| Author |
 Topic  |
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 02:08:41 AM
|
Dear Paralambano,
quote:
Thanks for the Burns and Allen link. It had its moments.
I think the person doing the duck does it quite well.
quote:
What anti-clerical things are happening in Europe?
http://www.robgagnon.net/HomosexualAgenda.htm
While I don't necessarily endorse all the positions at that site, it contains some shocking facts:
This past June in Sweden a Pentecostal minister, Ake Green, was sentenced to a month in prison for referring to homosexual practice in a sermon as a "horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." The public prosecutor commented: "Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech." The Swedish parliament has already given initial approval to a constitutional amendment that would prohibit any speech that "implies unfavorable treatment" to homosexual persons, with a prison sentence of up to two years.
Even highly placed church officials face the specter of prosecution. In the Catholic Church, Belgian Cardinal Gustaaf Joos faces an anti-discrimination lawsuit for remarks that he made in 2003 about homosexuality and the Church's teaching in a Belgium magazine. Madrid Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela is facing a suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a sermon he gave in 2003. In 2000 Dutch authorities even contemplated bringing charges against Pope John Paul II after he declared a homosexual rally in Rome to be “an offense to Christian values.” They backed off only when they were forced to concede that the Pope had "global immunity." In Oct. 2003 Anglican Bishop of Chester, England, Peter Forster, was investigated by police by making the following "hate" comment in an interview with a local newspaper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can re-orientate themselves. . . . We want to help them, but I don't offer it as a pancea." The police chief declared that the comments were "totally unacceptable" and compared the remarks to offenses against ethnic minorities "generated by hate and prejudice."
Consider Spain also -- this from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/1523416/Pope-sets-out-on-a-mission-to-halt-eclipse-of-God.html
The streets of Valencia are decked in flags of papal yellow and a 100ft high cross dominates the skyline, as Spain's third city prepares to greet Pope Benedict XVI on a visit to promote Roman Catholic family values.
But the Pope knows that many in Spain are not keen to hear his message to the World Meeting of Families. The Spanish Church is at loggerheads with a socialist government which, the Vatican believes, is determined to break free from the religious ties of its past.
In the past two years the socialists have implemented a domestic programme of radical legislation, including marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals and a relaxation of the divorce laws.
Laws on abortion, in vitro fertilisation, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia have also been loosened. The government has announced an end to mandatory Catholic education in schools, and the introduction of classes in Islam and Judaism.
The changes have left the nation's Church leaders reeling and caused alarm among officials at the Vatican, including the Pope. Last month a hard-hitting Vatican document branded such measures an "eclipse of God".
Estimates are that between 40% and 50% of Czechs are atheists.
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/37318/limit
quote:
When Peter "himself" returns, will he let believers know that it's he, Peter, who walked with Jesus of Nazareth a couple of millennia ago?
I don't know that he knows himself who he is.
quote:
I agree with you that people can get into heaven despite bad leadership as well. They continue believing in what's good, refusing to go along with wickedness.
And if leadership still fails, then what? Do you not think it would be replaced?
quote:
I haven't forgotten that Temples get finished. I just don't think they're complete without a sense of community.
They are completed with complete unity and a sense of community; and when some people lag, others are dragged in to replace them. Remember the story about the marriage feast where some of the guests don't show up? Remember how one third of the city falls in the book of Revelation?
For those who do not make it in during the current conditions, there must be provisions made for them in the next. The Apostles did not operate by the authority of the Sanhedrin. Indeed, whether Christians would be subject to the rulings of the Sanhedrin (and thus all Jewish law) seems to have been one of the first problems the Apostles had to deal with.
Boullan |
 |
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 28 Dec 2009 : 08:56:01 AM
|
Boullan;
One of the better moments in the program I think was when the duck's accused of eating something and denies it followed by a hiccup. I thought that was funny.
It seems to me that the anti-clerical things happening in Europe aren't necessarily just anti-clerical but anti-anyone who'd want to speak freely about what they believe about certain things. I suppose they wouldn't have enough jails to hold everyone if everyone truly spoke their minds about things  .
I believe that sometimes the hierarchy of the church receives its impetus from the laity (how could it not if it's part of the same body?) and if the laity is silent, the Body begins to wobble. But these things come and go with damages done, one form of oppression replaced by another.
Why would the Pope call himself "Peter" if the rule is that Popes don't call themselves by this name? It seems to me if he enters in a time of tribulation for the Church that he might identify in some way with the persecution of the first Peter. Others could accept this of him, that is, extraordinary circumstances generate extraordinary claims. In other words, he might not necessarily have to say he's the original Peter himself to be accepted as a "Peter".
10, 9, 8, 7, . . .
|
Edited by - paralambano on 28 Dec 2009 09:46:50 AM |
|
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2009 : 11:50:08 AM
|
Dear Paralambano,
quote:
One of the better moments in the program I think was when the duck's accused of eating something and denies it followed by a hiccup. I thought that was funny.
LOL I find the dynamaics fascinating. Gracie is so tolerant, so sure her duck is so innocent; and George does not seem to like the duck but he's tolerant of Gracie so he also tolerates the duck's antics.
quote:
It seems to me that the anti-clerical things happening in Europe aren't necessarily just anti-clerical but anti-anyone who'd want to speak freely about what they believe about certain things. I suppose they wouldn't have enough jails to hold everyone if everyone truly spoke their minds about things .
I read with some fascination that the Swiss were considering banning people from coming to their country to off themselves. It seems that the legalization of assisted suicide was attracting too many foreigners; and the country famous for its banks, gold business, watches, and chocolate was becoming infamous as for its suicide trade.
It was threatening the pastoral picture Switzerland is famous for. People were not coming for the skiiing or healthy Alpine pleasures, they were coming to die! Ah, and then we had the threat of minarets looming over Switzerland.
quote:
I believe that sometimes the hierarchy of the church receives its impetus from the laity (how could it not if it's part of the same body?) and if the laity is silent, the Body begins to wobble. But these things come and go with damages done, one form of oppression replaced by another.
How could it be? The only impetus that the hierarchy should receive from laity is how best to serve. It is up to hierarchy to analyze situations and to determine what is needed; but no means should the laity's ideas of what they think may be needed determine hierarchy's actions. Do sheep tell the shepherd where they want to be led? Do they tell him when they're hungry or thirsty? Do they tell him about wolves? You get my drift?
For me, the highest title the Pope has is "Servant of the Servants of God." I say Jesus would not have been worthy to have all things put under his feet if he had not been willing himself to wash the feet of his disciples. (We discussed this before, I think, in passing.) At various times, however, some Popes exceeded their lawful limits, seeking to establish positions of power not out of love for the sheep but out of pride.
quote:
Why would the Pope call himself "Peter" if the rule is that Popes don't call themselves by this name?
St. Malachy calls him that. Malachy does not say he will call himself that, although it would not surprise me if his name at birth was Peter or Pierre or something equivalent; Pope Benedict XIII has as his given name, for example, Pietro Orsini. There are, at present, several madmen who call themselves Peter II, claiming to be Petrus Romanus; but I take none of them seriously.
Myself? I think it will be Peter himself; but then I often read things quite literally when others tend to give them a more casual interpretation. I read "David" to mean "David," also:
Jeremiah 30:9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.
Ezekiel 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.
24 And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it.
Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd : they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
Hosea 3:5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.
So I stick with my simple idea that Petrus Romanus is the same Peter who established the Church at Rome, with the help of St. Paul and St. John.
quote:
It seems to me if he enters in a time of tribulation for the Church that he might identify in some way with the persecution of the first Peter. Others could accept this of him, that is, extraordinary circumstances generate extraordinary claims. In other words, he might not necessarily have to say he's the original Peter himself to be accepted as a "Peter".
The final prophecy reads in translation:
During the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, the seat will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed his sheep in many tribulations: and when these things are finished, the seven-hilled city will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people.
I could be reading it wrong; perhaps the destruction of the seven-hilled city is metaphorical, but I doubt it.
There are various interpretations of the current Pope's motto, "Gloria olivae" or "glory of the olive." I rather think it may have more than one way of being read; and one way I read it is the pressing of olives into oil. The more successful the current Pope is at this the less violent the coming transition will be; still -- and I know I sound apocalyptic -- I expect a global bloodbath within the next decade or so.
In my own lifetime, I've seen the de-romanization of the RCC. I've seen the liturgy no longer in Latin -- a shocking development in its own way since it used to be that any Catholic could attend any Catholic Church in the world and hear the Mass in Latin. While various people may speak Latin in different ways, it was still in Latin. I have seen a surfeit of new Cardinals created -- brought about by the Polish Pope. I have seen a flood of new saints recognized, almost at astonishing speed, in an effort to attract other nationalities. The de-Romanizing of the Church may astonish me, may even offend me at times; but in it, I see a plan at work, and I ought not to be offended.
Back to Petrus Romanus now. He may not know himself he's Peter; but I do not think St. Peter is guarding the gates of heaven. He has not entered the rest of the saints.
John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
Boullan |
|
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 30 Dec 2009 : 4:56:13 PM
|
Boullan;
George at least tolerates what he thinks is harmless if he doesn't buy into everything Gracie believes.
Switzerland. A place of refuge and new start if the Sound of Music got it right .
An impetus of learning how to serve for the hierarchy seems to me to cover some ground since the laity's needs can be diverse. However, I was thinking more in terms of an apostate hierarchy (we were discussing what you pray is the coming dissolution of the RCC), one that won't police its excesses, expecting the led to be complacent, their silence considered consent. Sometimes the laity, removed from this type hierarchy, are able to see things more clearly.
Will David know it's he, David of old, who's reincarnated to feed the sheep, or will he have to be told that he is?
10, 9, 8, 7, . . .
|
Edited by - paralambano on 30 Dec 2009 5:05:02 PM |
|
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2010 : 03:01:06 AM
|
Dear Paralambano,
quote:
George at least tolerates what he thinks is harmless if he doesn't buy into everything Gracie believes.
It keeps his life interesting. Their act was originally set up to have Burns deliver the punchlines; but when he saw how easily she got laughs delivering the "straight" lines, he decided he could flip their roles.
One of my favorite lines was when Gracie was running for President and giving a speech and said, "I don't know much about the Lend-Lease Bill, but if we owe it we should pay it."
quote:
Switzerland. A place of refuge and new start if the Sound of Music got it right .
