self‐for‐self. How could that be? It’s an ultimate incongruity!
Did the angelic choice of Lucifer create the Adversary, Satan by his own self‐choice? It does not seem possible. But by some means the Evil One came into being – the necessary fixed negative of God’s positive – the enemy, the opponent, the adversary – forever cursed and irredeemable. NOT co‐equal with God; not a god of good vs. a god of evil, forever in a dualistic standoff. NOT merely the absence and privation of God’s good, for explanation by absence amounts to nothing.
God and Satan. There is an essential constitutional difference between them, for one is the Creator and the other a creature; One has intrinsic Being, while the other has extrinsic being. They were polarized in an essential character dichotomy of good and evil.
Satan remains a derivative creature of God. He cannot be an 'independent self,' self‐generating character. Apparently Satan takes that which is of God; His goodness, righteousness, loving character, and twists such around backwards into its negative antithesis. He short‐circuits the character of God in grotesque distortion. In Acts 13:10 Paul calls Elymas a 'son of the devil,' who 'makes crooked the straight ways of God.'
I don’t know that this is an airtight solution to the problem of evil in the world, but it is the most biblical, theological & philosophical tenable explanation that I have ever heard."
Origin of Evil
Theodicy
'God is the essential
cause of all things,
but He is not the
blameworthy or culpable
cause of evil –
that is contrary
to His character.'
It is the best answer I have ever heard also, biblically speaking.
Rick
kathryn
01-15-2012, 08:42 AM
Rick: Utilizing the historical narratives of Isa. 14:12‐15 and Ezek. 28:11‐19 with their apparent double entendres, along with the imagery of the Apocalypse (Rev. 12:3‐9), we surmise that Lucifer, the Light‐bearer, the Son of the Dawn, apparently had some form of leadership in the angelic hierarchy. Using his creaturely freedom of choice, he chose to reject the derivation and bearing of God’s Light. Where did that rejective rebellion come from? We do not know – it’s an ultimate incongruity.
But a LIE was born – 'I will be like the Most High God' (Isa. 14:14) – 'I will be an ‘independent self’; I will function ek autos (out of myself) as a self‐for‐self. How could that be? It’s an ultimate incongruity!
Did the angelic choice of Lucifer create the Adversary, Satan by his own self‐choice? It does not seem possible. But by some means the Evil One came into being – the necessary fixed negative of God’s positive – the enemy, the opponent, the adversary – forever cursed and irredeemable. NOT co‐equal with God; not a god of good vs. a god of evil, forever in a dualistic standoff. NOT merely the absence and privation of God’s good, for explanation by absence amounts to nothing.
Hi Rick...I just wanted to tie up this loose end as it is something I asked you several posts back and we never had a chance to get back to it.
Could you please explain how you are taking the verses above pertaining to "Lucifer" , as satan? (you realize that word "lucifer" was a latin addition to scripture?)
Both the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre(ROCK) are men...man=ADAM. They are a type of the fully ripened condition of iniquity/vanity in man (Adam) and a therefore a counterfeit type to the 2nd Adam.
Only man was given dominion over the earth. Satan was only given authority in the "air" and as "prince" , not King...and as a spirit, not a man. (etc)
heb13-13
01-15-2012, 09:14 AM
Rick: Utilizing the historical narratives of Isa. 14:12‐15 and Ezek. 28:11‐19 with their apparent double entendres, along with the imagery of the Apocalypse (Rev. 12:3‐9), we surmise that Lucifer, the Light‐bearer, the Son of the Dawn, apparently had some form of leadership in the angelic hierarchy. Using his creaturely freedom of choice, he chose to reject the derivation and bearing of God’s Light. Where did that rejective rebellion come from? We do not know – it’s an ultimate incongruity.
But a LIE was born – 'I will be like the Most High God' (Isa. 14:14) – 'I will be an ‘independent self’; I will function ek autos (out of myself) as a self‐for‐self. How could that be? It’s an ultimate incongruity!
