@BowsacNoodle @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @justnormalkorean I have never once suggested that anyone
1. Shouldnt attwmpt to seek salvation
2. Act in a christian manner.
The point is not whether Jesus will reasurrect my dogs for me. I hope He will. It is what wont He resurrect, because it wontbe everything.
A dog has jever sinned, because a dog has never been under the law. In the same way, neither has a canaanite, unless they were converted. But Paul makes it clear that the law cannot bring salvation, because to do so would be to nullify the promise. The promise was made explicitly and solely to Abraham and his offspring.
1. Shouldnt attwmpt to seek salvation
2. Act in a christian manner.
The point is not whether Jesus will reasurrect my dogs for me. I hope He will. It is what wont He resurrect, because it wontbe everything.
A dog has jever sinned, because a dog has never been under the law. In the same way, neither has a canaanite, unless they were converted. But Paul makes it clear that the law cannot bring salvation, because to do so would be to nullify the promise. The promise was made explicitly and solely to Abraham and his offspring.
@Xenophon @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @justnormalkorean And yet we're called adopted sons of God through Christ (EPHESIANS 1). You talk of contextualizing things for 1st century Hebrews— are you familiar with how they viewed adoption? It was a huge deal. An adopted son became true kin and blood in their view.
@BowsacNoodle
Catholic Church tried to keep the Bible out of public scrutiny because of it... The Bible is not an easy book, you need the tradition to understand it, it was made for people INSIDE THE CHURCH and not for regular John interpretation.
Every human being, EVERY SINGLE ONE, can go to heaven because GOD IS PERFECT AND HIS SACRIFICE COULD NOT BE PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE, IT WAS A SACRIFICE TO REDEEM ADAM.
@Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Xenophon @justnormalkorean
Catholic Church tried to keep the Bible out of public scrutiny because of it... The Bible is not an easy book, you need the tradition to understand it, it was made for people INSIDE THE CHURCH and not for regular John interpretation.
Every human being, EVERY SINGLE ONE, can go to heaven because GOD IS PERFECT AND HIS SACRIFICE COULD NOT BE PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE, IT WAS A SACRIFICE TO REDEEM ADAM.
@Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Xenophon @justnormalkorean
>I am very happy to find people speaking about the Bible on Poast
Hey! Sit by the fire with us
>As far as I know "the seed" can refer to a seed according to the flesh or to a seed according to the spirit.
I partly agree and (mostly) disagree, in the same way that I agree that a drink is both the drinking water itself and the cup you have by which to bear that water. One is born of God by the Spirit (from God to Adam to [...] to you) (this is being born of the Spirit) and we are born in the flesh (from Adam to [...] to you).
It gets into how Christ is "after the order of Melchizedek."
I'm going to make coffee first and switch over to my laptop, and then I'll share what some agree and others disagree on. It's not meant to speak for everyone here. My goal is to agree with the text as best as I can. I don't want to fall for the trap of one passage agreeing and another disagreeing. (A good example would be the arguments for saved by faith and for saved by works. Another example would be free will influence verses predestination.) It will be an effortpost talking about what salvation is and is not, the reasons for there being a Christ, the reasons he died (why not just rule now / then) because this matters in terms of the 'seed'.
Hey! Sit by the fire with us
>As far as I know "the seed" can refer to a seed according to the flesh or to a seed according to the spirit.
I partly agree and (mostly) disagree, in the same way that I agree that a drink is both the drinking water itself and the cup you have by which to bear that water. One is born of God by the Spirit (from God to Adam to [...] to you) (this is being born of the Spirit) and we are born in the flesh (from Adam to [...] to you).
It gets into how Christ is "after the order of Melchizedek."
I'm going to make coffee first and switch over to my laptop, and then I'll share what some agree and others disagree on. It's not meant to speak for everyone here. My goal is to agree with the text as best as I can. I don't want to fall for the trap of one passage agreeing and another disagreeing. (A good example would be the arguments for saved by faith and for saved by works. Another example would be free will influence verses predestination.) It will be an effortpost talking about what salvation is and is not, the reasons for there being a Christ, the reasons he died (why not just rule now / then) because this matters in terms of the 'seed'.
How are
>Enoch "seventh from Adam" (Jude 14),
>Noah "the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5),
>and Christ "after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 7)
?
How are both of the following faithfully called μονογενῆ (translated "only begotten" in the English translation) of Scripture:
>Jesus (John 3:16), who had half-siblings
>Isaac (Hebrews 11:17), who had half-siblings?
Yes, Christ did not have a father by the flesh, so "only begotten" makes sense for that case--but for Isaac as well? Isaac's father, Abraham, clearly had another child (Ishmael), yet Scripture refers to Isaac also as μονογενῆ, translated as "only begotten"? What does that word--μονογενῆ--mean?
Plus the usual questions.
"Is it faith or works?"
"Can a baby be saved?"
"Can the severely mentally retarded be saved?" (Sincerely, think about it.)
"Can someone lose their salvation?"
"How is this fair to someone who never heard the Gospel?" (Truly, consider the centuries and continents.)
"There are verses about believing and verses about those preordained, deceiving the elect if it were possible, etc.--How could one reconcile those? Do we choose to follow Christ--or are we destined?"
And, of course, tracing down the seed--stated from Genesis to Revelation.
The seed concept matters because it's wrapped up in the act of salvation. That's why it's so important to understand.
So let me start with something controversial:
It is not your goal to be saved.
You are called to be faithful, not to be saved (nor to save).
Our faithfulness is what will be judged.
You are already saved.
John 10:24-31
<<<emphasis mine>>>
>Then came the jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: <<<And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.>>> I and my Father are one. Then the jews took up stones again to stone him.
"Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Not even you. Not even you can stop yourself from his having saved you.
"It is finished."
("But we know there are those who will be not saved! The tares! The antichrists!" Yes. Hold on. I'm still going over salvation. After that, we'll go over judgment.)
There are things salvation is and things salvation is not.
Salvation is
>life after the last day, when the wheat is kept and the tares are cast into the lake of fire for efficient destruction (not torture)--called the second death (for a reason: they cease to be) (hence why in Matthew we're warned to fear not one who can destroy the body but one can destroy both body and soul)
Salvation is NOT
>something Christ left unfinished; something you complete (neither by your faith nor your works); a conditional reward
>an everlasting life in heaven; an afterlife without a body
>the judgment of how your everlasting life will be after resurrection (there is such a judgment)
Salvation is life, simply. Not being destroyed.
That is the gift of equal measure, the grace undeserved for which no man can boast. That is the foundation.
Then there is individual reward. The judgment.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
>For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
This is true of the saved.
But who was saved?
And we know there are those who will not be saved (to be thrown into the lake of fire, destroyed).
Who are they?
This is why the seed question matters, and talking about that will also answer all of the example questions above. [I'll continue by a comment on this comment.]
>Enoch "seventh from Adam" (Jude 14),
>Noah "the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5),
>and Christ "after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 7)
?
How are both of the following faithfully called μονογενῆ (translated "only begotten" in the English translation) of Scripture:
>Jesus (John 3:16), who had half-siblings
>Isaac (Hebrews 11:17), who had half-siblings?
Yes, Christ did not have a father by the flesh, so "only begotten" makes sense for that case--but for Isaac as well? Isaac's father, Abraham, clearly had another child (Ishmael), yet Scripture refers to Isaac also as μονογενῆ, translated as "only begotten"? What does that word--μονογενῆ--mean?
Plus the usual questions.
"Is it faith or works?"
"Can a baby be saved?"
"Can the severely mentally retarded be saved?" (Sincerely, think about it.)
"Can someone lose their salvation?"
"How is this fair to someone who never heard the Gospel?" (Truly, consider the centuries and continents.)
"There are verses about believing and verses about those preordained, deceiving the elect if it were possible, etc.--How could one reconcile those? Do we choose to follow Christ--or are we destined?"
And, of course, tracing down the seed--stated from Genesis to Revelation.
The seed concept matters because it's wrapped up in the act of salvation. That's why it's so important to understand.
So let me start with something controversial:
It is not your goal to be saved.
You are called to be faithful, not to be saved (nor to save).
Our faithfulness is what will be judged.
You are already saved.
John 10:24-31
<<<emphasis mine>>>
>Then came the jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: <<<And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.>>> I and my Father are one. Then the jews took up stones again to stone him.
"Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Not even you. Not even you can stop yourself from his having saved you.
"It is finished."
("But we know there are those who will be not saved! The tares! The antichrists!" Yes. Hold on. I'm still going over salvation. After that, we'll go over judgment.)
There are things salvation is and things salvation is not.
Salvation is
>life after the last day, when the wheat is kept and the tares are cast into the lake of fire for efficient destruction (not torture)--called the second death (for a reason: they cease to be) (hence why in Matthew we're warned to fear not one who can destroy the body but one can destroy both body and soul)
Salvation is NOT
>something Christ left unfinished; something you complete (neither by your faith nor your works); a conditional reward
>an everlasting life in heaven; an afterlife without a body
>the judgment of how your everlasting life will be after resurrection (there is such a judgment)
Salvation is life, simply. Not being destroyed.
That is the gift of equal measure, the grace undeserved for which no man can boast. That is the foundation.
Then there is individual reward. The judgment.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
>For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
This is true of the saved.
But who was saved?
And we know there are those who will not be saved (to be thrown into the lake of fire, destroyed).
Who are they?
This is why the seed question matters, and talking about that will also answer all of the example questions above. [I'll continue by a comment on this comment.]
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean what would be the point of judgement if you're already saved? is it just a divine struggle session? a dressing down to make you feel the pain of all your sins before entrance into heaven?
@Nudhul @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean "death is only the beginning"~the mummy
>salvation
You exist; your soul is not destroyed within the lake of fire
>judgment
You exist--but now what more?