Yes, and that reputation is being threatened by all the people killing themselves there. I see some famous British conductor and his wife did just that and left a ton of money to their children who sat there and watched it happen. If Scotland Yard charges these children, people will naturally wonder if greed was a motive. I don't understand it. If I wanted to kill myself, I wouldn't want my children involved in this kind of thing with other people speculating whether they wanted me dead to get their hands on my money. Bad planning. I would have given them the money first.
quote:
An impetus of learning how to serve for the hierarchy seems to me to cover some ground since the laity's needs can be diverse. However, I was thinking more in terms of an apostate hierarchy (we were discussing what you pray is the coming dissolution of the RCC), one that won't police its excesses, expecting the led to be complacent, their silence considered consent. Sometimes the laity, removed from this type hierarchy, are able to see things more clearly.
I wonder about this. Do most lay persons really understand the motives of Cardinal Law for example? Many people accuse him of trying to cover up sex abuse scandals; but isn't it possible he did what he thought was right? Why splash things over the front pages of the papers if psychologists tell you it can be handled discretely? If Cardinal Law made a mistake, it was trusting the "expertise" of the psychologists -- relying on earthly methods rather than canon law.
quote:
Will David know it's he, David of old, who's reincarnated to feed the sheep, or will he have to be told that he is?
David knows who he is.
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
How is he both "root and offspring?" He also "is" David. His throne is forever.
How else can you explain Jesus' claim to the throne? Joseph was not his natural father; and if he had been, that claim went through Jeconiah who was written off. The claim cannot go through the female.
Samuel who consecrated David as King Messiah reincarnated as Joseph, playing a similar role with Jesus, nurturing him. I also wonder about Anna in the Temple. Was she Hannah who had prayed for a son? I wonder if her effectiveness at praying for children to be born allowed her to be reborn again to pray for the coming of Messiah? I don't know about Anna; but I tend to think it was a kind of reunion.
John the Baptist did not remember who he was; but Jesus remembered. John thus denied being Elijah, but Jesus said he was. Again, we see a pattern since Jesus had been Elisha.
Nor should it surprise you that I believe Jesus was the "child of promise" given to Abraham -- Isaac. When Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see him in his day, I read it many ways. One was seeing by faith the birth of Isaac and Messiah, the Lamb of God. Another was in the flesh. Abraham was also one of the three Wise Men. By faith, Abraham saw it in the future; and I believe he also saw the Christ child in the flesh. No, I do not think he was reincarnated as Peter as some people do. I will rely on my own experiences and memories for that. I've met Abraham and Sarah when they appeared as those people; and I've met him when he appeared as one of the Magi; and I talk to him also as El Morya. I cannot see how he could be Peter since Peter was the person who converted me to Christianity. I'd think I'd know if Abraham and Peter were the same being. I can reach Abraham mentally if I want; I cannot reach Peter.
Now more about Joseph. I believe he is the one known to some today as St. Germaine. I've seen him and spoken to him; and while we never discussed things like the coming age, I do believe he will the Messenger of the Next Age. It may seem strange to people that when I meet such beings, I do not discuss things that would seem "important" but that's how it is.
Boullan |
|
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2010 : 11:00:27 AM
|
Boullan;
That's a funny line about paying what's owed. A woman Secretary of the Treasury someday?
No doubt others will learn from the experiences of the offspring of the suicide-family and do things differently.
Cardinal Law apparently didn't know canon law about it according to the following:
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories2/051002_canon_law.htm
and the secular sword is often sharpened by the laity when not in assembly.
How can Jesus actually be David when He's also the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:10)?
Matthew (1:11-12) and certain rabbis don't appear to believe that Jeconiah was written off.
John the Baptist didn't say he didn't remember who he was, he simply denied being Elijah himself. I don't know that Jesus remembered that John was the reincarnation of Elijah. It seems to me that if John was indeed come in the power and spirit of Elijah and a reincarnation of the latter, he'd by the power and spirit of Elijah remember who he was at least.
I don't know by scripture how Joseph can be Samuel reincarnated or how Hannah can be Anna.
It seems to me that Peter might not only be unaware of who he is as forthcoming Pope, he also doesn't appear to know that Jesus is the reincarnation of David by the following:
Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.
Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:29-36).
According to Peter, it appears that David is dead and hasn't ascended to heaven, but Jesus Christ has, being one of David's descendents. David has a Lord that says something to David's Lord. How could this spokesperson for Jesus Christ be so forgetful of something his Master had allegedly taught, that the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah, while the alleged mindset of the disciples included the notion that a man born blind was on some sort of karmic wheel?
By the way, I had gone to Wal-Mart a couple of days ago looking for Bavarian Cremes. I'm thinking the filling won't be as heavy or as mediciny-tasting to me as Boston Cremes. I didn't find any, but I'll keep looking in other ones. Guess what? They were chuck-full of Devil's Squares though which I let pass only because I bought another box of Zebra Cakes and some Fudge Brownies. I'm trying to save some for company even though it doesn't look like it, having gotten into both already  .
10, 9, 8, 7, . . .
|
Edited by - paralambano on 01 Jan 2010 11:03:20 AM |
|
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2010 : 3:22:21 PM
|
Dear Paralambano,
I'm back!
quote:
That's a funny line about paying what's owed. A woman Secretary of the Treasury someday?
I found it amusing. I found the run for President amusing, too.
quote:
No doubt others will learn from the experiences of the offspring of the suicide-family and do things differently.
It will be interesting to see if the UK presses any charges.
quote:
How can Jesus actually be David when He's also the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:10)?
Let me take a look:
Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
The concept in Isaiah is similar to that John gives us in Revelation where he calls someone both root and branch of David.
How can the root be also the branch? Come now! It's not that perplexing, is it? Isaiah seems to be saying (in my view) that the "branch" of the tree (or house) of David would rule over Israel, but the "root" would rule over the Gentiles.
It is a question of "becoming" whatever is needed. Is is so unthinkable to believe that a Great Spiritual Being would put aside his greatness to assume a lesser role because others might fail at the task? Are we not told, on this account, in Hebrews, that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels; and yet elsewhere (leaving some skeptics scratching their heads, Madame Blavatsky among them since she commented on this paradox), the same book says he was so much better than the angels.
You seem to have a solid view of solid things, fixed in time and space; while I seem the soul of Jesus being restless from the foundation of the earth, restless in his desire to bring Light to a dark world. So what if the Spirit of Messiah can be called root of both Jesse and David? Does it also not bear fruit?
Is it not written, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end? Why struggle then with this paradox of how Jesus as Messiah could be called the root of Jesse?
quote:
Matthew (1:11-12) and certain rabbis don't appear to believe that Jeconiah was written off.
Matthew's text is dubious. There's a name missing somewhere! Count the names! As for the rabbis, they err -- that is all I can say. When the "blessing" passes from one son to another, it's not changed. The precedents are clear. Should we believe that Messiah could be a descendant of Ishmael or Esau? Why not? Aren't they also children of Abraham also, through whom the child of promise was to come?
Ah, but not all sons of Abraham are really son of Abraham. Was Ishmael the son of Abraham? After the flesh, yes. After the spirit, no, for God says of Isaac that he is Abraham's "only" son.
Genesis 22:2 KJV And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Was Jesus the son of David after the flesh? No. I think it impious to believe that since Mary was a Virgin. Was he David's child after the Spirit? I'm more flexible then in tolerating in differing opinions; but I insist that Jesus and David both shared the same likeness and image of God.
In David's day, that image and likeness was passed on from father to son by a spiritual act during sexual congress with a pure woman; in Jesus' day, we see spiritual progress since what he brought down from Heaven (he and Mary and Joseph) was the ability to procreate spiritually without the sexual act. Thus, prior to Jesus' day, Gentiles had to convert and often intermarried with Jews in order to have an adequate likeness and image of God transmitted to their chidren. After his day, the Holy Spirit could overshadow men and women and change them if they were willing to imitate the modest and pure example of Mary.
quote:
John the Baptist didn't say he didn't remember who he was, he simply denied being Elijah himself. I don't know that Jesus remembered that John was the reincarnation of Elijah. It seems to me that if John was indeed come in the power and spirit of Elijah and a reincarnation of the latter, he'd by the power and spirit of Elijah remember who he was at least.
What is this talk about the "power and spirit" of Elijah? I am not talking about passages that use that language. Jesus said directly that John was Elijah. John said he was not.
Matthew 11:14 KJV And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
If you can't receive it, you can't receive it. Haven't we discussed this before? Did we not disagree over why John was said to be the greatest among prophets? I think I said John was the only man ever to reincarnate again as a man after Ascending. If you don't want to think John had been Elijah, it probably won't harm you -- it didn't harm John much since he showed up later as Elijah at the Transfiguration!
quote:
I don't know by scripture how Joseph can be Samuel reincarnated or how Hannah can be Anna.
I did not say it could be established by Scripture.
quote:
It seems to me that Peter might not only be unaware of who he is as forthcoming Pope, he also doesn't appear to know that Jesus is the reincarnation of David by the following:
Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.
First, let explore Psalm 22. David wrote in the first person, may I remind you? Can you name another prophet who wrote "I" and "me" when writing things prophetically? Why only David? Why did Jesus choose to repeat the words of David when he was on the cross? There are other Psalms too, I think, in which we believe David is speaking prophetically, and in which he uses the first person.
He's referring to number 16, no?
Ps 16:8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.
10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.
Do you think that David had been in hell, rotting for centuries, until Jesus brought him out? Who is the "Holy One" in the text, is that also David?
quote:
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
David has God at his right hand, and Jesus is at God's right hand?
quote:
For David did not ascend to heaven,
This much I can agree with since I have already given my view that Elijah was the only person ever to Ascend and then incarnate in the flesh again.
and yet he said,
quote:
The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.
Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:29-36).
Psalm 110 was written by David, true enough; and it was meant to be sung in the congregation. The people singing would have been calling David their "lord." If you don't believe that, you don't; but don't be deceived by the Greek translation of Psalm 110.
quote:
According to Peter, it appears that David is dead and hasn't ascended to heaven, but Jesus Christ has, being one of David's descendents. David has a Lord that says something to David's Lord.
The text says David had not Ascended, and that he was not left to rot in hell. Okay, I agree with that. I think he was reborn and Ascended after his life as Jesus. If we see the "Holy One" as the Spirit which rested upon David, I conclude that his sins of adultery and murder did not condemn him to hell eternally; there would be a solution to things.
quote:
How could this spokesperson for Jesus Christ be so forgetful of something his Master had allegedly taught, that the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah,
You're shifting gears suddenly here. You had been discussing if Jesus was the reincarnation of David, and now somehow you're introducing the idea that Peter has forgotten something about Elijah and John.
quote:
while the alleged mindset of the disciples included the notion that a man born blind was on some sort of karmic wheel?
Ha, yes, people often get wrapped up in the past too much and don't see what is in front of their eyes.