Did the angelic choice of Lucifer create the Adversary, Satan by his own self‐choice? It does not seem possible. But by some means the Evil One came into being – the necessary fixed negative of God’s positive – the enemy, the opponent, the adversary – forever cursed and irredeemable. NOT co‐equal with God; not a god of good vs. a god of evil, forever in a dualistic standoff. NOT merely the absence and privation of God’s good, for explanation by absence amounts to nothing.
Hi Rick...I just wanted to tie up this loose end as it is something I asked you several posts back and we never had a chance to get back to it.
Could you please explain how you are taking the verses above pertaining to "Lucifer" , as satan? (you realize that word "lucifer" was a latin addition to scripture?)
Both the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre(ROCK) are men...man=ADAM. They are a type of the fully ripened condition of iniquity/vanity in man (Adam) and a therefore a counterfeit type to the 2nd Adam.
Only man was given dominion over the earth. Satan was only given authority in the "air" and as "prince" , not King...and as a spirit, not a man. (etc)
Hi Kathryn,
Actually, Adam delivered by default (Adam's fall and subsquent "capture" by Satan) all of his dominion to Satan.
Luke 4:
And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Luke 4:6
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
In Satan's conversation with Jesus, he admits that the kingdoms of the world were delivered unto him.
Rick
kathryn
01-15-2012, 09:30 AM
Hi Kathryn,
Actually, Adam delivered by default (Adam's fall and subsquent "capture" by Satan) all of his dominion to Satan.
Luke 4:
And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Luke 4:6
And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
In Satan's conversation with Jesus, he admits that the kingdoms of the world were delivered unto him.
Rick
Yep....but you will still have to "shoe horn" the fact that it is only over the "power of the air" and as a prince and spirit...not as a King/man.
Your doctrine Rick has to deny many scriptures in order to make it fit. (and we haven't reached the realm of typology yet)
Richard Amiel McGough
01-15-2012, 11:06 AM
Hi Richard,
Interesting thoughts you have - sent me scurrying to my Bible for context :winking0071: .
Isn't there a bit of a problem putting good and evil beside each other, implying they are more equal in quality than they are? I mean, Jesus said, 'only God is good', and He also had said, 'I create evil'. Jesus had to partake of 'the likeness of sinful flesh' - the lowest common denominator - to show us that we could overcome evil, with divine help (Romans 8:13), but how many humans truly want to be god-like in the way that Jesus was?
Hi there Charisma, :yo:
It's good to be discussing this with you. I'm not saying that good and evil are "equal in quality." That would be silly, like saying light is the same as dark. My point is that the idea of "good and evil" is a single idea. The concept of "good" implies "evil" and vice-versa. They are the two "poles" of a single way of looking at the world. The way of "judgment." It assumes a fundamental duality in the world. That was my point. I am not saying that they are "equal" - on the contrary, I am saying that they are opposites like light and dark, up and down. They are inextricably connected with each other because they are polar ways of viewing reality.
You ask "how many humans want to be godlike in the way that Jesus was?" Who wouldn't? That's the fundamental error in the idea of eternal punishment. What good does it accomplish? And if it is not good, but rather an eternal evil, we know with perfect certainty that it is not something that the true God would do.
When Jesus said only God was good, he was obviously using hyperbole. We know this because elsewhere Jesus talks about good people. For example:
Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
If there is no such thing as a "good man" then Jesus was speaking very deceptively here.
I think you've take rather a liberty with the 'all in all' in 1 Cor 12, as it is strictly limited to the operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit through Christian believers. The 'all in all', is: the same God in each believer acting through the different gifts He has distributed within the Church.
1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. 3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
Likewise, in Ephesians 1:15 onwards, Paul is talking about Christ in the Church; it's one very long sentence, according to Green's Literal.
