Popular Questions

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Webers_Home said:
I joined Christianity Board for two reasons: discussion and outreach. You
can see them listed over to your left in the sidebar under the man on the
camel. A blog would frustrate
the first of those two reasons.


Of the 60 compositions posted on this thread thus far, 42 are discussion
related; in other words: 70%. You know what I think? Well; I think you're
just upset because I'm not paying enough attention to you.

Look; I'm sorry StanJ; but like I informed you once before already: it's
nothing personal but I can't talk with a bloke whose thought processes work
like yours do. We're just not on the same wave length nor even in the same
solar system. I'm not saying there is something wrong with you. I'm just
saying we're too different.
You're posting in a section of this forum that is for Christians ONLY, so that kind of frustrates (to use your word) your stated second reason.
I don't see anything under your avatar except the number of your posts and where you are located. Posting 7 in a row without getting ANY responses, is no different than blogging. Most people would have stopped after no response to the first of those 7 so your reasons don't make ANY sense.
I don't read your posts Weber I just thought it funny that I saw seven ignored posts from you with no responses in between. That kind obtuseness just begs addressing.
You don't discuss, you defend or ignore, so it looks like your first reason is being frustrated by yourself.
As far as your reason for ignoring me is concerned, it's horse pucky and you know it. Avoiding discussion is all you're doing because you can't defend what you assert.
I know quite a few Oregonians and they all understand English.
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
I don't see anything under your avatar except the number of your posts and
where you are located.
That's curious. Here's what I see:

Number of posts: 762
3 warning points
Location: Oregon
Personal Faith: Christian
Board: Google
Join Reason: For discussion and outreach

Did you log in before looking for that information? I ask because it wasn't all
there for me to see till I did.


BTW: Not only are you too different for me, but you're also way too quarrelsome.

Buen Camino
/
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Webers_Home said:
That's curious. Here's what I see:

Number of posts: 762
3 warning points
Location: Oregon
Personal Faith: Christian
Board: Google
Join Reason: For discussion and outreach

Did you log in before looking for that information? I ask because it wasn't all
there for me to see till I did.


BTW: Not only are you too different for me, but you're also way too quarrelsome.
Well that is because it is your profile you're seeing. You'll have to ask an admin why that is, I don't know how they have their website structured.
I'm always logged in. You can't reply unless you are logged in.
Well quarrelsome depends on where you're coming from....obviously you think anyone that doesn't agree or support your POV is quarrelsome.
You would be wrong.
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
How Is Christ Related To Adam?

There are Christians out there saying that Jesus wasn't biologically related to
Adam seeing as how his conception didn't involve a biological human father.
However, Jesus did have a biological human mother; and that was all he
needed in order to be included in Adam's line of descent. Here's how.

According to the book of Genesis; God created Adam from the earth's dust;
and that one lone male is the only human being that God ever created from
the earth's dust. God then proceeded to use some organic human tissue
amputated from Adam's body to manufacture a female. (Gen 2:21-22)

Eve, then, wasn't a discreet creation (e.g. Lilith). She was literally bone of
Adam's bone, and flesh of his flesh. In other words: biologically, Eve was
just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's; and I think it would be fair to say that
Eve was Adam's very first child seeing as how she was derived directly from
his body. From that point on; any child that came into the world via either
Eve's body or via the body of one of her female descendants, whether
normally conceived or virgin conceived, would also be just as much Adam's
flesh as Adam's.

Others object that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary for
producing a male child. And that's right; they can't. However, seeing as how
God manufactured an entire woman from a man' flesh, then I do not see
how it would be any more difficult for God to manufacture a Y chromosome
from a woman's flesh. And seeing as how women's flesh is just as much
Adams' flesh as Adam's, then any Y chromosome that God might
manufacture from a woman's flesh would actually be manufactured from
Adam's flesh.

On numerous occasions, Jesus identified himself as "son of man". That title
was neither new nor unique in his day. God addressed the prophet Ezekiel as
"son of man" on at least 93 occasions; and in every case, the Hebrew word
for man is 'adam which is the proper name of the human race God that
created in the very beginning (Gen 1:26-27, Gen 3:9, Gen 5:2).

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Where Does Christ Fit In Solomon's Posterity?

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph complied.

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

A child's name in those days wasn't set in concrete until its biological father
gave his consent. For example: John the Baptist's dad Zacharias was
ordered to give his impending child the name of John (Luke 1:12-14) which
he did. (Luke 1:59-63)

Thus, by participating in the naming of Mary's baby, Joseph declared himself
its biological father.

