- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 14 2011,01:24)
Paladin! I read what you said to Mike. What you are forgetting all of the Scriptures and I could list them, but I won't. Jesus is the Son of God, and Son of man. Period. DNA He left in His flesh. He is our ransom. That body is our ransom. That body does not exist any longer, God did away with it, otherwise the ransom, would not be a ransom….. And you would stay dead once you die…..So why worry about that body. Or do you believe, what some do, that He was resurrected in the flesh? If you understand the ransom, you will not think so…..Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Peace and love Irene
The only thing that needs resurrected is the flesh. The spirit lives on. Jesus said to the apostles who looked upon his resurrected body, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” [Luke 24:39]
What do you suppose the disciples were seeing? You can't see a spirit. “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” [Acts 1:9-11]
Scritpure says “flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven,” but Jesus' blood was poured out upon the ground at the cross; he is now flesh and bone, and spirit; and in heaven.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,01:53) Quote Hi Paladin, To me, it is still “unclear” as to what exactly you are saying?
Let me ask you a few questions that should help clarify your views; OK?1. Do you believe Jesus had a human father?
Well, my friend, that is the issue isn't it?
Do you believe Jesus is the seed of the woman of Gen 3:15? Do you believe women have seed? I do. When a man mixes his seed with a woman's seed, a child is produced. God produces it according to the laws He established in Eden.
Scripture says David is his father, and I believe David was human.
Quote 2. Do you believe the “HolySpirit” was Jesus' father? I believe Jesus was “begotten of the Holy Spirit;”[Mat 1:20]
I believe “that which is begotten of the Spirit is Spirit.” [John 3:6]I believe David is Jesus' father; I believe God meant it when upon the occasion of the resurrection, he said “This day have I begotten thee.” God became Jesus' father on the day he raised him from the dead. [Psalm 2:7][Acts 13:26-33]
Quote 3. Do you believe 'ONLY' Mary's lineage goes back to Adam? no.
Quote 4. Do you believe the bible meant D.N.A. as “seed”, and not male sperm? no.
Paladin………You have it right brother, but MYSTERY RELIGION has blinded their eyes and they can't understand this, they have bought into the lie that false “Christianity” has created of a “spirit body” by misunderstanding the words 'Spiritual Bodies”, the simple truth has no place in them. They must make everything into some kind of Mystery when the simple truth is much clearer and easer to understand. But i am so glad that God has given some that understand these simple truths brother.
peace and love to you and yours……………………………gene
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 14 2011,02:15) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,01:53) Quote Hi Paladin, To me, it is still “unclear” as to what exactly you are saying?
Let me ask you a few questions that should help clarify your views; OK?1. Do you believe Jesus had a human father?
Well, my friend, that is the issue isn't it?
Do you believe Jesus is the seed of the woman of Gen 3:15? Do you believe women have seed? I do. When a man mixes his seed with a woman's seed, a child is produced. God produces it according to the laws He established in Eden.
Scripture says David is his father, and I believe David was human.
Hi Paladin,This does NOT sufficiently answer the question I asked?
David was long dead long before Jesus was born.Q. Who was Jesus' Father? …try again!
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 14 2011,02:21) Paladin………You have it right brother, but MYSTERY RELIGION has blinded their eyes and they can't understand this, they have bought into the lie that false “Christianity” has created of a “spirit body” by misunderstanding the words 'Spiritual Bodies”, the simple truth has no place in them. They must make everything into some kind of Mystery when the simple truth is much clearer and easer to understand. But i am so glad that God has given some that understand these simple truths brother. peace and love to you and yours……………………………gene
Hi Gene,This 'I was right' stuff ' DOESN'T HELP ONE BIT HERE!
…do you feel insecure? …do you need 'pat's on the back' and 'atta boy's'?At this point he hasn't given anybody understanding! WAKE-UP Gene!
Think about it!
Ed J (Isaiah 1:18-19)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Paladin @ Mar. 14 2011,02:15) (1) Do you believe Jesus is the seed of the woman of Gen 3:15? (2) Do you believe women have seed? I do. (3)When a man mixes his seed with a woman's seed, a child is produced. (4) God produces it according to the laws He established in Eden.
