- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (abe @ May 30 2013,21:14) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2013,16:48) Abe, I'm still waiting. In YOUR OWN words, tell me what it means that Paul said he didn't receive his gospel from any man, but instead from Jesus Christ.
Hi Mike,1Tim.2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
the *MAN* Christ Jesus;
Act17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
through a *MAN*
Peace brother…………………………………..
Abe,I've already explained to you that 1 Tim 2:5 AND 6 discuss how the human being Jesus Christ died for our sins.
It doesn't explicitly say that Jesus is STILL a man.
And the word translated as “man” in Acts 17:31 is the Greek word “aner”, which means Jesus is a male. It is not the word “anthropos”, which means “human being”.
However, in Galatians 1:1 and 1:11, the word IS “anthropos”. And that is why I keep asking you what Paul meant by saying his gospel did NOT come from any HUMAN BEING – but from Jesus Christ.
Will you ever answer the question?
Mike,
Quote Okay. Then your earlier statement, I already answered this by pointing to the creation event and how God told living creatures to reproduce after their own kind. Angles(messengers) are a kind of living creatures, is really null and void, right? I do not view your words as sound as I gave an example of what kind means. Tradition is that God reproduced the angels after their kind when he created them just like robots off an assembly line. You are making it more difficult than it needs to be.
Quote Oh, but he DOES, Kerwin – in Galatians 4:14. But you only need to know that the ENGLIGH (not Hebrew, and not Greek) word “angel” refers to a spirit messenger/son of God in order to know that Jesus is most definitely an angel of God. Accoding to you a passage you have trouble understanding in Galatians is part of the argument in Hebrews. Galatians 4:14 does not tell us which member of the angel kind, if any, Jesus is. Hebrews does not tell us Jesus is a member of the angel kind but instead states “which angel” and compares him to the angels.
Quote Jesus is one of the original two natives of heaven, Kerwin. He was alone with his God before his God created other spirit sons THROUGH Jesus. Also, don't forget that the Greek word used actually means MESSENGER, Kerwin.
Hebrews 1:4 Young's Literal Translation
having become so much better than the messengers, as he did inherit a more excellent name than they.What does it mean that Jesus became better than “the messengers”, Kerwin? Do those words PROHIBIT Jesus from BEING a “messenger of God”? YES or NO?
What I see is that you are being tricked into playing a lawyer game by shifting the meaning of messenger. You are substituting the messenger position with the messenger kind.
The words prohibit Jesus from being the messenger kind.
The words do not prohibit Jesus from holding the messenger position.Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2013,07:55) Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2013,05:13) Mike, 1. You seem to be claiming that fallen angels can marry or be given in marriage.
2. Marriage is a sin for the angel kind.
3. Angels are made to reproduce but are forbidden to do so.
4. Humans will be able to reproduce but banned from doing so.
5. God will abolish the marriages that are in force.
Kerwin,1. Did you even read Enoch passage I quoted? God was punishing those angels because they DID have sex with human woman when they weren't SUPPOSED TO do such a thing.
Angels IN HEAVEN do not marry. Do you think these human women were IN HEAVEN when these angels had sex with them?
2. Yep. That's why they were punished.
3. Scripture? We know that an angel can reproduce with a human, but we don't know anything about angels (who all seem to be male) reproducing among their own kind.
4. The bodies of those humans who will dwell in heaven will be like the bodies of the angels. I don't know whether or not those bodies will be capable of reproducing or not.
5. There will be marriages and offspring as usual on earth. I don't know whether or not a husband and wife from the 13th century will be husband and wife again on earth. But we do know that if that couple is among those who are chosen to dwell in heaven, they will not be married.
Mike,I am prone to believe the traditional view of Jesus' words for the same reason I am prone to believe angels do not reproduce after their own kind.
You seem to believe that God created angels to reproduce but then did not give the fertile males companions and banned them from reproducing.
I have not really looked into these things.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2013,19:36) Quote (abe @ May 30 2013,21:14) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2013,16:48) Abe, I'm still waiting. In YOUR OWN words, tell me what it means that Paul said he didn't receive his gospel from any man, but instead from Jesus Christ.
Hi Mike,1Tim.2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
the *MAN* Christ Jesus;
Act17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
through a *MAN*
Peace brother…………………………………..
Abe,I've already explained to you that 1 Tim 2:5 AND 6 discuss how the human being Jesus Christ died for our sins.
It doesn't explicitly say that Jesus is STILL a man.
And the word translated as “man” in Acts 17:31 is the Greek word “aner”, which means Jesus is a male. It is not the word “anthropos”, which means “human being”.