Mark 8:27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
28 And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
There is no benefit in believing that Jesus was or was not David unless one knows what they both embodied.
quote:
By the way, I had gone to Wal-Mart a couple of days ago looking for Bavarian Cremes. I'm thinking the filling won't be as heavy or as mediciny-tasting to me as Boston Cremes.
They may have a schedule or something. Or perhaps the local supplier doesn't make them.
quote:
I didn't find any, but I'll keep looking in other ones. Guess what? They were chuck-full of Devil's Squares though which I let pass only because I bought another box of Zebra Cakes and some Fudge Brownies. I'm trying to save some for company even though it doesn't look like it, having gotten into both already.
I would tell you that you might buy two boxes of each, one of each for yourself and one of each for company; but that might lead to more trouble.
Boullan
|
Edited by - boullan on 04 Jan 2010 3:31:08 PM |
|
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2010 : 9:07:04 PM
|
Boullan;
If the estate goes to the children, then I don't see how they don't "profit" by their parents' deaths. It's my understanding that Swiss authorities are trying to determine whether Dignitas' founder is profiting from his "service". If Switzerland finds him culpable, the Crown Prosecutor might be emboldened to take steps this away against the relatives. If the Swiss fail, it could be that the bulldog will soldier on nonetheless.
I'm not perplexed about the Root being or becoming the Branch, nor do I doubt that Jesus divested Himself of the fulness of His divinity to become man. I don't necessarily see an insoluble paradox in Jesus becoming lower than the angels, yet being higher than them. I don't struggle with Jesus being called the Root of Jesse. Rather, I was wondering how Jesus can be both the Root David and the Root Jesse if He's the reincarnation of David.
There's more than one name missing when one compares Matthew's genealogy to Luke's. The latter has seventy-one to Matthew's forty-one. And these are not the only differences. Matthew is patterning with his use of "3's" in his gospel and "14", the numerical equivalent of "David", compelling a symmetry. Did the Hebrews abridge genealogies? Compare Ezra 7 with Chronicles 6. I still don't see how Matthew is in error scripturally by mentioning Jeconiah since I believe the prohibition can reasonably be seen to be meant just for his lifetime.
It's my understanding that Jesus was without sin while David had sinned, so I don't believe they shared the same image and likeness in God.
I don't know that Jesus meant reincarnation when He spoke about John being Elijah. Elisha had Elijah's spirit on him (thus, the same power) and I'm not sure who was convinced that he was Elijah reincarnated.
If Samuel can't be established by scripture to be Joseph, how is it established by the Church these two millennia? I can indeed accept Elias coming as John, but it remains undemonstrated that Jesus probably meant reincarnation by it.
I don't know how John showed up as Elijah at the transfiguration since nothing's said about building a tabernacle for John, neither does the Church major teach it. Since you write that it won't harm me if I don't believe it, I'll accept that I remain unharmed this way .
Isaiah? Isaiah prophesied the same way David did, in the first person here:
The Sovereign Lord has given me his words of wisdom, so that I know what to say to all these weary ones. Morning by morning he wakens me and opens my understanding to his will. The Sovereign Lord has spoken to me, and I have listened. I do not rebel or turn away. I give my back to those who beat me and my cheeks to those who pull out my beard. I do not hide from shame, for they mock me and spit in my face. Because the Sovereign Lord helps me, I will not be dismayed. Therefore, I have set my face like a stone, determined to do his will. And I know that I will triumph (Isaiah 50:4-7).
Scripture informs us that David rotted away in his grave:
For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay (Acts 13:36-37).
Both Peter:
For David says of Him, I saw the Lord always in my presence; for he is at my right hand, so that I will not be shaken (Acts 2:25).
and Paul:
Therefore He also says in another Psalm, You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay (Acts 13:35).
mean of "Him" and "Holy One" to be Jesus of Nazareth according to the scriptures and the Church's understanding of them.
Yes, Jesus is at God's right hand. I don't believe David's soul was in torments but in "Abraham's bosom", raised up to heaven with Jesus Christ.
We have Jesus quoting Psalm 110:1, referring to "Lord" as Messiah there. In other words, David calls his Messiah Lord. So how can the Messiah be David's son if He's his Lord? We're back to the root and offspring now. I don't believe Jesus was fooled by the Greek or Hebrew there and I don't believe His Church is as well.
I'm not shifting gears suddenly or otherwise when I write that Peter has nothing to say about David reincarnated as Jesus of Nazareth in his speech about David dying and being buried. Rather, Peter's emphasis is David's prophetic voice about one of David's descendents (not David himself) being placed on a throne. Jesus allegedly tells the Baptizer that he's the reincarnation of Elijah because Jesus believes in reincarnation, but one of His prime spokesmen to whom Jesus taught almost everything has nothing to say about David reincarnating as Jesus.
David had sin, Jesus was without sin, thus I conclude that Jesus embodied sinlessness.
I'm going to try some bakeries for the Bavarian Cremes if I have the time.
I have the Zebra Cakes and Fudge Brownies stashed in a place in my residence farthest from where I usually am. Though I've opened both, I haven't touched any since I last wrote to you. I'm determined to unload a small roll of fat I'm been developing lately around my midsection by eating less (not a huge eater anyway) and I'm quite serious about it. I dig the flat, in-belly feel on me.
10, 9, 8, 7, . . . |
Edited by - paralambano on 04 Jan 2010 9:43:45 PM |
|
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2010 : 02:20:43 AM
|
Dear Paralambano,
quote:
If the estate goes to the children, then I don't see how they don't "profit" by their parents' deaths. It's my understanding that Swiss authorities are trying to determine whether Dignitas' founder is profiting from his "service". If Switzerland finds him culpable, the Crown Prosecutor might be emboldened to take steps this away against the relatives. If the Swiss fail, it could be that the bulldog will soldier on nonetheless.
Oh the ugliness of it all when it comes to implementing the plans of men. I'm sure the idealists had convinced themselves of how humane they were being in legalizing assisted suicide; and look how sordid things are things are turning out.
quote:
I'm not perplexed about the Root being or becoming the Branch, nor do I doubt that Jesus divested Himself of the fulness of His divinity to become man. I don't necessarily see an insoluble paradox in Jesus becoming lower than the angels, yet being higher than them. I don't struggle with Jesus being called the Root of Jesse. Rather, I was wondering how Jesus can be both the Root David and the Root Jesse if He's the reincarnation of David.
He was also Isaac who had the right to sponsor his children (as kinsman or redeemer) and get them out of gehennom if he wished. I always smile at the ignorance of the rich man who called for father Abraham when he should have called for his father Isaac. The irony is rich because Isaac could pass over the gulf; and Jesus himself could pass the gulf, but he doesn't mention that when telling the story.
He had other lifetimes too, but those would not be as his own ancestor -- I believe he was Abel and Joshua also. Don't forget that Moses received the Torah Or from the LORD and Joshua received it from Moses and gave it to the seventy. The people were given the Written Torah, and Moses then did not bother to have them circumcised.
quote:
There's more than one name missing when one compares Matthew's genealogy to Luke's. The latter has seventy-one to Matthew's forty-one. And these are not the only differences. Matthew is patterning with his use of "3's" in his gospel and "14", the numerical equivalent of "David", compelling a symmetry.
Supposedly the missing name is "Abner" -- and it supposedly does appear in the Hebrew version. But what of it? It's still missing. He says there's 14 and there's only 13.
Luke's geneology appears to me to have been added also. Is Jeconiah mentioned in it? It seems not. It does not go through the Messianic line, not even through Solomon.
quote:
Did the Hebrews abridge genealogies? Compare Ezra 7 with Chronicles 6.
It is making my head spin trying to figure out what detail you want me to see.
quote:
I still don't see how Matthew is in error scripturally by mentioning Jeconiah since I believe the prohibition can reasonably be seen to be meant just for his lifetime.
Is there a descendant of Jeconiah anywhere in the world today ruling as a sovereign? There is a descendant of Zedekiah although the line goes through women at times.
The transmission of the Messianic line was nothing to play with; and once someone erred too drastically, not in deed only but in spirit, he and his children were disqualified. Saul was appointed king, and David honored him as the annointed one of God. Yet he and his children were disqualified -- forever. I don't think it was Saul's sin of disobedience but his sly attitude -- the satanic lie he told Samuel -- that showed he had lost it. David repented at once.
quote:
It's my understanding that Jesus was without sin while David had sinned, so I don't believe they shared the same image and likeness in God.
What of Jeconiah then? If David did not have it, how could it passed on to his sons?
Your standard is not right. When someone repents of sin, God forgives it and it is not remembered. By your standard, sin must produce an indeligible stain on the soul. Using that standard, I think you are laying something to the charge of God's elect.
When it came to the transmission of the "proper" likeness and image, we need to realize that various stages were achieved. While Adam and Eve were fallen, we are still told that Seth was in the likeness and image of Adam. Abraham was not perfect because God told him to perfect himself.
quote:
I don't know that Jesus meant reincarnation when He spoke about John being Elijah. Elisha had Elijah's spirit on him (thus, the same power) and I'm not sure who was convinced that he was Elijah reincarnated.
It is said Elisha had seven times the spirit. Explanation?
My explanation? He had Elijah's mantle. You may think that was only his physical mantle; but I say it also means the spirit of Elijah "overshadowed" him. He became "like" Elijah, after his likeness and image, begotten by Elijah -- just as Paul says he begot children.
1 Corinthians 4:15 KJV For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Does Paul say his children are he? Were Paul's "Gentile" children of the seed of Abraham? Certainly, and they were "grandchildren" of Jesus.
But Jesus says John "is" Elijah.
quote:
If Samuel can't be established by scripture to be Joseph, how is it established by the Church these two millennia?
By the Church? It cannot be. It can be perceived by the individual person, however.
quote:
I can indeed accept Elias coming as John, but it remains undemonstrated that Jesus probably meant reincarnation by it.
Do you also think Job was thinking only of his own "skin" when he asked if a man dies will he live again?
How do you interpret the idea that a thousand years is as a day to the LORD? That His Mercy extends only to one lifetime?
Think of the rich man's exchange with Abraham. Had he not returned from the dead himself before that lifetime as a rich man? Had he not been in gehinnom before in all probability? I can't see Abraham being sarcastic about it -- it was the truth. People die and are raised from the dead themselves -- and still don't see right.
quote:
I don't know how John showed up as Elijah at the transfiguration since nothing's said about building a tabernacle for John, neither does the Church major teach it. Since you write that it won't harm me if I don't believe it, I'll accept that I remain unharmed this way .