(5) Scripture says David is his father, and I believe David was human.
Hi Paladin, OK; my turn!1) Yes.
2) In Science, it's called an egg.
3) When mans “seed” penetrates a woman's “egg”, fertilization occurs.
4) Correct!
5) ONLY through Mary's linage! (Luke 3:23-31) …Son of Man!
“HolySpirit” was Jesus' Father (Luke 1:35) …Son of God!Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14 / Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 13 2011,03:21)
Tell me Mike, what do you understand to be the story told here? [Heb 7:5-10]
I understand it to be a metaphoric and poetic way of speaking. In fact, many translations word it in such a way to emphasize the poetic nature more than the KJV which you quoted:NET ©
And it could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid a tithe through Abraham.NIV ©
One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham,NASB ©
And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,NLT ©
In addition, we might even say that Levi’s descendants, the ones who collect the tithe, paid a tithe to Melchizedek through their ancestor Abraham.MSG ©
Ultimately you could even say that since Levi descended from Abraham, who paid tithes to Melchizedek,NRSV ©
One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,NKJV ©
Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak,Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 13 2011,03:21)
If Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec because he was in the loins of his father Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, then so did Judah, and so did Jesus.
Paladin, I understand what you claim now. (And knowing is half the battle, right?
)But while I personally can't call you wrong on this point, I understand it differently. I agree with Ed that Jesus would have also been born into sin if your theory is correct. You say you don't believe the “doctrine of original sin”, but what YOU say contradicts what the BIBLE says:
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—Why through “one man”, and not a man AND a women? Regarding the genealogy of Jesus given by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.
Sin is not said to pass from mother to son and daugther, but only from father. By having God, through His Holy Spirit, as a Father, Jesus did not inherit the sin the rest of mankind has inherited………..from their earthly FATHERS.
And it is too much for me to picture a yet non-existent Levi literally paying a tithe to Melchisedek. The point was to exclaim how great Melshisedek was, that even Levi, the family of anointed priests of the Israelites, would not COLLECT the tithe FROM Mel, but would rather PAY it TO Mel. Levi would not GIVE the blessing TO Mel, but rather RECEIVE it FROM him.
The point is that Mel was THAT GREAT, even greater than the Levite priests – and Jesus is a priest in the order of him.
Paladin, I feel you hold close to your heart and take literally the teaching that what God foretells becomes as if it has already happened. But again this is metaphorical and poetic. God foretold 2000 years ago about Satan being cast into the abyss, but it hasn't literally happened yet. This teaching is a way of letting us know that what God says WILL undoubtedly come to pass. Sort of like saying if God says it, it's a done deal. IMO.
mike
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 13 2011,09:36) Hi Gene, This 'I was right' stuff ' DOESN'T HELP ONE BIT HERE!
Here or anywhere, Ed.Gene, to support your brother is commendable. But don't you think it would be better to point us to the thing he said that hits home for you rather than always just repeating, “You're right on brother. They just don't understand.”?
I supported something Ed said in my post, but at least you know from my comments THE POINT I was agreeing with and why.
It would not have been near as effective for me to say, “Right on Ed, they just don't understand”.
mike
Hi Mike,
Well, if you did say… “Right on Ed, they just don't understand”
…it certainly wouldn't help anyone TO UNDERSTAND!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgPaladin,
Let me make a point of order.
1. Its really hard to respond when your posts are so disoragnized, do you need help with the Codes?
For example when ever you want to establish a code, use the following.
[The code you want to use]Whatever you want to say here [/code you want to use]Code Sample Whatever you want to say here
There has to be a slash in the last one. Now there are buttons on the top right hand corner that do this for you.
Instead of writing code in between the “[]” you can put the following:
quote-for quoteing
i- for italics
b- bold
color=bluefor colors
and so on and so forth.
So please organize your responses because it getting quite diffcult to respond to you.2. Your commiting this one fallacy over and over again. You cannot just state things as if they are a facts without warrents. Speculations is not proof.