Little reward?
Greater reward?
This is the difference between the one parable of giving to all hired the same pay and the one parable of giving a reward according to how they used what was given them while the master was away.
(There are "the tares" that will be destroyed, thrown in the fire--not saved (i.e. destroyed), let alone judged. These are the "children of the wicked one" according to Christ's own explanation of his wheat and tares parable. They are "not planted by the Father" according to Christ's own explanation of the same parable. You may notice in Genesis there are the trees planted and in the midst of them are the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then you may notice in Revelation, after the tares are thrown into the lake of fire for destruction, there is one tree.)
>before entrance into heaven
"Going to heaven" being what salvation means is something in church, not scripture.
We will be resurrected bodily. (Job and Paul write this.) We don't know what the bodies will be. (Paul writes this.)
The kingdom of God will be on earth as it is in heaven.
You exist; your soul is not destroyed within the lake of fire
>judgment
You exist--but now what more?
Little reward?
Greater reward?
This is the difference between the one parable of giving to all hired the same pay and the one parable of giving a reward according to how they used what was given them while the master was away.
(There are "the tares" that will be destroyed, thrown in the fire--not saved (i.e. destroyed), let alone judged. These are the "children of the wicked one" according to Christ's own explanation of his wheat and tares parable. They are "not planted by the Father" according to Christ's own explanation of the same parable. You may notice in Genesis there are the trees planted and in the midst of them are the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then you may notice in Revelation, after the tares are thrown into the lake of fire for destruction, there is one tree.)
>before entrance into heaven
"Going to heaven" being what salvation means is something in church, not scripture.
We will be resurrected bodily. (Job and Paul write this.) We don't know what the bodies will be. (Paul writes this.)
The kingdom of God will be on earth as it is in heaven.
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean will we be resurrected as old or young? will we retain any illness or disabilities? will the desire to sin remain?
@Nudhul @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean Everyone is judged and Jesus puts His God-thumb on the scale.
@BowsacNoodle @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean but what results from that?
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean >Jesus who had half siblings
That point is contested. Very possible, but not necessarily true.
That point is contested. Very possible, but not necessarily true.
@Nudhul @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean Paraphrasing a lecture sermon I heard from Matt Walsh (of all people), before he signed with (((Daily Wire)))...
>When we stand before God at Judgement, He will ask us "What do you want?" and our soul will answer Him. "I want to be with You and dwell in your presence and glory!" or "Leave me alone I want nothing to do with You!" and God will grant our request.
>When we stand before God at Judgement, He will ask us "What do you want?" and our soul will answer Him. "I want to be with You and dwell in your presence and glory!" or "Leave me alone I want nothing to do with You!" and God will grant our request.
@HarryNuggets @Xenophon @blankdeblank @tyler @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @justnormalkorean And yet you use the fediverse. Curious.
@BowsacNoodle @Nudhul @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean I was still thinking about my heaven thread lecture on Job from last night...it seems Job wanted an audience with God and to prostrate himself...and God fulfilled it...then God tells his friends they better repent or he'll behave towards them like their lies about him...what you just said seems in character with that...
@BowsacNoodle @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean so its a binary question that will be answered to by...a seperate entity that witnessed our mortal actions?
how is it contested? also why does it matter. Marry new Joseph. It's literally in the gospel.
@Nudhul @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean Answered by our immortal soul. We will answer it when asked, perhaps involuntarily like the way our heart beats or lungs breathe.
@Xenophon @Ash_Kvetchum @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean I'm not having this discussion again, because I think it's weird to obsess over assumed marital relations of Christ's mom. Catholics and Orthodox think otherwise, and it's long been a part of historic Church beliefs.
it's a weird part of the belief.
>24 When Joseph got up from sleeping, he did as the Lord’s angel had commanded him. He married her 25 but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son.
He knew her. It's right there in Matthew. Priests lying about the gospel doesn't change the truth.
>24 When Joseph got up from sleeping, he did as the Lord’s angel had commanded him. He married her 25 but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son.
He knew her. It's right there in Matthew. Priests lying about the gospel doesn't change the truth.
@Xenophon @Ash_Kvetchum @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean >I don't want to have this discussion again.
>>proceeds to start the discussion, again.
Thanks Marbleavius Statuequavius
>>proceeds to start the discussion, again.
Thanks Marbleavius Statuequavius
Brother, you're asking hows when we have the what and why.
We don't know how gravity works, let alone the minute detail of how the soul develops.
But I know if I go see my wife right now in nine months a soul (the what) will be there because I got her pregnant (the why) and want to be fruitful and multiply.
Same for the step-by-step of how we'll be judged. We don't have that. We are told *by what standard* (the what) we'll be judged.
By how the sheep were treated.
The sheep will be judged by how they treated the sheep (Matthew 25:31-46).
It's the same thought as "Love thy neighbor as thyself ["neighbor" is not the Greek word for geological neighbor; it is the word for one "near you"]. (Point of the Good Samaritan parable--literally answering a lawyer asking "Who is my neighbor?" in Luke.)
(Also note that "Love you enemies" is not "Love God's enemies," who should be our enemies.)
We don't know how gravity works, let alone the minute detail of how the soul develops.
But I know if I go see my wife right now in nine months a soul (the what) will be there because I got her pregnant (the why) and want to be fruitful and multiply.
Same for the step-by-step of how we'll be judged. We don't have that. We are told *by what standard* (the what) we'll be judged.
By how the sheep were treated.
The sheep will be judged by how they treated the sheep (Matthew 25:31-46).
It's the same thought as "Love thy neighbor as thyself ["neighbor" is not the Greek word for geological neighbor; it is the word for one "near you"]. (Point of the Good Samaritan parable--literally answering a lawyer asking "Who is my neighbor?" in Luke.)
(Also note that "Love you enemies" is not "Love God's enemies," who should be our enemies.)
True! I could be convinced either way
🥂
Please note that that doesn't affect the point, however--which is that Christ doesn't have a father by the flesh nor exactly siblings by that father, while Isaac does--a clear brother by Abraham himself--yet both are called (what is translated as) "only begotten".
The translation is good enough literally, but obviously there is more meaning than "only kid I ever had I tell you wut"
😄
🥂
Please note that that doesn't affect the point, however--which is that Christ doesn't have a father by the flesh nor exactly siblings by that father, while Isaac does--a clear brother by Abraham himself--yet both are called (what is translated as) "only begotten".
The translation is good enough literally, but obviously there is more meaning than "only kid I ever had I tell you wut"
😄
Instead of trying to find the perfect church just try and find where God wants you.
@Xenophon @BowsacNoodle @Ash_Kvetchum @xuya @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean I don't see it...I see a goofy greek conjunction...
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean but the how is an interesting question
by the by, do you believe in the annihilationist interpretation regarding hell and the lake of fire?
by the by, do you believe in the annihilationist interpretation regarding hell and the lake of fire?
The how is interesting! It's beyond us lol
Fun to talk about--but further away from our understanding than gravity and time, which is still arguably immensely beyond us.
>do you believe in the annihilationist interpretation regarding hell and the lake of fire
Revelation says "death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire."
So I first want to differentiate between hell and the lake of fire. The lake of fire will be destruction. That is explicitly stated by Christ after his parable of the wheat of tares. (He actually explains that parable piece by piece to his disciples.) The same is also written in Jude.
Fun to talk about--but further away from our understanding than gravity and time, which is still arguably immensely beyond us.
>do you believe in the annihilationist interpretation regarding hell and the lake of fire
Revelation says "death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire."
So I first want to differentiate between hell and the lake of fire. The lake of fire will be destruction. That is explicitly stated by Christ after his parable of the wheat of tares. (He actually explains that parable piece by piece to his disciples.) The same is also written in Jude.
@Nudhul @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd We will be reborn with perfect bodies, no sickness, and there will be no sin.
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Philippians 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Philippians 3:21
@justnormalkorean @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd what does ideal body mean? 22 y/o zyzz without the heart defect, or will we not know until we see what god looks like?
@BowsacNoodle @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @justnormalkorean Also uhhh right after He called that lady a dog and said He was only here for the lost children of Israel, when she humbled herself before Him He praised her faith and healed her daughter anyway
@Nudhul @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd I'm hoping for this, but we can't really know until we get there.
I'm writing an (as brief as possible lmao) effortpost in response to Bowsac's post on being adopted sons, in the other fork of the thread. It will I hope mostly make sense (and probably fairly raise questions), but I won't go into as much depth as I will do here as I continue what I was writing.
I'll label the continuation here within this fork "Part 2" or something--continuing what I was writing before. Because most eyes and pastors glaze over the "after the order of Melchizedek" or chalk that up to "he was just righteous, so we're going back to that." (He is, but there's a bigger point, a bigger aha God is brilliant moment at work.)
I'll label the continuation here within this fork "Part 2" or something--continuing what I was writing before. Because most eyes and pastors glaze over the "after the order of Melchizedek" or chalk that up to "he was just righteous, so we're going back to that." (He is, but there's a bigger point, a bigger aha God is brilliant moment at work.)
@justnormalkorean @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd zyzz if he were in his 40s
@blankdeblank @Xenophon @tyler @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee There a fedi bible study group or something?
@justnormalkorean @blankdeblank @Xenophon @tyler @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Gab_Refugee didnt lake viking have one???
@justnormalkorean @blankdeblank @Xenophon @tyler @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Gab_Refugee and i guess godcast is basically one...
@Frondeur @blankdeblank @Xenophon @tyler @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Gab_Refugee I don't think he likes me lol.