But he showed up as Elijah, of course; and Jesus' other friend and mentor, Moses, was also there.
quote:
Isaiah? Isaiah prophesied the same way David did, in the first person here:
The Sovereign Lord has given me his words of wisdom, so that I know what to say to all these weary ones. Morning by morning he wakens me and opens my understanding to his will. The Sovereign Lord has spoken to me, and I have listened. I do not rebel or turn away. I give my back to those who beat me and my cheeks to those who pull out my beard. I do not hide from shame, for they mock me and spit in my face. Because the Sovereign Lord helps me, I will not be dismayed. Therefore, I have set my face like a stone, determined to do his will. And I know that I will triumph (Isaiah 50:4-7).
I should have been more specific, saying speaking of himself as Messiah. When David writes, in passages we often interpret as applying to Messiah, it's in the first person. Do you think Isaiah 50 is about Messiah?
quote:
Scripture informs us that David rotted away in his grave:
For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay (Acts 13:36-37).
Both Peter:
For David says of Him, I saw the Lord always in my presence; for he is at my right hand, so that I will not be shaken (Acts 2:25).
and Paul:
Therefore He also says in another Psalm, You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay (Acts 13:35).
mean of "Him" and "Holy One" to be Jesus of Nazareth according to the scriptures and the Church's understanding of them.
David's body decayed.
quote:
Yes, Jesus is at God's right hand. I don't believe David's soul was in torments but in "Abraham's bosom", raised up to heaven with Jesus Christ.
And when was he raised up? Why does David write that God is at his right hand?
quote:
We have Jesus quoting Psalm 110:1, referring to "Lord" as Messiah there. In other words, David calls his Messiah Lord. So how can the Messiah be David's son if He's his Lord? We're back to the root and offspring now. I don't believe Jesus was fooled by the Greek or Hebrew there and I don't believe His Church is as well.
I doubt the authenticity of that passage in the Gospels. The Jews would have answered him.
quote:
I'm not shifting gears suddenly or otherwise when I write that Peter has nothing to say about David reincarnated as Jesus of Nazareth in his speech about David dying and being buried. Rather, Peter's emphasis is David's prophetic voice about one of David's descendents (not David himself) being placed on a throne. Jesus allegedly tells the Baptizer that he's the reincarnation of Elijah because Jesus believes in reincarnation, but one of His prime spokesmen to whom Jesus taught almost everything has nothing to say about David reincarnating as Jesus.
Perhaps he wasn't told or didn't want to teach it. Luke discretely omits what Jesus told Cleopas and his companion:
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
I would love to have that discourse.
quote:
David had sin, Jesus was without sin, thus I conclude that Jesus embodied sinlessness.
Can you rephrase that? I can't see how "sinlessness" is something which can be embodied. It is the lack of something, not a thing itself.
quote:
I'm going to try some bakeries for the Bavarian Cremes if I have the time.
Good luck with that.
quote:
I have the Zebra Cakes and Fudge Brownies stashed in a place in my residence farthest from where I usually am. Though I've opened both, I haven't touched any since I last wrote to you. I'm determined to unload a small roll of fat I'm been developing lately around my midsection by eating less (not a huge eater anyway) and I'm quite serious about it. I dig the flat, in-belly feel on me.
Well, not eating and adding to things is a lot easier than adding it and then trying to lose it. Get some fruits or something like that to munch on. I've resolved not to buy more pastries until I've finished off the strawberries and oranges I have.
Boullan |
|
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 06:14:58 AM
|
Boullan;
I take the rich man to be the spiritual leaders in Judaea who failed to feed their flock, so if the rich man was ignorant about Isaac, I suppose then so too were their leaders, something I find improbable. It seems to me that Jesus' point in the gospel about those wishing to destroy Him was that they didn't really have Abraham for a father, so it was useless of them to call for him. Rather than "correcting" them by pointing back to Isaac, He points to Himself under their very noses.
If the Root means that Jesus was David reincarnated, it seems to me that Jesse is also Jesus reincarnated since he's also called the Root. How can Jesus be both Jesse and David reincarnated?
If we have a Hebrew version with Abiud having Abner who has Eliakim, that seems to me to make 14 generations and thus nothing to be concerned about. It's my understanding that Abiud and Abner in a certain form in Hebrew are pretty much the same, so a scribal error might account for the missing name in Greek. You might see that Ezra 7 doesn't list all the descendants that the Chronicler does in his first book, Chapter 6, so I think it's reasonable to answer my question over whether the Jews sometimes abbreviated genealogies with an affirmative. This is what Matthew does as well.
Neither Luke's or Matthew's genealogies cause me to doubt the veracity of what's written by their authors.
Joseph is Jeconiah's descendent, thus Jesus receives his legal standing as heir to David's throne by marriage (Joseph and the blessed virgin). Jesus, by my understanding, is the one who rules in heaven and earth on David’s throne.
Did David have the image and likeness of God when he sinned? I doubt it. Jesus was without sin it's recorded, purer than David. Does God know the difference between someone having sinned then forgiven and the sin no longer held to one’s account, and someone who had never sinned?
Does God remember that His Son was a sacrifice for sins? The sinner knows he's forgiven, but he hasn't forgotten that he once sinned. Surely then he's not forgotten God's redemption. God knows this mind, yes? In the same way, David knows he's sinned, even though his sins are forgiven and not brought up against him any more. Does God know that David knows he has once sinned and needed God's forgiveness? How can David be more knowing than God? Jesus knows He's without sin since He's never sinned. Does God know it? God isn't forgetful of the reason for His Son's sacrifice, so I don't see how your charge against me stands.
I certainly believe that what I had quoted to you of Isaiah 50 can be applied to Jesus Christ.
I believe that David was resurrected "soon", that is, when Jesus came for His saints at the destruction of Jerusalem.
I don't see how Elisha having the mantle of Elijah upon him makes Elijah John the Baptist. Jesus indeed said John is Elijah but I don't know that it probably means Elijah was reincarnated as him.
I don't know how the Pharisees listening to Jesus inquire about how Messiah could be David’s son when David calls Him Lord could probably contradict Jesus since they ought to have known that the Messiah is both root and offspring of Jesse according to Isaiah 11.
David says he foresees Messiah at his right side, always waiting to assist him, according to Peter (Acts 2:25). The right side is a position of power, thus David will have Jesus to resurrect him.
Individual persons' experiences are their individual experiences until accepted by the Church otherwise they remain what they are, private interpretations. It wasn't only the Magdalene who saw the resurrected Christ.
I don't know how Peter could be unaware of Jesus being David reincarnated if that is true since Jesus is said to have gone through all the scriptures to demonstrate how He's the Messiah.
I meant by the embodiment of sinlessness, the purity of heart, mind, soul, and body. David had sinned. Jesus hadn’t, He being the unblemished lamb. David worships Jesus Christ, no doubt.
I don't know about fruits. Some have a lot of sugars/glucose. I've heard fruit juices are bad for losing weight as a result. I wouldn't deprive myself of anything while dieting. It's just training oneself to eat less, that is, not eating for eating's sake but to stop when one's satiated and get busy doing something else. I haven't had anything sweet in over a day. I'll probably head down to my stash and have just one or two little sweet-cakes. Zut alors!! L'enfant terrible!
10, 9, 8, 7, . . . |
|
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2010 : 5:27:42 PM
|
Dear Paralambano,
quote:
I take the rich man to be the spiritual leaders in Judaea who failed to feed their flock, so if the rich man was ignorant about Isaac, I suppose then so too were their leaders, something I find improbable. It seems to me that Jesus' point in the gospel about those wishing to destroy Him was that they didn't really have Abraham for a father, so it was useless of them to call for him. Rather than "correcting" them by pointing back to Isaac, He points to Himself under their very noses.
In gehenna, the soul and mind are often separated. What can I say of it? I still run across people here and there who see themselves as special since they consider themselves children of Abraham after the flesh. It is a good thing, a very good thing; but it can also be made into idolatry, and we see Jesus taking on those people who made it a form of idolatry. Oh surely, Father Abraham has to be sad to see it.
quote:
If the Root means that Jesus was David reincarnated, it seems to me that Jesse is also Jesus reincarnated since he's also called the Root. How can Jesus be both Jesse and David reincarnated?
I did not say exactly that. I said that Jesus was both "before" and "after" David -- and then I added to that that I think he was also David.
The Jewish sages properly teach that among the "things" "made" before the world was the Ram which appeared at the binding of Isaac. This is necessarily so. John the Beloved expresses a similar thought when associating the Lamb of God with the foundation of the world. Is this not the Root of it all? What is a root?
I was, for other reasons, looking into the Coptic Church, and found a fascinating essay: The Meaning of the Trinity.
The root of a tree is not seen, the essay says; and the Bible says God cannot be seen. The Root" refers to the invisible source of Life, established in Eden when God planted the Tree of Life. No?
Does not Moses say Man is like a tree? Does not Jesus say the same? Does not Paul say we are like branches grafted on to the proper tree? The question is what kind of tree. Did not Jesus come to rip up the "old" root which produced bad branches and no or little fruit? John said as much -- he came to lay the ax to the root of the tree.
I may disagree slightly with a few details of the Coptic Father; but his analogy of likening the Trinity to a tree is fascinating. It's more insightful to me than the dry ponderous pronouncements of many Western theologians. The "three persons" idea leaves me cold. I particularly liked his line that the root cannot be separated from the rest of the tree if the branches are to survive.
Now the Tree of Life has that invisible root, and it has its trunk and branches; and finally it bears fruit. Moses' reference to man as a tree occurs in the context of fruit trees.
quote:
If we have a Hebrew version with Abiud having Abner who has Eliakim, that seems to me to make 14 generations and thus nothing to be concerned about. It's my understanding that Abiud and Abner in a certain form in Hebrew are pretty much the same, so a scribal error might account for the missing name in Greek. You might see that Ezra 7 doesn't list all the descendants that the Chronicler does in his first book, Chapter 6, so I think it's reasonable to answer my question over whether the Jews sometimes abbreviated genealogies with an affirmative. This is what Matthew does as well.
I still maintain that the "branch" of Jeconiah was pruned. While it could be grafted back on later, it would not be the Branch which would bear the Fruit.
quote:
Neither Luke's or Matthew's genealogies cause me to doubt the veracity of what's written by their authors.
Joseph is Jeconiah's descendent, thus Jesus receives his legal standing as heir to David's throne by marriage (Joseph and the blessed virgin).
An extraordinary claim. The Messiah in the flesh as son of David has to be a son in the flesh, not adopted. I present my own extraordinary claim, that Joseph's "image and likeness" was corrected by the Holy Spirit. While he was a son of Jeconiah, that defect was corrected by God -- and the True Vine was able to be re-established two thousand years ago just as it was when Noah replanted it, but Noah had no defects since he was said to be perfect in his generations. Thus, Jesus was Joseph's son, after the Spirit not after the flesh.
quote:
Jesus, by my understanding, is the one who rules in heaven and earth on David’s throne.
