- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike,
“According to the flesh”
Yes well the flesh is from both parents.
Man is body, soul and spirit as 1 thess 5.23 makes clear.
“According to the Spirit of Holiness” as in Rom 1.4 does not refer to the human spirit but the Spirit of rebirth.
Do you agree?
Hi Dig4,
So you do not agree with scripture that Jesus was conceived in Mary?
The angel said otherwise
Matt 1.20
‘ The child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit’
Matt 1.18
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with Child by the Holy Spirit”
Lk.1.31
“And behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.”
But men will deny what is written.
What / Why question answered
T8: Does Yeshua have a double edged sword coming out of his mouth? If not, then is the Bible incorrect? Atheism or the Bible?
See that. This is basically the argument you make here.Mike: You have brought this same point up at least three times. And at least three times, I have responded with…
What? Why?
I have yet to see a response from you.Okay, first time I have seen this request. This thread moves too fast for me obviously. Usually I go back 1-3 pages when responding, so do miss out pages.
What?
Descriptions in scripture often use symbols and they are written from our perspective. Like the whole Earth/World that the Roman Empire trampled upon was obviously not talking about Australia and China. So it is that Jesus who returns with a two edged sword coming from his mouth obviously needs to be read not in an absolute literal sense right?The armies of heaven, dressed in fine linen, white and pure, follow Him on white horses. And from His mouth proceeds a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God, the Almighty.
Why?
Because I hear statements like this:
So now the question is posed; Neil or Yeshua?
Do the stars fall or do they not?So if believing that the stars fall from a dome means we listen to Yeshua and believing that Earth will experience a catastrophe that makes the stars, meteors, missiles, or whatever falling to Earth or Polar Shift means we listen to an Atheist or humanist, then we and particularly you and Dig should apply the same absolute literal interpretation to Jesus returning with a sword in his mouth.
Of course, I don’t believe this to be the case as much as I don’t believe that embedded lights in the firmananet will drop out of the dome onto Earth like that object that fell to the ground in the Truman Show. It seems obvious to me that we need to read the description of things and apply it to scenarios that could create these effects.
When scripture was written, it was written in a language and description from our reality and perspective. God reveals things in human language right? So locusts with the heads of men could actually be helicopters or aircraft and a star falling from Heaven poisoning the water could be a nuke. The writer is not going to say Nuke or Apache helicopter is he.
This is one of the problems I have with your interpretation of creation in scripture among other scripture, although I admit to agreeing with you on most other points in scripture. You seem to take descriptions so literally that you leave no room for what symbols mean and how a perspective is created. You seem so literal and strict that you discard common sense sometimes in reading scripture. If you are right and the literal is the only truth and is not just a perspective, then you have to include the idea that Jesus returns with an actual sword coming out of his mouth because that is what the text says.
So if I see a being of light appear in the sky and he doesn’t have a sword coming out his mouth, then I should shoot it down because it cannot be Jesus right?
T8, I’m guessing you missed this reply of mine from a couple of pages back. I know you mentioned how fast things go by here, and I agree! I’ll repost for your convenience.
T8: “Does Yeshua have a double edged sword coming out of his mouth? If not, then is the Bible incorrect? Atheism or the Bible? See that. This is basically the argument you make here.”
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Rev 1:15-17 His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.
Why not let Scripture define Scripture and not try to conceal it?
What comes out of Yeshua’s mouth? The answer is the Word of God.
Isn’t it obvious that in Revelation the language used is symbolic? But Scripture always defines the symbolism, as in the above scriptures.
Is it your contention that Yeshua has a sword coming out of His mouth? Is that how you really understand the scriptures? Or are you just making a point? ; )
It is my contention that the language used in the biblical texts that I reference to support the astrological motions are not meant as symbolism but reality. Unless you can show where the symbolism has been defined. Can you do that?
Mike,
I enjoyed your effort towards this quest you have us on here. I hope you had fun, however, you should have relaxed because you really didn’t have a good experiment.
you said: Are you ready to acknowledge the problem with the placement of the earth in that wet flag image?
I don’t have a problem with the placement of the earth in that image. I would have a problem with it if the earth was indeed directly overhead but it is NOT!
