Useful Q & A

[Webers_Home]

.
17» What Is Original Sin?

The so-called original sin was committed by the first man (Adam) relative to
a certain forbidden fruit. (Gen 2:8-17 and Gen 3:6)

The last ten verses of the letter to Romans explains that Adam's posterity
are all reckoned implicated in his act.

• Rom 5:13 . . Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

"all sinned" is grammatically past tense; indicating that the entirety of
Adam's posterity, from first to last, regardless of age, race, gender, and/or
religious preference, are implicated in eating the forbidden fruit. That of
course includes the first women Eve because she was constructed with
material taken from Adam's body.

Thus so everybody is doomed to die not for something they did to deserve
death, but for what he did.

• Rom 5:18 . .The result of one trespass was condemnation for all

The fairness of this situation is very difficult to accept, nevertheless it is
what it is, and futile to complain.

The good news is that the original sin isn't a sin unto Hell, rather, it's a sin
unto death. In other words; the proper punishment for the original sin is
simply mortality, i.e. everyone's demise.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
18» What Is The Fallen Nature?

In a nutshell: the so-called fallen nature is a preference for unobstructed,
unrestrained, self rule; i.e. deciding for one's self what determines right and
wrong and/or what determines good and evil. In that respect, the fallen
nature tends to be its own God and resists cooperating with the real God.
(Gen 3:22 and Rom 8:7-8)
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
19» Did Jesus' Mom Expect Him Back From Death?

A search of the names of the women who went out to Christ's grave site on
Easter morning doesn't find her mentioned among them, nor does 1Cor
15:1-8.

None of Christ's original disciples believed he was going to recover from
crucifixion, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Christ's mom didn't believe
either. It's not like she committed some kind of heinous atrocity or gross sin.
Her doubt was simply status quo among Christ's followers.

There's really very few plausible Bible reasons why Christ's mom wasn't out
in the cemetery waiting to greet her son Easter morning.

1) She didn't believe he was coming back

2) She didn't believe he could come back

3) She forgot he said he was coming back

4) She didn't know he said he was coming back

5) She was indisposed when he came back

6) She was out of town when he came back

In regards to No.1; because normal mothers are so bonded to their own
flesh and blood, this reason seems to me the most likely.

In regards to No.2; the physical mess Jesus was in after his ordeal makes
this a likely possibility.

In regards to No.3; that actually happened to a number of the disciples-- but
would a normal mother forget something like that?

In regards to No.4; it's highly unlikely Jesus would confide such an
important matter with his disciples and not his own mom-- the alleged
Queen Of Heaven and the Mother Of All Christians?

In regards to No.5; there's nothing in the Gospel narratives suggesting
Christ's mom was indisposed.

In regards to No.6; it's highly unlikely Christ's mom would leave Jerusalem if
she knew her boy was going to recover from crucifixion. Any truly loving
mother would want to be on hand when her boy was restored to life and his
injuries healed. Surely that would be just as much cause for a joyous
reunion as a son coming home alive and well from Afghanistan.

I don't know if any hereabouts have children of their own, but I can tell you
from 39+ years of parental experience with a very sensitive woman, that if
my son were to be killed, and his mother expected him back in three days;
she would have been camped out in that cemetery all three of those days
waiting for him; and threats to cut her throat wouldn't persuade her
otherwise. Any normal mother would have been out there in that cemetery
even if there was only a remote chance their boy might recover. I know,
because I've seen that kind of mother's love right here in my own home.

If Christ's mom truly believed her boy would recover, and truly expected him
to; then if she was even half the mother my wife is; she would have been
out there at the very least on the third day waiting for him with food and
water and fresh clothing; but alas, she wasn't: not because she didn't love
her son; but simply because she wasn't expecting him to be there.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
20» What Is Meant By Man As The Image Of God?

According to Gen 5:3 and Heb 1:1-3, image and likeness basically refers to
progeny, i.e. offspring.

Natural children are born in that position. But Man wasn't born from God--
i.e. via procreation --rather, Man was created, viz: Man exists as God's
handiwork, sort of like how Geppetto made for himself a little wooden son
named Pinocchio.

Now, Geppetto and Pinocchio both look human, though one is for real and
the other a doll. But Man's creator isn't human, nor does He look human.
God is spirit whereas Man is physical, and God is eternal whereas Man is
temporal, and God is self-sustaining whereas Man requires sustenance, and
God is divine whereas Man is a critter. So we have to be careful to keep the
progeny aspect within reason.

It's likely best to reckon that the creator endowed Man with His image and
likeness rather than Man inheriting the status as a child born in the home.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
21» Why Is Death The Wages Of Sin?

It's my educated guess that the penalty is so severe because Man was
created in the image and likeness of God.

