Search Members

[AndrewAD]

Gene,

“AndrewAD. …So to you truth dosen’t have to make any sense?”  And just where did I say or insinuate that? I think it was Nick who said logic is uselessness not I.

So Satan,virgin birth and preexisting sons of God are all illogical to you so you just dismiss them from your theology and then say those who believe these things from the bible are heretics? Yes religion is truly illogical as in crazy and people do imagine whatever and believe it and then others believe them.

[AndrewAD]

So according to you being spiritual is not logical?

or the bible is only logical when it makes sense to you?

 

[AndrewAD]

Hi Nick,

“God is the Father of Adam.
Jesus is a son of Adam.”

So all people are by creation sons of God even as Paul said in quoting a Greek poet ” For we are also his offspring” Acts17:28

[AndrewAD]

Should Scripture always be according to logic?

Is Scripture logical?

[AndrewAD]

What anointing was Jesus speaking by when
Jesus was 12 and teaching in the Temple?

Good point Ed, Jesus must have been a little presumptuous when he said ” I must be about my Father’s business” since he hadn’t been baptized yet.

[AndrewAD]

” How is it that a human in the FLESH can be a Son of God? ”

How is it that preexisting Sons of God can copulate with mortal women and produce giants? Does anyone think they’ve figured that out? this sounds rather “Greek and pagan” too.

[AndrewAD]

Gene,

You’ve drawn a line in the sand so to speak declaring all who disagree with your interpretations as fallen huh? Are you the second or third coming of Elijah maybe? or Muhammed declaring “say not trinity”!?  Will Babylon fall today and Armageddon begin here on this internet site?

Perhaps just you and Jodi and maybe Nick can enjoy a thousand years of paradise all to yourselves! 🙂

[AndrewAD]

Jodi,

You ask ” How is it that a human in the FLESH can be a Son of God? ” The verses in Lk 1:34,35 that we were discussing answer this plainly as I pointed out to you.  35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. As I said before, according to these verses and the virgin birth in Matthew Jesus is biologically the Son of God which you plainly deny and brush off. You call it pagan fable, a “half breed God and man”, but a literal virgin birth is exactly what Matthew and Luke teach.

As far as preexistence goes the virgin birth is not dependent on that and it’s not directly taught in the synoptics but many scriptures in the NT plainly teach it which is why it’s a doctrine of Christianity.  When I first came to this site I was for a short while a conservative unitarian denying preexistence also but soon realized I wasn’t being honest with the bible since I had to change and deny the plain reading of too many verses to fit the teachings.

[AndrewAD]

Edj,

“Are you claiming the bible is in error since the lineages are different?” it’s quite clear from what is written that both lineages claim to be of Joseph and yes as LU pointed out Luke’s version is supposedly of David’s son Nathan,but the promise of the throne was specifically through Soloman- 2 Sam7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

All kinds of reasons have been given since the beginning of Christianity for the differences in the lineages so it’s very much a matter of opinion. And neither line matches the OT 1 Chron 1-3 although Matthews is closer.

[AndrewAD]

Jodi,

You quote Lk1:27-33 and you say” He SHALL BE called the Son of the Highest because he will on a certain DAY be BORN of God,” But why don’t you go on to vs 34,35 to see what your bible says?  “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”  From this verse what is the reason he shall be called the Son of God?  Is it because God is his actual father?-not Joseph whom she’s never known-being a virgin. What is therefore there for? except to tell you the reason he shall be called the Son of God. And that is because he is by birth according to this verse. It doesn’t say because on a certain DAY that he’ll be baptized, or resurrected and adopted as such, but because-  The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.

Either Jesus is Joseph’s son by adoption or God’s son by adoption? according to these verses and those in Matthew both scenarios can’t be true.

[AndrewAD]

Hello Ed,

^{Lk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli}

The term (as was supposed),the son of Joseph makes clear that Luke’s lineage of Jesus is also through Joseph just as Matthew’s version. There’s nothing there to suggest that Joseph is the father of Mary or this is Mary’s lineage. It was supposed that Joseph was the father of Jesus.

[AndrewAD]

Hi Jodi,

“Jesus had the DNA of Joseph that is precisely what Matthew tells us.”

That is precisely not what the author of Matthew tells us for if Jesus were Josephs biological child-from his own loins so to speak,then why did he contemplate “putting her away privately”? An angel had to come to him in a dream and tell him that the child conceived is from the Holy Ghost. And the genealogy should read And Joseph begat Jesus just as Jacob begat Joseph. So it very much seems you are saying the virgin birth is a pagan fable although you deny this in response to Ed. There’s many in your camp -unitarians-who have denied the virgin birth to fit their theology-there’s nothing new in that.

But what is the reason for the virgin birth story if not to make him more of a god man? It’s not in Marks version where his mother and family think he’s lost his mind after he begins his ministry. I doubt she forgot her son was fathered by God himself.

And Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with a messiah or Jesus and Isaiah himself is the father of the child he prophesies about. I’m surprised you didn’t try to use the Luke version like most do to say he was from David through Mary which it clearly does not say either.

[AndrewAD]

Gene,

What would you think is the reason, for this waste of time?

Because it’s interesting, it’s something to think and talk about if one so desires. It shows that there are a lot of unanswered questions about our universe and planet. And we shouldn’t always just assume we know things that we may not. Even if the world is round/ a globe there are still many things that don’t make sense in our current cosmology.

