| Poster | Thread | IRONMAN
Member
Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS
| | Re: | | sis dorcas
Quote:
May it be that God has honoured your faith towards Him, simply?
i think this is key here, that it's not so much what words we say as it is the spirit in which we come before God. The Lord had me make mention of it earlier on in this dicsussion. it's come up again so it seems to me He's trying to show us something here about how we approach Him in prayer.
_________________
Farai Bamu
|
|  2006/7/2 14:53 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
[i][b]philologos wrote[/b][/i]:
Quote:
Acts 20:27-28
" 27. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
because 'the life is in the blood'. Christ's blood was God's blood because Christ was God. This is a great proof of the tri-une God but God is a spirit, and spirits have no blood.
It has usually been the position of Christian thinkers to recognise that Christ's body (and hence his blood) was of 'Mary's substance'. If Christ's DNA is not from Mary He is not part of our race but an entirely new one. Consequently he would be disqualified from acting as our priest according to Hebrews.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[i][b]Stever's response to Philologos:[/b][/i]
Professor James Orr provides my understanding to the answer to your post above as follows:
"Without shedding of blood is no remission." --Hebrews 9:22.
Where, however, among the sons of men can blood be found rich enough to pay the tremendous debt of sin, precious enough to satisfy divine justice, strong enough to cancel sin's appalling guilt, pure enough to usher in the reign of righteousness, overcoming enough to crush the devil and divine enough to redeem the elect of God?
God has made of one blood, we read, all the nations of the earth. By God's creation men's blood is one in composition. By sin's ruination, [sinful] men's blood is one in pollution. Through the veins of [sinning] humanity flows a poisoned bloodstream The life of the flesh is in the blood. The life of [sinning] man is totally depraved, therefore his blood is but human depravity in solution. Such blood calls for judgment rather than appeasement. Its shedding can only bring God's wrath and not God's mercy.
Although this is true, yet wonder of wonders amongst the race of sinners and in the house of David, a house as much cursed with sin as that of any other human family, there has been opened up a fountain for sin and for all uncleanness.
.
What sacred fountain yonder springs
Up from the throne of God,
And all new covenant blessings brings?
'Tis Jesus' precious blood.
What mighty sum paid all my debt
When I a bondman stood,
And has my soul at freedom set?
'This Jesus' precious blood.
What stream is that which sweeps away
My sins just like a flood,
Nor lets one guilty blemish stay?
'This Jesus' precious blood.
What voice is that which speaks for me
In heaven's high court for good,
And from the curse has made me free?
'This Jesus' precious blood.
What theme, my soul, shall best employ
Thy harp before thy God,
And made all heaven to ring with joy?
'This Jesus' precious blood.
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Jesus His Son, the union in the one Person is clearly marked by the contrast 'Jesus' 'His Son.' Here the human name Jesus brings out the possibility of the communication of Christ's blood, and the divine name brings out the all-sufficing efficacy.
1. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ has all the essentials necessary for the accomplishment of the great work of reconciliation. HIS BLOOD IS INNOCENT BLOOD as opposed to GUILTY BLOOD.
"I have betrayed innocent blood." --Matthew 27:4.
2. His Blood is PRECIOUS BLOOD as opposed to CORRUPTIBLE BLOOD.
"With the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." --1 Peter 1:19.
3. His Blood is INCORRUPTIBLE BLOOD as opposed to CORRUPTIBLE BLOOD.
"Ye were not redeemed with CORRUPTIBLE THINGS... But with the PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST." --1 Peter 1:18-19.
4. His Blood is DIVINE BLOOD as opposed to HUMAN BLOOD.
"The church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood." --Acts 20:28.
5. His Blood is SUPERNATURAL BLOOD as opposed to NATURAL BLOOD.
"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His Own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." --Hebrews 9:12.
6.His Blood is VOLUNTARY=SHED BLOOD as opposed to ACCIDENTLY SPILLED BLOOD.
"No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father." --John 10:18. "For this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." --Matthew 26:28.
7. His Blood is CLEANSING BLOOD as opposed to CONGEALED BLOOD.
"The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth [keeps on cleansing] us from all sin." --1 John 1:7.
8. His Blood is LIVING BLOOD as opposed to LOST BLOOD.
"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant." --Hebrews 13:20.
9. His Blood is PEACE-SPEAKING Blood as opposed to ENMITY-ARROUSING BLOOD.
"The blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." --Hebrews 12:24.
10. His Blood is JUSTIFYING BLOOD as opposed to the BLOOD OF JUDGMENT.
"Being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." --Romans 5:9.
Christ's Blood could only have these great attributes if He was Virgin-born... The supernatural blood necessitates the supernatural birth.
It is an established physiological fact that the mother's blood is neither the source nor supply of the blood in the unborn infant's veins. It is the contribution of the male which leads to the development of the blood. Without that vital contribution no blood could be produced because the female of herself does not produce the elements essential for the production of this new blood. Gray's Anatomy, a recognised medical authority, states: "The fetal and maternal blood currents do not intermingle, being separated from each other by the delicate walls of the villi."