"Isn't this Joseph's son? they asked." (Luke 4:22)

By law; he sure was. But you see; it was necessary that God instruct Joseph
to follow Jacob's precedent in order to place Mary's baby in line for
Solomon's throne because the Davidic dynasty never passes down through
David's and/or Solomon's female descendants; no, only the males.

"For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of
the house of Israel" (Jer 33:17)

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
What/Where Is Sheol?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: A certain well-known denomination insists that when a human being
dies, it goes completely out of conscious existence. Their resurrection
doctrine therefore is not a resurrection according to the traditional meaning
of the word, but rather; a re-creation: which essentially implies that when
Christ died on the cross, he ceased to exist; viz: for three days and three
nights, there was no Christ-- neither in this life nor in the next. So in order
to "raise" Christ from the dead, it was necessary for God to create Jesus'
previous existence back into existence. In other words: according to the
beliefs of that denomination; the "resurrected" Christ was a second Christ;
viz: a redux.

That belief of course assumes that the Lord's soul died on the cross right
along with his body; which of course it didn't because assassins can't kill
souls.

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

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

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

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

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Is There Really A Hell?

If you were to stand on the front end of a locomotive traveling at 60 mph in
a vacuum and throw a baseball out ahead of the train at 45 mph, the ball's
net forward velocity, relative to the tracks, would be 105 mph because the
ball already had a forward velocity of 60 mph before you even threw it. The
reverse holds true when throwing the ball off the rear of the same train. It's
net forward velocity, relative to the tracks, would be 15 mph because you
nulled 45 of those 60 mph with your toss. That's all just simple arithmetic
and common sense.

Now, this time trigger a laser pointer out ahead of the train. Common sense
says that the laser's beam will zip on ahead at the combined speed of the
train plus the speed of light; but not so. In 1897, a chemist named Edward
Morely, and a physicist named Albert Michelson, working with a device called
an interferometer, discovered that in a vacuum, the speed of light is
constant in all directions regardless of the motion of its source.

Now trigger your laser pointer off the rear of the train. Again: no change in
the speed of its light relative to the tracks. Its all the same as if you
triggered your laser while the train was stopped.

I mention that because one of the arguments against a hell is the wide
spread opinion that it's contrary to common sense. And with that opinion I
fully agree. But in the field of Christianity, as in the field of Physics, faith
believes what's revealed to it rather than only what makes sense to it.

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
What's Different About The Old Testament And The New Testament?

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

In a nutshell, the New Testament focuses on just one Jew of special
significance; while the Old Testament focuses on all Jews regardless of their
significance-- Yhvh's people in the Old, and Christ in the New.

Within the nutshell is yet another nutshell. The Old Testament's prime
feature is the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Deut 29:9-15. The New Testament's prime feature is the covenant that
Yhvh's people have not yet agreed upon with God as per Jer 31:31-34.

The Jews with whom I've discussed what Christians call the new covenant,
typically don't regard it as a freshly-crafted agreement rendering obsolete
what Christians call the old covenant. In other words; the Jews with whom
I've dialogued regard the old and the new as one covenant; viz: in their
judgment; Jeremiah labels the new covenant as "new" meaning that it's the
latest version because the information released in Jer 31:31-34 updates the
original covenant. In the world of software, an update doesn't replace a
program; instead it simply fixes security issues and/or enhances performance
with a number of useful improvements; and actually the language and
grammar of the Jer 31:31-34 suggests that very thing.

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
How Do You Know Your Religion is Right?

It is of course impossible that all religions are right; that's pretty much a
given. But on the other hand, it's very possible that none are right. So I
would say that when settling upon a religion, don't worry so much about
picking the one that's right; instead pick the one that's right for you; and if
none are right for you, then in my estimation; you're just as well off.

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Is The Story Of The Rich Man And Lazarus True Or False?

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies
that the story is false. But the parable theory has a fatal flaw; and that flaw
is Abraham. He's a real-life man; held in very high esteem by at least three
of the world's prominent religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

If Christ would tell a whopper about someone as important as Abraham,
then what's to prevent him from telling a whopper about you? Bottom line
is: if Christ would say things that aren't true about his own sacred biological
grandfather; then nobody's reputation is safe in his hands.