Anyways ill show you what i mean .Quote I did not say you were being aggressive. I said “Hmmm! How do I respond to a negative question?” I was simply calling your attention to the fact I had to figure out what you were asking. THAT's not aggression, that's communication.
Oh Ok, Good so I dont have to get heated with you.Quote 1. “John 1:1 has nothign to do with Jesus”
(Why?) Because it is talking about the logos, not a man.
What Man do you refer too? Because i Dont believe Jesus to be solely a Man. And how can you say that John 1:1 has nothing to do with Jesus when the very same chapter context is about Jesus.Quote 2. “It is dealing with the logos, which was both God and with God. Jesus was not.”
And who told you that?Mathew said Jesus was “begotten by the spirit.” [Mat 1:20]
If he was begotten, he had a beginning.
Who says? Your just making a conclusion based on one scripture. There are plenty of scriptures that say otherwise. So is Jesus not with God and is not God?Quote 3.”When John said 'And the logos was God' he used inconvertible terms, which means “ho logos” and “theos” are not interchangeable.” Yet John used non-interchangable terms to describe the beginning? So what do you believe he was really saying?
What non-interchangeable terms are you referencing about the beginning? What is the interchange you are referencing?
Im just repeating what you just stated. You said “Ha logos” and “theos” are not interchangable. MY question is why would John use non-interchangable terms to describe the beginning?Quote Because “ho logos” and “theos” are not interchangeable terms. Look, my friend, at the difference between interchangeable terms and non-ionterchangeable terms in scripture:
You wrote a bunch of things backwards and made claims that certains phrases cannot be used interchangably.
Why can Love not be God?
Why cant the word NOt be God?The Flesh actually is the only one that makes sense.
Quote Not at all. Jesus is involved in the new creation, not the original. How then is it a contradiction? I see I already told you this and offered a statement from Isaiah, which you do not respond to. Care to tell us where Jesus was if God created heaven and earth alone?
Can you prove that?
? You havent refuted my statements with any warrents whatsoever. You just said “not at all” and gave a explanation without any evidence to prove that Jesus is “SOLELY involved in the New Creation”.
I didnt respond to Isaiah because i agree with it, and because I believe Jesus is God. So i have no problem with Isaiah.
Can you tell me where God was when he created the heavens and the earth alone?Quote You mean like you just did? Did you “accept” Isaiah's account?
So “red herring” i see? Lol.
Actually I did not. I accepted it, so why argue against something i agree with, since i believe God and Jesus are the same Lord.
So you admit to denying other parts to scripture?Quote Better than what? And why is your question better? Don't we both use questions to stir the other's mind? I think all questions can be good ones.
Just answer the question, and stop complaining dude, its really not nesseary.
ITs very simple, because i have no idea how you view Jesus, i cannot proceed because i have no idea what you believe.
So thats why for the sake of clarification i dont have to continue to assume what you believe.
Does this make sense to you? or are you going to get jealous about why my question is better than yours?Quote Right! We were called before we existed. So was Jesus.
Did you not understand that its IN CHRIST JESUS, before the world began. It didnt say the Father or God, or whatever your theology is.Quote Ephesians 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:Correct! It's called the new creation, by which “all things are made new in Christ Jesus.”
Lol. Your adding to scripture bro. what you said, is “non-interchangable” because its someting that is not said in scripture.
Did you skip the part that says “WHO CREATED ALL THINGS”
What do you think that Phrase means?
Is ALL not all?
Does all not include OLD and NEW alike?
You do see that your just adding your speculatoin to your warrents but offer nothing to back up what you say?Quote I believe what all scripture
says, I do not believe everything men apply them to say.
Good, Dont forget to count yourself.
You are your own worst enemy.Quote Nope! God created heaven and earth alone, without Jesus. Jesus made everything new, i.e., new creation.
Your only applying one verse and ignoring the rest.