...had to throw μονογενῆ into translate, it's stupid easy to understand as its literal: monogenic
which is still better at explaining the intended meaning than all the concordances, which seem to try to push it towards "begotten"
which is still better at explaining the intended meaning than all the concordances, which seem to try to push it towards "begotten"
>called adopted sons
God (the Husband) was required to kill his adulterous Bride, Israel (and therefore all Israelites), under the law (the Vow between the two).
This is why Christ speaks about adultery right after talking about the law being fulfilled. It's the same subject, yet to say everyone will be saved *and say* the law would be fulfilled sounded ludicrous. (The law required all of Israel be killed! Yet all Israelites would be saved? It could not be reconciled... unless...) God came as a man and died.
When the Husband dies, his Bride is released from her vow. (This is why Paul talks about an unfaithful woman being released from the law by the death of the husband (Romans 7) in the middle of his speech on Christ and the law.) "Till death do us part."
The same prophets in scripture used by God to formally accuse Israel of adultery also formally stripped the Israelites of being his people, now to be called "not my people" and "no mercy", with God asking where "their mother" (his Bride) had any paper of divorce after her unfaithfulness.
He also called these "not my people" his sheep scattered to every mountain--but that he would keep a remnant (those that were in Judea by the days of Christ) and that he would be their shepherd himself. (Christ being the Good Shepherd is reference to what he had said through these prophets.)
Yet through the very same prophets, God promised the Israelites that they would once more be called "my people" and those named "no mercy" would have mercy; that they would once more be adopted as sons; that he would bring a new covenant (which seemed wild because it's against the law for a Husband to marry a Bride he has divorced). It really isn't a wonder why people ridiculed these prophets, if you consider the seemingly contradictory things they said.
So by the death of the Husband, the Bride was spared. Her sins--all of their sins--were forgiven. The Husband had taken these on--in that he who did not deserve to die (he who had been faithful) did die. (This is also one part of the reason it was important that Christ not have a father by the flesh. He was born of a woman (as promised to Eve), of Israel, of the line of David, but not, according to the law, under a father--thereby born of Israelites (as promised) but not guilty. He was then also free to be a kinsmen redeemer.)
The Israelites (the sons) were adopted as sons once more by the new covenant. With the resurrection, God could (not *remarry*, as he had suffered death, but instead lawfully) marry the Bride. This new covenant will come in full at the Wedding Feast, the Last Day. That covenant will be everlasting, and we will be sons.
Notice:
Since the Bride was released, ALL Israelites (all of the sheep scattered upon every mountain as lamented through the prophets, all of the sheep "not of *this* fold (Israelites knowing they were Israelites, trying to keep the law, Judeans and Samaritans)"--meaning sheep (Israelites) scattered through nearly a millennium by the Assyrian deportation and the Babylonian and the Roman--these Israelites who wouldn't even know they were Israelites but were still under the law were also released). The wild olive branches (olive tree being a repeated symbol of Israel throughout scripture) could be grafted back into the domesticated olive tree with the new covenant.
What's more:
Those scattered Israelites had fled or been deported throughout the nations, for centuries upon centuries, as seen by the Old Testament (and secular historians as well).
Those Israelite fathers had children who had children who had children... for centuries.
In other words, the seed of Abraham became many nations.
And Christ was to be a light for the revelation of the nations, as the priest Simeon prophesied immediately upon seeing the Christ child. He was to reveal the nations he'd promised to Abraham. The Great Commission is Christ sending out those eleven disciples to do so.
That is the adoption as sons.
It's the Prodigal Son story.
A note:
(The Greek of what Simeon says of Christ is literally "a light for the revelation of the nations" as I write above. (All I can do is point to the explicit Greek. It's as clear and different in Greek as it would be in English. It's wild.) It is interesting that it was ever translated instead as "a light *of* revelation *to* *the Gentiles*", while not surprising that it continuous to be accepted "because it's written" and has been passed down (only since) as the same error, much like "born again" is passed down when the verse says explicitly "born of above."
Translation changes that change meaning blatantly--an example being "dog" to "non-Huskie"--or "nations" to "Gentiles" (a new, made up word meaning "non-Judeans")--are the same successful twist as making money based on nothing and removing women from their femininity. Not everyone/thing twisting is a liar. Most are just twist*ed*.)
God (the Husband) was required to kill his adulterous Bride, Israel (and therefore all Israelites), under the law (the Vow between the two).
This is why Christ speaks about adultery right after talking about the law being fulfilled. It's the same subject, yet to say everyone will be saved *and say* the law would be fulfilled sounded ludicrous. (The law required all of Israel be killed! Yet all Israelites would be saved? It could not be reconciled... unless...) God came as a man and died.
When the Husband dies, his Bride is released from her vow. (This is why Paul talks about an unfaithful woman being released from the law by the death of the husband (Romans 7) in the middle of his speech on Christ and the law.) "Till death do us part."
The same prophets in scripture used by God to formally accuse Israel of adultery also formally stripped the Israelites of being his people, now to be called "not my people" and "no mercy", with God asking where "their mother" (his Bride) had any paper of divorce after her unfaithfulness.
He also called these "not my people" his sheep scattered to every mountain--but that he would keep a remnant (those that were in Judea by the days of Christ) and that he would be their shepherd himself. (Christ being the Good Shepherd is reference to what he had said through these prophets.)
Yet through the very same prophets, God promised the Israelites that they would once more be called "my people" and those named "no mercy" would have mercy; that they would once more be adopted as sons; that he would bring a new covenant (which seemed wild because it's against the law for a Husband to marry a Bride he has divorced). It really isn't a wonder why people ridiculed these prophets, if you consider the seemingly contradictory things they said.
So by the death of the Husband, the Bride was spared. Her sins--all of their sins--were forgiven. The Husband had taken these on--in that he who did not deserve to die (he who had been faithful) did die. (This is also one part of the reason it was important that Christ not have a father by the flesh. He was born of a woman (as promised to Eve), of Israel, of the line of David, but not, according to the law, under a father--thereby born of Israelites (as promised) but not guilty. He was then also free to be a kinsmen redeemer.)
The Israelites (the sons) were adopted as sons once more by the new covenant. With the resurrection, God could (not *remarry*, as he had suffered death, but instead lawfully) marry the Bride. This new covenant will come in full at the Wedding Feast, the Last Day. That covenant will be everlasting, and we will be sons.
Notice:
Since the Bride was released, ALL Israelites (all of the sheep scattered upon every mountain as lamented through the prophets, all of the sheep "not of *this* fold (Israelites knowing they were Israelites, trying to keep the law, Judeans and Samaritans)"--meaning sheep (Israelites) scattered through nearly a millennium by the Assyrian deportation and the Babylonian and the Roman--these Israelites who wouldn't even know they were Israelites but were still under the law were also released). The wild olive branches (olive tree being a repeated symbol of Israel throughout scripture) could be grafted back into the domesticated olive tree with the new covenant.
What's more:
Those scattered Israelites had fled or been deported throughout the nations, for centuries upon centuries, as seen by the Old Testament (and secular historians as well).
Those Israelite fathers had children who had children who had children... for centuries.
In other words, the seed of Abraham became many nations.
And Christ was to be a light for the revelation of the nations, as the priest Simeon prophesied immediately upon seeing the Christ child. He was to reveal the nations he'd promised to Abraham. The Great Commission is Christ sending out those eleven disciples to do so.
That is the adoption as sons.
It's the Prodigal Son story.
A note:
(The Greek of what Simeon says of Christ is literally "a light for the revelation of the nations" as I write above. (All I can do is point to the explicit Greek. It's as clear and different in Greek as it would be in English. It's wild.) It is interesting that it was ever translated instead as "a light *of* revelation *to* *the Gentiles*", while not surprising that it continuous to be accepted "because it's written" and has been passed down (only since) as the same error, much like "born again" is passed down when the verse says explicitly "born of above."
Translation changes that change meaning blatantly--an example being "dog" to "non-Huskie"--or "nations" to "Gentiles" (a new, made up word meaning "non-Judeans")--are the same successful twist as making money based on nothing and removing women from their femininity. Not everyone/thing twisting is a liar. Most are just twist*ed*.)
@Frondeur @justnormalkorean @Gab_Refugee @tyler @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
He didn't necessarily HAVE to be a prophet for God to send people to him to pray for them.
He didn't necessarily HAVE to be a prophet for God to send people to him to pray for them.
@Frondeur @justnormalkorean @Gab_Refugee @tyler @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle I will also say that this is always one of my main reasons for trying to be a good man. Even if I am confused and weak at times, if I do my best I will be able to help people I love with my prayers even if there is nothing else I can do for them.
@ChiRho @Frondeur @justnormalkorean @tyler @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle Amen.
I struggle tremendously with fear and it’s borderline debilitating. We should all be fearless, so it’s obviously bordering on something I truly need to let go of.
I struggle tremendously with fear and it’s borderline debilitating. We should all be fearless, so it’s obviously bordering on something I truly need to let go of.
@Ash_Kvetchum @Nudhul @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean Amen. Hell exists for a reason.
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Xenophon @justnormalkorean I appreciate this explanation, but I'm not Calvinist and it feels like this would lead that way. Are you a predestination believer? At some point, I still ask "why does it matter" and just go with the hope and faith in Christ. It seems that's a point we agree on regardless of any deeper understandings or ignorance. I don't say that to dismiss your post either; I haven't put the time into research or reading Greek or good secondary source explanations for what you're stating.
>I'm tl;dr-ing here a non-Calvinist, non-Arminian view of scripture, so please be patient with the effortpost
Friend, I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.
I'm sure every one of ourguys has had the experience of having put to them "This is leaning [Republican / Communist]. Do you believe in [Republican point / Pelosi]?"--depending on whether questioner is more to the left or right but still within the Overton window.
With politics, ourguys know both views are not the way and not true; that both options are fed by the same small, concentration; that the vast population sways (allowably) only within the guardrails set.