There is something else to consider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Isa 41:8, Abraham was God's friend. So by implying that Luke
16:19-31 is false, the parable theory insinuates that God is a person of
marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth about His friends.

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
What Is A Begotten God?

Q:
One translation of John 1:1 says that the Word was God (upper case). In
another translation, John 1:1 says the Word was a god (lower case). Which
translation is correct?

A: You'll do well to accept the first as correct, and I'll show you why.

There is a form of theology called monolatrism that basically insists that all
gods are valid deities; though not all deities are deemed worthy of worship.

For example: every star in the Milky Way is a sun; but there is only one star
that science calls the Sun-- the star at the center of our solar system.

Monolatrism is not quite the same as polytheism; where numerous gods are
all considered worthy of worship. It's also different from monotheism which
asserts the existence of only one god. Monolatrism is also different from
henotheism: a religious system in which the believer devotes all of his
worship to just one god without denying that others may worship different
gods of equal value.

The New Testament appears to validate monolatrism.

†. 1Cor 8:5 . . For even though there are those who are called "gods,"
whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many
“lords,” there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things
are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all
things are, and we through him.

But there's a fly in the ointment. At John 17:3 Jesus spoke of his Father as
"the only true god". So then, by default, all other gods are false gods. The
ramifications of that are pretty serious because if the Word of John 1:1 isn't
the only true god, then by default the Word is a false god.

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

A: Either one will do because, biologically speaking, they're both saying the
very same thing. But for clarity's sake; let's assume that "only-begotten
god" is correct. What are the ramifications of that? Well; according to John
17:3 it means that the only true god's offspring is a false god; which is
about as possible as my offspring being a false human. In other words; like
always begets like. If the only true god were to reproduce, His offspring
would be more of His own kind just as when I reproduce, my offspring is
more of my own kind. Get my drift?

This is sometimes difficult even for Trinitarians: but John 1:18 implies that
when the only true god begot a son, he begot the only true god.

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

In the field of Christianity, as in the field of Physics, faith believes what's
revealed to it rather than only what makes sense to it. I readily admit that
the idea of the only true god begetting the only true god makes no sense
whatsoever. But just as science admits to many unsolved mysteries; so does
Christianity. And there's no shame in that. The shame is in pretending to
have complete understanding of everything.

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Christ's Demise; Real Or Imagined?

It's actually pretty easy to verify.

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

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

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

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

1• A towel

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

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

2• Like a mummy

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

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

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

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

3• A cocoon of sorts

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

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

According to the New Testament; Christ fully expired.

†. Luke 23:44-47 . . And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said: Father,
into Thy hands I commit my spirit. And having said this, he breathed his
last.

Upon expiring, Christ's soul was transferred to a region known in ancient
Greek culture as hades.

†. Acts 2:29-32 . . Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to
this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with
an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would
raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning
the resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in hades, nor did his
flesh see corruption.

Christ described the location of hades as deep underground.

†. Matt 12:40 . . Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly
of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth.

Christ's corpse wasn't interred in the heart of the earth. It was interred up
on the surface. And it wasn't even interred in the ground. It was interred
above ground in rock.

Christ predicted that he would be in the heart of the earth "just as" Jonah
was in the belly of a sea monster. In other words: under similar
circumstances. Well; it's very easy to miss in the story of Jonah but he was
deceased for three days and three nights, same as Jesus; and while his
corpse was interred in the sea monster's tummy, his soul was interred in
another tummy called sheol in Hebrew. Jonah described the location of sheol
as the roots of the mountains.

†. Jonah 2:5-6 . . The great deep engulfed me, weeds were wrapped around
my head. I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars
was around me forever.

Well; as anybody familiar with geology knows, mountains aren't rooted in
the tummies of sea monsters; they're rooted deep in the earth.

While Jonah was languishing behind the earth's bars in sheol, he was
inspired to pray.

†. Jonah 2:2 . . I called out of my distress to the Lord, and He answered me.
I cried for help from the depth of sheol. Thou didst hear my voice.

How did Jonah know that the Lord heard his prayer in sheol. Well; in
response to Jonah's prayer, the Lord raised him from the dead.

†. Jonah 2:6 . .Thou hast brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.

"brought up my life" is the language of resurrection; and in Old Testament
lingo, "the pit" typically refers to putrefaction. So in all points-- other than
the nature of their graves of course --Jesus' three-day experience mirrored
Jonah's three-day experience; viz: both men were deceased, both men's
souls were transferred to a location deep in the earth, neither man's soul
remained deep in the earth, neither man's flesh was marred by putrefaction;
and both men were brought back to life.