Woman was so constructed that in the production of her child none of her blood would enter the veins of her offspring. This brings us back to Genesis and there we read: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man." --Genesis 2:21-22. The word used in verse 22 for the making of the woman is literally "builded." God builded, or constructed, woman and she was constructed in such a manner that when she was producing a child, that child's blood would be a new creation and not formed by the mother's bloodstream. Why did God so build, or construct, the woman? Simply because He was anticipating the Virgin Birth and making ready the woman for the great incarnation of God in human flesh.
Satan used the woman as the instrument to ruin the race, but God who is always ahead of the devil, forestalled him and had already constructed the woman so that she would be the instrument to produce the Redeemer of the race. If the woman had not been constructed in this manner and the production of blood in the unborn infant not so ordered, than Christ's blood would have been common with the whole race and valueless to redeem. The Virgin Birth of Christ, which took place with no male contribution which would originate the infant's blood in the usual way, but by a supernatural act of God thus originating supernatural blood, is absolutely essential to the work of redemption. By such a birth and by such a birth alone could blood be produced-- precious, incorruptible, supernatural and divine, to redeem the fallen sons of Adam's accursed race.
As I view the almighty wisdom of God in the production of such blood the words of the angelic announcement of the Virgin Birth come with fresh authority to my heart. "For with God nothing shall be impossible." --Luke 1:37.
Dr. De Haan of the Radio Bible Class, in his great message "The Chemistry of the Blood" commenting on this tremendous truth, states:
"Not only is this a scientific fact, but it is plainly taught in Scripture that Jesus partook of human flesh without Adam's blood. In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' The Greek word for partakers in 'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception."
[b][color=990000]I therefore believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ because His supernatural Blood necessitates His supernatural birth.[/color][/b]
Professor James Orr--
The critics speak of the discrepancies of the narratives. Much more remarkable, it seems to me, are their agreements and the subtle harmonies that pervade them. The agreements, if we study them carefully, prove to be far more numerous than may at first strike us. Here, e.g., is a list of twelve points, which lie really on the surface of the narratives, yet give very nearly the gist of the whole story.
(1) Jesus was born in the last days of Herod.
o Matthew 2:1-- "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king..."
o Matthew 2:13-- "Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him."
(2) He was conceived by the Holy Ghost.
o Matthew 1:18-- "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise... she was found with Child of the Holy Ghost."
o Matthew 1:20-- "The angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
o Luke 1:35-- "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
(3) His mother was a virgin.
o Matthew 1:18-- "When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together..."
o Matthew 1:20-- "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
o Matthew 1:23-- "Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
o Luke 1:27-- "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary."
o Luke 1:34-- "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
(4) She was betrothed to Joseph.
o Matthew 1:18-- "When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph..."
o Luke 1:27-- "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph..."
o Luke 2:5-- "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with Child."
(5) Joseph was of the house and lineage of David.
o Matthew 1:16-- "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called Christ."
o Matthew 1:20-- "Joseph, thou son of David..."
o Luke 1:27-- "to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David..."
o Luke 2:4-- "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)."
(6) Jesus was born at Bethlehem.
o Matthew 2:1-- "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king..."
o Luke 2:4,6-- "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem.. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered."
(7) By divine direction He was called Jesus.
o Matthew 1:21-- "And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His Name JESUS..."
o Luke 1:31-- "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His Name JESUS."
(8) He was declared to be a Saviour.
o Matthew 1:21-- "He shall save His people from their sins."
o Luke 2:11-- "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the LORD."
(9) Joseph knew beforehand of Mary's condition and its cause.
o Matthew 1:18-20-- "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with Child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
o Luke 2:5-- "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with Child."
(10) Nevertheless he took Mary to wife, and assumed full parental responsibility for her child-- was from the first in loco parentis to Jesus.
o Matthew 1:20-- "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife..."
o Matthew 1:24-25-- "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the LORD had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His Name JESUS."
o Luke 2:5-- "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with Child."
(11) The annunciation and birth were attended by revelations and visions.
o Matthew 1:20-- "the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream...", etc.
o Luke 1:27-28-- "And the angel came in unto her, and said...", etc.
(12) After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary dwelt in Nazareth.
o Matthew 2:23-- "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
o Luke 2:39-- "And when they had performed all things according to the Law of the LORD, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
God bless,
Stever :-D
|
| | 2006/7/2 19:06 | |
| | Re: | | Stever's response to [i][b]Dorcas[/b][/i]:
Specifically, I stated: Women do not have seed, Men have seed:
THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS PROPHESIED
A. THROUGH MOSES...
1. In the promise made to the serpent (Satan) - Gen 3:15
a. The first Messianic prophecy found in Scripture
b. "He shall bruise your head; and you shall bruise His heel"
2. Note that it says "her seed"
a. The reference to the seed of a woman is unique
b. The normal expression is the seed of man - e.g., Romans 1:3
3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Throughout the Old Testament, the seed is always referred to the Father who provided the seed and sired the son or daughter, and never referred to the mother who birthed the child.
While not overwhelming proof, it is a subtle hint for what was to come!