For example: according to Gen 9:5-6, murderers deserve capital
punishment-- not because murder is wrong per se, rather --because the
image and likeness of God lends Man a degree of honor and dignity as near
the honor and dignity of God that a creature can possibly get.

Had God brought Man into existence as just another organic species like
meerkats, lobsters, chickens, and microbes; then Man's conduct would likely
be so insignificant in regard to justice as to not even be worth God's notice.
But the image and likeness of God makes Man a near-deity and thus
magnifies the consequences of his actions.

The image and likeness of God is definitely a status to be grateful for, but
at the same time, it's definitely a status to fear.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
22» Why Didn't God Execute Cain For Murder?

God couldn't haul Cain into court for killing his kid brother Abel because
according to Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17; the laws of
God aren't enforced ex post facto, i.e. they're not retroactive. Seeing as God
enacted no laws regulating murder until after the Flood; then it was too late
to indict Cain by means of Gen 9:5-6.

In other words; when there are no rules prohibiting a certain practice, then
no rules are broken when somebody does it.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
23» What is The New Man?

Adam was the first Man. His version of humanity became obsolete when
Christ rose from the dead. From thence, Adam became the old model and
Christ the new and improved model; so to speak.

A sampling of their differences are:

1) The old Man is made from the Earth, whereas the new is made from
Heaven.

2) The old Man is susceptible to mortality, whereas the new is not.

3) The old Man is susceptible to temptation, whereas the new is not.

4) The old Man is somewhat righteous, whereas the new is completely
righteous.

5) God can't depend on the old Man, whereas on the new He can.

6) The old Man's base nature is human, whereas the new's is divine.

7) The old Man tends to avoid God, whereas the new welcomes His
company.

8) The old Man resents God, whereas the new admires Him.

9) The old Man fears God, whereas the new seeks His approval.

10) The old Man is an enemy of God, whereas the new is His ally.

NOTE: According to 1John 1:8, Christians do sin; whereas according to Eph
4:24, the new man never sins.

People who've undergone the birth spoken of at John 3:3-5 are an amalgam
of old man and new man. However, the old and the new aren't joined at the
hip. By means of a special circumcision, performed by the hand of God, the
old and the new are separate (Col 2:11)

This is one of Christianity's mysteries that quite a few folk find very difficult
to accept; which I suspect is due to the fact that born-again Christians are
readily aware of the workings of their old man's sinful nature while not so
aware of the workings of their new man's righteous nature. Consequently, if
the Bible were not telling born-again Christians that they have the new
man's righteous nature, it's likely many would never discover its presence on
their own.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
24» Why Was Cain's Offering Rejected?

Long story short: God rejected Cain along with rejecting his offering. This is
important because God still does business like that with mankind to this day.

• Prov 15:8 . . Jehovah detests the sacrifice of the wicked

Cain's situation is well illustrated by Isa 1:11-20 where Moses' people were
offering all the covenanted sacrifices, they were praying up a storm, and
observing all the God-given feasts and holy days. God rejected all of it, even
though He himself required it, because the people's personal conduct was
unbecoming.

FAQ: In what way might Cain's piety have been lacking?

A: Well, judging by the fact that Cain later murdered Abel; my first guess
would be bad blood between him and his kid brother.

• Matt 5:23-24 . . If you are offering your gift at the altar and there
remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift
there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then
come and offer your gift.

And Cain's attitude was deplorable too; he was insolent and rude; even to
his maker. (Gen 4:9)

Moral of the story:

"This is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is
light; in Him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with
Him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. (1John
1:5-6)

NOTE: The Hebrew word for Cain's and Abel's offerings is from minchah
(min-khaw') which aren't necessarily sin offerings like the 'olah (o-law')
which are burnt offerings. Minchahs are more like donations and or tributes;
and usually bloodless and voluntary.

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

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

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

 

[Webers_Home]

.
25» Where Is Noah's Ark?

• Gen 8:3b-4 . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters
diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the
month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

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

The Hebrew word for "mountains" doesn't always indicate a prominent land
mass like Kilimanjaro; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range
of hills or highlands; for example:

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

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

I think it's reasonable to assume that Noah and his kin gradually dismantled
the ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including
fires. Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water
using refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so
everybody needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their
daily needs.

There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of
that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's
lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape
and should have been preserved for many years to come.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
26» Why Was Canaan Execrated Instead Of His Father?

The curse on Canaan wasn't personal, i.e. it was more or less collateral
damage due to his dad's exclusion from the blessings bestowed upon the
other two brothers per Gen 9:26-27.

As a result of missing that blessing; Ham's posterity became dependent
upon employment opportunities created by his brothers' prosperity, ergo:
Canaan's line became the Bible's very first working class, i.e. instead of
moguls, they were destined to become minions all because of their father's
shameful disrespect for Noah's dignity.