So I have spent time looking at the location of the Apollo 17 landing site on the moon and the earth is actually not overhead. The landing site is located in the northern hemisphere of the moon on the side facing the earth. Keep in mind that the moon is round and not flat. Also there is the inclination of the earth to the moon as well as the position of the moon in its orbit to consider. Neither of those two factors was I able to uncover but it doesn’t make a difference regarding whether the earth was directly overhead of the astronaut or not. The fact that the Apollo landing site is 20 degrees north of the equator of the moon would mean that the earth is not directly overhead of the astronaut unless he was doing a push-up on the ground, ha.
Try this:
Take a ball and set it on a table, find the imaginary equator and stick a straight pin in it at a 90 degree angle, then go 20 degrees north of the equator and stick a straight pin in the ball at that point at a 90 degree angle. You can see that what each pin is pointing to is different. If the equator pin points to the earth, the pin to the north is still seen by the earth but the pin to the north does not point directly to the earth. The Apollo 17 landing site was 20 degrees north of the moon’s equator. The earth was seen but NOT directly overhead.
Note the location of the green triangle with the 17 inside. That is the landing site of Apollo 17.
Look at this picture at the following link. AS I said, I do not know what the moon to earth position was in the moon’s orbit but this picture will help show you how 20 degrees above the moon’s equator would not have the earth directly overhead.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-Moon.PNG#/media/File:Earth-Moon.PNG
In conclusion, you’re idea that the earth is directly overhead in the “wet” (not) flag picture is incorrect. Therefore your conclusions are in error.
I can’t believe I have spent the time I have on this subject tonight. At least I have learned something and that is always valuable. I hope you have also, Mike.
God bless, LU
Hi Mike,
If this being had only one parent, and Mary was not the mother, and he was not a man
then you are not speaking of Jesus.
Who then?
Hi Dig4,
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
But far more often he called himself the Son of Man, or Son of Adam which means man.
You would seem to disagree with him.
Lk.3.38
The son Of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God
I doubt he disagrees with that Nick as you suggest. It is more likely you are bearing false witness or lacking in understanding in what he and others actually believe. I don’t see any good option that you can rely on regarding this. The latter being the best option in a bad list.
Hi Dg4,
You seem to imply that if God is your Father then any influence from your mother is cancelled out,
and you are born somewhat different to other men.
Is this what you believe?
Sounds similar to what Catholicism teaches about the Mary they worship and pray to who, they say, had an ‘immaculate conception’ and went straight to heaven at her death.
Hi t8,
I think he is old enough to speak for himself.
But it seems you take every chance to attack the work of the Spirit.
Hi Mike,
If this being had only one parent, and Mary was not the mother, and he was not a man then you are not speaking of Jesus.
Who then?You must be clueless. What other explanation is left? Maybe disingenuous? Thoughts.
Why not let Scripture define Scripture and not try to conceal it?
What comes out of Yeshua’s mouth? The answer is the Word of God.
I agree. So now understand my point about how we read scripture. It says God made the heavens, earth, sun etc. Try not to force 24 hour periods in each day. It also says that stars will fall from heaven. Try not to force this to mean lights falling out of a glass dome. It says the circuit of the sun. Try not to force that to exclude what increased knowledge has revealed about the solar system that creates this view from where we stand, etc.
Try not force Believers to accept unscientific notions when scripture reveals things from our perspective and may not be quite what men with much less knowledge thought.
Pretty sure you must understand what I am saying now. And of course Jesus does not have a literal sword coming out of his mouth.
T8, I’m not trying to force any particular meaning on the text but simply trying to let Scripture define Scripture. When the scriptures say that the earth and everything in it was created in 6 days why should I force it to mean something else? The scriptures also identify what or who the stars that fall are. It tells us that the sun has a circuit but it does not tell us “knowledge” means something contrary to the written Word says, that would be forcing the text.
The notion that the men of old were not as knowledgable about some things as we modern men are is a throwback to evolution. We have seen what these ancient men have accomplished, some of which we can not even reproduce today with all of our modern technology.
I don’t have time to respond like I want to this morning but maybe later. Have a blessed day.
Ok just re-read my post, wow I’m really not a morning person!
The language of the creation days makes it clear that normal days are in view. So to interpret the days as anything other than normal days would be forcing a particular meaning.
If we allow Scripture to define Scripture we can understand more about the stars that have fallen or will fall. (Job 38:7, Dan 8:9-11, Jude 1:13, Rev 1:20, Rev 12:4)
Since the sun has a circuit it cannot be the earth that has a circuit or this would be false, not true, a lie. I don’t think we should conclude that. Psalm 19:5-6 We would be forcing a meaning to the text if we can plainly read that the sun has a circuit but understand it to mean the earth has a circuit.
