Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
Calm down Bob; there's nothing useful to be gained by shouting and spraying spittle.
_
Calm down Bob; there's nothing useful to be gained by shouting and spraying spittle.
_
The Church In Brief
- Thread starter Olde Tymer
- Start date
Since all of the apostles and authors of scripture are without doubt sinners, your argument could equally be used to doubt the veracity of scripture.
Indeed Paul killed Christians in an earlier life, and laments in Romans that even still, when as an apostle , "the evil he would not do , he does"!
But I am guessing, his acknowledgement of being a sinner, does not stop you considering Pauls letters as scripture!
God indeed uses poor tools but under his guidance they can become infallible for the duration of a task he sets.
If they were not, you have no scripture, neither as books nor as infallible selection of them which was also by men!
I find the arguments on infallibity strange. All christians accept infallibility in the authorship of scripture. God acting through men.
So the question is not whether He does this, it is the scope and extent that is the real question.
God does indeed mean what He said, about the "pillar of truth" being the physical church, the household of God, because he gave the apostles and Peter alone , and successors , the "power to bind and loose" which is to give definitive judgement on matters of law, scripture faith and morals. It was always so. It is why he urges all to listen to the pharisees when they speak from moses seat. It is why you can trust creeds, councils as a meeting of successors of apostles and indeed decisions on heresies.
It is also why scripture urges all to "listen to those who were sent" and that disputes are taken to the church.
All christian communities are full of sinners. Every single one. It is why Christ came.
The more people there are the more sinners there are. Nobody disputes it, including the popes!
However within limits God gave powers for the church teach and to give judgements.
It is good that He did. Without that you would not even know what is scripture!
Last edited:
Ray
Member
"God uses poor tools" I like that. Makes me think of cracked pots.
"When we look at the messengers of the gospel from God’s perspective, one can see divine treasure in earthen vessels. They may look like cracked pots, but the cracks allow the divine light within to shine through. Then one can see that the power belongs to God ."
David E. Garland
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
All scriptures are suspicious including, but not limited to, Christian scriptures, Judaism
scriptures, Islam scriptures, Buddhism scriptures, and Hindu scriptures, et al.
_
All scriptures are suspicious including, but not limited to, Christian scriptures, Judaism
scriptures, Islam scriptures, Buddhism scriptures, and Hindu scriptures, et al.
_
A nestorian in our midst seemingly!
I thought they were long since extinct!
Last edited:
A fascinating reply
Out of curiosity Old Tymer what section of Christianity are you a part of? so I can understand your response.
Do you not hold Christian scripture as having a special place, and if so what sets it apart?
Hindu so called "scripture" is not scripture in the berean sense which is an old testament view of the world.
So How can I tell "true scripture" from false in your world?
And to what extent do you hold it as true?
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
FAQ: Atheists have plenty of logical reasons for rejecting the notion of an afterlife.
What logical reasons do you have for believing there is one?
REPLY: I've been an on-going student of the Bible since early 1968 via numerous
sermons, lectures, seminars, books, Sunday school classes, and radio programs. In
all those years nobody yet-- not one preacher, not one author, not one Sunday
school teacher, nor one radio speaker --has ever produced rock solid, iron clad,
incontestable empirical evidence proving beyond a shadow of sensible doubt that
there's an afterlife, viz: I have no sensible basis whatsoever for believing there is
one.
FAQ: How it is that you believe in an afterlife without a good reason to do so?
REPLY: My conscience is relentless, i.e. it insists there is something beyond death,
viz: it's an intuitive conviction that I have thus far been unable to shake off.
Mark Twain once said he didn't believe in an afterlife; nevertheless expected one.
Twain likely meant that for humor, but it's actually a pretty realistic statement. You
see, his sharp wit may have sufficed to silence his critics; but utterly failed to
silence his suspicions.
Now of course feelings are not facts; nevertheless feelings, when they're strong
enough, easily overwhelm logic and reason. In other words: I don't need a holy
book to tell me something awaits us beyond death's door; my intuition tells me so,
in spite of common sense insisting otherwise.
Why does anybody believe in a religious philosophy? Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu,
Bahá'í, Hare Krishna, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Judaism,
Voodoo, Wiccan, Jain, Druze, Native American, etc, etc, etc. The answer? Because
it grips their heart-- the core of their being --which is very different than
persuading someone with logic and reasoning.