[AndrewAD]

Jodi,

“He does NOT acknowledge that he has a kingdom,”

“Jesus uses the word IF, this is NOT showing that he acknowledges that Beezlebub is real”

When Jesus asks Matt 12 “26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” it’s simply a rhetorical question in response to the Pharisees accusation, and he plainly declares Satan has a kingdom. He could’ve just as easily left off the phrase “how shall his kingdom stand” if it were not so. And by saying “if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God is come unto you” he furthers the point of Gods’ kingdom plundering Satan’s.   To be consistent in your interpretation”if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils” should also mean that Jesus doesn’t really cast out devils at all.

And what of Satan offering Jesus the kingdoms of the world during his temptations? you like to make a point of Jesus being tempted, but if Satan didn’t really have this to offer then this was no real temptation at all. Perhaps Jesus was just delusional after fasting so long? isn’t it a biblical fact that Matt12:8 says “the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” 9 And he-the devil, said to him” All these I will give you if you will fall down and worship me“10 Then Jesus said to him “Be gone Satan”  It says him here not it, no matter how one may interpret it. If this was just Jesus fighting his own sinful flesh or carnal mind, then the devil or “it” as you say is just part of Jesus own nature and thus in this story the devil is just Jesus own mind.

Is the Satan or saw-tawn of Christ’s temptation a holy angel of God? and after it/he leaves then other holy angels come to minister to him? or perhaps it’s just the evil tempting thoughts go and then more comforting thoughts come? Maybe the gods, and demons all just spring from our own minds which is why there is such inconsistency,disagreements and variations in religion?

[AndrewAD]

Oh I just saw the next page. So you think I am in support of the money grubbers huh? Did I ever say I was? I asked you pertinent questions on faith and you give the exact same speil as they do which is why I brought it up.

[AndrewAD]

Gene,

Had you sent your money to one of the televangelists and then sent them your testimony they may have used it to boost their ministry and then you’d really be convinced they were of God. That’s how the propaganda works but the majority of people who send their money can’t even afford to pay their bills. They know this and prey upon them with bible promises of “prove God” but when it never works it’s guilt trips and get your heart right, and give more money. And yes Praise the Lord anyway!!! It’s all a sham.

[AndrewAD]

Beelzebub as used in the gospels is just another name for Satan or the devil, and Jesus certainly acknowledges him by saying he has a kingdom. Why was Jesus anointed by God to heal those oppressed of the devil if the devil is only doing God’s will? Jesus makes it plain that the devil has a kingdom that is in opposition to God’s by saying if Satan cast out Satan then how can his kingdom stand? The various authors in the NT understood it this way with statements such as ” for this cause was the Son of God manifest, that he might destroy the works of the devil” and “put on the whole armour of God that you might stand against the wiles of the devil.” And why do the demons in the synoptics fear Jesus and even beg him not to punish them? Why should they fear if they’re only doing God’s will? Why should they be punished?

Jodi, it’s quite plain and easy to see if you let yourself acknowledge the truth, that the theology of the OT and the NT are not the same. And the theology of the OT evolves as time goes along as I pointed out to you in Daniel,which was written in the same era as Enoch, where the angelic princes of Persia and Greece battle Michael and Gabriel. Clearly these are entities opposed to God and not  his servants doing his justice or will. God and the devil evolve throughout the Bible and some refer to this as progressive revelation.

And as you’ve pointed out that first century Judaism was greatly influenced by Persian and Greek theology so too was Jesus and Christianity. Where do you think John’s baptism came from? There’s no baptism in the OT and it was something new during that time; a new way of atonement or forgiveness of sin not according to the law. It was practiced in Egypt at the Nile and Hindus had and still have the same type of rituals but it was new to Judaism. The Sadducees and those more adherent to the law had nothing to do with these innovations, but Jesus certainly did and thus a new religion came to be.

You shouldn’t accuse Nick of blasphemy for believing as the NT  and Christianity teach and trying to impose Moses on Jesus is denying what Jesus and the gospel are all about.

[AndrewAD]

“Satan is trying to get us to focus endless hours of our time on this smoke and mirrors, garbage, we have undeniable proof, ton of proof, that proves the earth is indeed round. ”

But Gene according to your theology Satan is only doing God’s will  to show forth his righteousness correct? Don’t blame the devil! 🙂

[AndrewAD]

Jodi,

Mark 1: 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  In Mark’s account of the Baptism the voice declares Thou art my son, and in the other synoptics it’s similar which doesn’t say that at it was at that moment he became God’s son. If the voice said thou hast now become my son you might have a point. But as I’ve pointed out in Luke he’s shown to be Lord,Christ, and Son of God previous to this and Matthew does as well with his virgin birth story.

In Matthew’s version John didn’t want to baptize Jesus and says ” it’s I who need to be baptized by you and you come to me?” with Jesus response as ” suffer it to be so now for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness”. Now what is the point of this except that baptism was for sinners a new way of atonement or forgiveness of which Jesus had no need unless he was a sinner. And the “suffer it to be so now” is Matthew’s way of explaining this. Jesus didn’t need to be forgiven and baptism certainly wasn’t any legal requirement for anyone.

I do want to touch on more of your points and enjoy the conversation but have to go, so I’ll suffer this post to be so now. God bless!

 

[AndrewAD]

Hi Jodi,

That’s a good point about Mark 1- it being after the forty days where Jesus was in the wilderness being tempted by Satan,and John’s preaching about a greater one coming-although Jesus isn’t specified. So it makes sense if the demons met him in the wilderness. And I was thinking “right after” in terms of in Mark chapter 1. I freely admit the synoptics don’t make a point of Jesus preexistence like John does.

Although the term Son of Man in the synoptics,if referring to Daniels vision of the Son of Man, which I think it does, implies preexistence and in Mark 2:27 where Jesus claims to be Lord of the sabbath.

[Author]

Posts