We don't notice the same of ourselves when ourguys speak on theology. There is an Overton theology, a state-tolerable theology. So I'm going to give a metaphor of three views--each looking at the same building--to emphasize the difference (and failure of two of the views, imo) between Calvinism, Arminianism, and the third--that which I believe scripture describes.
Metaphor:
You're a boss, an employer.
There's a building.
Within the one building are multiple companies.
What will you do? What was your goal?
>View A (Arminianism):
You're going to keep all those that believe you are the boss. It doesn't matter which company in the building they're from.
Some believe all they have to do is believe you're the best boss. Others believe they have to show they believe with their work.
Some think you'll pull all of the employees who believed you out and then set the building on fire for 7 years to give those inside a chance to change their mind.
>View C (Calvinism):
You've known from the beginning which employees you'll keep, of all companies. Those employees would follow you no matter what. They have no choice in the matter--or they do but it is inevitable that they would choose you; that they'd know you were the best boss.
You'll fire the rest. Some think you'll kill them. Some think you'll torture them.
Both A and C want the news of what's happening to get out, and have questions/exceptions on what will happen to him that didn't receive the news. Or they ignore obvious records, errantly saying everyone who has worked here, through all companies, would have heard the news.
>View B (Biblical, imo):
You are the boss, the owner of the building. You had vanguard employees oversee the construction of the building itself. Some of these vanguard employees did more and started their own companies, counter to your will.
You start your own company. "No mergers," you tell them. "We're going to accomplish the dominion of the whole building. I will guide you."
They disobey. And every day more are hired to your company. You wrangle to keep your company separate. You even choose the smallest team within your company and head them by a representative--promising that you'll lead them in person soon. You make a particular contract with that small team.
The team splits into two. Team 1 and Team 2. Team 2's supervisor was more loyal. When you come in person, you will sit at Team 2's table. Team 1 has been considering merging with other teams within your company, but also--worse--with other companies.
You give many warnings to them. You won't protect Team 1 as other teams (within your company) come for them. You give startling predictions of what will happen.
Team 1 is scattered throughout so many of the teams of your company.
And above all of this, there's the looming threat: that particular contract with the small team requires everyone that leaves the team to be fired. Now even Team 2 is acting de jure with your particular contract but de facto working as if they work for another company. In fact, Team 2's supervisor positions are almost entirely seated by members of another company.
You arrive in person, during the time you said you were coming--but undercover, asking those of your company that recognize you to spread your message but not your identity. You spread the news: "The boss is going to save the company. He is going to save the team he made. He is going to reconstitute the team he made. And not a bullet of the particular contract will be broken, while he does it--through me."
The board of Team 2 fires you.
Guess what? That "particular contract" made long ago remains only while both parties are employed: those being the entire team (no matter how many teams it has fractured into) and you. And you just got fired. So now you won't have to fire everyone under the particular contract. It's fulfilled.
And though you can be fired (when you come as an employee), you--as the boss--can hire yourself again.
The word is out. You're coming. The other companies will be booted. Those vanguard employees from long ago will be fired. Every one among your company will be kept employed, no matter whether they believed you were the boss or not. And they will be rewarded by how they treated one another, protected one another. Some will have a small reward.
Better known your intentions, better they'll treat one another.
Friend, I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.
I'm sure every one of ourguys has had the experience of having put to them "This is leaning [Republican / Communist]. Do you believe in [Republican point / Pelosi]?"--depending on whether questioner is more to the left or right but still within the Overton window.
With politics, ourguys know both views are not the way and not true; that both options are fed by the same small, concentration; that the vast population sways (allowably) only within the guardrails set.
We don't notice the same of ourselves when ourguys speak on theology. There is an Overton theology, a state-tolerable theology. So I'm going to give a metaphor of three views--each looking at the same building--to emphasize the difference (and failure of two of the views, imo) between Calvinism, Arminianism, and the third--that which I believe scripture describes.
Metaphor:
You're a boss, an employer.
There's a building.
Within the one building are multiple companies.
What will you do? What was your goal?
>View A (Arminianism):
You're going to keep all those that believe you are the boss. It doesn't matter which company in the building they're from.
Some believe all they have to do is believe you're the best boss. Others believe they have to show they believe with their work.
Some think you'll pull all of the employees who believed you out and then set the building on fire for 7 years to give those inside a chance to change their mind.
>View C (Calvinism):
You've known from the beginning which employees you'll keep, of all companies. Those employees would follow you no matter what. They have no choice in the matter--or they do but it is inevitable that they would choose you; that they'd know you were the best boss.
You'll fire the rest. Some think you'll kill them. Some think you'll torture them.
Both A and C want the news of what's happening to get out, and have questions/exceptions on what will happen to him that didn't receive the news. Or they ignore obvious records, errantly saying everyone who has worked here, through all companies, would have heard the news.
>View B (Biblical, imo):
You are the boss, the owner of the building. You had vanguard employees oversee the construction of the building itself. Some of these vanguard employees did more and started their own companies, counter to your will.
You start your own company. "No mergers," you tell them. "We're going to accomplish the dominion of the whole building. I will guide you."
They disobey. And every day more are hired to your company. You wrangle to keep your company separate. You even choose the smallest team within your company and head them by a representative--promising that you'll lead them in person soon. You make a particular contract with that small team.
The team splits into two. Team 1 and Team 2. Team 2's supervisor was more loyal. When you come in person, you will sit at Team 2's table. Team 1 has been considering merging with other teams within your company, but also--worse--with other companies.
You give many warnings to them. You won't protect Team 1 as other teams (within your company) come for them. You give startling predictions of what will happen.
Team 1 is scattered throughout so many of the teams of your company.
And above all of this, there's the looming threat: that particular contract with the small team requires everyone that leaves the team to be fired. Now even Team 2 is acting de jure with your particular contract but de facto working as if they work for another company. In fact, Team 2's supervisor positions are almost entirely seated by members of another company.
You arrive in person, during the time you said you were coming--but undercover, asking those of your company that recognize you to spread your message but not your identity. You spread the news: "The boss is going to save the company. He is going to save the team he made. He is going to reconstitute the team he made. And not a bullet of the particular contract will be broken, while he does it--through me."
The board of Team 2 fires you.
Guess what? That "particular contract" made long ago remains only while both parties are employed: those being the entire team (no matter how many teams it has fractured into) and you. And you just got fired. So now you won't have to fire everyone under the particular contract. It's fulfilled.
And though you can be fired (when you come as an employee), you--as the boss--can hire yourself again.
The word is out. You're coming. The other companies will be booted. Those vanguard employees from long ago will be fired. Every one among your company will be kept employed, no matter whether they believed you were the boss or not. And they will be rewarded by how they treated one another, protected one another. Some will have a small reward.
Better known your intentions, better they'll treat one another.
>did part 2 poast yet?
Not yet! I wrote today another effortpost to answer a question that was in another fork of this thread. (I'll attach the link to that effortpost here.)
For the coming Part 2 of this thread, I've been reworking today (when I can touch it) to make it "short"er, more streamlined, bite-sized
It is a task to tl;dr a thought that (imo) runs through the entirety of Scripture, lol
Here's the effortpost I wrote today for the other fork of the thread, though:
https://nicecrew.digital/notice/Afoly7OgeX0DRVvqk4
Not yet! I wrote today another effortpost to answer a question that was in another fork of this thread. (I'll attach the link to that effortpost here.)
For the coming Part 2 of this thread, I've been reworking today (when I can touch it) to make it "short"er, more streamlined, bite-sized
It is a task to tl;dr a thought that (imo) runs through the entirety of Scripture, lol
Here's the effortpost I wrote today for the other fork of the thread, though:
https://nicecrew.digital/notice/Afoly7OgeX0DRVvqk4
@Ash_Kvetchum @filthbox @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean Bookmarked. Will read, my Brother in Christ.
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @justnormalkorean Thanks for the welcome!
Sorry I did not really understand "the cup" part. Maybe you are speaking about some verses I do not remember now. For me the water is the water, and the cup is the cup.
We Christians are to be of one mind, especially in matters of faith:
"Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind." (Philipians 2:2)
The Bible is clear in that we are indeed saved by faith, but not faith alone, because faith without works is dead.
And we are NOT saved by works alone, faith is absolutely necessary. But it will be rendered to each according to their works. To some glory and honor and to others wrath.
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who with endurance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury” (Romans 2:6-8).
Sorry I did not really understand "the cup" part. Maybe you are speaking about some verses I do not remember now. For me the water is the water, and the cup is the cup.
We Christians are to be of one mind, especially in matters of faith:
"Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind." (Philipians 2:2)
The Bible is clear in that we are indeed saved by faith, but not faith alone, because faith without works is dead.
And we are NOT saved by works alone, faith is absolutely necessary. But it will be rendered to each according to their works. To some glory and honor and to others wrath.
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who with endurance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury” (Romans 2:6-8).
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @justnormalkorean I do not get the first part about Enoch, Noah, and Christ, sorry.
You present a lot questions together, many of which could be considered as apparent contradictions. But when in doubt we are to look for answers in Scripture and Tradition and be very careful with following our own suppositions.
There is a lot, I will focus just on the first part I understand, it would take too long to answer so many old questions here.
About Jesus and Isaac and being the "only son".
It is not prudent to affirm that Jesus had half-siblings.
The word used to refer to Jesus "brothers" in the original text is “adelphos” (ἀδελφὸς), Which is translated consistently throughout the Bible as “brother” or “brothers”. But which meaning is not only referring to blood related brothers but also to half brothers, mate, friend or fellow members.
As demonstrated by 1 Corinthians 15:6 where it speaks about 500 "brothers" “adelphos” (ἀδελφὸς)
"After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."