I already stated, that I agree with Isaiah becaues i belive Jesus is God. and i agree with Jesus making everything new because thats included within the “all” of all creation.So what doesnt make sense to me is why do you ignore clear evidence that Jesus pre-existed and took a role as a creator.
Also did you forget his seed was from the Holy spirit?Quote Nope! That's the plain statement of scripture.
No, thats your interpretation. be honest with yourself for your own sake not mine.
I can care less.Also notice, after all the clear evidences i give, or commentary, all you have to say is “NOPE”
Sounds very closed minded to me.
dont you think?Quote I think you may be forgetting one of the most important pieces of prophetic history, my friend. I think you know very well, Jesus came to die for our sins,. and that the Jews were going to either kill him or have him killed. So anything he had to say would have gotten him killed. The Jews constantly took the wrong message from what Jesus said. And Jesus constantly said that the Jews did not understand what he said. So why is it a surprise when the Jews accuse him of anything?
I dont believe Jesus cared very much if they were going to kill him or not. What Jesus was worried about (and sweated blood because of it) is the Wrath of God, not the Wrath of Man.
Did you forget that? what Cup do you think Jesus was referring too when he prayed?
The Cup that holds his BLOOD?
Fear God, not man my friend.Alot of people didnt understand what Jesus was saying, not even his diciplies, yet PETER didnt try to kill Jesus. THe point is that Jesus said direct responses that were considered blasphemy to the Jews, which why they were enraged.
FYI, You didnt respond to my last comment.
Look Paladin, You make many comments like “Nope” and “not at all” in response to clear evidences and explainations that you Couldnt refute.
Its not enough to drop my claims.
So please, if your going to state something offer more.Mike
If your still around, floating in cyberspace with your old white beard coughing nonesense.
(Just kidding, literally, i thought it was funny)Can you review this arguements, and add your thoughts.
Leaving whether “Jesus is God or not” aside, I know that you do believe that Jesus Pre-existed and that God created THROUGH him, so therefore you somewhat agree that Jesus did create.So did the following verses i gave make sense? Am i over exagerating in my claims or too aggresive? Did i accuse Paladin unfairily for not responding effectivly to my Claims?
Just add your thoughts, im curious to know what you think.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 05 2011,05:35) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 04 2011,09:09) Is anyone going to respond to the issues raised in the OP?
I am!I'm battling wars in at least 5 other active threads right now, but things slow down here during the weekend. So I'll take up where I left off in schooling you about the pre-existence of our Lord, through whom the universe was created.
mike
Ok i Was right about what you believe Mike,
I got scared for a minute that I made a mistake. HahaQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 14 2011,04:44) Paladin,
Let me make a point of order.
1. Its really hard to respond when your posts are so disoragnized, do you need help with the Codes?
For example when ever you want to establish a code, use the following.
[The code you want to use]Whatever you want to say here [/code you want to use]Code Sample Whatever you want to say here
There has to be a slash in the last one. Now there are buttons on the top right hand corner that do this for you.
Instead of writing code in between the “[]” you can put the following:
quote-for quoteing
i- for italics
b- bold
color=bluefor colors
and so on and so forth.
So please organize your responses because it getting quite diffcult to respond to you.
Hi Dennison,I have made a thread to help beginners with “HTML”Code –> Click Here <– For the link.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 13 2011,11:44) Mike
If your still around, floating in cyberspace with your old white beard coughing nonesense.
(Just kidding, literally, i thought it was funny)Can you review this arguements, and add your thoughts.
Yeah that's me, D-Linquent,The old white bearded man coughing scriptural “nonsense”.
I agree with Paladin that to be “begotten” means that Jesus did have a beginning. I don't agree with him that his beginning was in the seed of Adam. I believe his beginning was before all the ages, as taught in Micah 5:2.
Speaking of “ages”, Paladin is claiming that Jesus is only involved in the NEW CREATION, or “age”. But Hebrews 1:2 says “through whom [God] created the ages”…………as in PLURAL.
Look D, I think most of the troubles you're having communicating with Paladin stem from “too much at once”. I also started off this way with him, and it made things confusing. So instead of discussing everything at once, I suggest you pick one point, such as Eph 3:9, and drive it home.
