- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike,
This is the passage you are contradicting. Seek to explain yourself better.
John 8:44
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 15 2014,10:02) Hi ,
Rom 8
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Nick……Good post, sums it up in a nut shell.peace and love to you and yours……….gene
Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,21:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2014,04:58)
Kerwin,You made the claim that ONLY those who adhere to the word of God are “children of God”.
I'm trying to correct your misunderstanding about that. Have I succeeded yet?
Mike,If you believe that is true then you are essentially calling Jesus a liar. He is the one who stated than certain Jews were the children of the devil.
And do you believe that Satan is the LITERAL father of those Jews? Did Satan bring them forth into existence?YES or NO to both questions, please.
Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,21:58) Mike, This is the passage you are contradicting. Seek to explain yourself better.
John 8:44
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
There is no “contradiction”, Kerwin. And you can only make that claim IF you believe Satan was LITERALLY the one who brought those Jews into existence, and was therefore LITERALLY their father.Imagine a Jew talking to a German soldier who had just taken him to the concentration camp.
The Jew is telling the German that he should do the things that are right in God's eyes. The Jew tells the German, “If God were your Father, you would not be wrongfully imprisoning me. But you are from your father Hitler, and you choose to do his desires instead.
Hitler is a murderer and a liar, yet you choose to do his will instead of God's. Therefore, you have become like your father Hitler – a murderer and a liar.
Kerwin, Hitler was not LITERALLY the father of that German soldier. Likewise, Satan was never LITERALLY the father of any Jew. So use your common sense, and try to understand Jesus' words metaphorically – as they were clearly meant.
(I'll await your “YES” or “NO” answers from the last post, so we can finally put this thing to rest.)
Kerwin,
God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son to die as an atonement for our sins.
Jesus said he didn't come to save the righteous, but the sinners.
Why would God send His very own firstborn Son to save a bunch of godless people He had already “disowned” anyway? Surely Jesus didn't come to save the ones YOU consider “sons of God”, right? Because they were already righteous and walking in the ways of God, right?
So Jesus came to save what you consider “the disowned non-sons of God”. Does that sound about right to you?
Also consider that Cain committed murder. You say he ceased to be a “son of God” because of this act.
Yet Adam and Eve brought sin and death into the world in the first place, and Adam remained a “son of God”, right?
Moses committed murder, and remained a “son of God”, right?
And David not only committed murder, but did so to cover up an equally heinous sin he had already committed against the same person he had murdered. Yet David remained a “son of God”, right?
The Israelites were stubborn, and few of them were walking in the ways of God at the time Moses called them “children of God”, right?
And Paul held the people's coats while they stoned Stephen to death. Yet he is a “son of God”, right?
John 11
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all!50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
Jesus died for ALL, Kerwin. Not just for the ones you like to consider “sons of God”. Even the Gentiles, and the Jews who did not believe in Jesus were called “children of God” in the above passage.
So like I keep telling you, Jesus gave us the right to become children of God in a MUCH BETTER WAY. But we were already the literal children of God anyway.
You need to rethink some of these things, IMO.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2014,09:17) Hi WU
You say
“If God knew that Adam/Eve would never eat of the fruit;
God would have created them in spirit form;not in the flesh.”
Nick.This is all hypothetical.
No need to discus it.The creation of the flesh is part of God's plan.
wakeup.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2014,05:49) Quote (kerwin @ May 14 2014,21:58) Mike, This is the passage you are contradicting. Seek to explain yourself better.
John 8:44
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
There is no “contradiction”, Kerwin. And you can only make that claim IF you believe Satan was LITERALLY the one who brought those Jews into existence, and was therefore LITERALLY their father.Imagine a Jew talking to a German soldier who had just taken him to the concentration camp.
The Jew is telling the German that he should do the things that are right in God's eyes. The Jew tells the German, “If God were your Father, you would not be wrongfully imprisoning me. But you are from your father Hitler, and you choose to do his desires instead.
Hitler is a murderer and a liar, yet you choose to do his will instead of God's. Therefore, you have become like your father Hitler – a murderer and a liar.
Kerwin, Hitler was not LITERALLY the father of that German soldier. Likewise, Satan was never LITERALLY the father of any Jew. So use your common sense, and try to understand Jesus' words metaphorically – as they were clearly meant.
(I'll await your “YES” or “NO” answers from the last post, so we can finally put this thing to rest.)
Mike,I agree that Jesus was speaking metaphorically of them being the children of Satan because they behaved as he did.
I do not agree that they are the literal children of either God or Satan. So the answer to your question about the Jews being Satan's literal children is no.
I instead say they were the children of God metaphorically speaking as far as being created by him.
Angels and humans are the same in these ways.
From what I understand the line of Seth was metaphorically the children of God in their actions while the line of Cain was not as they lived away from the presence of God.
Mike,
Quote Also consider that Cain committed murder. You say he ceased to be a “son of God” because of this act. Yet Adam and Eve brought sin and death into the world in the first place, and Adam remained a “son of God”, right?
I do not know why God does all the things he does but I do know his actions are always righteous.