15 Because of this, hearing of your faith in the Lord Jesus and love toward all the saints, 16 I also do not cease giving thanks on your behalf, making mention of you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your mind having been enlightened, for you to know what is the hope of His calling, and what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us, the ones believing according to the working of His mighty strength 20 which He worked in Christ in raising Him from the dead; yea, He seated Him at His right hand in the heavenlies, 21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and lordship, and every name having been named, not only in this age, but also in the coming age; 22 and He "put all things under His feet" and gave Him to be Head over all things to the assembly, 23 which is His body: the fullness of the One filling all things in all; 2:1 and you being dead in deviations and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom we also all conducted ourselves in times past in the lusts of our flesh, doing the things willed of the flesh and of the understanding, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as the rest.
Surely, these demonstrate that the Unity in God is limited to those domains over which He has complete dominion, graciously including all the creatures who choose to come into agreement with the terms He has established for koinonia with Himself?
This is what I meant when I said that "there are those who dispute the meaning of that phrase." Think of the gymnastics folks are willing to execute to support their doctrines. If you wanted to believe that God was "all in all" in the literal meaning of that phrase, you would present arguments for that. It's all a matter of what folks want to believe. They don't derive their beliefs from Scripture so much as impose them thereon. Case in point - the church is only the "firstfruits" of the great company that will be redeemed, which is the entire universe and all who live in it:
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Why does Paul say that God is the savor of all men? Why does it say "especially those that believe?" Does that not imply he is also the savior of those who do not believe? I know you can say "Yes, he is the savior of all men, but only those that believe will be saved." That's fine, you can believe what you like, but you can't claim your interpretation is the only possibility. The Bible says that God reconciled the whole world (2 Cor 5:19).
When the Bible says that God is "the One filling all in all" (Eph 1:23) he is not talking about the "church" only. He is talking about how God is the one who fills ALL IN ALL. You have merely chosen to impose you presuppositions on the Bible. And that's fine, that's what everyone does. But some are more consistent with what the Bible teaches. I note that you did not address my central argument at all which is supported by the all-encompassing phrases like "I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." And the verse in Acts where Paul said that everyone lives and moves and has their being in God.
There is only one issue here. You have begun with a certain set of presuppositions to which you are forcing these verses to conform. And that's fine, everyone does it. But the fact remains that you could have chosen a different set of presuppositions and conformed everything to them. Case in point: I begin with the presupposition that God is Light and God is Love and God is Just. Therefore, there no eternal hell. QED.
Clearly, God is most desirous of Unity, but not at the expense of authentic wholeness or perfection (completion).
That's right! And that's why there cannot be a "hell." There could never be any "authentic wholeness or perfection" in a universe filled with tortured sinners twisted in torment forever!
I think you underestimate the power of God to redeem each and every person. You have inherited the Roman Catholic Doctrine that was invented to make people slaves of fear. The Catholics claimed to have power over the eternal fate of your soul. If you did not submit and obey their rule, they would condemn you to eternal hell. That's what it's all about. Power and fear. The doctrine is entirely ungodly.
Great chatting!
Richard
Charisma
01-15-2012, 11:18 AM
Hi Rick and Kathryn,
Yep....but you will still have to "shoe horn" the fact that it is only over the "power of the air"
Hi Kathryn,
Which verses do you have in mind, which conflict with Rick's point that Satan had acquired 'all the kingdoms of the world' through Adam's carelessness with God's commands in the garden of Eden?
Rick quoted Luke 4. Here is Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
(Same deal as in Genesis 14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. {persons: Heb. souls} )
The only person on earth in Jesus' time, who was not a child of disobedience spiritually, was Jesus.
Historically, since Adam, this order had pertained unbroken in all mankind.
It is accepted that Satan is 'the prince of the power of the air' , as Paul calls him in Ephesians 2:the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath
and as a prince and spirit...not as a King/man. Why do you mention 'not as a King/man'? (Again, it's not disputed Satan is a spirit; it's clear from Ephesians 2, that he had every person on earth in his control.)
Three witnesses?
Richard Amiel McGough
01-15-2012, 11:27 AM
Hi Charisma,
I am going to respond to the recent questioning with two quotes from James Fowler regarding Dualism and the Origin of Evil, because I cannot improve upon them.