B. THROUGH ISAIAH...
1. In the promise made to the House of David - Isa 7:13-14
a. Though Ahaz rejected a sign, God chose to give one anyway to his descendants
b. A virgin (Heb., almah) shall conceive and bear a son
2. Concerning almah, which some contend simply means "a young woman"
a. "As a matter of fact there is no place among the seven occurrences of 'almah' in the Old Testament where the word is clearly used of a woman who was not a virgin."
- J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ
-- A young woman bearing a child is not a sign; but a virgin bearing a child, whose name was to be called Immanuel ("God with us")
...now that is a sign!
C. THROUGH JEREMIAH...
1. In the promise made to Judah - Jer 31:22
a. The Lord would create a new thing in the earth
b. "A woman shall encompass a man"
2. The phrase has been variously interpreted; even so...
a. "The fathers saw in these words a prophecy of the miraculous conception of our Lord by the Virgin" - Barnes
b. Any other explanation would not likely involve God creating a new thing!
-- This prophecy may also be a subtle reference to what was to come!
[Especially with regards to the prophecy in Isaiah, we have a promise that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Unsurprisingly, in the
gospel of Jesus Christ we find...]
II. THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS PROCLAIMED
A. BY MATTHEW...
1. In his account of the birth of Jesus -
Mt 1:18-25
a. Mary was found with child,
conceived of the Holy Spirit
b. In fulfillment of the prophecy found
in the book of Isaiah
2. Concerning parthenos, used by Matthew
in his account
a. It is the Greek word for "virgin"
b. Leaving no doubt that the prophecy
in Isaiah referred to a virgin
-- Matthew, an early disciple and one of
the 12 apostles, proclaimed the virgin
birth!
B. BY LUKE...
1. In his account of the birth of Jesus -
Lk 1:26-38
a. He also calls Mary a virgin
(parthenos)
b. She was to have a child without the
benefit of a man
2. Note the words of the angel Gabriel
a. "For with God nothing is impossible"
b. If one believes in God, the concept
of a virgin birth is not an
impossibility
-- Luke, a physician and notable
historian, proclaimed the virgin
birth!
C. BY PAUL...
1. In his epistle to the Galatians - Ga 4:4
a. Writing of the coming of the Son of
God
b. Of whom he says was "born of a woman"
2. Note how careful Paul is in his epistles
a. He proclaims Jesus to be the seed of
Abraham and David
b. He never ascribes the sonship of
Jesus to any earthly father, only to God
c. Yet he has no hesitation ascribing
His birth to a woman!
-- Paul, an apostle of Christ, by implication certainly proclaimed
the virgin birth!
[b][color=0000FF]It is an established physiological fact that the mother's blood is neither the source nor supply of the blood in the unborn infant's veins. It is the contribution of the male which leads to the development of the blood. Without that vital contribution no blood could be produced because the female of herself does not produce the elements essential for the production of this new blood. Gray's Anatomy, a recognised medical authority, states: "The fetal and maternal blood currents do not intermingle, being separated from each other by the delicate walls of the villi."[/color][/b]
[b][color=990000]Woman was so constructed that in the production of her child none of her blood would enter the veins of her offspring. This brings us back to Genesis and there we read: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man." --Genesis 2:21-22. The word used in verse 22 for the making of the woman is literally "builded." God builded, or constructed, woman and she was constructed in such a manner that when she was producing a child, that child's blood would be a new creation and not formed by the mother's bloodstream. Why did God so build, or construct, the woman? Simply because He was anticipating the Virgin Birth and making ready the woman for the great incarnation of God in human flesh.[/color][/b]
[color=006600]Satan used the woman as the instrument to ruin the race, but God who is always ahead of the devil, forestalled him and had already constructed the woman so that she would be the instrument to produce the Redeemer of the race. If the woman had not been constructed in this manner and the production of blood in the unborn infant not so ordered, than Christ's blood would have been common with the whole race and valueless to redeem. The Virgin Birth of Christ, which took place with no male contribution which would originate the infant's blood in the usual way, but by a supernatural act of God thus originating supernatural blood, is absolutely essential to the work of redemption. By such a birth and by such a birth alone could blood be produced-- precious, incorruptible, supernatural and divine, to redeem the fallen sons of Adam's accursed race.[/color][/b]
As I view the almighty wisdom of God in the production of such blood the words of the angelic announcement of the Virgin Birth come with fresh authority to my heart. "For with God nothing shall be impossible." --Luke 1:37.
[b][color=0000FF]Dr. De Haan of the Radio Bible Class, in his great message "The Chemistry of the Blood" commenting on this tremendous truth, states:
"Not only is this a scientific fact, but it is plainly taught in Scripture that Jesus partook of human flesh without Adam's blood. In Hebrews 2:14 we read: 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.' You will notice that the 'children', that is, the human children, are said to be partakers of flesh and blood, and then, speaking of Jesus, this verse says that He Himself likewise 'took part of the same.' The word 'took part' as applying to Christ is an entirely different word from 'partakers' as applied to the children. In the margin of my Bible, I read that the word translated 'took part' implies 'taking part in something outside one's self.' The Greek word for partakers in 'koynoncho' and means 'to share fully,' so that all of Adam's children share fully in Adam's flesh and blood. When we read that Jesus 'took part of the same' the word is 'metecho' which means 'to take part but not all.' The children take both flesh and blood of Adam but Christ took only part, that is, the flesh part, whereas the blood was the result of supernatural conception."[/color][/b]
CONCLUSION
1. There is certainly more in the Scriptures that implies the virgin
birth of Christ...