However, in Galatians 1:1 and 1:11, the word IS “anthropos”. And that is why I keep asking you what Paul meant by saying his gospel did NOT come from any HUMAN BEING – but from Jesus Christ.
Will you ever answer the question?
Hi Mike,anér: a man
Original Word: ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: anér
Phonetic Spelling: (an'-ayr)
Short Definition: a male human being, a man
Definition: a male human being; a man, husband.Do you DENY it means Male Human Being?
Strongs Greek *435*
216 OccurrencesNASB Translation
brethren* (13), gentlemen (1), husband (39), husbands (13), man (71), man's (2), men (70), virgin* (1)Do you DENY this 216 times?
Peace brother…………
Mike,
Quote Do you see the big part, Kathi? THAT is what the Greek words actually say. I never once implied that there wasn't more than one way to understand those words. In fact, in previous posts, I've discussed the part you bolded above as one of the possibilities……. didn't I? Now I'd like YOU to discuss, or at least ACKNOWLEDGE, that it seems odd for Matt 27:25, which ALSO speaks of the blood of a particular person, to say, “the blood of himself (autos)”, while Acts 20:28 says, “the blood of his own (idios)”.
Why do you suppose Paul didn't say, “the blood of himself” in Acts 20:28, if that's what he meant? Why did he word it in such a way that it is better understood as referring to the blood of someone BELONGING TO God, rather than God's OWN blood?
Don't pretend that you are qualified to teach Greek, Mike. You know that there is often more than one way to say the same thing. You are showing me verses from two different authors and the original words were likely written/said in Aramaic. If you look, you will probably see that you can find similar word order with the word “his own” or “of his own” elsewhere that supports the translation of “his own blood.”
Quote
Absolutely. A god certainly sacrificed his own blood to purchase men for his and our God, Jehovah, who is the Most High God of gods.Thank you for your answer.
Another must answer question:
Did Jehovah our Righteousness, sacrifice His own blood to purchase men for Jehovah?Mike,
you said:Quote
I've never claimed anything different than that, Kathi. The Most High God created all things through His Holy Servant Jesus Christ, who is also a god (“mighty one”).But only ONE is the Most High God. And only ONE created all things.
Did you have a son through your son's mother?
If yes, do you take sole credit for having a son?
If no, why would you give the Father sole credit for creating all things in heaven and on earth if He created them through His Son?Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2013,14:44) This is why I always fight against t8 “banishing” people like you to certain sections of this forum. If not for people like you, who view things differently than I do, then I would not be challenged to even look into these kinds of things. So, despite the fact that you and I rarely agree on scriptural
The problem I have with this is that we are using people to make us dig deeper into truth. But are their souls not worth more than our advancement of knowledge? And how is that love? And when we engage their false teachings, it is one thing to being it to Christ and into the light, but quite another when becomes obvious that they are not lovers of truth, but lovers of their own understanding and are not willing to change. And because of that we use them to ask the hard questions. They become tools for us.I myself think it could be wiser that we engage with people till they demonstrate that they are unreasonable and move on. If they do not acknowledge one good point of yours, then you are talking to a brick wall and using them for a purpose less than what their soul is worth.
Sure there is benefit in advancing knowledge, but is better to discuss with people who are reasonable even if their views are different. I believe the latter would not only advance knowledge but truth would change people as a result. Not make people harder as we often see here. And by engaging such people, do we give them the false impression that they actually have a point when they do not?
I think it is wise to not engage with people sometimes. Just as Jesus did when he purposefully ignored the Pharisees at one stage (from my memory).
On the other hand it may be advantageous as you think to debate with them till they give up completely in that way we can answer every possible doubt about the true doctrine of Christ. And if they leave here in a worse state to when they came, then that could well be their own fault and not ours at all and at least there was some benefit to their rebellion rather than them being cast back into the wilderness.
So I see both sides and I think that we need to think about what it all means. I am undecided myself as to what is the best strategy here to be honest. But I would hate to think I was contributing to the downfall of people because I was casting pearls before swine and opening them up for unnecessary judgement.
I guess we need to study how Jesus was with the Pharisees. Did he engage them deeply with his doctrine, or stop speaking with them when they showed themselves as unreasonable?
Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2013,09:19) Mike,
you said:Quote
I've never claimed anything different than that, Kathi. The Most High God created all things through His Holy Servant Jesus Christ, who is also a god (“mighty one”).But only ONE is the Most High God. And only ONE created all things.
Did you have a son through your son's mother?