1st Quote: Regarding Dualism
By indicating that either God or Satan indwells or rules over every human individual, is this not a dualistic understanding of the spiritual condition of mankind?
Some people seem to think that the positing of an either/or contrast necessarily creates or constitutes a dualism. I do not believe that to be correct.
In the either/or diametric polarity between God and Satan, there is definitely a duality – a contrast of two opposites: God – Satan; good – evil; truth – error; holy – sinful; love – self‐orientation. This is a fixed antithesis of character, and the two polar opposites cannot be brought together in integration or compromise.
But, this is not a dualism, or (as the question states) a 'dualistic understanding of the spiritual condition of mankind.'
The classic philosophical usage of the term 'dualism' applies to two mutually exclusive and absolutely equal forces that oppose one another and remain in a perpetual stalemate or standoff (thought not necessarily a static stasis without interaction). The Taoist dualism of yin/yang is an example of such dualism, and the Taijitu symbol used for such, pictures equal parts of two principles, each with a balancing portion of the other within. The two (the black and the white) are together within a larger inclusive circle, creating a duality within a unity – a dualism wherein they reside in everlasting juxtaposition – interdependent and interconnected – but forever balancing each other out.
The presence and activity of God or Satan within regenerate and unregenerate human individuals, is a polarized duality, but not a dualistic standoff where neither can overcome the other.
God, in Christ, has defeated the forces of evil. In the death of Jesus Christ, Satan has been rendered powerless (Heb. 2:14), and the works of the devil destroyed (I John 3:8). A cosmic victory has been won, when Christ 'disarmed and triumphed over the rulers and authorities of evil (Col. 2:15) by His death on the cross. No human individual need remain indwelt and enslaved by Satan. A spiritual exchange is available to all men, wherein they can be turned/converted from the dominion and authority of Satan to the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Acts 26:18), and experience 'Christ in them, the hope of glory' (Col. 1:27).
Henceforth, it can be declared of the Christian, 'Greater is He who is in you, than he who is in the world' (I Jn. 4:4)."
Hey there Rick,
Good quote! It helps clear up some fundamental misunderstandings.
I agree that the Christian view is one of a "polarized duality" and it is not teaching that God/Satan are like "yin/yang." But that's just doctrine that obscurs the fundamental dualism inherent in Christianity. You do not believe that God is or will be the "all in all." You believe there will be a fundamental and eternal duality of good (heaven) and evil (hell). And in practice Christianity treats God and Satan as "pure good" vs. "pure evil." You made this pretty clear in that list of "dualities" that you posted here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2719-We-are-All-One&p=39840#post39840) and to which I responded earlier in this thread here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2638-Demons&p=39969&highlight=duality#post39969):
There are only two characters
in this Universe,
not one
and
not three
and these characters
cannot be ONE
as in
UNITY.
Flesh + Spirit = 1?
Good + Evil = 1?
Life + Death = 1?
Love + Hate = 1?
Sin + Righteousness = 1?
Lies + Truth = 1?
Holy + Unholy = 1?
Heaven + Hell = 1?
God + Satan = 1?
The subtle distinctions that can be made between Christian dualism and philosophical dualism do not affect the point I have been trying to communicate. Traditional Christianity is fundamentally dualistic, and it teaches that God will never be the "all in all" and that evil will exist for eternity. Much of the world will never be redeemed according to your doctrine. I think that is a false doctrine. I believe God is the "all in all" by definition, since God is the Ground of Being in whom we all "move, and live and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
I'll answer the second quote dealing with the origin of evil in another post.
Great chatting!
Richard
heb13-13
01-15-2012, 01:14 PM
Yep....but you will still have to "shoe horn" the fact that it is only over the "power of the air" and as a prince and spirit...not as a King/man.
Your doctrine Rick has to deny many scriptures in order to make it fit. (and we haven't reached the realm of typology yet)
Hi Kathryn,
Ok, let's stick with scriptures first and then we can get to typology regarding your doctrine.
What scriptures would I have to deny?
Rick
Charisma
01-15-2012, 05:07 PM
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your reply. :tea:
I'm experiencing somewhat of a non-standard day, with various interruptions to normal service! I will reply to you tomorrow, therefore.