a. Such expressions as "begotten of God" - e.g., Jn 1:14,18; 3:16
b. The many references to Jesus as "the Son of God - e.g., Lk 1:35;
Mt 16:16
2. Skeptics have offered alternative explanations of the conception,
such as...
a. A relationship with a secret lover
b. A rape by a Roman soldier
c. Sexual relationships with her fiancée, Joseph
d. Jesus was conceived as a result of normal relations between Mary
and Joseph after marriage
-- Each of these imply that the virgin birth stories in Matthew and
Luke were simple fables, invented decades after Jesus' conception,
without any grounding in fact
3. It is important to believe in the virgin birth of Christ; otherwise
we claim that...
a. The New Testament narratives to be false and unreliable
b. We are more knowledgeable than Matthew, Luke, or Paul
4. Who are you willing to believe...?
a. The views of skeptics and opponents, who seek to undermine faith
in Jesus?
b. The opinions of theologians and professors, who publish for the
sake of tenure and profit?
c. The inspired apostles and writers of the New Testament, who
suffered for their testimony?
I am content to place my faith in Matthew and Luke, and to heed such
warnings as this by Paul:
"...Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane
and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called
knowledge -- by professing it some have strayed concerning the
faith. Grace be with you. Amen." - 1 Ti 6:20-21
Committed to our trust is the wonderful truth that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin...!
I therefore believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ because His supernatural Blood necessitates His supernatural birth.
God bless,
Stever :-D
|
| | 2006/7/2 20:03 | |
| | Re: | | [b]Stever responds to Dorcas:
About the NIV and other newer versions that purposely eliminate the first Prophecy in the Bible of the Messiah to come, the Seed of the Woman:[/b]
Origen, in his efforts to strip Jesus Christ of His Virgin Birth, changed Genesis 3:15. The KJV keeps the original.
Lets see the result of Origens intentional bastardization of Scripture:
[From the book "Which Version is the Bible", by Floyd Nolen Jones Page 43-45 & 74-76]
KJV
15.And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
NIV
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head, and you will strike his heel."
The verse as rendered in the KJV shows Jesus as the true fulfillment of mankind's only hope as revealed in the Old Testament prophecies that He is the promised "seed of the woman" (Gen.3:15). This prophetic application of the verse is completely missed in the other translations.
The NIV on the otherhand has totally destroyed the Prophecy of the one and only redeemer of Mankind. How? By changing seed to offspring. The seed can only be one thing- the Messiah. Why? Because women are never referred to as having "seed" in the Bible--Men are always mentioned as having "seed". Instead of seed, the word has been changed to offspring. So, any one of the children born from the mother of humanity would now qualify to be "her offspring", thus totally eliminating who this "redeemer" is going to be, other than that it is a man (he). This is exactly what the Pope would want! The False Prophet and the Antichrist will like it just as well.
Second, the prophecy has been changed from a specific death, crucifixion, the only form of capital punishment that bruises the heal to an enigma--of being "struck" in the heal. What is that all about, anyway. Again, the Pope, the false prophet, and the Antichrist are elated.
However, Christ is pictured by the KJV translators as especially being the fulfillment of the continuation of the Genesis 3:15 promise as given to Abraham:
And in thy (Abraham) seed (singular! Greek = spermati {spermati}, LXX - cp. Gal. 3:16) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen. 22:18, KJV)
But we are not left at the mercy of some mere man or modern Greek or Hebrew authority to divulge that the word "seed" in the above verse is not speaking of the Jewish nation but is in the singular and as such is a unmistakable reference to Messiah. The Holy Spirit reveals this truth to him in English elsewhere in Scripture.
Now to Abraham and his seed (spermati = spermati - singular in Greek) were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds (spermasin = spermasin - plural as does the root sperma, = sperma; see the LXX), as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed (spermati - singular), which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16, KJV)
All of the rich setting and overview that has preceeded is completely lost in the modern reading of Hebrews 2:16.
Equally alarming, the reading as found in the NKJV et al. introduces a conspicuous error into the Word of God namely, that God does not give aid to angels.
This contradicts Daniel 10 wherein the prophet for whom the Book is named was told by an angel that he had been dispatched from the throne of Heaven to come to strengthen him. Nevertheless, the heavenly messenger had been withstood for a period of 21 days by the demon prince who oversaw the kingdom of Persia. It was not until God dispatched the archangel Michael to come to the aid of the angelic messenger that he was able to successfully battle through and reach Daniel.
Thus, the internal evidence of other Scripture lays bare this inaccurate rendering of the Word of God and shows all translations which so follow as being erroneous and inferior. The Monarch of Books, the true English rendering of the Holy Writ as preserved in the 1611 King James Bible, is thereby demonstrated to be conspicuously superior and preeminent.