If yes, do you take sole credit for having a son?
If no, why would you give the Father sole credit for creating all things in heaven and on earth if He created them through His Son?
Because God is the creator and he uses agents.When I have a son I give thanks to God because I know that I did not create him at all, even though he used me as an agent in the creative process.
Even Jesus gave thanks to God for all good. He took no credit for himself.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2013,15:21) Quote (kerwin @ May 29 2013,16:51) T, You claim angels do marry and are given in marriage while Jesus infers they neither marry or are given in marriage.
What Pierre and the scriptures teach is that angels took human woman for themselves and produced children with them.That does NOT contradict Jesus' words that angels IN HEAVEN do not marry, does it?
Further does God marry?Yet he produces many sons.
Quote (kerwin @ May 19 2013,08:22) T8, The book of Hebrews calls the members of the host of heaven, with the exception of God, the Messenger kind. It makes clear Jesus is not one of them.
As far as I know Malachi 3:1-2 is not speaking of any member of the host of heaven; except for God; whom it mentions at a few points.
Tell me the following if you are so sure:Who is this speaking of:
Behold, I send my Angel to prepare the way before me …
And who is this:
the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.
If you do not know, then you shouldn't be teaching on this subject.
Quote (kerwin @ May 31 2013,12:35) You seem to believe that God created angels to reproduce but then did not give the fertile males companions and banned them from reproducing.
According to Enoch, God gave men wives so offspring could be born of them and their line could continue.And God said that since He made angels immortal from the beginning, He did NOT give them wives to continue their line.
As for your other post, I'm tired of the circling. I have scriptures and solid logic on my side. You seem to have neither, but keep talking anyway. I have no time for that.
Quote (abe @ May 31 2013,12:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2013,19:36) Quote (abe @ May 30 2013,21:14) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2013,16:48) Abe, I'm still waiting. In YOUR OWN words, tell me what it means that Paul said he didn't receive his gospel from any man, but instead from Jesus Christ.
Hi Mike,1Tim.2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
the *MAN* Christ Jesus;
Act17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
through a *MAN*
Peace brother…………………………………..
Abe,I've already explained to you that 1 Tim 2:5 AND 6 discuss how the human being Jesus Christ died for our sins.
It doesn't explicitly say that Jesus is STILL a man.
And the word translated as “man” in Acts 17:31 is the Greek word “aner”, which means Jesus is a male. It is not the word “anthropos”, which means “human being”.
However, in Galatians 1:1 and 1:11, the word IS “anthropos”. And that is why I keep asking you what Paul meant by saying his gospel did NOT come from any HUMAN BEING – but from Jesus Christ.
Will you ever answer the question?
Hi Mike,anér: a man
Original Word: ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: anér
Phonetic Spelling: (an'-ayr)
Short Definition: a male human being, a man
Definition: a male human being; a man, husband.Do you DENY it means Male Human Being?
Strongs Greek *435*
216 OccurrencesNASB Translation
brethren* (13), gentlemen (1), husband (39), husbands (13), man (71), man's (2), men (70), virgin* (1)Do you DENY this 216 times?
Peace brother…………
Abe,According to Thayer's Lexicon, the word “aner” is also used to distinguish a male from a female:
Acts 8:12
………they were baptized, both men and women.It is also used to distinguish a young boy from a grown male:
Matthew 14:21
The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.But even if we were to understand the word to mean “human being” in Acts 17:31, we need only read the context:
Acts 17:31
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.Was Jesus a human being at the time God raised him from the dead? Of course.
And will God judge the world through that human being that He raised from the dead? Of course.
But…….. does this explicitly say Jesus is STILL a human being? Nope.
It says God will judge the world through the man he appointed and raised from the dead. That man was Jesus. (Notice the past tense “appointed” and “raised from the dead”. In those past tense times, Jesus indeed WAS a human being, wasn't he?)
It is the same with the other verse you keep quoting:
1 Tim 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.Was Jesus a human being when he gave (past tense) his life as a ransom? YES. Does that mean he is STILL a human being? Not a chance.
Abe, I'm done discussing this with you. You NEVER answer MY questions, but just keep talking anyway.
I will lay out my facts and logic once again for you…….. then I'm done.
1. In my humble opinion, a person has to have bats in the belfry to think Jesus is the only existing FLESH HUMAN BEING living in the SPIRITUAL realm of heaven.
2. There are the scriptures that say he became a lifegiving SPIRIT.
3. There are the scriptures in Galatians 1 you keep avoiding that say Paul did NOT receive his gospel from a HUMAN BEING, but from Jesus Christ.