Adam and Eve were punished by the results of their own action in that they died spiritually that day and their mortal coils would decay and perish soon afterwards. God cursed them some but that seems less grievous to me than the results of their own actions. Accept to the extend that their sins separated them from God he did not say they were cut off from him. Instead we know they lived in his presence.
Scripture state God told Cain he was cut off from his face. Cut off and disown are synonyms.
Quote cut off
verb. disinherit in willcut out of will
disown
renounce
On the other hand Scripture almost seems to treat Moses as a hero for the murder he performed in Egypt.
Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,20:24) I instead say they were the children of God metaphorically speaking as far as being created by him.
Matthew 23:9
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.I don't say that is “metaphorical”, Kerwin. I say our Father in heaven is our literal father.
Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,20:24) From what I understand the line of Seth was metaphorically the children of God in their actions while the line of Cain was not as they lived away from the presence of God.
I know that's how you understand it. That's why I made that huge post explaining to you why your understanding can't be the truth of the matter.I'll wait for you to address the many points I made in that post.
Quote (kerwin @ May 15 2014,20:39) Scripture state God told Cain he was cut off from his face. Cut off and disown are synonyms.
Which scripture says “cut off”?Mike,
Even though you are technically correct I see being hidden from God's face and meaning disowned; in other words cut off. It is a way of speaking we do not use as far as I know.
The Dictionary of Biblical imagery states:
Quote A common idiom, to “hide one's face” (or eyes), means to refuse to notice Mike,
Quote Matthew 23:9
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.I don't say that is “metaphorical”, Kerwin. I say our Father in heaven is our literal father.
Those words were addressed to believers and not all humans so a stronger case is that Jesus is speaking as God is our Father as of sired by his word. Your case is weaker but does not hide nor corrupt the truth so the difference in interpretation is not important. God may well have meant both things as he can have more than one meaning for his words, even these words his Son spoke.
The issue of you attempting to use this passage to prove that the legitimate case for the use if the words born and sired is to mean created. I am going to disagree as the root use of both is to mean one is born or sired by an animal or human. Other uses are metaphoric.
Mike,
Quote I know that's how you understand it. That's why I made that huge post explaining to you why your understanding can't be the truth of the matter. I'll wait for you to address the many points I made in that post.
Could you please let me know which post you are speaking of? Thank you.
Quote (kerwin @ May 17 2014,15:00) Mike, Even though you are technically correct I see being hidden from God's face and meaning disowned; in other words cut off.
But remember that the same Hebrew words are used of Adam and Eve. They “hid themselves from the face of God” after they sinned.Are you saying they “disowned” themselves from God being their Father?
Quote (kerwin @ May 17 2014,15:22) Those words were addressed to believers and not all humans so a stronger case is that Jesus is speaking as God is our Father as of sired by his word.
How do you know those words only apply to “believers”?Also, are you saying “God's word” is more of a “literal Father” to us than God Himself?
Kerwin, then one who is ultimately RESPONSIBLE for your existence would be as literal of a “father” as you can get, IMO.
I find your claim that Seth's offspring were “children of God”, while Cain's were “children of adam”, lacking in understanding. Quite frankly, I find it absurd – and keep wondering why you are clinging to it.
Have you read my long post, where I tell you that the “daughters of adam” in Gen 6 are the very same “daughters of adam”, from Seth's line, that were mentioned in chapter 5?
Do you have a valid reason to think they weren't? If so, show it to me.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 18 2014,08:50) Quote (kerwin @ May 17 2014,15:00) Mike, Even though you are technically correct I see being hidden from God's face and meaning disowned; in other words cut off.
But remember that the same Hebrew words are used of Adam and Eve. They “hid themselves from the face of God” after they sinned.Are you saying they “disowned” themselves from God being their Father?
Mike,Adam and Eve tried not to be noticed by God because of their nakedness but they failed. God declared he would not notice Cain.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 18 2014,08:56) Quote (kerwin @ May 17 2014,15:22) Those words were addressed to believers and not all humans so a stronger case is that Jesus is speaking as God is our Father as of sired by his word.
How do you know those words only apply to “believers”?Also, are you saying “God's word” is more of a “literal Father” to us than God Himself?
Kerwin, then one who is ultimately RESPONSIBLE for your existence would be as literal of a “father” as you can get, IMO.
I find your claim that Seth's offspring were “children of God”, while Cain's were “children of adam”, lacking in understanding. Quite frankly, I find it absurd – and keep wondering why you are clinging to it.
Have you read my long post, where I tell you that the “daughters of adam” in Gen 6 are the very same “daughters of adam”, from Seth's line, that were mentioned in chapter 5?
Do you have a valid reason to think they weren't? If so, show it to me.
Mike,No daughters were mentioned for Cain's line only sons. On the other hand Seth's line has daughters mentioned.
Genesis 4:16-24
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod,[a] east of Eden.
17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael the father of Methushael, and Methushael the father of Lamech. 19 Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 Zillah bore Tubal-cain, who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.23 Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for striking me.
24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”Mike,
Quote Also, are you saying “God's word” is more of a “literal Father” to us than God Himself? I did not say God's word is their father I said God is their Father by his word.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