Just my opinion, since you asked. But also keep in mind the topic of the thread. It is about when Jesus became “incarnate”, and not necessarily about his pre-existence – although both are closely intertwined. IMO.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2011,00:30) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 13 2011,11:44) Mike
If your still around, floating in cyberspace with your old white beard coughing nonesense.
(Just kidding, literally, i thought it was funny)Can you review this arguements, and add your thoughts.
Yeah that's me, D-Linquent,The old white bearded man coughing scriptural “nonsense”.
I agree with Paladin that to be “begotten” means that Jesus did have a beginning. I don't agree with him that his beginning was in the seed of Adam. I believe his beginning was before all the ages, as taught in Micah 5:2.
Speaking of “ages”, Paladin is claiming that Jesus is only involved in the NEW CREATION, or “age”. But Hebrews 1:2 says “through whom [God] created the ages”…………as in PLURAL.
Look D, I think most of the troubles you're having communicating with Paladin stem from “too much at once”. I also started off this way with him, and it made things confusing. So instead of discussing everything at once, I suggest you pick one point, such as Eph 3:9, and drive it home.
Just my opinion, since you asked. But also keep in mind the topic of the thread. It is about when Jesus became “incarnate”, and not necessarily about his pre-existence – although both are closely intertwined. IMO.
mike
Humorous no?I thought so too, but lets see how he does, with “too much at once” for now.
I did find Eph 3:9 to be the best claim.
Ill review that becuase you just confused me there.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,00:18) Hi Paladin, Here is how the dilemma is solved!
Only if we look at this as “seed”(and NOT D.N.A.),
is Jesus absent from Adam, because the “HolySpirit” is
Jesus' Father, not Adam. (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
The seed lineage would then NOT GO BACK all the way to Adam;
Jesus would be the only progeny called the “Son of God”. (Isaiah 7:14)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You cannot solve a scriptural dilemma by abandoning scripture.I am not having any problem understanding the connection.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 14 2011,07:33) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,00:18) Hi Paladin, Here is how the dilemma is solved!
Only if we look at this as “seed”(and NOT D.N.A.),
is Jesus absent from Adam, because the “HolySpirit” is
Jesus' Father, not Adam. (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
The seed lineage would then NOT GO BACK all the way to Adam;
Jesus would be the only progeny called the “Son of God”. (Isaiah 7:14)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You cannot solve a scriptural dilemma by abandoning scripture.I am not having any problem understanding the connection.
Hi Paladin,Apparently you are.
Jesus lineage only goes back to Genesis through Mary.
The “Y” chromosome was produced by the “HolySpirit”;
Jesus' father. (Matthew 1:18 / Matthew 1:20 / Luke 1:35)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Paladin @ Mar. 14 2011,14:33) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,00:18) Hi Paladin, Here is how the dilemma is solved!
Only if we look at this as “seed”(and NOT D.N.A.),
is Jesus absent from Adam, because the “HolySpirit” is
Jesus' Father, not Adam. (Matt.1:18 / Matt.1:20 / Luke 1:35)
The seed lineage would then NOT GO BACK all the way to Adam;
Jesus would be the only progeny called the “Son of God”. (Isaiah 7:14)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
You cannot solve a scriptural dilemma by abandoning scripture.I am not having any problem understanding the connection.
Paladinthe holy spirit is not a being it is a power used by God for many things ,God is spirit and uses his spirit what is holy to fulfill his will,
only Gods will is true and his words are truth,and to become holy we have to follow his word,and wisdom.
so Jesus received live from God trough the intervention of his holy spirit.
Pierre
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 14 2011,02:48) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 14 2011,02:15) (1) Do you believe Jesus is the seed of the woman of Gen 3:15? (2) Do you believe women have seed? I do. (3)When a man mixes his seed with a woman's seed, a child is produced. (4) God produces it according to the laws He established in Eden.
(5) Scripture says David is his father, and I believe David was human.
Hi Paladin, OK; my turn!1) Yes.