Canaan's fate seems terribly unfair to be caught in the middle like that, but
it wouldn't be the last time a man's posterity was effected by his conduct.
For example God dealt in a similar way with the evil king Jeconiah. (Jer
22:29-30)
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
27» Why Was Meat Added To Man's Diet?

• Gen 9:3 . . Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the
green grasses, I give you all these.

It seems plausible to me that the inclusion of meat in Man's diet is evidence
that the human body's strength was declining seeing as how Noah lived to
be 950, but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7
8) so the human body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day
than it was in Abraham's.

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

Red meat has been demonized of late for a number of medical reasons, but
it, along with other sources of meat-- e.g. clams, swine, sheep, fish, and
poultry --still remains an excellent natural source of B12 without which post
Flood folk risk contracting deficiency diseases.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
28» God "Came Down" To Inspect The Tower Of Babel?

• Gen 11:5 . .Jehovah came down to look at the city and tower that man
had built.

That verse presents an interesting theological problem. Wouldn't it make
better sense by saying Jehovah looked down, instead of saying He "came"
down? Why bother to come down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know
all? Isn't God omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see
everything from right where He is?

Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see the city and the tower
from Heaven, but He wasn't satisfied. It was His wish to inspect everything
up close and personal; to actually visit the city and the tower in person as an
on-site eye witness. He did it that way again with Sodom and Gomorrah.

• Gen 18:21 . . I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether
according to the outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note.

Why bother to go down? Doesn't the Bible's God see all and know all? Isn't
God omniscient and isn't His spirit omnipresent? Can't He see everything
from right where He is?

Well; fact of the matter is, yes, Jehovah could see and hear from Heaven
everything he needed to know about the city, but He wasn't satisfied. He
had to investigate, and establish the truth of every fact for Himself in person
as on-site eye witness, before moving against Sodom.

In future, should someone challenge the Lord by saying: How do you know
Sodom was bad? Were you there; did you actually see it yourself? Well; yes,
He was there and did actually see its bad for Himself.

And then there's the offering of Isaac.

• Gen 22:11-12 . .Then an angel of God called to him from heaven:
Abraham! Abraham! And he answered: Here I am. And he said: Do not raise
your hand against the lad, or do anything to him. For now I know that you
fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from me.

Isn't God omniscient, and doesn't He have an ability to scan the future?
Then why did the voice say "now I know". Doesn't God always know
everything there is to know?

Yes; but knowing things as a spectator is quite a bit different than knowing
things by omniscience. God sometimes favors seeing things for Himself in
real time, as an eyewitness.

Of course God knew in advance that Abraham would go thru with offering his
son, but that kind of knowing doesn't always satisfy God. No, sometimes He
prefers to be on-site and observe things unfold as current events.

So although God knew by His intellect that Abraham would comply with the
angel's instructions, now He also has a first-hand knowledge of Abraham's
compliance by personal experience, i.e. God, via the angel, was there in the
bleachers, so to speak, watching all the action from first to last.

NOTE: Some of the ancient rabbis were baffled by these passages as they
seem to imply there are two Jehovahs. So they nick-named one of them as
Metatron: a celestial being whose name is his master's. Metatron is
authorized to speak for God, speak as God, be spoken to as God; and be
worshipped, obeyed, and respected as God.

No human has seen or heard the real God at any time (John 1:18, John
5:37, and 1Tim 6:16). Till Christ came along; Metatron was the closest that
humanity ever came to associating with the ultimate supreme being.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
29» Isaac Was Abraham's Only Son When He Was Offered?

• Gen 22:2 . .Then God said: Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom
you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt
offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.

Abraham actually had two sons at this time: Ishmael and Isaac. But only
one of his boys counted. Here's why.

• Gen 21:10-11 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and
her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my
son Isaac. The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of
his own.

Ishmael would always and forever be one of Abraham's biological sons; that
couldn't be undone with any more ease than recalling the ring of a bell.
However; in the case of slave mothers; there was a way to break Ishmael's
legal ties to Abraham; and the way was actually quite to Hagar's advantage.

The common law of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) stipulated that if a slave-owner disowned his child's in
slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and
all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her. In
order for the common law to take effect; Abraham had to emancipate
Hagar; which he did.

• Gen 21:14 . . Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and
a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the
child, and sent her away

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

Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's biological sons (Gen 25:9)
but in legal matters relative to inheritance he's no son at all.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
30» Why Is Jeconiah's Curse So Important?

A curse, back in the Old Testament, leveled at a really bad king in Solomon's
royal line to David's throne reads like this:

• Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said
the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be
found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the
throne of David and to rule again in Judah.

The bad king's name was Jeconiah (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah). Jesus'
dad Joseph was one of his descendants. (Matt 1:11)

It's commonly believed that the curse extended to Joseph, so that had he
been Jesus' biological father, it would have prevented Mary's boy from
ascending David's throne.