When folks are persuaded to buy into a religion by means of logic, they can just as
easily be persuaded to give it up by logic. But someone whose heart is gripped by
their religion is not easily removed regardless of how strong, how sensible, how
convincing, nor how logical the opposition's argument. In point of fact, one of the
prerequisites to Christian salvation is believing with one's heart rather than one's
head. (Rom 10:8-9)
For example: I sincerely believe Christ was/is an historical figure. I believe he was
crucified to satisfy the justice due a world gone mad with evil. I believe his crucified
dead body was restored to life. Can I prove any of that is true? NO.
FAQ: Are you suggesting that numbers of people could possibly end up in Hell
merely because their intuition failed to convince them that there's an afterlife?
REPLY: Any declaration of mine relative to folks ending up on the wrong side of
things would be in accord with my religion's holy book, which of course would be a
subjective opinion rather than objective. In other words; just because my religion's
sacred literature attests that those folks are in grave danger of ending up in
circumstances akin to something like Dante's inferno doesn't eo ipso prove they
will.
_
FAQ: Atheists have plenty of logical reasons for rejecting the notion of an afterlife.
What logical reasons do you have for believing there is one?
REPLY: I've been an on-going student of the Bible since early 1968 via numerous
sermons, lectures, seminars, books, Sunday school classes, and radio programs. In
all those years nobody yet-- not one preacher, not one author, not one Sunday
school teacher, nor one radio speaker --has ever produced rock solid, iron clad,
incontestable empirical evidence proving beyond a shadow of sensible doubt that
there's an afterlife, viz: I have no sensible basis whatsoever for believing there is
one.
FAQ: How it is that you believe in an afterlife without a good reason to do so?
REPLY: My conscience is relentless, i.e. it insists there is something beyond death,
viz: it's an intuitive conviction that I have thus far been unable to shake off.
Mark Twain once said he didn't believe in an afterlife; nevertheless expected one.
Twain likely meant that for humor, but it's actually a pretty realistic statement. You
see, his sharp wit may have sufficed to silence his critics; but utterly failed to
silence his suspicions.
Now of course feelings are not facts; nevertheless feelings, when they're strong
enough, easily overwhelm logic and reason. In other words: I don't need a holy
book to tell me something awaits us beyond death's door; my intuition tells me so,
in spite of common sense insisting otherwise.
Why does anybody believe in a religious philosophy? Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu,
Bahá'í, Hare Krishna, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Judaism,
Voodoo, Wiccan, Jain, Druze, Native American, etc, etc, etc. The answer? Because
it grips their heart-- the core of their being --which is very different than
persuading someone with logic and reasoning.
When folks are persuaded to buy into a religion by means of logic, they can just as
easily be persuaded to give it up by logic. But someone whose heart is gripped by
their religion is not easily removed regardless of how strong, how sensible, how
convincing, nor how logical the opposition's argument. In point of fact, one of the
prerequisites to Christian salvation is believing with one's heart rather than one's
head. (Rom 10:8-9)
For example: I sincerely believe Christ was/is an historical figure. I believe he was
crucified to satisfy the justice due a world gone mad with evil. I believe his crucified
dead body was restored to life. Can I prove any of that is true? NO.
FAQ: Are you suggesting that numbers of people could possibly end up in Hell
merely because their intuition failed to convince them that there's an afterlife?
REPLY: Any declaration of mine relative to folks ending up on the wrong side of
things would be in accord with my religion's holy book, which of course would be a
subjective opinion rather than objective. In other words; just because my religion's
sacred literature attests that those folks are in grave danger of ending up in
circumstances akin to something like Dante's inferno doesn't eo ipso prove they
will.
_
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
There are some inaccuracies in the information that has been given.
So the texts do not have to be translated "after 3 days" but "within (among) 3 days".
This is corroborated in the Aramaic Peshitta texts as well and explain why the Greek scribes used the term "meta". In Matt 27:63 the Aramaic uses the phrase "from after". In the Aramaic dialect of the time of Jesus, this was idiomatic for "backwards". As in "backwards from 3 days".
"backwards"
The Aramaic Mark 8:31 passage does not include a preposition at all. It specifically means "within 3 days". And that is what the Greek "meta" reflects.
Jesus did not rise again at sunrise. Nor 19 minutes before sunrise. He resurrected at the point when the days changed - at sundown. He was in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights just as He said He would be.
Wednesday sundown -> Thursday sundown -> Friday sundown -> Saturday sundown
[Gen 1:5 KJV] 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Both Matt 27:63 and Mark 8:31 have in the Greek text the word "meta". While it is very often translated as "after", there are other meanings. One being "among". Compare Luke 24:5 "Why seek ye the living among the dead?"