First Peter 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (KJV)
Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation. (RSV; NIV is similar)
Comment: This perversion teaches (1) that salvation occurs over a period of time and (2) that it is by works. Salvation is a free gift and the Word teaches that we neither "grow up" to it ,"work for it", nor "obtain it gradually". Deliverance from sin comes by faith in Christ Jesus, i.e.:
ACTS 16:31 ... Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved ... (KJV)
(3) The phrase "of the word" has been omitted, leaving us to wonder what "spiritual milk" is. The King James tells us the answer.
First Peter 4:1
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind ... (KJV)
Therefore since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose (NAS; NIV is similiar).
Comment: Why did Christ Jesus suffer? For us! Note its complete removal from the text. Is not this "doctrinal"?
Acts 9:6
The following comparison is a clear capsule specimen depicting the character and degree of the alterations that have been made upon the Holy Scripture.
(speaking of the conversion of Saul [Paul] on the Damascus Road)
"And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." (KJV)
"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." (NIV; NAS etc., is similar)
Comment: Surely by now the reader has seen enough that any elucidation on our part is superfluous. We therefore with some reluctance mention that without the above underlined words, one cannot be certain if Saul were converted.
If these words are allowed to stand as faithfully recorded in the King James Bible, Saul fully aware of the identity of the person with whom he is speaking acknowledges Jesus as his Lord. That the verse likewise teaches the fear of the risen glorified Christ, as well as His boundless grace, is also manifestly evident.
Psalms 8:4-5
Lastly, a dramatic example depicting the serious inconsistencies found in the other translations may be seen in the following:
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. (KJV)
HEB 2:6-7
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour ... (KJV)
Now compare the KJV above to the newer versions:
PSA 8:4-5
What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man, that Thou dost care for him? Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, And dost crown him with glory and majesty! (NAS, et. al.).
HEB 2:6-7
But one has testified somewhere, saying, "What is man, that thou rememberest him? or the son of man that thou art concerned about him? Thou hast made him for a little while lower than the angels; thou hast crowned him with glory and honor ..." (NAS)
Comment: The highly touted NAS has rendered the Hebrew word "Elohim" as "God" in the eighth Psalm, creating within itself a conspicuous contradiction in the Hebrews 2 quotation of that O.T. passage. The "weak" Hebrew word (which can mean God, angels, judges, magistrates etc.) is protected by the "strong" Greek word "aggelos" which can only be translated "angels".
The KJB is faithful to the LORD and to its readers by correctly rendering both passages as "angels".
The NAS reading in the 8th Psalm is not merely wrong, it fails to comprehend the immeasurable chasm existing between the Creator and the creature. It is humanistic, insulting to GOD and as such represents a blasphemous heretical translation having ignored God's New Testament Greek shelter and defense mechanism.
ORIGEN'S BELIEFS
Origen is the one who started the mess, that was carried forward by Westcott & Hort and the Revision Committee. All of the newer Bible Versions rely on their work, which goes directly back to Origen:
The following is a composite gleaned from many sources depicting the beliefs of Origen. Let us examine them to see if he was in fact a "great early Father of the Church" as we are often told.
This Greek philosopher had been taught by the founder of Neo-Platonism (Ammonius Saccas 170-243 A.D.). Neo-Platonism is a strange combination of Aristotelian logic and
Oriental cult teachings. It conceives the world as being an emanation from "the one" the impersonal one (not the personal "Abba [Daddy or even the more intimate "Dada"] of the Bible) with whom the soul is capable of being reunited while in some sort of trance or ecstasy.
As a follower of that philosophy, Origen attempted to amalgamate its views to Christianity. The problem with Origen, as with many who profess Christianity today, was that he tried to take "the best" of the world system (that which he had learned in school - his old philosophic views etc.) and incorporate them into Christianity; but they do not mix. It will be noted that many of Origen's beliefs coincide with Roman Catholic and Jehovah's Witness doctrine, both of which are "Christian" cults.
Origen believed:
1.in soul sleep (that the soul "sleeps" in the grave until the resurrection). However, the Bible teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (II Cor.5:8);
2.in baptismal regeneration (belief that one is saved by water baptism). Although Satan was the originator, Origen is the first man we can find who was a strong proponent of this doctrine;
3.in universal salvation, i.e., the ultimate reconciliation of all things including Satan and the demons;
4.that the Father was God with a capital "G" and Jesus was God with a little "g" that Jesus was only a created being. Thus, Origen was not Christian in the most basic of all doctrine, namely the person of the Lord Jesus the Christ;
5.to become sinless, one had to go to purgatory . This doctrine is nowhere to be found in Scripture;
6.in transubstantiation (that at communion the bread and wine actually turn to the body and blood of Christ); and
7.in transmigration and reincarnation of the soul. (The resurrection of Jesus corrects that error as He came back to life as the same Jesus. Hebrews 9:27 says "And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Thus the Bible teaches there is no reincarnation.);
8.and would not concede that any intelligent person could believe that the temptations of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures actually happened;
9.the Scriptures were not literal (Origen was the "father of allegories");
10.neither in an actual "Adam" nor the fall of man and that Genesis 1-3 was not literal or historical;
11.the correct intrepretation of Matthew 19 was that a man of God should be casterated and thereby proceded to emasculate himself;
12.and taught eternal life was not a gift, rather that one must seize hold on and retain it (but Eph.2:8 says "By faith are ye saved through grace; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.");
13.that "Christ enters no man until he grasps mentally the doctrine of the consummation of the ages" (that would eliminate about 99% at most typical Christian gatherings);
14.or intimated that non baptized infants were hell bound; and
15.the redeemed would not experience a physical resurrection (yet I Cor.15 teaches the physical resurrection, as do many other Scriptures). Moreover,around 200 A.D.Alexandrian "Christians" taught that Mary was the second person of the Trinity ("Quarterly Journal of Prophecy" [July, 1852], p. 329).