Was that the promise? Where is Jesus ruling on earth today?
1 Kings 8:25 KJV Therefore now, LORD God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him, saying , There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me.
1 Kings 9:5 KJV Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.
2 Chronicles 7:18 KJV Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying , There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.
quote:
Did David have the image and likeness of God when he sinned?
Did Adam and Eve?
quote:
I doubt it. Jesus was without sin it's recorded, purer than David. Does God know the difference between someone having sinned then forgiven and the sin no longer held to one’s account, and someone who had never sinned?
God does not know the difference. Sin can be erased so thoroughly that no trace of it exists -- not even in the mind of God.
quote:
Does God remember that His Son was a sacrifice for sins? The sinner knows he's forgiven, but he hasn't forgotten that he once sinned. Surely then he's not forgotten God's redemption. God knows this mind, yes?
Something imperfect then remains. You are thinking in temporal terms. When time is no more, such things no longer exist for God is all in all.
quote:
In the same way, David knows he's sinned, even though his sins are forgiven and not brought up against him any more. Does God know that David knows he has once sinned and needed God's forgiveness? How can David be more knowing than God? Jesus knows He's without sin since He's never sinned. Does God know it? God isn't forgetful of the reason for His Son's sacrifice, so I don't see how your charge against me stands.
It is written that the Father forsook the Son at the moment of the crucifixion. If God does not delight in the sacrifice of goats and rams, why should He observe the sacrifice of a human or a god? What good could the death of Jesus do to correct the sins of others? Oh, it did, but not the way I think you're proposing.
quote:
I certainly believe that what I had quoted to you of Isaiah 50 can be applied to Jesus Christ.
There may be similarities; but don't forget that Isaiah also stood in Heaven and when asked volunteered to be sent on his mission, saying, "Send me."
So how is the "Holy One" referring to Jesus?
The question is about Psalm 16:
quote:
Psalm 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
That is the one time it's translated that way and capitalized. It means "saint" or "holy one." I see no reason for the capital letters. David is talking about himself.
quote:
I believe that David was resurrected "soon", that is, when Jesus came for His saints at the destruction of Jerusalem.
Not at the Crucifixion when Matthew tells us that dead saints came out of their graves?
I'm not sure of the date; when did Herod try to open the tomb of David? Supposedly, he was prevented from opening it by a supernatural force.
quote:
I don't see how Elisha having the mantle of Elijah upon him makes Elijah John the Baptist.
I did not say that.
quote:
Jesus indeed said John is Elijah but I don't know that it probably means Elijah was reincarnated as him.
It's a question of how we read the word "is." I read it simply.
quote:
I don't know how the Pharisees listening to Jesus inquire about how Messiah could be David’s son when David calls Him Lord could probably contradict Jesus since they ought to have known that the Messiah is both root and offspring of Jesse according to Isaiah 11.
Why do you answer it? Is the commandment not to honor your father and mother? If Jesus should call David his father, how can you then explain that the son is greater than the father?
It may not surprise you that I also believe Joseph who saved his people in Egypt was Jesus; and how do you explain his dream, that his father and brothers should bow down to him?
quote:
David says he foresees Messiah at his right side, always waiting to assist him, according to Peter (Acts 2:25). The right side is a position of power, thus David will have Jesus to resurrect him.
David says "the LORD" is on his right hand:
Psalms 16:8 KJV I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
Moreover, David says this is his soul speaking. I begin to wonder if this speech attributed to Peter is another forgery.
quote:
Individual persons' experiences are their individual experiences until accepted by the Church otherwise they remain what they are, private interpretations. It wasn't only the Magdalene who saw the resurrected Christ.
The church in its physical manifestation is not pure. It is is our mother in its own way, but it is also a whore; and the commandment given in Revelation is to come out of her.
Revelation 18:4 KJV And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
The Great Whore is then to be transformed in to the Bride of Christ; and what God has cleansed should not be called common. I do believe Peter said that!
quote:
I don't know how Peter could be unaware of Jesus being David reincarnated if that is true since Jesus is said to have gone through all the scriptures to demonstrate how He's the Messiah.
The text does not say either that Peter was present or told what was said; and it does not say that Jesus discussed the Scriptures to "demonstrate" how he was the Messiah. You are reading too much into the passage. It says "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." You might be hard pressed to find the word "Messiah" in the books of Moses.
quote:
I meant by the embodiment of sinlessness, the purity of heart, mind, soul, and body. David had sinned. Jesus hadn’t, He being the unblemished lamb.
David was a shepherd. Don't forget that; and Nathan's charge against him was about sheep. The idea of the lack of something as something real still confounds me.
quote:
David worships Jesus Christ, no doubt.
The son is greater than his father?
quote:
I don't know about fruits. Some have a lot of sugars/glucose. I've heard fruit juices are bad for losing weight as a result.
The pulp in them more than offsets the calories, I would think; and the sugars are not glucose which rushes into the blood.
Don't proteins have the same calories per gram that sugars do?
quote:
I wouldn't deprive myself of anything while dieting. It's just training oneself to eat less, that is, not eating for eating's sake but to stop when one's satiated and get busy doing something else. I haven't had anything sweet in over a day. I'll probably head down to my stash and have just one or two little sweet-cakes. Zut alors!! L'enfant terrible!
I don't know if I want to lose a few pounds or not. I probably could do it just by cutting back on butter. When preparing pasta, by substituting other things, I could probably lose some weight. I think it might be healthier to put marmalade on English muffins than butter -- especially if I'm going to sleep soon.
Avoiding fats and oils before bedtime is important I think. I can promise anyone this: Eating ice cream before going to bed is guaranteed to put on the pounds. The physical body may want to store up fats late at night; but eat something else.
The normal cycle is that the body craves carbohydrates in the morning when the blood sugar level is low as a rule, and the body needs kick-started. During the day, if the carbohydrates are already consumed, the body then wants proteins; and late at night, the body is considering the future, what will happen if no food appears tomorrow -- so it seeks to build up its fat reserves. Monkeys do this even; it's been studied in monkeys; and humans seem to follow the same cycle.
Do you know what shoo-fly pie is? The Amish often have it for breakfast. Talk about calories! But it's nearly all starch, flour and sugars, and they work it off during the day by exercising.
The thing about fats and oils is that if you go to sleep after eating them, odds are they won't be broken down or burned. They will be absorbed by the blood stream and then stored as body fat while you sleep. It's what the body wants to do; and some people's genetic make-up makes it more so for them than for others.
Boullan |
|
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2010 : 11:11:17 PM
|
Boullan;
My understanding of your meaning now is that you don't necessarily believe Jesus is David reincarnated because Messiah is the root and offspring of both David and Jesse.
I see the root as being eternal. He created David.
I don't have a problem with the essay provided. It's introductory. He might later call the Root, Branch, and Spirit co-eternal and of the same substance. Do you have the rest of it?
I believe Joseph was a descendent of Jeconiah and not natural father to Jesus. It's through the blessed virgin that He's a son of David in the flesh (bloodline).
I take 1 Kings 8:25 to mean that there would always be someone worthy to sit on David's throne, not that there'd necessarily be someone in succession to sit on an earthly throne.
I believe Jesus Christ sits on David's throne now in the heavens. We have the promise here:
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of his father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end (Luke 1:32-33).
And the fulfilment following:
Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption.
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:29-36).
Jesus said:
All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Me (Matt. 28:18) which I take to mean what it says, that Jesus is ruling with all authority over heaven and earth. The Romans understood this. Why persecute His body if He was just some kind of deity ruling in a heaven they didn't see and probably didn't care about? If Jesus or any man of royal descent is somehow supposed to be sitting on a slab of marble or throne somewhere in Jerusalem according to what some think 1 Kings 8:25 means, then where is he?
I don't believe Adam and Eve had God's image and likeness when they sinned. They were beings of light who fell dulled.
Do you mean God doesn't know the difference between the existence and non-existence of sin? I don't know if anything imperfect remains when all sin is erased in perfection. It seems to me that the context of Saviour disappears without a memory of something that's undesirable. This appears to me to be a nullification of redemption, it too wiped away. You appear to be saying that the memory of redemption is imperfect. If so, I don't believe it.
Isaiah, Moses, David, Jonah, blessed be all of them, are not the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ. He said Moses wrote of Him and Moses will accuse them of not believing in Him. I believe Jesus is counted worthier than Moses for glory as much as the builder of the house has greater glory than the house itself.
Peter tells us sometime after the resurrection of Jesus Christ that David hasn't ascended. I don't know about the date of Herod and David's tomb. That's interesting, however.
How can David be the Holy One when you write his body decayed and we have Jesus whose body saw no decay?
I too read the word "is" simply and don't see how Jesus means reincarnation by it. Rather, we're told that John comes in the power and spirit of Elijah, something that can be said of entirely unrelated people.
David foresees Jesus Christ as his helper in Psalm 16. I don't see how Peter's mistaken or wonder whether what he wrote is a forgery. He probably learned it from Jesus before Jesus ascended.
Jesus calls Himself the Root, so why should He solely be David's son? Surely the Root is greater than any human father.
Joseph was regent so people would naturally bow to him in Goshen land.
Come out of her? Paul said to not foresake assembling. It seems to me he was in the process of church-building, not praying for her dissolution. The Church was told to flee Jerusalem, not herself. It's the city that persecuted the saints. The seven churches were told to get their acts together.
It seems to me that Jesus showing them by what was written about him by Moses and the prophets would certainly be about Jesus as Messiah since not all passages or verses need to employ the word to be read as such. We know this from the verses the Jews interpreted as messianic. I find it improbable that Peter would not have been a party to the teachings. We're told that Jesus met with all eleven of the disciples and "He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures (Luke 24:45)" before His ascension.
I wouldn't deny myself fruit or fruit-juices. There's vitamins in them there things, only they should be taken in moderation by me.
I'd rather go to bed a little hungry than with a belly full of food or anything creamy. Soda gives me the willies at night, not to mention a run for the commode.
I don't know what shoo-fly pie is. It sounds pants-cracking.
10, 9, 8, 7, . . . |
Edited by - paralambano on 07 Jan 2010 11:18:25 PM |
|
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2010 : 8:54:38 PM
|
Paralambano,
quote:
My understanding of your meaning now is that you don't necessarily believe Jesus is David reincarnated because Messiah is the root and offspring of both David and Jesse.
I don't personify Messiah the way you do. It comes from the word meaning annointed -- and one asks, "annointed with what?" The Oil of the Holy Spirit, of course -- a special awareness, too. When kings or others were annointed, the oil was poured liberally on the center of the head, so it really flowed down over the head. I take that to mean that Jesus, who did personify this Messiah Spirit by having it poured out on him, received so liberally that others can receive.
quote:
I see the root as being eternal. He created David.