And the word "μονογενῆ" used also of Isaac is, as you say, rendered many times as "only begotten son" but also simply as "only son". We know Abraham casted the slave woman and Ishmael away, as Sarah told him "Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." (Gen 21:10) and God confirmed to him the same thing: "And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Gen 21:12)
After casting Ismael away, Isaac was his only son left, in whom his seed should be called. (his seed should NOT be called in Ishmael) So the word "μονογενῆ" (only son) is rightly used there.
We can speak about the rest of the questions later, in truth they have been answered many times already, and many centuries ago.
But I cannot resist to answer the part where you say "It is not your goal to be saved" and "you are already saved". Because I find those very contrary to scripture and tradition.
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philipians 2:12)
I bet the Devil would love for us to believe we are already saved no matter what.
I ask forgiveness in advance if my language is perceived as too direct or maybe even aggressive to anyone, I tend to speak boldly about these things, it is not my intention to offend.
You present a lot questions together, many of which could be considered as apparent contradictions. But when in doubt we are to look for answers in Scripture and Tradition and be very careful with following our own suppositions.
There is a lot, I will focus just on the first part I understand, it would take too long to answer so many old questions here.
About Jesus and Isaac and being the "only son".
It is not prudent to affirm that Jesus had half-siblings.
The word used to refer to Jesus "brothers" in the original text is “adelphos” (ἀδελφὸς), Which is translated consistently throughout the Bible as “brother” or “brothers”. But which meaning is not only referring to blood related brothers but also to half brothers, mate, friend or fellow members.
As demonstrated by 1 Corinthians 15:6 where it speaks about 500 "brothers" “adelphos” (ἀδελφὸς)
"After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."
And the word "μονογενῆ" used also of Isaac is, as you say, rendered many times as "only begotten son" but also simply as "only son". We know Abraham casted the slave woman and Ishmael away, as Sarah told him "Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." (Gen 21:10) and God confirmed to him the same thing: "And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Gen 21:12)
After casting Ismael away, Isaac was his only son left, in whom his seed should be called. (his seed should NOT be called in Ishmael) So the word "μονογενῆ" (only son) is rightly used there.
We can speak about the rest of the questions later, in truth they have been answered many times already, and many centuries ago.
But I cannot resist to answer the part where you say "It is not your goal to be saved" and "you are already saved". Because I find those very contrary to scripture and tradition.
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philipians 2:12)
I bet the Devil would love for us to believe we are already saved no matter what.
I ask forgiveness in advance if my language is perceived as too direct or maybe even aggressive to anyone, I tend to speak boldly about these things, it is not my intention to offend.
[Part 2]
In Part 1, I mentioned Scripture refers to Enoch being “seventh from Adam”, Noah being “the eighth person of righteousness”, and Christ being our “priest after the order of Melchizedek.”
So what is this order? Is it a club? (No. Well, sort of.) It is an order as in a “procession,” and it’s an office—a responsibility, a stewardship, passing from father to eldest son upon the death of the father. The responsibility of the office is to be the mediator between God and man (i.e. a priest). This is why Christ is called “a priest after the order of Melchizedek.”
First let’s address the word “Melchizedek.” It means “KingRighteousness” in Hebrew. It’s the “name” of the man that blesses Abraham in Genesis 14, as well.
What does this have to do with Christ?
Follow the procession of this office:
>The first is Adam
>Abel’s offering is accepted, and Cain murders Abel. This is while Adam is still alive. Adam has a son, Seth, “after his own image” (Genesis 5).
>Upon Adam’s death, Seth is the second “priest after the order.”
>Seth dies. Seth’s eldest son, Enos, is third.
> Enos’s eldest son, Cainan, is fourth.
>Cainan’s eldest son, Mahaleel, is fifth.
>Mahaleel’s eldest son, Jared, is sixth.
>Enoch, Jared’s eldest son, is seventh from Adam. However, Enoch “walked with God and was no more” before his father Jared had yet passed. So the seventh goes to Enoch’s eldest son, Methuselah.
>Methuselah outlives his own eldest son, Lamech. So upon Methuselah’s death, Lamech’s eldest son, Noah, becomes the eighth.
This is the entire point of why Scripture keeps track of the age of our forefathers upon the birth of their first son and then the age of the father at the father’s death.
This procession becomes lost to time as the descendants of Adam stray.
Later, under the law, “the order of Aaron” (the Levitical priesthood) is established. Yet the law will also later by fulfilled, and the order of Aaron will end. So who will be responsible? Who will be mediate between God and us? Will there just be no office? Who will be the head, the priest, the judge?
Who can be?
Well, who was Adam’s father?
According to Luke, Adam is “son of God.” According to Paul, Adam is “son of God.” (Do not take this as churches do. It simply means Adam did not have a father by the flesh.)
Notice that Yahweh himself never held the office; he's never in the procession. Why not?
Yahweh could not hold the office of being mediator between man and himself. He’s not even a man! He's not in the order of procession!
Until he came down as a Son of Man, born of Mary, without a father by the flesh. Christ is Yahweh in the flesh.
Though Yahweh, our Father, is Spirit, he walked among us (Emmanuel) as a Son of Man. He, being the prophesied Son of Man, became “first among brethren” in that he is the first Father, Yahweh—the very first father, father of Adam--not by flesh, but by Spirit. He is our Father, now in the procession being now in the flesh—and never needing to pass on the priesthood, as he will never die. It is another way that he is the perfect priest.
Upon the “death” of the Father, after the order of Melchizedek, the Father’s eldest living son (himself, as a Son of Man) becomes our mediator, our perfect priest.
>So what of μονογενῆ (“only begotten”)?
Isaac was Abraham’s μονογενῆ, his “only begotten”, though Abraham clearly had other children, namely his eldest son Ishmael.
Yet it was Isaac, the younger son, that Abraham charged with the blessing—that being God’s promise to Abraham, passed on to Isaac. And Isaac passed the same to his own younger son, Jacob, rather than the elder Esau.
How fitting that our Father blesses his Christ (which means “Anointed”) as his μονογενῆ, his “only begotten”, as Christ being the “younger” (in terms of the flesh, in terms of being a Son of Man) between himself and the only other man without a father by the flesh, the “elder sibling” Adam.
Yet Christ is Yahweh. Yahweh’s blessing had returned to himself. So to whom will Christ pass the promise? Who are Christ’s children? In other words, who are the children of God?
Yahweh is the Father of Adam, who begat […] down to you.
So to whom belong the promise? All descendants of Adam.
(IMPORTANT TO NOTICE: If you errantly take Cain as Adam’s eldest son and not Seth, then Enoch and Noah are not the seventh and eighth—nor are they even able to be in the line at all, when Scripture tells us we should consider them as such. That is *only* possible if Seth is Adam’s eldest son—meaning Cain is not his son. Also note that Cain is not listed as the eldest son of Adam in Genesis 5. This has nothing to do with Cain’s murder of his brother, some disownment. Judah’s disowned children were still listed as his. Ishmael was still listed as Abraham’s child. Esau was still listed as Jacob’s. Cain is not listed as Adam’s.)
There will be a Part 3. I believe that will be the final part.
In Part 1, I mentioned Scripture refers to Enoch being “seventh from Adam”, Noah being “the eighth person of righteousness”, and Christ being our “priest after the order of Melchizedek.”
So what is this order? Is it a club? (No. Well, sort of.) It is an order as in a “procession,” and it’s an office—a responsibility, a stewardship, passing from father to eldest son upon the death of the father. The responsibility of the office is to be the mediator between God and man (i.e. a priest). This is why Christ is called “a priest after the order of Melchizedek.”
First let’s address the word “Melchizedek.” It means “KingRighteousness” in Hebrew. It’s the “name” of the man that blesses Abraham in Genesis 14, as well.
What does this have to do with Christ?
Follow the procession of this office:
>The first is Adam
>Abel’s offering is accepted, and Cain murders Abel. This is while Adam is still alive. Adam has a son, Seth, “after his own image” (Genesis 5).
>Upon Adam’s death, Seth is the second “priest after the order.”
>Seth dies. Seth’s eldest son, Enos, is third.
> Enos’s eldest son, Cainan, is fourth.
>Cainan’s eldest son, Mahaleel, is fifth.
>Mahaleel’s eldest son, Jared, is sixth.
>Enoch, Jared’s eldest son, is seventh from Adam. However, Enoch “walked with God and was no more” before his father Jared had yet passed. So the seventh goes to Enoch’s eldest son, Methuselah.
>Methuselah outlives his own eldest son, Lamech. So upon Methuselah’s death, Lamech’s eldest son, Noah, becomes the eighth.
This is the entire point of why Scripture keeps track of the age of our forefathers upon the birth of their first son and then the age of the father at the father’s death.
This procession becomes lost to time as the descendants of Adam stray.
Later, under the law, “the order of Aaron” (the Levitical priesthood) is established. Yet the law will also later by fulfilled, and the order of Aaron will end. So who will be responsible? Who will be mediate between God and us? Will there just be no office? Who will be the head, the priest, the judge?
Who can be?
Well, who was Adam’s father?
According to Luke, Adam is “son of God.” According to Paul, Adam is “son of God.” (Do not take this as churches do. It simply means Adam did not have a father by the flesh.)
Notice that Yahweh himself never held the office; he's never in the procession. Why not?
Yahweh could not hold the office of being mediator between man and himself. He’s not even a man! He's not in the order of procession!
Until he came down as a Son of Man, born of Mary, without a father by the flesh. Christ is Yahweh in the flesh.
Though Yahweh, our Father, is Spirit, he walked among us (Emmanuel) as a Son of Man. He, being the prophesied Son of Man, became “first among brethren” in that he is the first Father, Yahweh—the very first father, father of Adam--not by flesh, but by Spirit. He is our Father, now in the procession being now in the flesh—and never needing to pass on the priesthood, as he will never die. It is another way that he is the perfect priest.