====================================
 

Guestman

Active Member
Nov 11, 2009
618
72
28
70
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The word "day" as used in the Bible, is established as having more than a meaning of 24 hours. For example, in showing the difference between genuine and counterfeit Christians at Matthew 7, Jesus said: "Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name ?’ "(Matt 7:22)


Is "that day" that Jesus spoke of just 24 hours ? No. Rather it is a period of time in which it can be determined who is real and who is fake, leading up to the dismissal of counterfeit Christians.(Matt 7:23) And in like respect, the "creative" days at Genesis 1, are not 24 hours, but extended periods of time (Gen 2:4), having a beginning and an ending (Note: the Hebrew day was from "evening to evening", Lev 23:32).


Can it be determined how long a "creative" day is ? Yes, relatively closely. At Genesis 2, it says: "And by the seventh day, God had completed the work that he had been doing, and he began to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had been doing. And God went on to bless the seventh day and to declare it sacred, for on it God has been resting from all the work that he has created, all that he purposed to make."(Gen 2:2, 3)


We all recognize that the 7th day of a week is the same length of time as the previous 6. So likewise, each of the "creative" days are of the same length of time. That being said, we can now focus on the length of the "seventh day" that our Maker, Jehovah God "rested" on, doing no more creating regarding the earth.


Both Adam and Eve were created at the end of the 6th "creative" day as the "crescendo" of his creative work, completing all of God's creation for the earth at that time, so that he said: "It is very good".(Gen 1:31) Then begins the "seventh day", in which Jehovah God has now desisted from creating anything else on the earth.


That is why Genesis 2:3 says that he "has been resting ("resting", Hebrew shabbath [English Sabbath] that means "rest, cease", still ongoing [the imperfect sense in Hebrew, meaning action is incomplete] when Moses wrote down the Genesis account in 1513 B.C.E., some 2,500 years after Adam's creation) from all the work that he has created."


So at this point, what can be seen ? That some 2,500 years after Adam's creation that the "seventh day" was still incomplete. But what the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrew Christians helps to establish that the "seventh day" was still ongoing in his time frame, some 4,000 years later from the beginning of the "seventh day".


After having shown the lack of faith on the part of the Israelites during their 40 year trek in the wilderness, and saying that these ones could not "enter into (God's) rest" (Heb 3:18, 19), Paul now says: "Therefore, since a promise of entering into his rest remains (was still open, showing the 7th "creative" day was incomplete), let us be on guard for fear someone among you seems to fall short of it......For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works, and here again he says: “They will not enter into my rest. Therefore, since it remains for some to enter into it....For the man who has entered into God’s rest has also rested from his own works, just as God did from his own."(Heb 4:1, 4-6, 10)


Thus, Paul establishes that God's "seventh day" of "rest" was not completed some 4,000 years from the time it began, in which there were those who exercised faith could "enter into" God's rest day. But there is more, for a person has to understand what Jehovah's original purpose is to ascertain closely how long a "creative" day is.


God purposed for Adam and Eve and their offspring to take the pattern of the paradise garden of Eden and extend it to the ends of the earth.(Gen 1:26-28) This would require time, so that by the end of the "seventh day", the earth is to be a paradise "filled" with "meek" ones living on it.(Matt 5:5; Gen 1:28)


We are 2,000 years later than when the apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Hebrew Christians, but there is still awaiting the millennial or thousand year reign of Jesus Christ to restore the earth to the paradise that God intended when he created Adam and Eve.(Rev 20:6; 21:3-5; Isa 55:10, 11)


Hence, a "creative" day is about 7,000 years long. When the "seventh day" is complete at the end of Jesus millennial reign, then the earth will fully be a paradise whereby "the meek will possess the earth, and they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.....forever."(Ps 37:11, 29)
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Jesus Christ: Dead Or Alive?

Discussing the Bible with a Watch Tower Society missionary can be very
confusing for traditional Christians if they're unaware that in Watch Tower
thinking Jesus Christ is another name for Michael the arch angel.

In Watch Tower Society theology, Michael volunteered to come to the earth
to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to relinquish his
angel life to become human life seeing as how in Society theology it is
impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and a human being
simultaneously.