Could the root of a tree exist without earth? Is the earth also eternal? What purpose would having a root existing eternally unless it served the purpose a root serves? By definition, it would not be a root except in theory only; it would become a root only when it played the part a root plays.
You and I seem to differ on how we define things. Could we have disciples, for example, without a master to discipline them? Or could we legitimately call anyone an Apostle if there were no place for him to go forth into? Could we have a priest without his performing priestly duties?
The Messianic Spirit has something to do with Melchizedek, I think. Abraham, although a holy man, did not have it. Thus, both David and Jesus are said to have been priests after the order of Melchizedek. Who was Melchizedek? Well, the "priesthood of the order of Melchizedek" is not an earthly thing.
quote:
I don't have a problem with the essay provided. It's introductory. He might later call the Root, Branch, and Spirit co-eternal and of the same substance. Do you have the rest of it?
I don't know what you mean by the "rest of it," so I'll let that pass. For me, I think it silly to call the Branch "eternal." A tree is planted and branches then grow on it.
I would say Zerubabbel, in his day, qualifed to be called "the Branch." No? Was not Jeconiah and his seed pruned? I must press the point. Did he possess the Messianic Spirit in its fullness? I wouldn't say that; but he was God's annointed one in that generation.
quote:
I believe Joseph was a descendent of Jeconiah and not natural father to Jesus. It's through the blessed virgin that He's a son of David in the flesh (bloodline).
Oh my, look at what Matthew wrote:
Matthew 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
He has Jeconiah being Zerubabbel's grandfather!
quote:
I take 1 Kings 8:25 to mean that there would always be someone worthy to sit on David's throne, not that there'd necessarily be someone in succession to sit on an earthly throne.
That's not what it says. I'll repeat the passages:
1 Kings 8:25 KJV Therefore now, LORD God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him, saying , There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me.
1 Kings 9:5 KJV Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.
2 Chronicles 7:18 KJV Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying , There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.
I believe Jesus Christ sits on David's throne now in the heavens. We have the promise here:
quote:
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of his father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end (Luke 1:32-33).
That is a different matter. The angel is not saying that the earthly throne is going to be restored with Jesus sitting on it, of course not.
quote:
And the fulfilment following:
Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption.
I truly begin to begin to doubt the authenticity of this passage. It states that Jesus would "the fruit" of David's "loins, according to the flesh." And I know not where in the Hebrew Scriptures this passage finds this prophecy.
quote:
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:29-36).
Do you deny that David is called "messiah?" Do you deny that others have been called this? But let's look at the word in the Psalms:
Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Psalm 18:50 Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore.
Psalm 20:6 Now know I that the LORD saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand.
Psalm 105:15 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
quote:
Jesus said:
All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Me (Matt. 28:18) which I take to mean what it says, that Jesus is ruling with all authority over heaven and earth.
You take it wrong, I think. Others had authority, and others still have it.
Paul uses the same word in this passage:
Romans9:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
quote:
The Romans understood this. Why persecute His body if He was just some kind of deity ruling in a heaven they didn't see and probably didn't care about?
Pilate thought Jesus was innocent. If the Jewish leaders wanted him dead, Pilate saw no harm in going along with them.
quote:
If Jesus or any man of royal descent is somehow supposed to be sitting on a slab of marble or throne somewhere in Jerusalem according to what some think 1 Kings 8:25 means, then where is he?
There used to be more than one. The King of Ethiopia was deprived of his throne only a few years ago; but the current Queen of England can trace her ancestors back to David. Jeremiah took one of Zedekiah's daughters to Ireland where she married into a royal house. The Bible tells us he took the daughters to Egypt and then says no more of it; but there are other sources.
quote:
I don't believe Adam and Eve had God's image and likeness when they sinned. They were beings of light who fell dulled.
When they sinned, precisely at the time of sinning? They had no recourse? Why did God talk with them, then?
quote:
Do you mean God doesn't know the difference between the existence and non-existence of sin?
God Himself does not see sin. The intercessory Holy Spirit sees it and can correct it; and this means that men can then be seen by God.
Hebrews 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
David was writing about the previous time when Israel could have heard the Voice of God and entered into the eternal rest; but they did not. They did not want to hear it; when the Trumpet waxed loud and strong, they asked Moses to go off to speak with God. Moses did that, and he returned with the "written" Torah. Israel had declined to hear the Torah Or. Paul refers to this:
2 Corinthians 3:3 KJV Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
And you may recall that the male heads of households lost their roles of priests, too. Then, they needed to institute a new priesthood.
The same call went forth in David's day, when he wrote that Psalm. Should I go into all the details of the patterns? The census, the Voice, the forty years, and the change in method of worship? Now, as any tree becomes larger with time, we see also the Tree of Life becoming larger; and in one way, the Tree grows up from the earth to Heaven, and in another, the Vine grows downwards to earth. For many cycles, the Kingdom of Heaven was small; and souls were joined to it by either being married or born into Israel, but the plan from the beginning was to have the entire human race brought into the Kingdom. Thus, we can say there are two types of Messiah -- one which rules over Israel in the flesh, and one which pours out the Oil of the Holy Spirit over the Gentiles. Was this not revealed to the Apostles? And searching the Hebrew Scriptures, can we not perceive this was the plan from the beginning?
When someone repents and the "root" of evil is eradicated, the potential to sin no longer exists. What good is it to have sacrifices for sin? That is pointless, rather like making payments on credit cards without being able to make a dent in the balances because the interest is higher than our payments. That is how Jesus is the "redeemer." He temporarily takes on our debt and then restores us to our senses, enabling us to live without adding to the debt; and by doing good works and forgiving others, we can then begin to make a dent in what we owe. If we are unwilling to be faithful servants, woe to us.
The whole point is to correct the human heart so it no longer inclines to want to sin. When that is the case, the entire problem is solved. The past doesn't matter. The past is dead. The sins which were as scarlet are as white as snow. You then can stand, like a lamb of God; and you too can then become a shepherd as you grow in grace.
quote:
I don't know if anything imperfect remains when all sin is erased in perfection.
God is perfect and desires that we be perfect. Thus, He would not have created the universe in a way this was impossible.
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
You see, the problem is in the "root" or "seed" of the serpent. Anything which sprouts from it will be subject to error since it has the wrong awareness. To be grafted on to the correct root, one must wish to be right, do right and have others be and do right. One must repent in other words and wish the best for others as well as for self. One then, after baptism (of one sort or another), receive the correct Spirit. Then, the individual's own Tree of Life can begin to grow; and when it bears fruit, its seeds are given in service to the Kingdom.
quote:
It seems to me that the context of Saviour disappears without a memory of something that's undesirable. This appears to me to be a nullification of redemption, it too wiped away. You appear to be saying that the memory of redemption is imperfect. If so, I don't believe it.
You will have an eternity then to think about your imperfections. Are you serious? Would you subject anyone to such a fate if he or she had corrected all his or her flaws? And let's see, you want to give everyone only one lifetime to do everything in. Do you think most people are going to hell? You seem to have a very narrow view of how people can achieve salvation. I admit I have a narrow view since Peter wrote:
1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
Why does judgment begin at the house of God? Do you have an explanation? I say it must begin with the house of God, always has and always will. Where will the ungodly and sinner appear? Well, Peter has just said the "end of all things" was at hand; and so it was. A door was about to shut, just as it shut after David preached his gospel. Some were about to judged and would then have to go over into the next age.
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
If God is not willing that any should perish, how do you explain the passage from 1 Peter? If God wants everyone to repent, why do this to the earth?
quote:
Isaiah, Moses, David, Jonah, blessed be all of them, are not the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ.
How do you explain 1 John 5?
1 John 5:1 KJV Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
18 KJV We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
Is Paul being excessive here:
1 Corinthians 4:15 KJV For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Philemon 1:10 KJV I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
Now I ask you what "begotten" means and where you derive the "only."
quote:
He said Moses wrote of Him and Moses will accuse them of not believing in Him. I believe Jesus is counted worthier than Moses for glory as much as the builder of the house has greater glory than the house itself.
Joseph was the carpenter. Oh, how tangled things can become if we try to separate things so. You want to separate the builder from the house? I would say Jesus was set as the foundation stone of the Temple and is meant to be also the finishing stone (like the cap on the pyramid).
Nor is it sacrilege to say that Peter assumed, on earth, the role of the Rock. So did the other Apostles, but Peter was chief among them.
quote:
Peter tells us sometime after the resurrection of Jesus Christ that David hasn't ascended. I don't know about the date of Herod and David's tomb. That's interesting, however.
I wonder if we're using the word "ascend" in the same way. I give it a fairly narrow definition when it refers to "men." There is no human, by himself, who can ascend to Heaven unless he is a "son of Adam" in the likeness and image of God.
Now, of course I don't believe David ascended to Heaven or he couldn't have been reincarnated. Did I not tell you I thought only Elijah ever ascended and then got reborn?
The question on the table is what does the word mean? What did Jesus mean when he used it?
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
This is the critical question.
quote:
How can David be the Holy One when you write his body decayed and we have Jesus whose body saw no decay?
I am saying that David, who possessed the Messianic Spirit, could lose that Spirit by disobedience; and his soul could be punished but there would still be a way to correct things; and the Holy Spirit which was in David would not be defeated.
quote:
I too read the word "is" simply and don't see how Jesus means reincarnation by it. Rather, we're told that John comes in the power and spirit of Elijah, something that can be said of entirely unrelated people.
"Is" does not mean "in the power and spirit of." What an odd thing to say. Is it not said that Christians possess the same Spirit that Jesus had? Surely. But it would be erroneous to say they "are" Jesus. The Spirit comes and goes, like the wind. I would say we were all given the breath of life by God; but that doesn't make us God just because He provided air for us, nor does it make us each other because we share the same air.
David foresees Jesus Christ as his helper in Psalm 16. I don't see how Peter's mistaken or wonder whether what he wrote is a forgery. He probably learned it from Jesus before Jesus ascended.
Surely you're not saying David was calling Jesus Jehovah when he wrote that the LORD was set at his right hand.
If you're referring to "the Holy One," you are ignoring the context of its being poetry with parallel phrases. David is speaking of himself and the Spirit within him.
quote:
Jesus calls Himself the Root, so why should He solely be David's son? Surely the Root is greater than any human father.
There are two strains of awareness traced in Scripture -- one is male, and one is female. The spiritual war was never between the male seed and the serpent although there surely were earthly wars. When a male child was born, he either had the correct image and likeness or he didn't. Women are different. Even if born into a fallen race, as Ruth was, they can repent and bear holy children.