(That will give me a little more thinking time, too :winking0071: )
Richard Amiel McGough
01-15-2012, 05:16 PM
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your reply. :tea:
I'm experiencing somewhat of a non-standard day, with various interruptions to normal service! I will reply to you tomorrow, therefore.
(That will give me a little more thinking time, too :winking0071: )
It's all good.
Take your time ... that's what I did! :winking0071:
I'm glad the conversation is still alive.
Charisma
01-15-2012, 06:13 PM
Hi Rick,
Before your post (p24) gets any further back, I would like to comment on the discussion about God relationship with evil.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Strong's puts many complexions on 'evil':
07451 ra` {rah}
from 07489; TWOT - 2191a, 2191c
AV - evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34; 663 adj
1) bad, evil
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions
n m
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
2a) evil, distress, adversity
2b) evil, injury, wrong
2c) evil (ethical)
n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
3a) evil, misery, distress
3b) evil, injury, wrong
3c) evil (ethical)
The word for 'know' (yada) carries a note of intimacy as well as having other implications. I came across this page and think it's helpful:
http://yadadrop.com/about/what-does-yada-mean
When was God's first encounter with 'evil'? Might it have been when His chief cherubim rebelled?
What about having to make the decision to slay the Lamb, before the foundation of the world? That was not a great moment for the Godhead, according to human interpretation, but, for God, might it not have been the very hour of triumph in which He proved Himself righteous?
Really what I'm asking, is: is there a conflict for God (with which God cannot cope) in being exposed to 'evil'? Indeed, of having become intimately acquainted with it in battle, while at no time condoning, entertaining or approving it, but rather resisting it?
Hebrews 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. 5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou?
Can we in even begin to comprehend the grief God experienced when He lost His son, Adam, to the serpent's interference on earth?
Or, when He was unwilling to tolerate any more wickedness on earth, saying:
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created ... '
I have the feeling we (humans) tend to assume that the amount of pain described in the verses above, either taints God, or is at variance with His being only good, only Light, only Love, only Truth - to name a few of His uncreated qualities - while I would say that unless God can experience those responses as part of His full and perfect character, we cannot be like Him.
The creations that we are, are also capable of the aforesaid responses because we were made in His image.
That we are born into the knowledge of good and evil only serves to corrupt the aforesaid responses, so that we cannot experience them as God, who does so whilst remaining just as holy, just as harmless, just as undefiled, and just as separate from sin and sinners as ever He was.
heb13-13
01-15-2012, 09:45 PM
Hi Rick,
Before your post (p24) gets any further back, I would like to comment on the discussion about God relationship with evil.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Strong's puts many complexions on 'evil':
07451 ra` {rah}
from 07489; TWOT - 2191a, 2191c
AV - evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34; 663 adj
1) bad, evil
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions
n m
2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
2a) evil, distress, adversity
2b) evil, injury, wrong
2c) evil (ethical)
n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
3a) evil, misery, distress
3b) evil, injury, wrong
3c) evil (ethical)
The word for 'know' (yada) carries a note of intimacy as well as having other implications. I came across this page and think it's helpful:
http://yadadrop.com/about/what-does-yada-mean
When was God's first encounter with 'evil'? Might it have been when His chief cherubim rebelled?
What about having to make the decision to slay the Lamb, before the foundation of the world? That was not a great moment for the Godhead, according to human interpretation, but, for God, might it not have been the very hour of triumph in which He proved Himself righteous?
Really what I'm asking, is: is there a conflict for God (with which God cannot cope) in being exposed to 'evil'? Indeed, of having become intimately acquainted with it in battle, while at no time condoning, entertaining or approving it, but rather resisting it?
Hebrews 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. 5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Hebrews 7:26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou?
Can we in even begin to comprehend the grief God experienced when He lost His son, Adam, to the serpent's interference on earth?
