Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: Hold These Thoughts

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Why Cain Was Rejected

    -
    †. Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.

    Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to the Adams' survival. Humans at this time were vegetarians so Cain farmed and raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

    †. Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock.

    There's no indication in this scene suggesting that the items they brought were sacrifices for sin. The Hebrew word for "offering" is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).

    Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- which are essentially gifts rather than atonements --it would be wrong to insist Abel slew his firstling and/or burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings are indicated by the word 'olah (o-law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 22:2.

    Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of oblation.

    T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)

    Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate first fruits offering.

    I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather, responsible men in this particular scene because God treated them that way. This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for many years; ever since they were of age. And up to this point, apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.

    But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

    "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)

    It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)

    †. Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.

    The language and grammar of that verse indicate that God not only snubbed Cain's offering; but also Cain himself; so that his offering wasn't the only issue: Cain himself was an issue too.

    Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or thoughtless, nor did she neglect or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang, didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed, drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women.

    Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he associate with the wrong crowd. He was very religious and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the rituals he practiced were correct and timely.

    The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected. What?

    Well; for one thing; at this point in his life, in spite of appearances; Cain was actually impious. (1John 3:12)

    In what way was he impious? Well, Cain's blemish is an elephant in the middle of the room. It was friction between him and his brother. It is unacceptable to worship God while the worshipper's relationship with their brother is dysfunctional.

    "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)

    †. Gen 4:5b-7a . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

    Cain knew the drill; viz: it's conduct first and worship second. That can be readily seen played out in the first chapter of Isaiah where Yhvh's people are depicted practicing their God-given worship to perfection. They were attending Temple on a timely basis, praying up a storm, offering all the correct sacrifices and offerings, observing the Sabbath, and all the feasts days. But God soundly rejected all of that because their conduct was unbecoming.

    Bottom line is: Abel and his offering were acceptable because Abel's conduct was acceptable; while Cain and his offering were unacceptable because Cain's conduct was unacceptable. So then, from Cain and Abel we learn that the key to acceptable worship is acceptable conduct. The two are joined at the hip; so to speak. And that being the case; I'd have to say that there are a number of Christians attending church every Sunday morning who really ought to stay home and not come back until they clean up the things in their lives that they know very well are rubbing God the wrong way.

    =============================

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  3. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Why God Didn't Prosecute Cain For Murder

    -
    According to the covenant that God instituted with Noah after the Flood; murder is a mandated death offense. (Gen 9:5)

    The death penalty for murder was included as a mandate in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God at Sinai as per Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num 35:31-34.

    Q: So then, seeing as how capital punishment for murder is a divine mandate; then how was God able to let Cain walk without obstructing justice and compromising His own integrity? Does God practice a double standard?

    A: Murder is morally wrong, yes; and it is intrinsically a sin, yes; however; prior to the Flood, homicide wasn't a transgression because God had not yet enacted any laws to that effect. Divinely ordained capital punishment was unheard of, and unthinkable, prior to the Flood because it is an axiom that Bible law isn't retroactive; viz: it can't be enforced until after it is enacted; which is precisely why God couldn't prosecute Cain for murder. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17)

    Case in point: Abraham married a half-sister. Sarah was his father's daughter, but not his mother's (Gen 20:12). According to the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God at Sinai, it is a breach of the covenant to sleep with someone that close.

    "The nakedness of your sister-- your father's daughter or your mother's, whether born into the household or outside --do not uncover their nakedness." (Lev 18:9)

    But Abraham was exempt from that law because God didn't introduce it till several centuries after Abraham's passing; and this is very important to understand. Here's why:

    Modern Judaism insists that Deut 29:14-15 retroactively binds Abraham to the covenant. Well; not only is that kind thinking a stretch of the imagination; but it's not even sensible because any and all breaches of the covenant incur curses.

    "Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother." (Deut 27:22)

    "Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them." (Deut 27:26)

    If God were to level curses at Abraham for breaching the covenant; then God would be quite obligated to level curses at Himself.

    "I will curse him who curses you" (Gen 12:3)

    Not only that; but any curses that the covenant would impose upon Abraham for sleeping with his half sister, would quite effectively annul any and all of the promises that God made to him in the book of Genesis.

    The Jews' occupation of the land of Israel has always been conditional upon their compliance with the covenant; but their ownership of the land has always been conditional upon the promises that God made to Abraham prior to the covenant's institution. That way there is no possible chance of Abraham's posterity ever losing the deed to that land no matter how many times they breach the covenant. They might get evicted from their homeland from time to time; but it will always remain theirs due to Abraham's immunity to the covenant's curses.

    =============================

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015), Quest (09-30-2015)

  5. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post From Whence Cain Got A Wife

    -
    †. Gen 4:17 . . Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch

    Because of the woman Cain married; it's easy to fall prey to the assumption that God created more human beings than only Adam on the sixth day of creation. But if He did, there's no record of it. And seeing as how God completed creating things for the current physical cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --on the sixth day; then from that time till now, He's created nothing more. So then, on record; the only human being that God ever really created from the dust of the earth was Adam; and everyone proceeds from him.