So the texts do not have to be translated "after 3 days" but "within (among) 3 days".
This is corroborated in the Aramaic Peshitta texts as well and explain why the Greek scribes used the term "meta". In Matt 27:63 the Aramaic uses the phrase "from after". In the Aramaic dialect of the time of Jesus, this was idiomatic for "backwards". As in "backwards from 3 days".
"backwards"
The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon
cal.huc.edu
The Aramaic Mark 8:31 passage does not include a preposition at all. It specifically means "within 3 days". And that is what the Greek "meta" reflects.
While that is technically correct when counting the hours during the day, the passage is not referring to the hour of the day. It is referring to the day itself. Jewish days always begin at the point of sundown. That is why the weekly Sabbath begins Friday night.
Jesus did not rise again at sunrise. Nor 19 minutes before sunrise. He resurrected at the point when the days changed - at sundown. He was in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights just as He said He would be.
Wednesday sundown -> Thursday sundown -> Friday sundown -> Saturday sundown
As I stated, that is incorrect. Research when the day begins using any Jewish source. Their day is explained very clearly by God in first verses of Genesis. The day is evening then morning. In that specific order.
[Gen 1:5 KJV] 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
Unless you sincerely believe yourself infallible and/or speaking for God ex
cathedra; you might consider being a little more diplomatic with your choice
of words lest the hapless day arrive when you are forced to eat them.
_
Unless you sincerely believe yourself infallible and/or speaking for God ex
cathedra; you might consider being a little more diplomatic with your choice
of words lest the hapless day arrive when you are forced to eat them.
_
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Go ahead. Anyone can provide alternate sources that could prove what I say wrong. But I've included the sources that prove what you have stated incorrect. Go for it. Actually, I'll go further, I challenge you to provide sources that prove I am incorrect - like a good Berean would.
Last edited:
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
Thus far, no one has contested the validity of your statements; only that your
attitude needs some attention, e.g. your remarks are insensitive and your
conduct is militant.
_
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Says the one that has been challenged to provide proof for what he has written. Be a Berean. Check things out. The Truth is very insensitive to those that are wrong.
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
Webster's defines "penance" as an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion
performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin.
Extreme forms of penance include things like donning sackcloth and ashes,
malnutrition, hermitage, celibacy, walking around with a pebble in one's shoe,
privation, self flagellation, the wearing of garter belts studded with metal spikes,
and ascending flights of stairs on one's knees, et al.
Those types of calculated pain and/or suffering are usually meant to convince God
of one's sincerity.
Spikes and stones and whatnot may seem logical to a humanistic sense of piety;
but actually Christ's believing followers can get by just fine without all that because
his crucifixion did for them what no amount of their own personal suffering will ever
in a million years accomplish.
● 1John 2:2 . . And he himself is the propitiation for our sins
Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate, mollify,
placate, and/or sweeten.
● Isa 53:5 . . He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our
iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him.
_
Webster's defines "penance" as an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion
performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin.
Extreme forms of penance include things like donning sackcloth and ashes,
malnutrition, hermitage, celibacy, walking around with a pebble in one's shoe,
privation, self flagellation, the wearing of garter belts studded with metal spikes,
and ascending flights of stairs on one's knees, et al.
Those types of calculated pain and/or suffering are usually meant to convince God
of one's sincerity.
Spikes and stones and whatnot may seem logical to a humanistic sense of piety;
but actually Christ's believing followers can get by just fine without all that because
his crucifixion did for them what no amount of their own personal suffering will ever
in a million years accomplish.
● 1John 2:2 . . And he himself is the propitiation for our sins
Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate, mollify,
placate, and/or sweeten.
● Isa 53:5 . . He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our
iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him.
_
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
● 1Tim 2:5-6 . . Christ Jesus, who gave himself as ransom for all.
One of the New Testament Greek words for redemption is apolutrosis (ap-ol-oo'
tro-sis); which means: to ransom in full.
Another is lutrosis (loo'-tro-sis); which means: a ransoming.
Ransoms can be defined as considerations paid or demanded for the release of
someone or something that's stuck in a grave situation; e.g. overwhelming debt
that a debtor cannot possibly ever pay off, and or slavery from which the slave
himself hasn't, nor will ever have, the means with which to buy himself out.