Or, when He was unwilling to tolerate any more wickedness on earth, saying:
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created ... '
I have the feeling we (humans) tend to assume that the amount of pain described in the verses above, either taints God, or is at variance with His being only good, only Light, only Love, only Truth - to name a few of His uncreated qualities - while I would say that unless God can experience those responses as part of His full and perfect character, we cannot be like Him.
The creations that we are, are also capable of the aforesaid responses because we were made in His image.
That we are born into the knowledge of good and evil only serves to corrupt the aforesaid responses, so that we cannot experience them as God, who does so whilst remaining just as holy, just as harmless, just as undefiled, and just as separate from sin and sinners as ever He was.
Hi Charisma,
God knows evil not be experiencing is own act of volitionally rebelling and thus tasting evil else He would cease to be God. He would in essence rebel against Himself. A crazy person would be the God of the Universe then.
God knows evil by the very fact that it is contrary to His nature. Satan's lie to Adam was correct that Adam would be like Him knowing good and evil but the lie was 1) Adam would be like God in complete essence and with absolute freewill and 2) Adam would know good and evil like God knows it.
Adam came to know good and evil two ways. 1) Adam found out what was contrary to God's nature and 2) Adam experienced evil as part of his being. He now became a slave to evil, to sin...to Satan.
"God knows good and evil not by relating such to some objective standard of goodness outside of Himself, but by recognizing that goodness is that which corresponds with His own absolute character of good. Evil is that which is not consistent with who He is, and is not the expression of His character. Because God is absolute goodness, and He is independent, autonomous and self-generating in the expression of that goodness, He can "know good and evil" in reference to Himself. Man, being contingent and derivative, cannot be "like God knowing good and evil" by defining such in terms of his own inherent character and self-activation of such. So what the serpent suggested to the original man and woman was a lie. It was a half-truth, which is always a lie. The half-truth was that man could be deceived into thinking that he could be "like God" by determining "good and evil" in reference to his own opinions, preferences, likes and dislikes, etc. Setting himself up as his own standard and center of reference, man could determine that what he found to be right, correct, pleasurable and permissable would be called "good," and what he considered to be wrong, incorrect, unpleasant and impermissable would be called "evil." Thus began all humanly determined standards of morality and ethics, as well as the belief-systems of orthodoxy and unorthodoxy. Religion has been playing this "good and evil" game of self-determined standards of "dos" and "don'ts" ever since. It is all part of the humanistic premise that posits man as his own center of reference, whereby all revolves around his individual or collective determinations. The "father of lies" foisted upon man the lie of independency and autonomy, and persuaded man to align with him in his self-orientation and selfishness (cf. Ezek; Zech)? It was the short-circuiting of God's intent to express His character of love for others through man." Jim Fowler, The Fall of Man, http://www.christinyou.net/pages/fallman.html
Blessings to all,
Rick
kathryn
01-16-2012, 05:53 AM
Hi Rick and Kathryn,
Hi Kathryn,
Which verses do you have in mind, which conflict with Rick's point that Satan had acquired 'all the kingdoms of the world' through Adam's carelessness with God's commands in the garden of Eden?Hi Charisma...I wasn't referring specifically to Rick's point about satan acquiring the kingdoms of the world. (see below)
Rick quoted Luke 4. Here is Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
(Same deal as in Genesis 14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. {persons: Heb. souls} )
The only person on earth in Jesus' time, who was not a child of disobedience spiritually, was Jesus.
Historically, since Adam, this order had pertained unbroken in all mankind.
It is accepted that Satan is 'the prince of the power of the air' , as Paul calls him in Ephesians 2:the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath
Why do you mention 'not as a King/man'? (Again, it's not disputed Satan is a spirit; it's clear from Ephesians 2, that he had every person on earth in his control.)Rick was using verses that speak of an Adam type, as "king" and "man" (King of Babylon and King of Tyre), an attributing them to satan.
Three witnesses?
heb13-13
01-16-2012, 06:35 AM
Somebody help me out, I need an Interpreter. :eek:
Rick
kathryn
01-16-2012, 09:49 AM
Hi Kathryn,
Ok, let's stick with scriptures first and then we can get to typology regarding your doctrine.