    †. Acts 17:26 . . From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth

    Adam got his wife from himself; viz: she wasn't created from the dust of the Earth as he had been, but was instead constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's side. Thus, Eve was biologically just as much Adam as Adam except for gender. In other words: Eve wasn't a separate species of h.sapiens; no, she was the flip side of the same coin.

    Seeing as how there is no record of God constructing a wife for Cain from Cain's body, then it has to be assumed that he married one of his parent's daughters; viz: a sister.

    †. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

    Some believe that inbreeding has always been abhorrent to God since it's forbidden by laws stipulated in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Deut 29:9-15. However, those laws were not enacted till many, many years after the Flood; and according to Gal 3:17 they are not retroactive.

    Inbreeding is currently very risky business indeed. But it was neither a risk, nor a taboo in Cain's day like it is now. After all, Adam engendered the entire human race by mating with a woman derived from his own body. You can't get any closer to home than that.

    The human race in Cain's day was very young, very healthy, and very close to its origin. Not enough time had elapsed to damage the human genome. Proof of the excellent quality of human life was longevity. Adam lived till he was 930 and Noah till he was 950. Nobody even comes close to that anymore.

    Even closer to home is the ark. When it finally came to ground, the only people left alive on the whole earth were grandpa and grandma Noah and their three sons and their wives: eight souls; that's all. Hence: everybody alive today is the progeny of inbreeding; no exceptions.

    †. 2Pet 2:4-5 . . He did not spare the ancient world when he brought the Flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others.

    It was from those eight survivors that everyone alive today descends; via inbreeding.

    †. Gen 9:18-19 . . Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

    Were the Flood to be repeated in 2014, the human race would be in serious trouble because inbreeding today is very dangerous; but back in Noah's day, it wasn't.

    =============================

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  7. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post How The Critters Got To Noah

    -
    †. Gen 6:3a . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever. Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

    Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood, didn't die till he was 175 years old. No; it's far more reasonable to conclude that God was announcing a deadline; viz: the antediluvians had 120 years left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody? Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.

    "And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)

    The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz: reprieves are not acquittals-- though God bear a great while, He never bears forever.

    †. Gen 6:12-14 . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark

    †. Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the earth --to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish.

    †. Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female. From birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing on earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.

    Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers. God said two of each "shall come to you" (cf. Gen 7:9, Gen 7:15) which implies of course that species who failed to come got left behind and went extinct in the Flood. There was plenty of time for them to make it because Noah was 120 years building the ark and getting it ready.

    A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4 years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450 miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do, but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time for the Folly's maiden voyage.

    If the ark were to launch in 2015, critters would have been on the move towards it since 1895-- eight years before the Wright Brothers historical flight, and seventeen years before the Titanic foundered --and probably reproduced many times along the way since there are not all that many species that live to see 120 years of age.

    But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.

    Scientists also know about subduction and magma hot spots and pressure points that can raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator; for example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was once known as the Vale of Siddim. Sometime in the distant past the earth's crust rose in that region, blocking the Jordan River's natural drainage into the gulf of Aqaba; thus trapping it's waters in a huge basin from which they cannot escape. Subduction causes the earth to wrinkle, bulge, and form mountain ranges and hill country.

    "He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth." (Ps 104:5-9)

    That portion of Psalm 104 is probably speaking of Gen 1:9-10. It's handy for showing that God is capable of molding the Earth's lithosphere into any geological configuration He pleases to push sea beds up and form land bridges; thus expediting migrations from all over the world over to Noah's diggings.

    This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old stone structure utilized to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the Great Lakes region.

    The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac. Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.

    The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.

    Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) shell anyway, although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough indigenous water on it to cover the crust to a depth of 9,000 feet of water. That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles deep.

    Geological processes normally take thousands of years to accomplish, but those processes can be sped up considerably by the cosmos' creator, who has absolute control over everything-- not just the earth's geological processes; but all the rest of nature's processes too.

    =============================

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  9. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post The Fate Of Noah's Ark

    -
    †. Gen 8:3b . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

    The precise topographic location, where the ark went aground, was not really up on a specific mountain by the name of Ararat nor up on any other mountain for that matter. The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is haareey which is the plural of har (har). It doesn't always mean prominent land masses like Everest or McKinley; especially when it's plural. Har can also mean a range of mountains like the Pyrenees bordering Spain and France and/or a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.

    "At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke 1:39-40)

    In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top of one of its mountains like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.

    Another inhabited region in the continental U.S. that's elevated is the area of Denver Colorado; which is located on the western edge of the Great Plains near the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Denver is a whole mile above sea level-- 5,280 feet. However, Denver, even though so high above sea level, isn't located on the tippy top of a mountain, nor even on the side of one; it's just located up on high ground.

    The ark contained the only surviving souls of man and animal on the entire planet. Does it really make good sense to strand them up on a mountain peak where they might risk death and injury descending it?