Many of the biblical texts could very well have been written down or passed down by word of mouth from Adam whom God made in His image. I don’t think anyone today is more intelligent and knowledgable about creation than he would have been. To put this in perspective Adam would have had first hand knowledge of creation, he could have passed this down to all that he knew. Adam was still alive when Lamech was here. (Lamech was Noah’s father) Noah was still here when Abraham was alive! That is a very short chain to pass on the original creation events!
Now, why would God need to give us a text that was not correct just because it was our perspective? Especially knowing that one day the truth would come out and He would wind up looking brilliant! Rather, according to some, He gave us incorrect information and now that the “truth” has come out He looks rather silly.
Nick: Hi Mike,
Humans have two parents.
Do you agree?
In most cases. Adam didn’t. Neither did Eve. And Jesus had only one biological parent.
Matthew 3:9
And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Nick: Hi Mike,
“According to the flesh”
Yes well the flesh is from both parents.
Adam? Eve? Jesus? I assume the children of Abraham that God can make from stones would be flesh human beings – with no biological parents.
T8: What / Why question answered
Descriptions in scripture often use symbols and they are written from our perspective.
Who is the arbiter of which ones are symbols, and which ones relate to reality? Who decides when God is telling a fib just so we understand it from our perspective, and when He is telling it like it truly is?
I wasn’t asking for that novel, T8. My point was that just because one thing seems to be symbolic in scripture doesn’t mean the other thing is also symbolic. So when you claim that event A must be symbolic simply because you understand event B as being symbolic, it is a false analogy.
The locusts with stingers might be symbolic, but that doesn’t mean the stars falling to the earth is. The sword coming out of the mouth might be symbolic, but that doesn’t mean God setting the earth on pillars is. So even if you knew for sure that event B truly is symbolic, you have no scriptural reason to equate that with event A, and call it symbolic as well.
T8: …like that object that fell to the ground in the Truman Show.
Interesting you brought that show up. When asked why Truman doesn’t discover the truth behind his fake world, the directer of the Truman Show says, “We accept the version of our world with which we are presented.” Truer words have never been spoken. And just so you know, Hollywood hides truths in all kinds of movies. You and Kathi should watch Capricorn One some time. It veils the truth of the Apollo missions.
The language of the creation days makes it clear that normal days are in view. So to interpret the days as anything other than normal days would be forcing a particular meaning.
If we allow Scripture to define Scripture we can understand more about the stars that have fallen or will fall. (Job 38:7, Dan 8:9-11, Jude 1:13, Rev 1:20, Rev 12:4)
So normal 24 hour days and the first day never had a sun and that too was 24 hours. Surely you can see people having difficulty aligning with this right? I mean, it seems like common sense to see the sun as part of the heavens and then appearing on the 4th day in the firmanant. If not, then prove to me that the first day without the sun was 24 hours with a morning and evening. You cannot. so we remain highly sceptical of your claim as we should.
Kathi: Mike,
I enjoyed your effort towards this quest you have us on here. I hope you had fun, however, you should have relaxed because you really didn’t have a good experiment.
I think it will work out okay.
Kathi: I don’t have a problem with the placement of the earth in that image. I would have a problem with it if the earth was indeed directly overhead but it is NOT!
…the Apollo landing site is 20 degrees north of the equator of the moon would mean that the earth is not directly overhead of the astronaut unless he was doing a push-up on the ground, ha.
Try this:
Take a ball and set it on a table, find the imaginary equator and stick a straight pin in it at a 90 degree angle, then go 20 degrees north of the equator and stick a straight pin in the ball at that point at a 90 degree angle…
Okay. I’ll have to do this in two posts, since each post can only have 4 images. Here’s a map of the Apollo landing sites…
Here’s my moon, with the darkened push pin pointing straight out at the earth, and the clear push pin as close to the Apollo 17 landing site as I could match it…
Here’s the same thing overlaid on the web image, so you can verify I’m fairly close…
Note that the top of the push pin (the part you actually push with your thumb) is the crown of the head of the astronaut. So his view as he is standing there will center at 90 degrees from the level of the top of the pin (ie: perpendicular to the top of the pin).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