In order for Michael to relinquish his angel life, he had to die; and in
Society-think, death ends all existence. So all the while there was a living
Jesus Christ there was no living Michael the arch angel. And ultimately,
when Jesus died via Roman execution, he went out of existence too. So that
for three days and nights there was neither a Jesus nor a Michael.

Seeing as how the Watch Tower Society has problems with someone existing
as a human being and a spirit being both at the same time; then when it
came time for Jesus to rise from the dead; he didn't because in order for
Michael to get his angel life back, his human life has to stay dead. In other
words; all accounts of Jesus Christ's resurrection are actually accounts of
Michael's resurrection. Confusion arises out of that because Michael retained
the name Jesus Christ when God brought him back to life as an angel.

In order for his friends to see that their savior was back to life, Michael is
alleged to have "materialized" a human body that was, in all respects, just
as physical as a real human body. Michael never once let on to his friends
that he was actually an angel in disguise. He led them to believe that the
Jesus Christ they all knew prior to his execution was back; which from the
Society's perspective, he was; only not as human life.

Was it essential that Michael get his angel life back? Why not return him to
life as a human being and thus avoid all the confusion? What would be the
harm in that?

The reason for that is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the
Watch Tower magazine; where it's stated: "If Jesus were to take his body of
flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and enjoy them there, what would this
mean? It would mean that there would be no resurrection of the dead for
anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be taking his sacrifice off God's
altar."

The Watch Tower Society's thoughts make for some interesting possibilities;
for example:

†. Rom 6:5 . . For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his
death, we shall certainly also be united with him in the likeness of his
resurrection.

The first "him" and "his" refer to Michael as a human species. The second
"him" and "his" refers to Michael as a spirit species; ergo: the "we"
referred to in that passage are destined to be resurrected as spirit beings
rather than human beings. In other words: their human life will stay dead
and they will rise as angels.

FYI: The Watch Tower Society alleges that human life is entirely physical;
viz: people do not exist beyond the death of their bodies-- there is no
afterlife. Thus its resurrection concept is quite a bit different than that of
traditional Christianity. In order to "resurrect" people, God has to re-create
them.

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
What's It Take To Stay In Heaven?

Getting to heaven is hard enough. Here's what I mean.

†. Luke 10:25-28 . . On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test
Jesus. Teacher; he asked, what must I do to inherit eternal life? What is
written in the Law? he replied. How do you read it? He answered: Love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
strength and with all your mind, and, Love your neighbor as yourself. You
have answered correctly; Jesus replied. Do this and you will live.

I gave the commandments some serious thought when I was a young man
back in 1968 and came to the realization that even if I managed to tough it
out and consistently and faithfully comply them for the remainder of my life;
I was pretty sure I wouldn't be able to keep it up for forever; and as if the
commandments aren't enough to worry about; there's the Sermon On The
Mount too.

†. Matt 7:26-27 . . But everyone who hears these words of mine and does
not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.
The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against
that house, and it fell with a great crash.

So: I came to the conclusion that as hard as it is to get in heaven; staying
there would be even harder.

Q: O Lord, who may abide in Thy tent? Who may dwell on Thy holy hill? (Ps
16:1)

A: He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks
the truth from his heart and has no slander on his tongue, who does his
neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman, who despises a vile
man but honors those who fear The Lord, who keeps his oath even when it
hurts, who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe
against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken. (Ps
15:2-5)

The question isn't how to get to heaven; the question is how to stay in
heaven because according to Ps 15:1-5 nobody can stay there as a sinful
being. No; only those may stay whose walk is blameless; those who do what
is righteous, those who speak truth from their heart, those who do their
neighbor no wrong, those who cast no slur on their fellow man, those who
despise loathsome people, those who fear God, those who keep an oath
even when it hurts, those who practice no usury, and those who take no
bribes against the innocent.

And we're not talking about being on your best behavior for a week, or a
month or a year, or a decade, or a century, or a millennia; no we're talking
about being on your best behavior for an eternity.

I dare say that most people would get kicked out of heaven almost right
away for dishonesty because speaking truth from the heart isn't as easy as it
sounds. Most of us practice deceit and dissembling, and tell little white lies
without even thinking about it. Those behaviors are as automatic, and as
natural as digestion and respiration. So then, even though Christ gave his
life to appease the wrath of God, people still can't go to heaven until
something is done to rid them of human nature so they can behave as divine
beings instead of sinful beings: not some of the time, nor even most of the
time; but all of the time-- no excuses, and no exceptions.