Upon the “death” of the Father, after the order of Melchizedek, the Father’s eldest living son (himself, as a Son of Man) becomes our mediator, our perfect priest.
>So what of μονογενῆ (“only begotten”)?
Isaac was Abraham’s μονογενῆ, his “only begotten”, though Abraham clearly had other children, namely his eldest son Ishmael.
Yet it was Isaac, the younger son, that Abraham charged with the blessing—that being God’s promise to Abraham, passed on to Isaac. And Isaac passed the same to his own younger son, Jacob, rather than the elder Esau.
How fitting that our Father blesses his Christ (which means “Anointed”) as his μονογενῆ, his “only begotten”, as Christ being the “younger” (in terms of the flesh, in terms of being a Son of Man) between himself and the only other man without a father by the flesh, the “elder sibling” Adam.
Yet Christ is Yahweh. Yahweh’s blessing had returned to himself. So to whom will Christ pass the promise? Who are Christ’s children? In other words, who are the children of God?
Yahweh is the Father of Adam, who begat […] down to you.
So to whom belong the promise? All descendants of Adam.
(IMPORTANT TO NOTICE: If you errantly take Cain as Adam’s eldest son and not Seth, then Enoch and Noah are not the seventh and eighth—nor are they even able to be in the line at all, when Scripture tells us we should consider them as such. That is *only* possible if Seth is Adam’s eldest son—meaning Cain is not his son. Also note that Cain is not listed as the eldest son of Adam in Genesis 5. This has nothing to do with Cain’s murder of his brother, some disownment. Judah’s disowned children were still listed as his. Ishmael was still listed as Abraham’s child. Esau was still listed as Jacob’s. Cain is not listed as Adam’s.)
There will be a Part 3. I believe that will be the final part.
Brother, I have the Part 2 out now (I've labeled it over in the other fork of the thread as [Part 2] to help everyone keep order). That goes over "only begotten." What you've said is very close. There is more to that term.
>You are not already saved
Note that "salvation" is not always about the lake of fire. Christ had spoken about the fall of the very real and present temple of the day. Notice in, Matthew 24, Christ tells the disciples that the temple will not have one stone left standing on top of another. The disciples then ask when that will be *and* when the end of the world will be *and* what will be the sign of his coming. (Keep in mind that the Revelation had yet to be given, and here's Christ saying the temple will fall and he'll come like a thief in the night. It was not--yet--evident to the disciples that the last day, Christ's return, would be a time much after the fall of that temple. We can see this by their questions.)
The temple fell some 40 years later.
Only after this did John receive the Revelation of things that must come to pass--revealing to us that the last day would be some time (from then) and not concurrent with the fall of the then-recently-fallen temple.
Apart from verses discussing what Christ accomplished and finished--the word "salvation" is often in verses akin to "Save yourself! Look after one another!" That is a salvation they could have *participated* in. Warn others. This temple is going to come down. Be vigilant. Something big is going to happen soon. (It did. Judea fell. The Judeans were dispersed for two millennia thereafter.)
Some salvation verses are about how Christ's death saved all Israelites (all under the law--whether Israelite Judeans or Israelite Samaritans or Israelite Hellenists (the "Greek" of "neither Greek nor Judean" fame) or Israelites dispersed far away since the Assyrians and Babylonians centuries ago who've even forgotten they were under the law). The death of the Husband saved the unfaithful Bride (Israel--meaning all Israelites, as listed above) from a deserved earthly death that would be according to their Vow (the law).
Some salvation verses are about the judgement / the reward. Saving up treasures, our reward, by our works. Saving our brothers and sisters from shame (when judgment of their works will come) by teaching them to help one another. (Our judgment will be consideration of how we treated the sheep. On the last day, the sheep and goats will be divided (also called the wheat and tares). The sheep will be judged by how they treated the least of these (the sheep), as we are called to "Love thy neighbor (one "near you," not geographical person) as yourself.")
We cannot add to nor take away from, complete nor leave incomplete, what Christ accomplished. He saved the descendants of Adam. The wheat. The children of the kingdom. The children of God. The body of Christ. He is the vine (Yahweh) and we are the branches (every one born from Adam, to whom was given a spirit by Yahweh). One cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he be born of above, of the water (flesh) and of the Spirit; what is flesh is flesh and what is Spirit is Spirit.
Please read 1 John 5. Note how "Christ came through water and blood" ( or "Came by water and blood" in some English translations; either is fine). That is not about baptism. That is about coming in the flesh as a descendant of Adam (water) and even more specifically as a descendant of Jacob, an Israelite (blood). Note how the chapter even speaks of being "born of God."
There isn't a "born again." The Greek is "born of above."
Those not planted by God but by another--the tares--the children of the wicked one--the works of the devil--and even the devil and his angels--will be thrown into the lake of fire to be no more.
In Genesis, in the beginning, there are two trees. At the end of Revelation, after the the tares are thrown into lake of fire, there is one.
>You are not already saved
Note that "salvation" is not always about the lake of fire. Christ had spoken about the fall of the very real and present temple of the day. Notice in, Matthew 24, Christ tells the disciples that the temple will not have one stone left standing on top of another. The disciples then ask when that will be *and* when the end of the world will be *and* what will be the sign of his coming. (Keep in mind that the Revelation had yet to be given, and here's Christ saying the temple will fall and he'll come like a thief in the night. It was not--yet--evident to the disciples that the last day, Christ's return, would be a time much after the fall of that temple. We can see this by their questions.)
The temple fell some 40 years later.
Only after this did John receive the Revelation of things that must come to pass--revealing to us that the last day would be some time (from then) and not concurrent with the fall of the then-recently-fallen temple.
Apart from verses discussing what Christ accomplished and finished--the word "salvation" is often in verses akin to "Save yourself! Look after one another!" That is a salvation they could have *participated* in. Warn others. This temple is going to come down. Be vigilant. Something big is going to happen soon. (It did. Judea fell. The Judeans were dispersed for two millennia thereafter.)
Some salvation verses are about how Christ's death saved all Israelites (all under the law--whether Israelite Judeans or Israelite Samaritans or Israelite Hellenists (the "Greek" of "neither Greek nor Judean" fame) or Israelites dispersed far away since the Assyrians and Babylonians centuries ago who've even forgotten they were under the law). The death of the Husband saved the unfaithful Bride (Israel--meaning all Israelites, as listed above) from a deserved earthly death that would be according to their Vow (the law).
Some salvation verses are about the judgement / the reward. Saving up treasures, our reward, by our works. Saving our brothers and sisters from shame (when judgment of their works will come) by teaching them to help one another. (Our judgment will be consideration of how we treated the sheep. On the last day, the sheep and goats will be divided (also called the wheat and tares). The sheep will be judged by how they treated the least of these (the sheep), as we are called to "Love thy neighbor (one "near you," not geographical person) as yourself.")
We cannot add to nor take away from, complete nor leave incomplete, what Christ accomplished. He saved the descendants of Adam. The wheat. The children of the kingdom. The children of God. The body of Christ. He is the vine (Yahweh) and we are the branches (every one born from Adam, to whom was given a spirit by Yahweh). One cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he be born of above, of the water (flesh) and of the Spirit; what is flesh is flesh and what is Spirit is Spirit.
Please read 1 John 5. Note how "Christ came through water and blood" ( or "Came by water and blood" in some English translations; either is fine). That is not about baptism. That is about coming in the flesh as a descendant of Adam (water) and even more specifically as a descendant of Jacob, an Israelite (blood). Note how the chapter even speaks of being "born of God."
There isn't a "born again." The Greek is "born of above."
Those not planted by God but by another--the tares--the children of the wicked one--the works of the devil--and even the devil and his angels--will be thrown into the lake of fire to be no more.
In Genesis, in the beginning, there are two trees. At the end of Revelation, after the the tares are thrown into lake of fire, there is one.
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean I'm glad you addressed sheep and goats, but how do you interpret "depart from me, I never knew you"? Christians in name only/cultural Christians who don't actively live as Christians, or more of a "I did good for God!" Faux/non-Christians, or do you see the word "Christian" as sort of detached from your understanding of how all of this works? I'm curious and not trying to put words into your mouth.
Is there a name for your type of theological view or scholarship involved?
Is there a name for your type of theological view or scholarship involved?
@BowsacNoodle @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean Have you confessed with your lips “Christ is Lord,“ and believe that He died for your sins, has risen again, is at The Right Hand of God?
if the answer is yes, you are saved fren.
if the answer is yes, you are saved fren.
@BowsacNoodle @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean All we can do beyond that is speculate.
@Gab_Refugee @BowsacNoodle @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean the debate is whether you can be saved by just being born wHite...
Basically the premise of "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis.
(He noted that it was a "supposition" rather than an allegory.)
(He noted that it was a "supposition" rather than an allegory.)
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2
@Frondeur @BowsacNoodle @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean had this debate several times at our ex, Torbas house.
God doesn’t differentiate between Jew or Gentile, man or woman, circumcised vs uncircumcised: We are one in Christ.
I know plenty of non Whites who have The Holy Spirit within them.
Spergs and Feds try to argue that.
Are all Whites saved?
God doesn’t differentiate between Jew or Gentile, man or woman, circumcised vs uncircumcised: We are one in Christ.
I know plenty of non Whites who have The Holy Spirit within them.
Spergs and Feds try to argue that.
Are all Whites saved?
@Gab_Refugee @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean I have indeed, but my question isn't related to that (or maybe it is). I am trying to understand more about this specific view, because it's not a common biblical hermeneutic.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He surrendered himself voluntarily and willingly, suffered and died, and rose again after conquering death. He is seated at the right hand of The Father. I do not believe salvation is through my blood or actions (outside of choosing to reject Christ's gift, unearned by me or any other man), and I do believe we are called to show and "bear fruit" of our faith EVEN THOUGH SHOWING THIS IS NOT 'EARNING SALVATION' (I will still have people who insist this is works-based salvation).