The thing is: were it not for Christ's crucifixion, the best that God would be able to
offer anybody is a reprieve: defined as a temporary suspension of the execution of
a sentence especially of death, i.e. delay. In other words: there's coming a day
when the demands of Heaven's criminal justice system will finally be given its
pound of flesh, and that day would be humanly impossible to circumvent were it not
for Christ's crucifixion per Isa 53:5-6.
That's one aspect; there's yet another:
● 1Pet 1:18-19 . .You were ransomed from your futile conduct, handed on by your
ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood
of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.
"futile conduct" is no doubt relative to human nature-- every natural-born human
child comes into the world a slave to it; even the best of us; for example the
apostle Paul.
"So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For
in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the
members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a
prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am!
Who shall rescue me from this body of death? (Rom 7:15-24)
FAQ: God created mankind with a nature that's bad to the bone?
REPLY: In the beginning, God evaluated His work and graded it not just good, but
very good, i.e. excellent. (Gen 1:31) Then came the forbidden fruit incident
whereby mankind's characteristics underwent a remarkable transformation from
their excellent condition to a corrupted condition; due in part to the Serpent's
handiwork. He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with
the human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected. (e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:1-3)
The Serpent's power is binding; so that nothing less than Christ's intervention could
liberate mankind from it.
● John 12:31-33 . .The time of judgment for the world has come, when the prince of
this world will be cast out. And when I am lifted up on the cross, I will draw
everyone to myself.
FAQ: Why preach this to Catholics when they know it already?
REPLY: What some may not know is that this ransom is available to everyone
merely by consent and an RSVP to Christ letting him know they want in on it.
● John 6:37-40 . . Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will
not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do
my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who
sent me: that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should
raise it [on] the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees
the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the
last day.
_
● 1Tim 2:5-6 . . Christ Jesus, who gave himself as ransom for all.
One of the New Testament Greek words for redemption is apolutrosis (ap-ol-oo'
tro-sis); which means: to ransom in full.
Another is lutrosis (loo'-tro-sis); which means: a ransoming.
Ransoms can be defined as considerations paid or demanded for the release of
someone or something that's stuck in a grave situation; e.g. overwhelming debt
that a debtor cannot possibly ever pay off, and or slavery from which the slave
himself hasn't, nor will ever have, the means with which to buy himself out.
The thing is: were it not for Christ's crucifixion, the best that God would be able to
offer anybody is a reprieve: defined as a temporary suspension of the execution of
a sentence especially of death, i.e. delay. In other words: there's coming a day
when the demands of Heaven's criminal justice system will finally be given its
pound of flesh, and that day would be humanly impossible to circumvent were it not
for Christ's crucifixion per Isa 53:5-6.
That's one aspect; there's yet another:
● 1Pet 1:18-19 . .You were ransomed from your futile conduct, handed on by your
ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood
of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.
"futile conduct" is no doubt relative to human nature-- every natural-born human
child comes into the world a slave to it; even the best of us; for example the
apostle Paul.
"So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For
in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the
members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a
prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am!
Who shall rescue me from this body of death? (Rom 7:15-24)
FAQ: God created mankind with a nature that's bad to the bone?
REPLY: In the beginning, God evaluated His work and graded it not just good, but
very good, i.e. excellent. (Gen 1:31) Then came the forbidden fruit incident
whereby mankind's characteristics underwent a remarkable transformation from
their excellent condition to a corrupted condition; due in part to the Serpent's
handiwork. He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with
the human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected. (e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:1-3)
The Serpent's power is binding; so that nothing less than Christ's intervention could
liberate mankind from it.
● John 12:31-33 . .The time of judgment for the world has come, when the prince of
this world will be cast out. And when I am lifted up on the cross, I will draw
everyone to myself.
FAQ: Why preach this to Catholics when they know it already?
REPLY: What some may not know is that this ransom is available to everyone
merely by consent and an RSVP to Christ letting him know they want in on it.
● John 6:37-40 . . Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will
not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do
my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who
sent me: that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should
raise it [on] the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees
the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the
last day.
_
Last edited:
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
And the silence is deafening. No response from @Olde Tymer to back up his original statements with sources for what he stated.
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
When people are desperately clinging to a treetop, with murky flood waters roiling
beneath their feet, just inches away from death and the hereafter, the last thing
they need is somebody coming by to lecture them on good citizenship. No, they
don't need lectures on citizenship; they need a National Guard helicopter to lower a
harness down and pull them up from that treetop.
When someone awakens at night in a burning home and finds themselves trapped
in their room; is that the time to talk to them about going to church on Sunday
and/or feeding the poor? No, they desperately need firemen to break thru the
flames and get them outside to safety. Everything in their home will be lost but at
least they themselves will be spared.