What scriptures would I have to deny?
Rick
Hi Rick.....You've already had to deny several emphatic, self explanatory scriptures to fit your doctrine, such as "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ (2nd Adam) shall all live". The "as in Adam ALL, qualifies the ALL who live in Christ. "If I be lifted up, I will DRAG ALL men to myself". (I emphasize the "drag" because the majority of the church is superimposing their concept of "free will" on the whole process of redemption, without taking into consideration the fact that mankind was IMPUTED with Adam's sin against their will...subjected to vanity(depravity and corruption) against their will...in the HOPE that all will be set free . God's "hope" is not a vain Hope....and His Law reveals how the salvation of ALL mankind takes place, as does temple/tabernacle typology.)
My focus and passion, whether it is right or wrong or important to you, is to demonstrate how the Good News is built into the foundation of the Law of Moses and the typology of the Bible and is non-biased and self-confirming throughout scripture. While everyone might not agree that it is non-biased and self confirming...hopefully one day we can get into this study in more detail.
We began this with Adam and Eve in the garden and I attempted to introduce some simple definitions in temple/tabernacle typology to demonstrate satan's position and role in the process of the redemption of mankind...and which you discounted without giving any foundational understanding of your own. To go into any more detail, beyond this point, would be futile (for me anyway) until we can establish some common ground .
You've now gone on to equate satan with "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14 and Eze. 28....which does not fit with any foundation in typology . You are confusing an Adam type (the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre), which is referring to a man (Adam)...with a spirit/satan. (and no where is satan ever a "King"). I mention it only because it came up in an earlier part of the conversation and it's a doctrine that many are still laboring under and need to have a deeper look at how they arrived at this conclusion.
Richard Amiel McGough
01-16-2012, 10:26 AM
Hi Rick.....You've already had to deny several emphatic, self explanatory scriptures to fit your doctrine, such as "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ (2nd Adam) shall all live". The "as in Adam ALL, qualifies the ALL who live in Christ. "If I be lifted up, I will DRAG ALL men to myself". (I emphasize the "drag" because the majority of the church is superimposing their concept of "free will" on the whole process of redemption, without taking into consideration the fact that mankind was IMPUTED with Adam's sin against their will...subjected to vanity(depravity and corruption) against their will...in the HOPE that all will be set free . God's "hope" is not a vain Hope....and His Law reveals how the salvation of ALL mankind takes place, as does temple/tabernacle typology.)
Hey there folks,
I think it is important to understand that there are very few Scriptures that can be said to be "emphatic" and "self-explanatory." This is because they are written in words, and words are quite malleable and can be easily contorted (even unintentionally) to fit pretty much any preconceived conception. Case in point:
1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
There are two possible meanings of this verse because the word "all" is ambiguous:
All in Adam refers to all who were in Adam. We know this refers to all humanity because everyone was literally "born of Adam."
All in Christ refers to all who are in Christ. We do not know if this refers to all humanity, because the Bible does not say that everyone will be "born of Christ." Maybe yes, maybe no. There's no way to tell from this verse.
How then can that verse be used as a "proof text" for anything? It doesn't say that "all will be in Christ" but rather "all who are in Christ will be made alive." It doesn't tell us who will be in Christ. Or maybe it does (if you want it to, I guess).
My focus and passion, whether it is right or wrong or important to you, is to demonstrate how the Good News is built into the foundation of the Law of Moses and the typology of the Bible and is non-biased and self-confirming throughout scripture. While everyone might not agree that it is non-biased and self confirming...hopefully one day we can get into this study in more detail.
We began this with Adam and Eve in the garden and I attempted to introduce some simple definitions in temple/tabernacle typology to demonstrate satan's position and role in the process of the redemption of mankind...and which you discounted without giving any foundational understanding of your own. To go into any more detail, beyond this point, would be futile (for me anyway) until we can establish some common ground .
The words highlighted red express what must be accomplished for any progress to be made between people with differing points of view. It appears to be a most difficult thing to do.