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He surrendered himself voluntarily and willingly, suffered and died, and rose again after conquering death. He is seated at the right hand of The Father. I do not believe salvation is through my blood or actions (outside of choosing to reject Christ's gift, unearned by me or any other man), and I do believe we are called to show and "bear fruit" of our faith EVEN THOUGH SHOWING THIS IS NOT 'EARNING SALVATION' (I will still have people who insist this is works-based salvation).
@Gab_Refugee @BowsacNoodle @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean tell it to Ash...
[Part 3 .1]
>I am trying to understand more about this specific view, because it's not a common biblical hermeneutic.
Thank you, Bowsac.
Some say I'm wrong. (I have yet to see them successfully restate things I am actually saying.) Meh--at least we'll gain something. The order of Melchizedek isn't something churches touch, now is it? (And it is critical to an understanding of *how* Christ's death saves us, rather than a surface understand (and leaving room for misunderstandings beneath the fact) *that* his death saves us.)
>I will still have people who insist [...]
I know that feeling.
Sometimes I feel like I'm waiting for ourguys to see that, just as there's an Overton window to look into politics that lies as a film to filter, there's an Overton window to look into Christianity--and it's even older. Its hellthread (the millennia of church denomination dogma and documents) cooled down. What it cooled down to is still deteriorating. ("Trannies can lead churches," "God is trans," "Homosexuality is not a sin," etc.)
I'll start by saying we are saved by the Spirit--not by our blood.
The tares--more concisely called (as Christ's explicit mapping/explanation to his disciples of the metaphor within the parable, after he had stated he would utter things kept secret since the foundation of the world) "the children of the wicked one"--also have ancestors descended from Adam. Even more: They also have ancestors descended from Abraham! And so they claim not just the promises to Adam and his descendants but also to Abraham and his descendants! And to Jacob! Yet I follow in Christ's statement that they will not be saved from destruction in the lake of fire. How then could someone say I claim it's your blood that saves you?
As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15
>There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Paul is talking about two things simultaneously at once because both topics have a "type" in common, poetically--much in the way you could talk about:
>Jacob having 12 sons, losing 1 (Joseph), replaced by 2 (Ephraim and Manasseh), and growing a body through them, and
>Christ having 12 disciples, losing 1 (Judas), replaced by 2 (Matthias in Acts 1 and of course Paul), and growing a body through them
The two topics Paul is talking about in the 1 Corinthians 15 passage above about having a natural and a spiritual are these, simultaneously:
> 1) You have a natural body and you have a spiritual body. You are born with your natural body first. Second is your spiritual body. (i.e. You are created. There isn't a spiritual you until there's a physical you.)(Paul goes on to say that the resurrection will be of a purified body, an immortal body, in the flesh. The spiritual body is something you have *now*. It is what we have inherited through Adam and he received this from Yahweh in Genesis.)
> 2) Adam was born of the earth, and he was the first earthly father--and he had an earthly body first, before he was in the Spirit (by the "ruach" (Hebrew for "breath" or "spirit") act of Yahweh in Genesis) (i.e. Adam was earth, and then he acquired a spiritual body / was made a branch to the vine, became a child of God). Second to be born of the earth was Christ (when considered by the flesh)--yet he (being Yahweh) was (and is) a Spirit first--he became earthly after.
That's the double-topic Paul is talking about. He's using each of these topics to poetically trace the other--a symmetry, a "type" as biblical scholars of all stands like to call these patterns--this specific "type" is meant to trace the method of salvation (and successfully doing so).
[I need a second post lol So I'll split it up here into an immediate comment of this post. A Part 3 .2 ]
>I am trying to understand more about this specific view, because it's not a common biblical hermeneutic.
Thank you, Bowsac.
Some say I'm wrong. (I have yet to see them successfully restate things I am actually saying.) Meh--at least we'll gain something. The order of Melchizedek isn't something churches touch, now is it? (And it is critical to an understanding of *how* Christ's death saves us, rather than a surface understand (and leaving room for misunderstandings beneath the fact) *that* his death saves us.)
>I will still have people who insist [...]
I know that feeling.
Sometimes I feel like I'm waiting for ourguys to see that, just as there's an Overton window to look into politics that lies as a film to filter, there's an Overton window to look into Christianity--and it's even older. Its hellthread (the millennia of church denomination dogma and documents) cooled down. What it cooled down to is still deteriorating. ("Trannies can lead churches," "God is trans," "Homosexuality is not a sin," etc.)
I'll start by saying we are saved by the Spirit--not by our blood.
The tares--more concisely called (as Christ's explicit mapping/explanation to his disciples of the metaphor within the parable, after he had stated he would utter things kept secret since the foundation of the world) "the children of the wicked one"--also have ancestors descended from Adam. Even more: They also have ancestors descended from Abraham! And so they claim not just the promises to Adam and his descendants but also to Abraham and his descendants! And to Jacob! Yet I follow in Christ's statement that they will not be saved from destruction in the lake of fire. How then could someone say I claim it's your blood that saves you?
As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15
>There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Paul is talking about two things simultaneously at once because both topics have a "type" in common, poetically--much in the way you could talk about:
>Jacob having 12 sons, losing 1 (Joseph), replaced by 2 (Ephraim and Manasseh), and growing a body through them, and
>Christ having 12 disciples, losing 1 (Judas), replaced by 2 (Matthias in Acts 1 and of course Paul), and growing a body through them
The two topics Paul is talking about in the 1 Corinthians 15 passage above about having a natural and a spiritual are these, simultaneously:
> 1) You have a natural body and you have a spiritual body. You are born with your natural body first. Second is your spiritual body. (i.e. You are created. There isn't a spiritual you until there's a physical you.)(Paul goes on to say that the resurrection will be of a purified body, an immortal body, in the flesh. The spiritual body is something you have *now*. It is what we have inherited through Adam and he received this from Yahweh in Genesis.)
> 2) Adam was born of the earth, and he was the first earthly father--and he had an earthly body first, before he was in the Spirit (by the "ruach" (Hebrew for "breath" or "spirit") act of Yahweh in Genesis) (i.e. Adam was earth, and then he acquired a spiritual body / was made a branch to the vine, became a child of God). Second to be born of the earth was Christ (when considered by the flesh)--yet he (being Yahweh) was (and is) a Spirit first--he became earthly after.
That's the double-topic Paul is talking about. He's using each of these topics to poetically trace the other--a symmetry, a "type" as biblical scholars of all stands like to call these patterns--this specific "type" is meant to trace the method of salvation (and successfully doing so).
[I need a second post lol So I'll split it up here into an immediate comment of this post. A Part 3 .2 ]
[Part 3 .2]
Let me repeat one *essential* part of the 1 Corinthians 15 passage that deserves emphasis so that I better trace the method of salvation:
>As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
>We bear the image of the earthy (Adam, our father by the flesh)
and so were condemned by one man (read Romans 5, which talks about being condemned by one man, Adam) when Adam--the earthy image we bear--strayed by breaking the commandment to "not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." We were dead by the Spirit because our earthy image Head (Adam) fell to sin (missing the mark, astray from God's Spirit). His earthy body would have a spirit body straying from God. We, bearing the earthy image of Adam, upon death would also have a spirit body straying from God.
So what was the solution?
Christ and the Father are one. "Before Abraham was, I AM." Yahweh became a Son of Man, earthy. However, Adam is not *his* father. *You and every other descendant of Adam* has a father whose father whose father whose [...] father is Adam. Christ is a new Adam. Adam is not Christ's earthly Head. Christ is his own earthly Head. Christ would not bear the earthy image of Adam, our earthy Head.
At his baptism, the Yahweh "descended his Spirit" upon Christ. What is this? This is God breathing the Spirit into the second Adam.
Then, when Christ, a Son of Man in the flesh dies--and being Yahweh, a father, the first of fathers, the Father of Adam--the eldest living son (earthy image) (i.e. Christ, who is Yahweh) of that earthy father who just died (Yahweh) by the order of Melchizedek becomes the Spiritual Head.
The next living son earthy, living? The living, the resurrected, Christ.
And *that* Spiritual Head was not in sin, remember?
What's more: He is Yahweh himself. He will never stray from Yahweh.
So now by the Spirit (by the order of Melchizedek) the Head of our Body is Christ, not Adam. We bear an earthy image of Adam. We will die, but by the Spirit we live in Christ *because we are already saved*.
Salvation is not our reward. It is by grace alone. All descendants of Adam are saved.
We bear the image of the earthy Head (Adam), which will die to sin.
By our Spirit, we cannot sin (1 John 3:9) as our Spiritual Head is Christ.
On the last die, on the resurrection, we will have new bodies. We will bear an earthy image after Christ. (Back to Paul talking about the spiritual body being before an earthy body.)
Though all descended from Adam are thus saved by the Spirit, not all will be rewarded equally because they will be judged by how they treated one another.
Again, everything Christ and Paul and John et al. say makes sense *only* if Seth was the second in the order of Melchizedek because Seth was the *eldest living son* of Adam--and Cain was not Adam's, though born of Eve. (So descendants of Cain would *not* bear the earthy image of Adam--nor the Spiritual image Yahweh gave to Adam--and thus would not be under the salvation of Christ. In fact, you might say they would be a blasphemy of the Spirit (stray from God)--the only unforgivable--and liars after the image of *their* father. Christ says one may blaspheme the Son of Man and be forgiven (saved) but one may not blaspheme the Spirit.)
Christ calls the descendants of Cain devils, vipers. He talks about children of the wicked one.