● Rom 5:5-10 . .While we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the
ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good
man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward
us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
. . . Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved
from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God through the death of His son, much more, having been
reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
NOTE: Born and raised in the Catholic religion, it was never once suggested to me that
the primary purpose of Christ's crucifixion was to rescue sinful folks from the wrath
of God. Wouldn't it be nice if it were possible to dial 911 to obtain emergency
assistance with Christ when someone becomes deathly afraid of going to Hell and
sees no hope of escaping it on their own?
_
When people are desperately clinging to a treetop, with murky flood waters roiling
beneath their feet, just inches away from death and the hereafter, the last thing
they need is somebody coming by to lecture them on good citizenship. No, they
don't need lectures on citizenship; they need a National Guard helicopter to lower a
harness down and pull them up from that treetop.
When someone awakens at night in a burning home and finds themselves trapped
in their room; is that the time to talk to them about going to church on Sunday
and/or feeding the poor? No, they desperately need firemen to break thru the
flames and get them outside to safety. Everything in their home will be lost but at
least they themselves will be spared.
● Rom 5:5-10 . .While we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the
ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good
man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward
us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
. . . Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved
from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God through the death of His son, much more, having been
reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
NOTE: Born and raised in the Catholic religion, it was never once suggested to me that
the primary purpose of Christ's crucifixion was to rescue sinful folks from the wrath
of God. Wouldn't it be nice if it were possible to dial 911 to obtain emergency
assistance with Christ when someone becomes deathly afraid of going to Hell and
sees no hope of escaping it on their own?
_
Last edited:
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
The female principal is very prominent in the Catholic religion.
CCC 966 and CCC 969 attest that Jesus' mom is Queen, Advocate, Helper,
Benefactress, and Mediatrix: a queen, advocate, helper, benefactress, and
mediatrix who is not even one single time in the book of Acts, nor in any of the
twenty-one epistles, mentioned as somebody special. Christ's mom isn't even listed
in 1Cor 15:3-8 as one of the people who saw him alive after his ordeal. She's barely
given a passing mention in Acts 1:14; and that's it.
Be that as it may, her role as Mediatrix seriously needs to be challenged because
God-given mediators in the Bible have always been men, beginning with Melchizedek
in the book of Genesis, then continuing with Aaron in the book of Exodus; and finally
Christ in 1Tim 2:5, about whom it's said:
"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men: a man, Christ Jesus."
_
The female principal is very prominent in the Catholic religion.
CCC 966 and CCC 969 attest that Jesus' mom is Queen, Advocate, Helper,
Benefactress, and Mediatrix: a queen, advocate, helper, benefactress, and
mediatrix who is not even one single time in the book of Acts, nor in any of the
twenty-one epistles, mentioned as somebody special. Christ's mom isn't even listed
in 1Cor 15:3-8 as one of the people who saw him alive after his ordeal. She's barely
given a passing mention in Acts 1:14; and that's it.
Be that as it may, her role as Mediatrix seriously needs to be challenged because
God-given mediators in the Bible have always been men, beginning with Melchizedek
in the book of Genesis, then continuing with Aaron in the book of Exodus; and finally
Christ in 1Tim 2:5, about whom it's said:
"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men: a man, Christ Jesus."
_
Last edited:
EclipseEventSigns
Well-known member
Yes, the Roman Church needs to be corrected in their worship of Mary. But also, the Protestants have a somewhat uniformed view of the significance of Mary as well.
It's very common knowledge that Mary was of the line of David - King of Israel. David was of the the tribe of Judah. Multiple times the Messiah is equated to the son of David. This expectation of a coming messiah who would save them from oppression was very well known - even by those outside of Judea (see Suetonius).
But there was another common belief at that time - of another messiah - who would be from the tribe of Levi. A priest. Of the lineage of Aaron.
What very few realize or have even researched is that Mary also fulfills this expectation. Luke gives the specific details that Zechariah AND his wife Elizabeth were Levites and from the lineage of Aaron. Elizabeth was Mary's relative. Therefore, this must have been on her mother's side since her father would be the one who is from the tribe of Judah. Mary was also from the lineage of Aaron on her mother's side. So Mary being from both Judah and Levi would make Jesus descended from both King AND Priest. He is the fulfillment of both expected messiahs.
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
POSIT: Jesus had to be virgin-conceived in order to evade Jeconiah's curse.