4. There are the scriptures that say flesh CANNOT enter into, or inherit, the kingdom of God. (Jesus himself taught this in John 3.)
Hit me up if and when you are ever willing or able to tell me why Paul said he DIDN'T receive his gospel from any HUMAN BEING, but from Jesus Christ. Until then, I'm done here.
Quote (Lightenup @ May 31 2013,13:13) Don't pretend that you are qualified to teach Greek, Mike.
My goodness, Kathi. Stubborn much?
You can read in any interlinear that the Greek words are EXACTLY: with the blood of his own.
The Greek words are NOT: with the blood of himself.
You can read it word for word on Biblos.com. You can read it word for word in the NETNote that YOU posted. Would you like me to mail you my Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures so you can read it there too?
So why DO you suppose Paul said, “with the blood of his own“ instead of, “with the blood of himself“?
Quote (Lightenup @ May 31 2013,13:13) Quote (mikeboll @ 64)
Absolutely. A god certainly sacrificed his own blood to purchase men for his and our God, Jehovah, who is the Most High God of gods.Thank you for your answer.
Does that mean you agree with and approve of my answer?Quote (Lightenup @ May 31 2013,13:13) Another must answer question:
Did Jehovah our Righteousness, sacrifice His own blood to purchase men for Jehovah?
Not exactly. A person who has “Jehovah is our Righteousness” as one of his many titles sacrificed his blood at the command of his and our God, Jehovah. With that blood, he purchased men of all nations FOR his and our God, Jehovah.Don't forget that Israel will also be called “Jehovah is our Righteousness”. Kathi, if you CAN'T use that title to force the nation of Israel into being Jehovah, what makes you think you CAN use it to force Jesus into being Jehovah?
Quote (Lightenup @ May 31 2013,13:19) Mike,
you said:Quote
I've never claimed anything different than that, Kathi. The Most High God created all things through His Holy Servant Jesus Christ, who is also a god (“mighty one”).But only ONE is the Most High God. And only ONE created all things.
Did you have a son through your son's mother?
If yes, do you take sole credit for having a son?
If no, why would you give the Father sole credit for creating all things in heaven and on earth if He created them through His Son?
God created my son THROUGH me and his mother. Who gets sole credit for creating all of us, including my son? God, right?Malachi 2:10
Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us?How many Gods, according to the above scripture, created us, Kathi? And through whom, according to many other scriptures, did this one God create us?
Quote (t8 @ May 31 2013,18:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2013,15:21) Quote (kerwin @ May 29 2013,16:51) T, You claim angels do marry and are given in marriage while Jesus infers they neither marry or are given in marriage.
What Pierre and the scriptures teach is that angels took human woman for themselves and produced children with them.That does NOT contradict Jesus' words that angels IN HEAVEN do not marry, does it?
Further does God marry?Yet he produces many sons.
Good point.Quote (4Thomas @ May 30 2013,07:16) Exodus 13:21 By day the LORD [Yahweh] went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. It doesn't get any clearer than that!
Hi Daniel,Are you aware that YHWH put His name in the angel that went ahead of the Israelites? (Exodus 23:21)
Are you aware that angels of YHWH were often addressed as “YHWH” and “God” in the OT? (Judges 6:11-23, for one.)
Are you aware that YHWH Himself plainly told Moses He would NOT go with them Himself, because their stubbornness might cause Him to destroy them? (Exodus 33:3)
Were you able to find the scripture that says both Christ AND the angel of Jehovah went with the Israelites? Because I've only ever heard of ONE person going with them.
Quote (4Thomas @ May 30 2013,07:16) Mike I'm trying to lead you to Jesus……….
I already have the Jesus of the scriptures, Daniel. My Jesus is the Son, Servant, Messiah, Prophet, Lamb, and Priest OF his and our God, Jehovah.I want to show you that Jesus of the scriptures – if you are willing.
But as for this angel discussion, do you agree that the English (not Hebrew or Greek) word “angel” refers to a spirit son/messenger of God? YES or NO?
And do you agree that Jesus IS a spirit son/messenger of God? YES or NO?
Quote (kerwin @ May 30 2013,17:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 26 2013,23:02) Quote (terraricca @ May 26 2013,07:06) Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2013,12:31) I already answered this by pointing to the creation event and how God told living creatures to reproduce after their own kind. Angles(messengers) are a kind of living creatures. MT 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
MK 12:25 “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.why is it that you do not read those scriptures?