Origen is often depicted as a "man of God", especially because he "died for his beliefs". That is certainly a commendable character trait, but Mussulini, Karl Marx and Hitler also died for their beliefs. That does not mean they were Christians. Many people have believed in a cause enough to give their lives for it, but it does not follow that they were Christian. Origen's beliefs clearly show that he was a religious gnostic Greek philosopher and not truly a born again son of God.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
God bless,
Stever :-D
Quote:
dorcas wrote:
Stever, you also said:
Quote:
Now, take out your NIV and consider the same verse you quoted:
Genesis 3:15
"an I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers"
Unless we know whether the word 'offspring' is plural and not singular, the NIV doesn't materially alter the pronouncement by God, that a 'man' would overcome Satan....
Rather surprisingly, you don't quote the rest of verse 15 which says:
"..He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
This is even more surprising since you yourself referred to the bruising of His heel on the cross, earlier this afternoon, in a long post on p13.... Gen 3:15 is the first mention of it in the Bible.
Quote:
When Balaam went up on the mount to try and curse the Israelites, this is what he saw--a Cross. Their encampment was a picture of the Savior to come, the Seed of the Woman, who would have his heel bruised! Crucifixion is the only form of captial punishment that incurs teriffic bruising of the heel. On the cross, the victim is suffocating to death. In order to breath, he has to push with his heel into the cross, in order to push his body upward, to continue to breath.
However, I see this could be taken as human interpretation, as while it is physically true, it doesn't acknowledge the form of words quoted by John, from the Old Testament, (which make the reference of God the Father to the bruising of His heel, even more meaningful).
John 13:18
"I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.' (Psa 41:9)
|
| | 2006/7/2 21:33 | |
| | Re: Pleading the blood? | | Hi Stever,
I'm going to try to cut to the chase here, without totally dissecting your posts on this page.
The word 'seed' which is used in the Bible, probably has a history which philologos could expound fully - a task I'm not going to attempt.
From my [i]reading[/i] of scripture, the word 'seed' refers to both reproductive cells (sperm and ova), and to desendants of the people in question, in a general way. In this sense, women [i]do[/i] have 'seed' whether you call them that, or ova (Latin), or eggs (English).
You said:
Quote:
Specifically, I stated: Women do not have seed, Men have seed:
But, you then posted a thread and added the content here, where it says in section A (THROUGH MOSES):
Quote:
2. Note that it says "her seed"
This is not only a reference to her children (both male and female) but also to her reproductive capability to supply one half of the genetic data required for a child to be conceived. That unit of supply [u]is[/u] a 'seed', as much as a man's is (a seed). But the word 'seed' is misleading in that it implies a completeness, as when planting a seed which will spring up into a specific plant.
[b]The seed of a man cannot do this without being joined to the seed of woman. That's because in preparation for joining with each other, BOTH seeds LOSE half their genetic data, in a process which is called, mysteriously, 'maturation'.[/b]
If you would concede this point, there are many other things to discuss apart from whether you [i]like[/i] the word 'seeds' for ova (singular = ovum), or not.
Let me state clearly, I believe in the Virgin Birth. It poses me no crisis of faith whatsoever. While I accept that Christ was the promised Seed who would bruise the serpent's head, this is not the only reference to promised seed which is of significance in scripture. And, Christ was not only in Abraham, He was also in Noah, and, as a desendent of Eve, He was also in Adam, (from before Eve had been made from the same bone and flesh).
|
| | 2006/7/3 8:37 | |
| | Re: Pleading the blood? | | Hi Stever,
In the post where [b]you quoted James Orr[/b], it would be helpful if you go back, and add " ... " for his comments, to separate them from yours, as you introduce him twice. [b]Where do his words end both times, please?[/b]
I'm not sure who said this:
Quote:
If the woman had not been constructed in this manner and the production of blood in the unborn infant not so ordered, than Christ's blood would have been common with the whole race and valueless to redeem.
This is guesswork. If Christ had not [i]human[/i] blood, then His blood would not have qualified to be shed for the remission of our sins.
But, it is a physiological truth that within the developing fetus its unique blood forms according to the genetic data it received from its parents - without circulating round the mother's body. I am very familiar with this fact, and of course I realise, [b]this is the same for everyone[/b] - [u]not just for Jesus[/u].
The difference for Jesus, is that His physical father was God. Jesus did not cease to be the Word, when He became Flesh. This is the difference, rather than to make too much of whether His blood was 'supernatural'. If it was, then we are all supernatural, because we are all descended from Adam, and look how he began. Do we say that a woman who could not conceive, now can have [i]supernatural[/i] children because her infertility was supernaturally healed by God in answer to prayer?