Along about the same time back in 1968 when I was considering the
difficulty of staying in heaven, it occurred to me that it would be a lot easier
to please God if complying with His wishes came as naturally to me as it
does to Him; in other words: if God and I were cut from the same cloth; so
to speak. That to me would be the ultimate cat's meow. Well; you can just
imagine the feelings of relief, surprise, and delight that washed over me
upon discovering that God was way ahead of me in a promise He made with
His people that goes like this:

"For I will take you from among the nations and gather you from all the
countries, and I will bring you to your land. And I will sprinkle clean water
upon you, and you will be clean; from all your impurities and from all your
abominations will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new
spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the heart of stone out of your
flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you
and bring it about that you will walk in My statutes and you will keep My
ordinances and do them." (Ezek 36:24-27)

That new heart and new spirit God promised his people caught my attention
because my natural-born self really doesn't care all that much to walk in His
statutes and keep His ordinances and do them. The icing on the cake is "My
spirit" that God promised to put within His people. I realized right off the bat that
combining a new heart and spirit with "My spirit" would really give a body
something to work with; and I decided right then and there that I wanted in
on that promise God made to His people.

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Was Jepthah's Daughter Slain?

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

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

Well; lucky for Jepthah's daughter, bloody human sacrifices are illegal under
the terms and conditions of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God as per Deut 29:9-15 so he couldn't take her to the priests to be
offered on the altar as a literal burnt offering. I think it's pretty obvious from
the sad details of the story that she took a vow of celibacy and became a
nun; which, for a young girl in that day and age, was tantamount to being
dead.

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Jephthah's Daughter Upgrade

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

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

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

1• Bloody human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Deut 29:9-15,so
Jephthah couldn't take his daughter to the Levitical priests to be offered on
the altar as a literal burnt offering.

2• Although Judges 17:6 say: "In those days there was no king in Israel;
every man did what was right in his own eyes." Jephthah wasn't an "every
man" he was a judge (Judg 12:7)

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

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

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

6• The Bible doesn't mention her death, but rather, mentions that she
never got to sleep with a man.

When all of the above is taken into consideration; I think it's fairly safe to
conclude that Jephthah's daughter took a vow of celibacy and became
something equivalent to a nun; which, for a young girl in that day and age,
was tantamount to death.

====================================
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,677
764
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
From Whence Did Cain Get A Wife?

It's easy to imagine that God created more human beings than only Adam
on the sixth day of creation. But if He did, then there's no record of it. And
seeing as how God completed creating things for the current physical
cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --on the sixth day, then
from that time till now, He's created nothing more. So then, on record; the
only human being that God ever really created from the dust of the Earth
was Adam.

Adam got his wife from himself; viz: she wasn't created from the dust of the
Earth as he had been, but was instead manufactured from already-existing
organic tissue amputated from his side. Thus, Eve was biologically just as
much Adam as Adam.

So: had God made a wife for Cain like He did for Adam-- from Cain's own
already existing biological tissues --then those tissues would have been
biologically related to Cain's father Adam. Hence, Cain would have married a
sister, which is exactly what he did regardless; and so did Abraham (Gen
20:12).

Some believe that inbreeding has always been abhorrent to God since it's
forbidden by laws stipulated in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God as per Deut 29:9-15. However, those laws were not enacted till
many, many years after the Flood; and according to Gal 3:17 they are not
retroactive.

Inbreeding is currently very risky business indeed. But it was neither a risk,
nor a taboo in Cain's day like it is now. After all, Adam engendered the
entire human race by mating with a woman manufactured from his own
organic tissues. You can't get any closer to home than that.

The human race in Cain's day was very young, very healthy, and very close
to its origin. Not enough time had elapsed to damage the human genome.
Proof of the excellent quality of human life was longevity. Adam lived till he
was 930 and Noah till he was 950. Nobody even comes close to that
anymore.

When the ark finally came to ground, the only people left alive on the whole
earth were grandpa and grandma Noah and their three sons and their wives:
eight souls; that's all. Hence: everybody alive today is the progeny of
inbreeding; no exceptions.

"He did not spare the ancient world when he brought the Flood on its
ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven
others." (2Pet 2:4-5)

It was from those eight survivors that everyone alive today descends; via
inbreeding.

"Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and
Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth
was populated." (Gen 9:18-19)

Were the Flood to be repeated in 2014, the human race would be in serious
trouble because inbreeding today is very dangerous; but back in Noah's day,
it wasn't.

====================================