REPLY: I doubt very many Gentiles are aware of Jeconiah's curse, and I dare say
totally unaware of even Jeconiah himself (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah). He was
a very bad king; so bad that God black-listed his portion of the Davidic dynasty.
Here's the text of the curse
● Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said the Lord:
Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be found acceptable;
for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the throne of David and to
rule again in Judah.
Well; it just so happens that Joseph is biologically related to Jeconiah (Matt 1:11,
Matt 1:16)
So then, it's very common for Bible students to appropriate Jeconiah's curse as one
of the reasons why Joseph could not be allowed to sire Mary's son Jesus. They say
that had Jesus been in Jeconiah's biological line, he would have been disqualified
from inheriting David's throne.
However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse was
relatively brief. It was limited to the time of the family's jurisdiction in Judah. In
other words: the curse was in effect only during the days of the divided kingdom
with Judah in the south and Samaria in the north. That condition came to an end
when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then
later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.
* When Christ returns to rule, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction
won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate all the land of
Israel. (Ezek 37:21-24)
_
POSIT: Jesus had to be virgin-conceived in order to evade Jeconiah's curse.
REPLY: I doubt very many Gentiles are aware of Jeconiah's curse, and I dare say
totally unaware of even Jeconiah himself (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah). He was
a very bad king; so bad that God black-listed his portion of the Davidic dynasty.
Here's the text of the curse
● Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said the Lord:
Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be found acceptable;
for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the throne of David and to
rule again in Judah.
Well; it just so happens that Joseph is biologically related to Jeconiah (Matt 1:11,
Matt 1:16)
So then, it's very common for Bible students to appropriate Jeconiah's curse as one
of the reasons why Joseph could not be allowed to sire Mary's son Jesus. They say
that had Jesus been in Jeconiah's biological line, he would have been disqualified
from inheriting David's throne.
However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse was
relatively brief. It was limited to the time of the family's jurisdiction in Judah. In
other words: the curse was in effect only during the days of the divided kingdom
with Judah in the south and Samaria in the north. That condition came to an end
when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then
later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery.
* When Christ returns to rule, the country of Israel will be unified. His jurisdiction
won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will dominate all the land of
Israel. (Ezek 37:21-24)
_
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
.
Webster's defines an heretic as: (1) a dissenter from established church dogma;
especially a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a
revealed truth, and (2) one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine; viz: a
nonconformist.
There are lots of Catholics right here in the USA disagreeing with Rome who would
never consider themselves heretics; but that's exactly what they are anyway. The
New Testament Greek word for heretic is hairetikos (hahee-ret-ee-kos') which
means: a schismatic; viz: someone in your very own church who causes dissent,
reformation, division, discord, disputes, and disharmony.
In other words: heretics aren't outsiders; no, a true heretic goes to the same
church you go to and professes to believe and practice the very same religion that
you profess to believe and practice; viz: for Catholics, a heretic would be a
professing Catholic who openly disagrees with Rome, and attempts to persuade
other Catholics to follow suit; for example on issues like abortion, female priests,
and LGBT marriage.
Heresy is a serious sin; stubborn cases call for excommunication.
● Titus 3:10-11 . . A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition
reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself.
Heresy is different than apostasy, which is defined as: renunciation of a religious
faith, and/or abandonment of a previous loyalty. In other words: an apostate is a
defector whereas an heretic is subversive.
_
Webster's defines an heretic as: (1) a dissenter from established church dogma;
especially a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a
revealed truth, and (2) one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine; viz: a
nonconformist.
There are lots of Catholics right here in the USA disagreeing with Rome who would
never consider themselves heretics; but that's exactly what they are anyway. The
New Testament Greek word for heretic is hairetikos (hahee-ret-ee-kos') which
means: a schismatic; viz: someone in your very own church who causes dissent,
reformation, division, discord, disputes, and disharmony.
In other words: heretics aren't outsiders; no, a true heretic goes to the same
church you go to and professes to believe and practice the very same religion that
you profess to believe and practice; viz: for Catholics, a heretic would be a
professing Catholic who openly disagrees with Rome, and attempts to persuade
other Catholics to follow suit; for example on issues like abortion, female priests,
and LGBT marriage.
Heresy is a serious sin; stubborn cases call for excommunication.
● Titus 3:10-11 . . A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition
reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself.
Heresy is different than apostasy, which is defined as: renunciation of a religious
faith, and/or abandonment of a previous loyalty. In other words: an apostate is a
defector whereas an heretic is subversive.
_