2) In Science, it's called an egg.
3) When mans “seed” penetrates a woman's “egg”, fertilization occurs.
4) Correct!
5) ONLY through Mary's linage! (Luke 3:23-31) …Son of Man!
“HolySpirit” was Jesus' Father (Luke 1:35) …Son of God!Witnessing to a worldwide audience in behalf of YHVH!
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14 / Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org (Ecl.9:12-16)
Only through Mary's lineage?What part of “throne of His father David” don't you understand?
What about “seed of Abraham” don't you understand?
What about “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda” don't you understand?
“Only through Mary's lineage?”
Really?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 14 2011,03:41) [/quote] Quote I understand it to be a metaphoric and poetic way of speaking. In fact, many translations word it in such a way to emphasize the poetic nature more than the KJV which you quoted: Paladin,Mar. wrote:If Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec because he was in the loins of his father Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, then so did Judah, and so did Jesus.
Paladin, I understand what you claim now. (And knowing is half the battle, right?
But while I personally can't call you wrong on this point, I understand it differently. I agree with Ed that Jesus would have also been born into sin if your theory is correct. You say you don't believe the “doctrine of original sin”, but what YOU say contradicts what the BIBLE says:
Quote
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—Why through “one man”, and not a man AND a women?
Regarding the genealogy of Jesus given by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.Sin is not said to pass from mother to son and daugther, but only from father. By having God, through His Holy Spirit, as a Father, Jesus did not inherit the sin the rest of mankind has inherited………..from their earthly FATHERS.
All that nonsense only serves to demonstrate your lack of bible knowledge, my friend, and it does not help your argument at all.
We know that the doctrine you just quoted claims sin comes down through Adam, and not the woman. That is because of ignorance, and nothing else. Look at how scripture tells such a different story that what you just laid out.
“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:” [Rom 5:12]
So, everyobdy agrees and claps their hands and reclaims
“Yup! Just what we said,l sin by one man.” But no one defined “one man” – just assumed it means Adam.But scripture tells us Eve sinned first, not Adam, so is there a problem here?
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
Only if you get ahead of the story and don't begin at the beginning. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [Gen 1:27] Here, God tells us “man” is a “them” not just a “Him.”
And god further tells us Adam is not just the name of the man.
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” [Gen 5:1-2]So, when God says sin entered by one man, Adam, he includes Adam and Eve. All the rest is simply badly studied doctrine. All that cockamamie stuff about “orignal sin” and “sin is inherited through the male, and all the rest of it, is pure baloney.
Quote And it is too much for me to picture a yet non-existent Levi literally paying a tithe to Melchisedek. The point was to exclaim how great Melshisedek was, that even Levi, the family of anointed priests of the Israelites, would not COLLECT the tithe FROM Mel, but would rather PAY it TO Mel. Levi would not GIVE the blessing TO Mel, but rather RECEIVE it FROM him. Yah! Well, if only scripture told it that way you would be home free. It does not matter if it was poetry, similitude, simile, figure of speech, or overactive imagination, it makes the same point. “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.” [Heb 7:9-10]
The authors point is the same as mine, and that point is, if God spoke it, it is as real as if it already happened. God spoke of things not yet, as though they were [Rom 4:17]
Quote The point is that Mel was THAT GREAT, even greater than the Levite priests – and Jesus is a priest in the order of him. Quote Paladin, I feel you hold close to your heart and take literally the teaching that what God foretells becomes as if it has already happened. But again this is metaphorical and poetic. God foretold 2000 years ago about Satan being cast into the abyss, but it hasn't literally happened yet. This teaching is a way of letting us know that what God says WILL undoubtedly come to pass. Sort of like saying if God says it, it's a done deal. IMO. I don't think you know the depth of how God's word effects what happens. I also do not think you realize that you cannot begin at the back of the book and correct teachings by going from back to front.
If you begin at the front of the book, and learn how God is a a singular person singular being, there is no room for a trinity to be established. Until you understand that, you will remain forever linked to defending the trinity doctrine; based upon improper understnading of later events.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