I'll do a Part 4 either tomorrow or the next day.
Let me repeat one *essential* part of the 1 Corinthians 15 passage that deserves emphasis so that I better trace the method of salvation:
>As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
>We bear the image of the earthy (Adam, our father by the flesh)
and so were condemned by one man (read Romans 5, which talks about being condemned by one man, Adam) when Adam--the earthy image we bear--strayed by breaking the commandment to "not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." We were dead by the Spirit because our earthy image Head (Adam) fell to sin (missing the mark, astray from God's Spirit). His earthy body would have a spirit body straying from God. We, bearing the earthy image of Adam, upon death would also have a spirit body straying from God.
So what was the solution?
Christ and the Father are one. "Before Abraham was, I AM." Yahweh became a Son of Man, earthy. However, Adam is not *his* father. *You and every other descendant of Adam* has a father whose father whose father whose [...] father is Adam. Christ is a new Adam. Adam is not Christ's earthly Head. Christ is his own earthly Head. Christ would not bear the earthy image of Adam, our earthy Head.
At his baptism, the Yahweh "descended his Spirit" upon Christ. What is this? This is God breathing the Spirit into the second Adam.
Then, when Christ, a Son of Man in the flesh dies--and being Yahweh, a father, the first of fathers, the Father of Adam--the eldest living son (earthy image) (i.e. Christ, who is Yahweh) of that earthy father who just died (Yahweh) by the order of Melchizedek becomes the Spiritual Head.
The next living son earthy, living? The living, the resurrected, Christ.
And *that* Spiritual Head was not in sin, remember?
What's more: He is Yahweh himself. He will never stray from Yahweh.
So now by the Spirit (by the order of Melchizedek) the Head of our Body is Christ, not Adam. We bear an earthy image of Adam. We will die, but by the Spirit we live in Christ *because we are already saved*.
Salvation is not our reward. It is by grace alone. All descendants of Adam are saved.
We bear the image of the earthy Head (Adam), which will die to sin.
By our Spirit, we cannot sin (1 John 3:9) as our Spiritual Head is Christ.
On the last die, on the resurrection, we will have new bodies. We will bear an earthy image after Christ. (Back to Paul talking about the spiritual body being before an earthy body.)
Though all descended from Adam are thus saved by the Spirit, not all will be rewarded equally because they will be judged by how they treated one another.
Again, everything Christ and Paul and John et al. say makes sense *only* if Seth was the second in the order of Melchizedek because Seth was the *eldest living son* of Adam--and Cain was not Adam's, though born of Eve. (So descendants of Cain would *not* bear the earthy image of Adam--nor the Spiritual image Yahweh gave to Adam--and thus would not be under the salvation of Christ. In fact, you might say they would be a blasphemy of the Spirit (stray from God)--the only unforgivable--and liars after the image of *their* father. Christ says one may blaspheme the Son of Man and be forgiven (saved) but one may not blaspheme the Spirit.)
Christ calls the descendants of Cain devils, vipers. He talks about children of the wicked one.
I'll do a Part 4 either tomorrow or the next day.
Also ignore typos, friends. Sometimes "were" should be "we're". I did not mean "the" Yahweh, haha. I was speed editing before switching over to cook. Thank you all for your patience.
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean Bookmarked. Thanks for the effort poast, my brother in Christ.
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean >The order of Melchizedek isn't something churches touch, now is it?
I never heard about it until begoming Eastern Christian (xDDD), but it's mentioned often, including iconography.
>[Christianity's] hellthread (the millennia of church denomination dogma and documents)...is still deteriorating...
Great metaphor and very well said!
>There isn't a spiritual you until there's a physical you.
Aquinas 👍🏻 although Jeremiah 1:5 ["Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”]
makes this point seem odd (unless we assume either an exceptional nature of prophets which the verse seems to imply or take it as an understanding of the all-knowing nature of God).
I never heard about it until begoming Eastern Christian (xDDD), but it's mentioned often, including iconography.
>[Christianity's] hellthread (the millennia of church denomination dogma and documents)...is still deteriorating...
Great metaphor and very well said!
>There isn't a spiritual you until there's a physical you.
Aquinas 👍🏻 although Jeremiah 1:5 ["Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”]
makes this point seem odd (unless we assume either an exceptional nature of prophets which the verse seems to imply or take it as an understanding of the all-knowing nature of God).
@Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @xuya @Frondeur @Gab_Refugee @Reluctanceherd @justnormalkorean >*only* if Seth was the second in the order of Melchizedek because Seth was the *eldest living son* of Adam--and Cain was not Adam's, though born of Eve. (So descendants of Cain would *not* bear the earthy image of Adam--nor the Spiritual image Yahweh gave to Adam--and thus would not be under the salvation of Christ.
Cain was cursed and thrown out, forced to wonder the earth (Mormons say he's bigfoot 😉). I think being personally called out and expelled by God trumps the need for serpent Sneed.
Cain was cursed and thrown out, forced to wonder the earth (Mormons say he's bigfoot 😉). I think being personally called out and expelled by God trumps the need for serpent Sneed.
>"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
This has crossed my mind, too. As you have suggested, I consider this as being a "Called it. I knew this role." (Especially since the word "sanctified" is "separated," just as well.) Just as he knew the "role of a prophet to lead out of Egypt" before Moses was born. This doesn't preclude him from possibly knowing/preparing the exact person who would fufill the role. I don't see it as a statement or insight into that. Either works for me for now!
🤷♂️
Jeremiah should make his descriptions more clear for my 21st century stroke brain lol
This has crossed my mind, too. As you have suggested, I consider this as being a "Called it. I knew this role." (Especially since the word "sanctified" is "separated," just as well.) Just as he knew the "role of a prophet to lead out of Egypt" before Moses was born. This doesn't preclude him from possibly knowing/preparing the exact person who would fufill the role. I don't see it as a statement or insight into that. Either works for me for now!
🤷♂️
Jeremiah should make his descriptions more clear for my 21st century stroke brain lol
First of all, Cain cannot be Bigfoot because I have been to his house and he lets me eat his chicken. [pic (PROOF) related]
>I think being personally called out and expelled by God trumps the need for serpent Sneed
Part 4 (the final effortpost part, I expect) will I think at least be insightful to why I would think otherwise and what I have found convincing.
Here's a teaser of things needing explanation:
Sodom recieves death for its sin once its transgression is "full." At what point is it full? Which sin? Why didn't Cain recieve death for his sin?
And why was Cain (if the eldest son), not accepted with his offering? Why was Abel?
And shouldn't this be about one's fruit, as Christ says? (It should be, and it is.)
What commandment did Cain break? What law? (He didn't. But Sodom did.)
A lot will rest/kick off with this from Romans 5:
>Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Just hoping to show that this is an argument I'll actually build. (And you can observe for yourself and push it with what weight you can. Either it falls and I learn more or it stands and I learned how to convey what I'm seeing well along the way.)
It may have to be a two-parter. I think 1 is enough (succinct and weight bearing) and 2 would be going through the "and even here, this part agrees because."
I'll try to get Part 4 out tomorrow. We'll see! Thank you for discussing with me along the way.
(And did you see Part 2? Listing in the order of Melchizedek who was the first, second, third, fourth, etc.)
Thanks again
🥂
>I think being personally called out and expelled by God trumps the need for serpent Sneed
Part 4 (the final effortpost part, I expect) will I think at least be insightful to why I would think otherwise and what I have found convincing.
Here's a teaser of things needing explanation:
Sodom recieves death for its sin once its transgression is "full." At what point is it full? Which sin? Why didn't Cain recieve death for his sin?
And why was Cain (if the eldest son), not accepted with his offering? Why was Abel?
And shouldn't this be about one's fruit, as Christ says? (It should be, and it is.)
What commandment did Cain break? What law? (He didn't. But Sodom did.)
A lot will rest/kick off with this from Romans 5:
>Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Just hoping to show that this is an argument I'll actually build. (And you can observe for yourself and push it with what weight you can. Either it falls and I learn more or it stands and I learned how to convey what I'm seeing well along the way.)
It may have to be a two-parter. I think 1 is enough (succinct and weight bearing) and 2 would be going through the "and even here, this part agrees because."
I'll try to get Part 4 out tomorrow. We'll see! Thank you for discussing with me along the way.
(And did you see Part 2? Listing in the order of Melchizedek who was the first, second, third, fourth, etc.)
Thanks again
🥂
God made it pretty crystal clear he hated esau and his children and they would never enter into his congregation.
Thus the serpent line. I guess you could say it spans back to Cain as well as I think esau did procreate with Canaanites and other forbidden -ites
There are some who cannot and will not be saved. IMO.
Vessels of wrath fit for destruction.
Thus the serpent line. I guess you could say it spans back to Cain as well as I think esau did procreate with Canaanites and other forbidden -ites
There are some who cannot and will not be saved. IMO.
Vessels of wrath fit for destruction.
@Reluctanceherd @Xenophon @BowsacNoodle @xuya @Frondeur @justnormalkorean Agreed.
That said, there’s this wild notion from not-so-trustworthy sources, that “only Whites can be saved.”
That’s bullshit, non-biblical, and I’m wary of anyone passionately shouting that line.
I personally know several people from all ethnic backgrounds you can imagine who have The Holy Spirit, and love Jesus.
I’m beginning to understand that the propaganda and false narratives come from both sides of the aisle, meant only to divide.
That said, there’s this wild notion from not-so-trustworthy sources, that “only Whites can be saved.”
That’s bullshit, non-biblical, and I’m wary of anyone passionately shouting that line.
I personally know several people from all ethnic backgrounds you can imagine who have The Holy Spirit, and love Jesus.
I’m beginning to understand that the propaganda and false narratives come from both sides of the aisle, meant only to divide.