This defect can occur in men in part, such that several generation is enough to correct; or it can occur in full, such that male offspring were hopeless at least before Jesus' day when he corrected the error of Adam. The "Messianic" line was the male line, not the female. There was never a spiritual war about this because the best representative of "image and likeness of God" bore the title.
quote:
Joseph was regent so people would naturally bow to him in Goshen land.
You give this an earthly interpretation! That has its pitfalls, you know. Rachel was dead. She didn't bow to Joseph. Oddly enough, Joseph's dream has "eleven" stars bowing to him also when Benjamin had not yet been born; but I digress. How is it that the sun and moon would bow to a star? How is it that Rachel should bow to him? (I cannot adopt Holy Brother's view that this refers to a step-mother. Rachel is special, worthy of being called a light in the Heavens.) Matthew takes enough liberties with the Old Testament prophecy without your telling me that Rachel could not be called the mother of Jesus in one way or another.
Matthew 2:18 KJV In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
The Jews call her the Mother of Israel -- I agree with that, but that is not by the flesh alone.
quote:
Come out of her? Paul said to not foresake assembling. It seems to me he was in the process of church-building, not praying for her dissolution. The Church was told to flee Jerusalem, not herself. It's the city that persecuted the saints. The seven churches were told to get their acts together.
Yes, and that was at the end of an age. Did he tell them to attend synagogue? Did he tell them to make sacrifices at the Temple?
You do not see how the Whore of Babylon relates to the Bride of Christ? Before the Protestants came along, the Roman mystics said that Rome was the Whore. Of course, they did.
quote:
It seems to me that Jesus showing them by what was written about him by Moses and the prophets would certainly be about Jesus as Messiah since not all passages or verses need to employ the word to be read as such. We know this from the verses the Jews interpreted as messianic.
If the Jews already interpreted the passages as Messianic, why would Jesus have to tell his disciples about them?
quote:
I find it improbable that Peter would not have been a party to the teachings. We're told that Jesus met with all eleven of the disciples and "He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures (Luke 24:45)" before His ascension.
I see you think he ascended later.... I think he had already ascended. When he spoke to the Magdalene, he told her not to touch him since he had not ascended; but when he spoke to Thomas, he told him to touch him. What had changed? He had ascended, of course. That is also why he could vanish and appear as he wished.
The two accounts in the Gospels of the Ascension are known forgeries; and I have to wonder about Acts. I suppose he could have gone up in the air and disappeared from their view in clouds; but that is not Ascending to Heaven. The teaching about the Ascension of Jesus was obscured from the beginning; and the Catholics seem to think that the Assumption of Mary into Heaven was something different than Ascension.
quote:
I wouldn't deny myself fruit or fruit-juices. There's vitamins in them there things, only they should be taken in moderation by me.
I'd rather go to bed a little hungry than with a belly full of food or anything creamy. Soda gives me the willies at night, not to mention a run for the commode.
Moderation is all things.
quote:
I don't know what shoo-fly pie is. It sounds pants-cracking.
It's an Amish thing. I found a recipe; it looks a lot like the one I use. I bought an Amish cookbook; and I also know how my Mother made it.
* Pastry for a 1-crust 9-inch pie (page 270)
* 1 cup all-purpose flour
* Two-thirds cup light brown sugar, packed
* 1 rounded tablespoon cold butter
* One-fourth teaspoon salt
* 1 egg
* 1 cup light molasses
* Three-fourths cup cold water
* One-fourth cup hot water
* 1 teaspoon baking soda
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Roll out the pie pastry and line a 9-inch pie pan; set aside.
In a food processor bowl, combine the flour, brown sugar, butter, and salt. Remove one-half cup of the mixture and set aside. Transfer the rest to a medium mixing bowl. In a small bowl, beat the egg lightly. Add the molasses and cold water, and blend but do not beat; you don’t want bubbles in the batter. Set aside.
In a small bowl, mix the hot water with the baking soda and blend into the molasses mixture. Add to the flour mixture and mix well. Pour into the pie shell and top with the reserved crumbs. Bake for 35 minutes. The pie will appear quivery but will firm up as it cools. Transfer to a rack to cool completely before cutting.
The bottom mixture is gooey and wonderful. I think the usual pie is too dry so I make a little more of the molasses mixture so there are fewer dry crumbs on top. They sell in stores around here, so I usually just pick up one piece. It's been years since I made any pies myself.
Boullan
|
|
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2010 : 5:23:10 PM
|
Boullan;
I don't have a problem with the
Holy Spirit being poured out liberally
onto Jesus of Nazareth. I just don't
know how Jesus can be a reincarnation
of both Jesse and David if being the
Root of both means Jesus is the
reincarnation of both.
Too, I don't have a problem with the
Branch being eternal since I believe
the Root's eternal as well, thus I don't
believe it's silly that the Branch is
eternal. By the "rest of it", I had meant
the rest of the book you had presented
the initial chapter from by link.
I was wondering if its author said
that the Root and Branch were co-eternal,
of the same substance, and whether the Son
is eternally generated by the Father,
not made, not created, and had asked
if you could present a link to the rest
of it.
I'm not sure what's meant by your
exclamatory claim about Zerrubabel being
Jeconiah's grandson.
I take the "in my sight" to mean that there
will always be someone worthy to sit on David's
throne. That man I believe to be Jesus Christ.
I read Psalm 132:11 -
The Lord has sworn to David a truth from
which He will not turn back: Of the fruit
of your body I will set upon your throne.
to mean that Jesus Christ is the fruit of
David's body, not David reincarnated. David,
God's anointed, died and decayed like men
die and decay and was raised to eternal life
by Jesus Christ who saw no decay, however
blessed David was in awaiting his Redeemer,
Jesus of Nazareth.
Pilate indeed thought Jesus was innocent
but Pilate wasn't the "god" Caesar.
Rome persecuted Christians for their failure
to bow to Caesar as deity. Instead, they
worshipped Jesus as God and Ruler of the
kings of the earth. He is the ultimate
Ruler of heaven and earth to them,
not Caesar. The Romans didn't care what
gods their subjects worshipped, only that
they bowed to the spiritual primacy of the
Roman state.
Any authority others have comes from
Jesus Christ. When that authority claiming
superiority over Jesus Christ as did the
Roman state for its Emperor came into conflict
with Christians who wouldn't recognize it,
Christians were persecuted for their
disobedience. A man can't have two masters after all.
It's my understanding that Jesus Christ
sits on David's throne, not the
Queen of England or someone in Ethiopia.
I don't believe anyone is in God's image
and likeness when they're sinning since
God doesn't sin.
I don't see how having the memory of having
sinned and being redeemed is imperfect.
I don't believe one has an eternity to
think about their imperfections. The memory is
that we were once imperfect. The knowledge is
that we are now being perfected or perfect.
Again, the loss of memory over it is a
nullification of redemption I believe.
I certainly do think a lifetime is long
enough to repent of one's sins.
I don't take the elements melting away and
everything being burned literally,
nor do I think people will sit about
going over their imperfections for eternity.
Rather, they'll know they were perfected
from imperfection.
Only begotten to me means incomparable,
unique, one of a kind, thus Jesus Christ
is the incomparable, unique, one of a
kind Messiah:
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him"
(John 1:18).
Isaac was unique in his way, Jesus Christ
one of a kind in His.
1 John 5 I take to mean that believers
become sons by God.
I don't see how "is" necessarily means
reincarnation. It's like someone saying,
Whoa, that kid's Gretzky!, meaning that
the kid is talented like the hockey player,
not that he really is the player himself.
In the same way, Jesus refers to John as
Elijah.
I believe Jesus was using the word "ascend"
relative to resurrection.
I believe David saw his Lord, Jesus Christ,
as God the Son. David was resurrected by Jesus
Christ, God's Holy One. I don't believe David
is referring to himself by the latter.
Neither, it appears, does Peter (Acts 2:29-36).
I believe that a step-mother was meant
by Jacob in questioning Joseph's dream,
not necessarily Rachel.
The judgment Peter is referring to in
1 Peter 4 in context concerns persecution
of the Church. This happened at Jerusalem
(persecuting) which in turn was judged as
was her surrogate, Rome, (persecuting) later.
I don't see how your explanation of the
correction of man has Jesus as solely
David's son and not His eternal Root.
Some Protestants still somehow consider
Rome to be a whore but Jerusalem was destroyed
for her persecution of Jesus Christ and his
saints. So too, Rome's spiritual "supremacy"
was superceded by that of Jesus Christ and
His saints. The "protestants", of course,
being Christians, and their enemies,
those marked who persecuted them.
It's written that Jesus opened His disciples'
understanding of the scriptures concerning
Himself, thus I think it's reasonable to claim
that Jesus knew more about them more fully
than His tribe or followers.
I believe Jesus ascended twice. Once after
meeting with Miriam in the garden and then
after forty days.
I can make a decent apple-strudel I've been
told. I made it too sweet last time but the
layer-crust, I finally got it right,
from scratch.
10, 9, 8, 7, . . . |
Edited by - paralambano on 12 Jan 2010 7:27:03 PM |
|
|
|
boullan
USA
10894 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2010 : 4:54:11 PM
|
Dear Paralambano,
Where was Peter when he wrote that he was in Babylon?
Have you studied the geographical patterns of Daniel's prophecy and noticed the movement westward? Now of course that is more political than religious; but religious centers move also.
Now, it could be, could be, I guess, that Fatima in Portugal will become more important in the future; but I expect the "spiritual center" to move further west than that. I have no firm idea where it will be established, North or South America -- although I have some ideas where it could be.
Now studying the past pattern of the movement west, do you see how it was necessary for Jesus to interact with Rome? Do you see how it was that allowing Romans to crucify him put Rome in a position of "owing" him? It gave Jesus (and his appointed servants) the right to interfere with Rome. Surely you see this! How do you catch fish? Why do you think Peter was told he would be a fisher of men? You have to bait them -- and if they take the bait, you have the right to catch them.
If the servants of the Kingdom can pray for those who persecute them, they have power over them. It is against the Law of Free Will to interfere with the freedom of others; so God's servants are restricted in the means available to them. If others interfere with their freedom, it opens the door making it lawful for them to interfere back.
Is this not the reason Israel went into captivity in Egypt and Babylon, so that those nations might be saved? Do not the prophets promise the salvation of both Egypt and Babylon?
When a cycle is played out, there is a new movement; and the plans are laid far in advance. Thus, it is no coincidence that the Jews were expellled from Spain in 1492 and Columbus (a servant of God, reviled by many today) discovered the Americas. If you believed in reincarnation, I could tell you how St. Germaine, in several lifetimes, worked for this goal.
quote:
I don't have a problem with the
Holy Spirit being poured out liberally
onto Jesus of Nazareth. I just don't
know how Jesus can be a reincarnation
of both Jesse and David if being the
Root of both means Jesus is the
reincarnation of both.
