Posted on 07/02/2017 10:05:07 AM PDT by Oatka
The Apostle Paul was not married and he was a Pharisee.
I have no idea how any Christian, would ever place our Savior, Jesus Christ on the same plain/plane as the first rebel. I merely pointed to Hebrews 2:14 as the cause and purpose that covers the full spectrum of the mission of Christ. It sure was NOT to have a flesh relationship with a creation of the Maker.
Read Hebrews 2:14 “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;”
Saving for later
Actually, the first prophecy regarding the coming of Christ was penned by Moses, from the Creator Himself, Genesis 3:15. Christ was in the Garden of God, called Eden, symbolically called ‘the Tree of Life’, as was the first rebel symbolically called the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’.
This flesh age is where as Solomon pens in Ecclesiastes 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things, neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after...
I have read that flesh man maybe uses 10% of the mind’s capacity... Solomon also penned in Ecclesiastes 12 :7 Then shall the dust (flesh) return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God Who gave it.
All that take this flesh journey, soul/spirit return to the Maker that sent them... the ‘good’, the ‘bad’, and the ‘ugly’. But the first rebel and his rebels will not be born of woman, and they have all already been judged to eternal death. Dead spirits still allowed to deceive though..
I’ve seen some videos of that with modelling, etc. Low tide, the wind blowing the right way, etc. I’m okay with that - heck - it even says in the Bible that God caused a strong wind to divide the water. The idea of “walls” of water on both sides would seem to indicate something though that wasn’t entirely caused by a strong wind - but perhaps something is lost in translation. (Like “wall” really means edge, etc.)
BUT - God used those natural things in a supernatural manner to create a miracle.
I just noticed a few months ago that when Moses cries out to God to rescue them, God sounds to me like he is a little pissed at Moses.
“And the Lord said to Moses, “Why do you cry to Me? Tell the children of Israel to go forward. 16 But lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it. And the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.”
It sounds to me that God had already given Moses all of this power, but still Moses was crying to God to save them.
“Genesis 6 describes the Sons of God, ‘fallen angels’ and they are more specifically discussed in the Book of Jude.”
That part I’m familiar with.
“After the devil rebelled, the devil was cast down and overthrown from his described power in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.”
I know it is a popular thought that Satan and his angels have been cast out of Heaven down to the earth. However, my reading of these and similar passages is that they are prophetic. It seems that the Devil will not be permanently kicked out of Heaven until the middle of Daniel’s seventieth week. I’m basing this on Revelation 12, among other passages.
“The ‘fallen angels’ refused to take this flesh journey, as described by Christ to Nicodemus of what is required to ‘see’ the kingdom of God, in John 3... to be born from above, not ‘again’. John 3:13 is the answer to what Nicodemus could not comprehend.”
I’m not following you on this. Are you saying that fallen angels are supposed to take on human flesh? Can you clarify?
John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Are you saying the term “born again” is wrongly translated here? Why do you believe so?
“I have no idea how any Christian, would ever place our Savior, Jesus Christ on the same plain/plane as the first rebel.”
Good. I’ll try to be more careful about making assumptions. Thanks for clarifying that.
“[Christ’s purpose in coming] sure was NOT to have a flesh relationship with a creation of the Maker.”
When it comes to the suggestion that Christ got married, I would certainly agree. However, I’m not sure how broad you intend your statement to be.
Christ had earthly relationships that were based on His becoming a flesh and blood human being. He had an earthly mother who gave birth to Him. He had other biological relatives. He was a descendant of David. He experienced the feelings and challenges of being fully human (without sinning).
1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life.
He experienced hunger, thirst, exhaustion, and the emotions related to human touch — including closeness of friends. He experienced disappointments, as a human being. He experienced physical suffering (in addition to the other suffering) when He beaten, hit, abused with other forms of violence, and crucified.
But most importantly, Christ is presently 100% human. He did not cease to be God when He became a man (though He set aside His rights and privileges as God). He also did not cease to be a man when He returned to Heaven. So there is at this very moment a Man in Heaven, bodily.
Anyway, I would be curious to hear more details on the topic of angels and the flesh journey. I’ll try to be open minded. But I have never heard anything quite along those lines before. And being pretty familiar with the Bible, I do not readily see how that fits into the Biblical accounts of angels.
But, admittedly, there is a lot of information that is not fully explained, and I don’t have all of the answers either.
Remember what Solomon penned ... Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Genesis 1:2 is describing Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground which didst weaken the nations!...
This is also Revelation 12:4 (history) And his tail drew the third part of the 'stars' of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:... (stars indicates spirit bodies, and not of this present 'flesh' world.
Peter goes into great detail about 3 different heaven/earth worlds, or more correctly 'ages'... The world that then 'was'.. The whole chapter of IIPeter 3.
Both Christ and Paul refer to 'before the foundation of this world', and that word 'foundation' is the Greek word 'k a t a b o l e' a noun is used in Matthew 13:35; 25:34, Luke 11:50; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; Hebrews 4:3, 9:26, 11:11; I Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8, 17:8; The corresponding verb 'k a t a b a l l o' occurs in IICorinthians 4:8; Hebrews 6:1 and Revelation 12:10.
Paul tells us in ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (examples); and they are written for our admonition, (warning) upon whom the ends of the world are come.. (again world = age).
Revelation 12:12 is yet future ... and if you note the devil knows he has but a short time... Christ said the 'days' of Daniel had been cut short for the elect's sake.
I’m not following you on this. Are you saying that fallen angels are supposed to take on human flesh? Can you clarify?