There is a sense in which the unborn child is a seed within the fruit (the parents) of the previous generation (the grandparents). The blood of the unborn infant [i]never[/i] mingles with the mother by design, although it can, and when it does, this is always pathological for at least one - the mother or the baby. I'm not sure one can say God designed this for anything other than pragmatic reasons - which may include the best way to provide a Son who would die for us. It was not purely to separate [i]His[/i] blood from His mother's, as every developing fetus needs this facility. EDIT: because we are made like [i]Him[/i].
It is a fallacy to think of blood as separate from flesh. Flesh has no life apart from blood. Neither does bone or nerve, which are the other types of differentiated cell within the human body. When 'flesh' is used to describe a body in the Bible, it is [i]assumed[/i] there is a skeleton, and a nerve and blood supply. The lumen of the narrowest blood vessels (capillaries) is only seven thousandths of a millimetre, and there is no living cell in the body which does not have a blood supply. There are dead cells, such as superficial skin, which do not have a blood supply, but no body cell [u]stays alive[/u] without a blood supply.
In other words, blood is completely integrated into the life support system. In fact, every body cell has a life [i]cycle[/i], and a system of constant replacement of those which have died, is always in progress. If Jesus was a normal man physiologically, then the baby body He was born with, experienced all the changes that ours do, including losing baby hair and milk teeth. His conception was only tbe start of the development of the Body which the Father had prepared for Him.
Hebrews 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: |
| | 2006/7/3 10:48 | |
| | Re: Pleading the blood? | | I think James Orr also said this:
Quote:
By such a birth and by such a birth alone could blood be produced-- precious, incorruptible, supernatural and divine, to redeem the fallen sons of Adam's accursed race.
1 Peter 1
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with [b]corruptible things, as silver and gold[/b], from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in [b]obeying the truth through the Spirit[/b]
Stever,
Very specifically, these verses do not say Christ's blood was incorruptible. They say it was precious.
Do we need to [i]discuss[/i] what Peter means by calling 'silver and gold' 'corruptible'?
James Orr said:
Quote:
God has made of one blood, we read, [Acts 17], all the nations of the earth. By God's creation men's blood is one in composition. [b]By sin's ruination, [sinful] men's blood is one in pollution. Through the veins of [sinning] humanity flows a poisoned bloodstream.[/b]
The two sentences in bold are pure guesswork, unless you can find scripture references to support them?
In that post where you quote James Orr, you also compare the blood of Christ from scripture references, with the blood of fallen man without scripture references.
[b]Do you have scriptures for your descriptions of the blood of fallen man?[/b]
Since my beginning to read the link which Phillip posted on the previous page, I see that the spiritual nature of sin is a crucial factor in this discussion. The paper by Custance makes a clear separation between sin and death. I think this is also a scriptural separation.
philologos has pointed out that Eve could not have [u]inherited[/u] sin, and this is obvious. It is not clear to me that sin can be inherited at all - which makes this discussion about the physical attributes of Christ's blood, even less satisfactory, except that He was neither dead in spirit nor sinful, and both these attributes are essential for our Saviour, for Him to have been raised from the dead after overcoming both sin and death.
The significance of 'the life is in the blood', is about the need for shedding of blood for the remission of sins. The [u]death[/u] of Jesus Christ, we learn in Hebrews, is about destroying the devil and his power to hold people in bondage through fear of death, all life long. These are two separate and distinct accomplishments by the sacrifice of [u]His life[/u]. |
| | 2006/7/3 11:02 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
dorcas wrote:
Hi Stever,
I'm going to try to cut to the chase here, without totally dissecting your posts on this page.
The word 'seed' which is used in the Bible, [b][color=0000FF]probably has a history [/color][/b]which philologos could expound fully - a task I'm not going to attempt.
From my [i]reading[/i] of scripture, the word 'seed' refers to both reproductive cells (sperm and ova), and to desendants of the people in question, in a general way. In this sense, women [i]do[/i] have 'seed' whether you call them that, or ova (Latin), or eggs (English).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever responds to Dorcas:
You do not understand what I mean about the USE of the word seed. The use of the word is always applied to men having seed, except in this one and only verse in the Bible in Genesis 3:15
I would like to hear what Philologos can [b][color=0000FF]probably come up with[/color][/b]! This subject has been an issue ever since Westcott and Hort used the works of Origen, rather than the received text, and created the problem.
Your statement above is confusing. You say:
"From my [i]reading[/i] of scripture, the word 'seed' refers to both reproductive cells (sperm and ova), and to desendants of the people in question, in a general way. In this sense, women [i]do[/i] have 'seed' whether you call them that, or ova (Latin), or eggs (English). "
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What exact "Scripture" are you referring to in your study? Please proof text by Scriptural reference what exact "Scripture" you are referring to.
In conclusion, I will not concede on any issue in regards to my post on the "seed of the woman". This has been an onging battle between the conservative and liberal Church since 1881 when their work was published. Actually, the liberal Church of England was in total support of their work, and funded it as well.