Quote (kerwin @ May 26 2013,12:31) T, You as me that and yet you believe angels have married and been given in marriage?
Quote (terraricca @ May 26 2013,07:06) Kerwin men can also have sex with animals ;but is this the natural way of proceeding
and the fact that angels came to be in relationship (sexually) with the human women they had to take an human cover to do so ,(lower themselves to the flesh.this is corruption)
Kerwin,The following is God's answer to the angels who mated with human women, from the Book of Enoch:
3You being spiritual, holy, and possessing a life which is eternal, have polluted yourselves with women; have begotten in carnal blood; have lusted in the blood of men; and have done as those who are flesh and blood do.
4These however die and perish.
5Therefore have I given to them wives, that they might cohabit with them; that sons might be born of them; and that this might be transacted upon earth.
6But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever.
7Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.
The implication is that beings who perish were given wives so that sons might be born of them, and their line continue on. On the other hand, beings who were from the beginning made eternal were NOT given wives to reproduce.
What the angels did was a act of treason against God – similar to a man mating with an animal. Like Pierre pointed out, you can't justify using this abomination which certain watchers performed against God and against human woman as proof that angels were made to reproduce after their kind.
Like Pierre also pointed out, Jesus himself said the angels in heaven do not marry.
Mike,You seem to be claiming that fallen angels can marry or be given in marriage.
Marriage is a sin for the angel kind.
Angels are made to reproduce but are forbidden to do so.
Humans will be able to reproduce but banned from doing so.
God will abolish the marriages that are in force.
kerwinQuote You seem to be claiming that fallen angels can marry or be given in marriage.
Marriage is a sin for the angel kind.
Angels are made to reproduce but are forbidden to do so.
Humans will be able to reproduce but banned from doing so.
God will abolish the marriages that are in force.first ;the angels of God could not reproduce them selves thy are not given in marriage ;but they knew how to take a human form ,
this is what made it possible for them to procreate like men but not the same results ;they have giants as sons ,now angels do not corrupt them self for sex ,but for the participation in men world and take over the domination by dominate men with their power and brutality,this action was resolved wen God made the flood ,the fallen angels could not materialize any longer ,the condition of the earth was now changed, and so God controlled once more the spiritual world ,
Quote (t8 @ May 31 2013,16:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 30 2013,15:21) Quote (kerwin @ May 29 2013,16:51) T, You claim angels do marry and are given in marriage while Jesus infers they neither marry or are given in marriage.
What Pierre and the scriptures teach is that angels took human woman for themselves and produced children with them.That does NOT contradict Jesus' words that angels IN HEAVEN do not marry, does it?
Further does God marry?Yet he produces many sons.
Hi T8,(Quote)
Further does God marry?Yet he produces many sons.
That is a excellent question!
Jer.3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, says the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one from a city, and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
15And I will give you shepherds according to my heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
16And it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, says the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.
17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the Throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the Name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil hearts.Ho.2:16 And it shall be at that day, says the LORD, that you shall call me Ishi; and shall call me no more Baali.
17For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
18And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will abolish the bow and the sword and the battle from the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.
19And I will Betroth you unto me forever; yea, I will Betroth you unto me in righteousness, and in justice, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.
20 I will even Betroth you unto me in faithfulness: and you shall know the LORD.
21And it shall come to pass in that day, I will answer, says the LORD, I will answer the heavens, and they shall answer the earth;
22And the earth shall answer with grain, and wine, and oil; and they shall answer Jezreel.
23And I will sow her For Myself in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them who were not my people, you are my people; and they shall say, you are my God.Is.54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
2Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy Seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
4Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.
5For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
6For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
Gal.4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is OUR Mother.
27For it is written, “REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO * HAS* A *HUSBAND.”*
28And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, so it is NOW also.
30But what does the Scripture say? “CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.”
31So then, brethren, we are NOT children of a bondwoman, but of the Free woman.
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO * HAS* A *HUSBAND.”*
Peace brother.
@ 4Thomas
All you prove with your post above is that when the invisible God talks to someone face to face, he does so using a messenger. People think that Moses saw God in the burning bush for example, but it is clear that it was an angel/messenger. Both the Old and New testaments concur on this.
If another instance doesn't record that specific detail, it doesn't mean that God didn't use an agent.
I would argue that in his dealings with man, he always sends messengers.
Even one of the greatest revelations given to us was by God, to Jesus, to the angel, to John.
These things will come to you when you are a seeker of truth and read scripture without bias.
Only those who are innocent like children will see it though. The self-wise will be blind to these sorts of things and this is the will of God.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