No, I am not saying the fallen angels will show up in flesh bodies... Were Moses and Elijah in 'flesh' bodies when they were with Christ at the Mt. of Transfiguration? The soul/spirit has it own body and apparently were quite recognizable as Christ in His Spiritual body was recognized. Well, recognizable IF one knows who shows up first in the 'supernatural'.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Are you saying the term “born again” is wrongly translated here? Why do you believe so?
John 3:13 explains what Christ is telling Nicodemus. And yes, John wrote born from 'above' not born 'again'.
When it comes to the suggestion that Christ got married, I would certainly agree. However, I’m not sure how broad you intend your statement to be.
I did not refer to anything 'broader' than the 'unbelievable tale' posted.
Solomon's writings in the Book of Ecclesiastes are about the flesh walk... I would recommend starting there... "Vanity of vanities," saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities ; all is vanity.
My view is that knowing his ultimate destiny was to be crucified, Jesus would have regarded it as cruel to marry and force a wife to go through that.
It was bad enough that his mother had to watch.
Jesus said to them, “My wife...she is able to be my disciple
One possible wording: “Jesus said to them, “My wife is not Mary. However, she is able to be my disciple.”
I've never noticed the "view replies" category, nor tried it before....thanks for the tip !!!
I was thinking the exact same thing.
‘Just mythoughts’ are you just making things up?
What is this “flesh journey” you’re talking about, and where does The Bible say that the SONS of God refused to take it?
If I remember correctly The Bible says something about the SONS of God saw that the daughters of men were fair, and mated with them.
I don’t ever remember them refusing to take a “flesh journey”
“John 3:13 explains what Christ is telling Nicodemus. And yes, John wrote born from ‘above’ not born ‘again’.”
The majority of English translations say “born again” rather than “born from above.”
The original Greek uses anóthen which can mean either.
All of the Greek manuscripts say the same thing.
The extant Aramaic translations have “men derish” which can also be translated either way. (I add this because there is a high possibility that Jesus had the conversation with Nicodemus in Aramaic.)
All of the early translations of this passage (such as Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin) defer to the meaning “born again.”
The Greek term is similar to saying something in English like “let’s take it from the top.” “From above” is correct. But so is “again.”
Sometimes words with multiple meanings are used because multiple meanings were intended.
The “birth” that Jesus was speaking of was new, spiritual, Heavenly, and distinct from the first biological one we all experience.
So I do not disagree with saying that this new birth is “from above.” It is. Jesus essentially says so in the remainder of the conversation. However, I can’t go so far as to agree with your position that “born again” is incorrect.
On the other issues you’ve addressed, I think I will contemplate them more. Thanks for the references you shared.
I do, however, want to say on the examples of Elijah and Moses, it is hard to assert anything conclusive about their appearance. Samuel was conjured up by a witch hired by Saul. And whether it was irregular for an actually deceased soul to appear, in that particular case he did. And his soul was recognizable to her it seems.
For Moses and Elijah I would be less certain as to whether or not their appearances were “soul bodies” of sorts. When Christ was crucified there were some saints whose bodies came to life, and they came out of their graves. I am operating under the assumption that these bodies were not experiencing the final resurrection in which we will receive incorruptible bodies like unto Christ’s body. So, it is my belief that they soon went back to sleep in their graves. Perhaps the same is true of Moses. And for Elijah, there is actually no indication that he ever died. So it is quite possible that the same means that carried him away from earth in the first place, also carried him to this mountain in his natural, fleshly body.
This is a considerable amount of speculation. But I am not asserting any doctrinal positions upon this. And it is my point in fact that it is a bit risky to do so. There is a lot of information which has not been disclosed to us in scripture.
What makes Jesus Gods only “begotten” son, when The Bible clearly mentions SONS of God in other places.
What does “begotten” mean?
The Bible very clearly mentions several times that Jesus is the only son of God.
From https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html:
Question: “What does it mean that Jesus is God’s only begotten son?”
Answer: The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The phrase “only begotten” translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as “only,” “one and only,” and “only begotten.”
It’s this last phrase (”only begotten” used in the KJV, NASB and the NKJV) that causes problems. False teachers have latched onto this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn’t God; i.e., that Jesus isn’t equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They see the word “begotten” and say that Jesus is a created being because only someone who had a beginning in time can be “begotten.” What this fails to note is that “begotten” is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not transfer English meanings into the text.
So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship.” This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son” (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.
The second definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind.” This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God’s Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God’s sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.
The bottom line is that terms such as “Father” and “Son,” descriptive of God and Jesus, are human terms that help us understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you can understand the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some pseudo-Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally “begotten” as in “produced” or “created” by God the Father.
https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html
Only for the idiots who believe everything that comes down the pike.
AMEN!!!
John 3:13 explains why the word is born from above. Christ told Nicodemus that the first requirement to ‘see’ the kingdom of God was to be born from above. Christ did not say all that are born from above would ‘see’ the kingdom of God.
Again Hebrews 2:14 is not hard to understand. And Christ most certainly was born from Above..Luke describes in detail what took place at the ‘conception’ of Christ. It certainly was not His flesh embryo that John the Baptist reacted too upon Mary’s visit to Elizabeth.
Our Heavenly Father sent us the Word and as it is written some are given a spirit of slumber.
The Bible also clearly mentions the “sonS of God”...
Yes, in Genesis 6:2, 4. The different commentaries at the link below have some rather interesting explanations.
http://www.studylight.org/commentary/genesis/6-2.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.