You've now gone on to equate satan with "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14 and Eze. 28....which does not fit with any foundation in typology . You are confusing an Adam type (the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre), which is referring to a man (Adam)...with a spirit/satan. (and no where is satan ever a "King"). I mention it only because it came up in an earlier part of the conversation and it's a doctrine that many are still laboring under and need to have a deeper look at how they arrived at this conclusion.
I don't understand how you could say it "does not fit any foundation in typology." It fits perfectly! Of course, the mere fact that something can be made to "fit" does not prove it is true! And I don't think the satanic interpretations of Isa 14 and Ezek 28 are true, but they certainly do "fit" very well with typology.
Great chatting,
Richard
heb13-13
01-16-2012, 10:36 AM
Hi Rick.....You've already had to deny several emphatic, self explanatory scriptures to fit your doctrine, such as "as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ (2nd Adam) shall all live".
Hi Kathryn,
This is where you stumble. Just as Adam (a "choosing" creature) acted upon a promise and exercised his faith and free choice, he then chose to identify with Satan. Likewise all men must choose to identify with Jesus, exercising their faith and acting upon God's promises in Jesus.
It was not automatic (and against Adam's will) for Adam to fall. A choice was made. It is not automatic and against our will that we choose Christ, for many men choose NOT Christ. Adam chose sin and received death. We can choose Christ and receive Life.
You undoubtedly have a different view of how man partakes of the Life of Christ, but it won't stand up just like your ALL inclusiveness bypasses the will of man and therefore his ability to make a choice for himself in whom he will serve.
You ignore that a choice was made in the garden so that you can ignore that a choice has to made concerning Christ.
So, I am not denying any "emphatic" scriptures.
To believe is more than mental assent. To believe is to receive.
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
And we know that all men do not receive Jesus Christ. Many reject Him.
Example:
John 1:11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Do you see the implication of not believing (receiving) in John 5:24? You eisegetical gymnastics twist the Words of the Bible and the thoughts conveyed by the Holy Spirit.
If is definitely a choice that man makes to be united with Christ in the likeness of His death (Romans 6:3). God does foist or force this upon anyone. It means death and many think this is foolishness and reject the notion of it, thereby rejecting Christ.
The operation of God to raise someone up from the dead and make us alive together with Him (Jesus) is all done by faith (Col 2:12-13) and God ceases being God if He forces a man to exercise His free choice and faith in Him. That is neither free choice or faith.
Just as Adam and Eve were given a promise and exercised their free choice and faith, all men, any man, must act upon the promises of God in Jesus Christ.
There is nothing obtuse about the scriptures or the receptive nature that man has and exercises by an act of his will.
Best to you,
Rick
kathryn
01-16-2012, 11:09 AM
Hi Richard....I hear what you're saying about "emphatic"....but I've yet to see any biblical proof in the foundation of scripture, that doesn't agree , confirm and enlarge on the full redemption of all mankind. That doesn't mean it's right of course and does nothing to prove the verses , but it is my focus and I've never had to struggle to fit any biblical concept into the foundation as it has dove-tailed nicely all by itself. If that's an interesting concept to some...great. If it isn't...I don't know where to go from there. It makes no sense to me to study any other way. Does it make sense to you that anyone can come to a belief about satan and the redemption of mankind, without examining some basic definitions about our triune nature and how it applies to the garden/Adam/Eve and typology? It seems to me that we just end up talking at each other, rather than trying to come to some common ground. It's not that I'm giving up or not interested in pursuing the conversation.
I realize I must come across as dogmatic in this... but it's because I have seen the non-biased nature of typology confirm itself and harmonize over and over throughout scripture...so "changing my mind" is going to take an equally confirming study of the same foundation to help me to see otherwise. I'm just being truthful here...and hopefully you can see it has nothing to do with stubbornness or close-mindedness or an unwillingness to converse.
I'm not sure what you mean by the verses in Isaiah and Eze. fitting the type. The type of what? Rick's doctrine? Please 'splain.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.