The chain of events, since the pulbication in 1881 goes something like this:
1881 Bishop Ellicott submits the Revised Version to the Southern Convocation.
May 12th - Westcott and Hort's "The New Testament in the Original Greek" Vol. I published (Text and short Introduction).
May 17th - the Revised Version is published in England, selling two million copies within four days. It fails however to gain lasting popular appeal.
Sept. 4th - Westcott and Hort's "The New Testament in the Original Greek" Vol.II published (Introduction and Appendix).
Oct. - first of Dean Burgon's three articles in the Quarterly Review AGAINST the Revised Version appears.
1882 May - Ellicott publishes pamphlet in reply to Burgon, defending the Westcott and Hort Greek text.
1883 Burgon publishes The Revision REVISED, including a reply to Ellicott.
1890 May 1st - Westcott consecrated Bishop of Durham.
1892 Nov. 30th - death of Hort.
1901 July 27th - death of Westcott.
1908 The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia discusses the Westcott-Hort theory: "Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this field since 1881."
This is still almost literally true today 125 years later.
God bless,
Stever :-D
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Quote]
by dorcas on 2006/7/3 3:37:43
Hi Stever,
I'm going to try to cut to the chase here, without totally dissecting your posts on this page.
The word 'seed' which is used in the Bible, probably has a history which philologos could expound fully - a task I'm not going to attempt.
From my reading of scripture, the word 'seed' refers to both reproductive cells (sperm and ova), and to desendants of the people in question, in a general way. In this sense, women do have 'seed' whether you call them that, or ova (Latin), or eggs (English).
You said:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, I stated: Women do not have seed, Men have seed:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, you then posted a thread and added the content here, where it says in section A (THROUGH MOSES):
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Note that it says "her seed"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not only a reference to her children (both male and female) but also to her reproductive capability to supply one half of the genetic data required for a child to be conceived. That unit of supply is a 'seed', as much as a man's is (a seed). But the word 'seed' is misleading in that it implies a completeness, as when planting a seed which will spring up into a specific plant.
The seed of a man cannot do this without being joined to the seed of woman. That's because in preparation for joining with each other, BOTH seeds LOSE half their genetic data, in a process which is called, mysteriously, 'maturation'.
If you would concede this point, there are many other things to discuss apart from whether you like the word 'seeds' for ova (singular = ovum), or not.
Let me state clearly, I believe in the Virgin Birth. It poses me no crisis of faith whatsoever. While I accept that Christ was the promised Seed who would bruise the serpent's head, this is not the only reference to promised seed which is of significance in scripture. And, Christ was not only in Abraham, He was also in Noah, and, as a desendent of Eve, He was also in Adam, (from before Eve had been made from the same bone and flesh).
|
| | 2006/7/3 11:11 | | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
To correct my error (heard from a sermon of many years ago), God actually provided HIS OWN BLOOD, that indwelt Christ. Since He is God, He can do anything- He is the true "Miracle Worker".
I have been away for the weekend so others may have already commented on this but we are into deep waters here. The simple question is what did Christ receive from Mary? and the simple answer is 'his humanity'. If Christ's humanity did not come from Mary then He is not a member of our race but the beginning of a new one. However the scripture states quite plainly that Christ is the son of a woman;{quote]Gal. 4:4 (KJVS) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
... and in our present case of the tribe of Judah. Quote:
Heb. 7:14 (KJVS) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
If Christ was not of the bloodline of Judah what is the point of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke? We know that Joseph's blood was not in Him.
Christ was born of Mary. Unless God used Mary as a surrogate mother Christ must have partaken of her physical humanity and hence the orthodox view has always been that He was of the substance of Mary. If He is not of the substance of Mary He has not essential link with the human race and cannot be our kinsman redeemer. (goel)
Stever, where do you stand on these things. Was Mary a surrogate mother or did she 'conceive in her womb'? If she conceived in her womb, Christ is human and on the tribe of Judah.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/7/3 14:30 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Christinyou's Quote:
Eve ate of the fruit also, She died, but she did not pass death on the all mankind, Adam did. It was through her seed that Jesus Christ would bruise the head of the devil, not Adams, But Gods Seed would bring forth very God and an all sinless body by non sinless seed, Jesus Christ.
If you read the account of the banishment from the Garden you will see that it is the man who is constantly held accountable for what happened and its consequences. The last verse of Gen 3 says 'so he drove out the man'. Of course the woman went with him and shared his fate but a reading of Gen 3 in an older version will show you that 'thee' and 'thou' are the dominant pronouns. Sin came in through the man; this is Paul's testimony too. Rom 5:12 NOT the woman. The penalties that fell on the earth came as a result of 'Man' not because of a biological link but because of his role in the creation.
The presumption that Adam passed down 'sinnerhood' by begetting children leaves Eve isolated from the whole race, as she was taken from Adam before Sin entered. Sin, however, as Paul tells us 'passed through' to all and this took place at the moment that the sentence 'dying thou shalt die' was enacted. I did not 'die spiritually' when I was born naturally. I 'died spiritually' when Adam disobeyed.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/7/3 14:41 | Profile |
|