We are having communication problems. I do not think I ever said Jesus was the reincarnation of Jesse.
quote:
Too, I don't have a problem with the
Branch being eternal since I believe
the Root's eternal as well, thus I don't
believe it's silly that the Branch is
eternal. By the "rest of it", I had meant
the rest of the book you had presented
the initial chapter from by link.
I was wondering if its author said
that the Root and Branch were co-eternal,
of the same substance, and whether the Son
is eternally generated by the Father,
not made, not created, and had asked
if you could present a link to the rest
of it.
I've no idea what you mean by providing a link -- and never mind about that.
A root is something that grows in the ground. That's how I view it. A branch is something that grows on a tree. Before the tree has grown, it's madness to speak of the branch on it as existing in reality. It exists in idea only.
Before there was an earth, there could be no root. Not in reality. Sure, the idea existed; but applying vague and uncertain words like "co-eternal" to it make no sense to me. Indeed, such language is unnecessarily complex to me. Something is either eternal or not.
quote:
I'm not sure what's meant by your
exclamatory claim about Zerrubabel being
Jeconiah's grandson.
I don't think kh was his biological grandson.
quote:
I take the "in my sight" to mean that there
will always be someone worthy to sit on David's
throne. That man I believe to be Jesus Christ.
The text doesn't say that. It says someone will always be on a throne ruling over descendants of Israel.
I read Psalm 132:11 -
quote:
The Lord has sworn to David a truth from
which He will not turn back: Of the fruit
of your body I will set upon your throne.
to mean that Jesus Christ is the fruit of
David's body, not David reincarnated.
Ah, so David failed and that's the end of the story for you. And for you, it's the sins of adultery and murder. I tell you that David was not allowed to build the Temple for another reason, according to the Scriptures. Why do you take such a view? By your type of reasoning, Moses would not have been worthy to enter the land of promise because he had murdered the Egyptian; but that was not the reason he was given.
quote:
David,
God's anointed, died and decayed like men
die and decay and was raised to eternal life
by Jesus Christ who saw no decay, however
blessed David was in awaiting his Redeemer,
Jesus of Nazareth.
Pilate indeed thought Jesus was innocent
but Pilate wasn't the "god" Caesar.
Rome persecuted Christians for their failure
to bow to Caesar as deity. Instead, they
worshipped Jesus as God and Ruler of the
kings of the earth. He is the ultimate
Ruler of heaven and earth to them,
not Caesar. The Romans didn't care what
gods their subjects worshipped, only that
they bowed to the spiritual primacy of the
Roman state.
Finally, some progress but not enough. Jews were exempt from offering tribute to Caesar. You do realize the problems this created for Christians when Jews said that Christians were heretics? The Christians responded, often enough, with antisemitism; and this was the reason much of the Jewish wisdom was discarded.
quote:
Any authority others have comes from
Jesus Christ. When that authority claiming
superiority over Jesus Christ as did the
Roman state for its Emperor came into conflict
with Christians who wouldn't recognize it,
Christians were persecuted for their
disobedience. A man can't have two masters after all.
Jesus told Pilate that his authority came from God. The Romans had the right to govern themselves as they saw fit -- was not dominion over the earth given to man? This issue you do not seem to want to grapple with.
It seems fairly clear to me that you do not think any people lived on earth before the Garden of Eden. Thus, we have different views on nearly everything else.
quote:
It's my understanding that Jesus Christ
sits on David's throne, not the
Queen of England or someone in Ethiopia.
You are turning the texts upside down to hold onto your beliefs. You seem inflexible in your views to me. You seem unwilling to consider how the perfection of ideas in Heaven is one thing and how things play out often imperfectly on earth are something else. The heavenly throne given to David is forever (as long as time exists) in spiritual terms; but it has applications also on earth. Why else would we pray "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?"
quote:
I don't believe anyone is in God's image
and likeness when they're sinning since
God doesn't sin.
You have a God who does things on the cheap. Now you remind me of GSpirits.
Did you not know there is something eternally perfect about people? That is the reason Jesus thought it worth his time and effort to come to earth.
quote:
I don't see how having the memory of having
sinned and being redeemed is imperfect.
It is said that God will forget sins. Why do you wish to debate this? You are looking in this in time. Time exists under certain conditions.
What good is memory? What is it for? If you made mistakes learning how to type, okay, you did. But now you know how to type. There is no point to thinking bout the past mistakes when you are no longer making them. Likewise, when we obtain virtue, there is no point to recalling past vice.
When the root of evil, the cause of sin, is removed, there is absolutely no good reason to remember it. What can be remembered is the gratitude to those who helped you obtain the virtues; and that is indeligibly written in spirit. Some connections are eternal. Were I to go live on another planet thousands of light-years away, thousands of years from now, I would still retain the connections of Light -- unless I fell drastically. Such connections of Light are the clothes of God -- He is clad in Light -- and the entire universe is meant to be filled with these connections.
I can call on spiritual forces that are not from this planet. Jesus himself is not from this world. You and I have very different views of this planet's history, I fear.
quote:
I don't believe one has an eternity to
think about their imperfections. The memory is
that we were once imperfect. The knowledge is
that we are now being perfected or perfect.
Again, the loss of memory over it is a
nullification of redemption I believe.
I certainly do think a lifetime is long
enough to repent of one's sins.
I wonder if this is like an oak tree remembered it was once an acorn? And if it is, what good does that memory serve?
quote:
I don't take the elements melting away and
everything being burned literally,
nor do I think people will sit about
going over their imperfections for eternity.
Rather, they'll know they were perfected
from imperfection.
I wonder if "perfection" in your definition could mean "whole."
I think you're impious to doubt the melting of the elements. The concept of destruction by fire is one that is found so many times in the Scriptures, it seems truly doubtful to me that it is meant to be a mere figure. Besides, dear Paralambano, I have "seen" in vision the future "ending" of the earth and heavens. It was glorious. Beautiful. Why would you doubt it then? If you had gold that had impurities in it, why wouldn't you refine it further?
This burning takes place in many ways even today; but there will be the "final" fire also. That is nothing to fear. Not too much will be burned up -- but the "yeast" must be eliminated so it doesn't "leaven" the whole loaf again.
quote:
Only begotten to me means incomparable,
unique, one of a kind, thus Jesus Christ
is the incomparable, unique, one of a
kind Messiah:
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him"
(John 1:18).
The Greek word is monogenes, no? Luke uses it to mean "only."
Luke 8:42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.
He also uses it to mean offspring, not "begotten."
Luke 7:12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.
quote:
Isaac was unique in his way, Jesus Christ
one of a kind in His.
In what way was Ishmael not the son of Abraham?
quote:
1 John 5 I take to mean that believers
become sons by God.
"Begotten" or not?
quote:
I don't see how "is" necessarily means
reincarnation. It's like someone saying,
Whoa, that kid's Gretzky!, meaning that
the kid is talented like the hockey player,
not that he really is the player himself.
In the same way, Jesus refers to John as
Elijah.
You choose to think Jesus was exaggerating to make a point? I don't think so since he said John was the greatest prophet.
It says "is." If you can receive it, receive it.
quote:
I believe Jesus was using the word "ascend"
relative to resurrection.
I believe David saw his Lord, Jesus Christ,
as God the Son. David was resurrected by Jesus
Christ, God's Holy One. I don't believe David
is referring to himself by the latter.
Neither, it appears, does Peter (Acts 2:29-36).
So who or what is the "son of man" who is the only one who can ascend to heaven? Only he that comes down may go up.
quote:
I believe that a step-mother was meant
by Jacob in questioning Joseph's dream,
not necessarily Rachel.
Now "mother" means "step-mother." Again, you fail to see how such things have two meanings. In earthly terms, you may be okay to think that; but it means more than that. Rachel, Mother of Israel, gave her life to bring Joseph to life; and she was not buried with her husband. But I tell you God rewarded her by allowing her to see her son Joseph rewarded in Heaven for being the savior of his people. And I think she bowed to the Light of God in Joseph, Light which she prayed for to be sent to earth -- Light of all colors -- like a pearl -- like the rainbow.
quote:
The judgment Peter is referring to in
1 Peter 4 in context concerns persecution
of the Church. This happened at Jerusalem
(persecuting) which in turn was judged as
was her surrogate, Rome, (persecuting) later.
And Peter was writing that letter from "Babylon" because the next den of iniquity to be taken on by the kingdom of God was Rome. Jerusalem's era was closing, and the center was moving west.
1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
quote:
I don't see how your explanation of the
correction of man has Jesus as solely
David's son and not His eternal Root.
?
quote:
Some Protestants still somehow consider
Rome to be a whore but Jerusalem was destroyed
for her persecution of Jesus Christ and his
saints. So too, Rome's spiritual "supremacy"
was superceded by that of Jesus Christ and
His saints. The "protestants", of course,
being Christians, and their enemies,
those marked who persecuted them.
Our disagreement probably stems from our disagreement over earth's history prior to Eden.
quote:
It's written that Jesus opened His disciples'
understanding of the scriptures concerning
Himself, thus I think it's reasonable to claim
that Jesus knew more about them more fully
than His tribe or followers.
Why refer to what the Jews think, then?
quote:
I believe Jesus ascended twice. Once after
meeting with Miriam in the garden and then
after forty days.
Again, this disagreement seems to be based on our disagreement about the history of earth prior to Eden. We will probably never agree on what the Ascension is if we disagree about the nature of the errors on earth. Your view seems to blame Adam. I think mankind had already fallen (the Gentiles). Adam then became like them to a degree. For me, the history of earth has been one of God's people "mixing in" with the "natives of earth," and then sharing their karma. And when one of God's servants makes it out, he drags many of the natives with him. Israel is not of this earth -- literally. The earth went sour, and Israel came to act as missionaries.
quote:
I can make a decent apple-strudel I've been
told. I made it too sweet last time but the
layer-crust, I finally got it right,
from scratch.
The dough seems too much for me to tackle. I made a nice chocolate cake (from mix) with white icing (canned); but there wasn't enough icing to suit me. Next time, I'll put a filling of cherry preserves or something similar in between the layers so I have more icing for the rest of the cake.
I bought a slice of shoo fly pie at the store. I hadn't seen it at the small store and asked. Here, they had moved it and I had been missing it. I checked the list -- no eggs. I never put eggs in mine. I was wondering about that.
Boullan
|
Edited by - boullan on 15 Jan 2010 7:21:42 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
DUCK POND