However, Joseph adopted Jesus and seeing as how adopted children inherit
from their fathers the same as biological children; then had the curse
extended to Joseph, it would have extended to Jesus too whether he was
virgin-conceived or not. In other words: seeing as how Jesus got into
Solomon's royal line by adoption, then of course he would've got into the
curse too because the throne and the curse were a package deal.

However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse on
Jeconiah's royal progeny was limited to the era of the divided kingdom with
Samaria in the north and Judah in the south. That situation came to an end
when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and
then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.

When Messiah reigns, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction
won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate the
entire land of Israel. So the curse doesn't apply to him.

• Ezek 37:21-22 . .You shall declare to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am
going to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone
to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I
will make them a single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one
king shall be king of them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and
never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
31» What Is Matt 22:42-45 Supposed To Mean?

That's a reference to Ps 110:1 which Jesus interpreted speaking of Christ,
a.k.a. Messiah.

• Ps 110:1 . . The Lord says to my lord: Sit at my right hand until I make
your enemies a footstool for your feet.

There's two distinctly different Hebrew words translated by the English word
"lord" in that passage

The first is Jehovah (a.k.a. Yahweh); which is a name restricted to God's use
(Isa 42:8).

The second is 'adown, which is a common word for superiors in the Old
Testament; both human and divine, for instance: Sarah referred to her
husband as 'adown (Gen 18:12).The people of Heth addressed Abraham as
'adown (Gen 23:5-6). Abraham's trusted servant referred to him as 'adown
(Gen 24:12). Rachel addressed her father Laban as 'adown (Gen 31:35).
And Jacob addressed Esau as 'adown (Gen 33:8). And God is spoken of as
'adown too, e.g. Isa 1:24 and Isa 3:1 et al.

Jesus' interpretation of Ps 110:1 says Christ is superior to David, which is
normally unthinkable seeing as the covenant that Moses' people agreed
upon with God ranks parents above their children. (Ex 20:12, cf. Eph 6:2)

Now, the thing is: David has no peers relative to kings on earth, seeing as
he was given the rank of God's firstborn son in that respect.

• Ps 89:20-27 . . I have found My servant David; with My holy oil I have
anointed him . . I will make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the
earth.

So, in order for one of David's sons to outrank their father, the son would
have to be God's firstborn son in Heaven, viz: David's son would have to be
a divine being. (cf. Acts 2:32-36)

The theologians of Jesus' day knew the Old Testament practically word for
word, but they couldn't always explain it. No doubt they were aware that
Psalm 110 speaks of David's son, and that he would be superior to David,
and that he would be a divine being. I'm pretty sure they knew all that. But
what they hadn't as yet figured out is how this one particular man of David's
biological posterity could possibly become so incredibly exalted.
_

 

[marks]

Adam's body was created with immortality,

Rather, he needed to eat from the tree of life to become immortal.

Genesis 3:22 KJV
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:

Much love!

 

[marks]

The negative side of immortality is it's impermanence. In other words:
immortality isn't indelible, i.e. it can be washed out; so to speak. For
example: Adam's body was created with immortality, but lost it as a result of
him eating a certain fruit known to be off limits for human consumption.

Whereas immortality has to do with the constitution of a being's body,
eternal life has to do with the constitution of one's being, i.e. the very core
of their existence.

I would answer that immortality is duration of life, and properties of the being, durable. Eternal life is life lived outside this continuum, based not in being a creature, but based in being a child of the Creator.

Much love!

 

[marks]

.
9» Whence Did Mary Get The Y Chromosome For Baby Jesus?

In the beginning, God constructed a fully functioning woman from some
material taken from a man's body. Well; if God could construct an entire
woman with material taken from a man's body, then it shouldn't be too hard
for him to construct a teensy little male chromosome with material taken
from a woman's body.

Now; it was essential that Jesus' Y chromosome not be created ex nihilo
because he had to be Man-- not just human but Man; as he spoke of himself
on numerous occasions throughout the gospel narratives. Were Jesus' Y
chromosome to be derived from some other source than Adam's biological
posterity, then he might be human but he wouldn't be Man as Man is defined
in the book of Genesis.
_

Adam was the First Man, Jesus is the Last Man. There are only two Men. Humanity is contained in either Adam, or Christ. His body was created for Him by God, as God also created Adam.

Had Jesus been born from Mary's genetics, He would have been in the First Man.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It's my educated guess that the penalty is so severe because Man was
created in the image and likeness of God.

Life is from God, and sin separates us from God.

Much love!

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Had Jesus been born from Mary's genetics, He would have been in the First
Man.

From the first of its books to the last, the Bible has gone to great lengths,
and in great detail, showing that Christ is biologically related to Adam. Even
with all that readily available textual evidence; there are numbers of people
out there in cyberspace insisting that he's not.
_