    When my wife and I visited the San Diego zoo together back in the early 1980's, we noticed that the Giraffes' area had no fence around it. The tour guide told us the Giraffes' enclosure doesn't need a fence because their area is up on a plateau 3 feet high. The Giraffes don't try to escape because they're afraid of heights. There's just no way Giraffes could've climbed down off of Turkey's Mount Ararat. It's way too steep and rugged. Those poor timid creatures would've been stranded up there and died; and so would hippos, elephants, and flightless birds.

    The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38, and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat is always the country of Armenia: never a specific peak by the same name.

    So; where is the ark now? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen 6:15, the ark was shaped like what the whiz kids call a right rectangular prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common shoe box. So most of the lumber and/or logs used in its construction would've been nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together houses, fences, barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

    I think it's very safe to assume Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires.

    Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs. There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape and should have been preserved for many years to come.

    =============================

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  11. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Abraham And Hagar

    -
    †. Gen 21:10-12 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.

    Sarah's goal was to prevent Ishmael from getting a piece of Abraham's estate; which he would have seeing as the Code Of Hammurabi, and of the still earlier laws of Lipit-Ishtar, implicitly made inheritance rights a legal consequence of the father's acceptance of an infant boy as his legitimate son; so then, the laws of Abraham's day entitled Ishmael to a share of Abraham's estate. However, there was a way to circumvent that.

    Abraham fathered Ishmael by sleeping with one of his female slaves. There was a clause in the laws stipulating that if Abraham were to emancipate the female slave; then she and her child would lose any and all claims to a paternal property settlement. In other words: Abraham couldn't just banish Hagar in order for the law to apply; he had to grant her freedom.

    †. Gen 21:14 . . Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy.

    The phrase "sent her off" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh') which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves.

    By emancipating his mother, Ishmael not only lost the right to a piece of Abraham's estate, but he also lost his status as one of Abrahams sons. Later on, when God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, He referred to the lad as Abraham's only son.

    †. Gen 22:2 . . Then God said: Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah.

    †. Gen 22:15-16 . . The angel of Yhvh called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said: I swear by myself, declares Yhvh, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son

    The New Testament reveals that not only did Ishmael lose his status as one of Abraham's sons, but also as one of Abraham's biological sons.

    †. Heb 11:17 . . By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son

    The koiné Greek word for "only begotten" is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which always, and without exception, indicates a parent's sole biological child. Examples are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38. Monogenes does not identify children with biological siblings; only children with zero biological siblings.

    According to common sense; Ishmael remained one of Abraham's biological sons; but on the page of scripture; he isn't. The page of scripture is what counts rather than common sense because faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only what makes sense to it.

    =============================

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  13. #17
    Senior Member Lively Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    252
    Thanked: 267
    Quote Originally Posted by Quest View Post
    IS BEING revealed...how does that fit in this age of grace...
    Yes, in this age of God's great grace and mercy, we see sin running rampant, but this verse says to me that God's wrath, held in check, is revealed to us, through the revelation of His indwelling Holy Spirit---that it is right there, always there, and ready to be poured out---in His perfect time. I thank God that we live in this age of grace and that our heavenly Father has chosen to restrain His divine, righteous anger against sin because He has already poured it out on His Son. One day, however, we will see the final outpouring of His wrath on all evildoers and unbelievers. But this verse says to me that His very present and ongoing, yet withheld wrath is revealed to us, His servants and children. That we become incensed when we witness such evil is only a smidgen of what God Himself suffers when He sees not only the sins themselves, but the evil hearts of men who commit them. Anger, mingled with love and longing for the sinner to repent---such should be our experience in living for Jesus Christ in this world.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Lively Stone For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  15. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Who/What The Firstborn Is

    -
    †. Col 1:15 . . He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

    Christ wasn't even the one born first in the human family let alone the entire creation so what gives here?

    Well; firstborn is just as much a rank as it is a chronological birth order; and though the chronology is set in biological concrete; the title, and it's advantages, are transferable to a younger sibling; e.g. from Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) from Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1) and from Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14). This situation can lead to some interesting ramifications; for example:

    †. Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question; saying: What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He? They said to Him: The son of David. He said to them: Then how does David in the Spirit call him "Lord" saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at My right hand until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet. If David then calls him "Lord" how is he his son?

    Jesus referenced Psalm 110:1, where there are two distinct Hebrew words for "lord". The first is yhvh, a name reserved exclusively for God. The second is 'adown, which is a very common word in the Old Testament used to simply indicate a superior. Sarah labeled Abraham her 'adown (Gen 18:12) Rachel addressed her dad by 'adown (Gen 31:5) and Jacob addressed his brother Esau by 'adown (Gen 33:8).

    So then; Psalm 110:1 could be translated like this:

    "Yhvh said unto my superior: Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

    Anybody who knew the Old Testament in Jesus' day knew good and well from Ps 89:27 that David has no superiors but God because he holds the rank of God's firstborn; viz: no king that you might name is David's superior other than Yhvh: the king of all kings.

    So Psalm 110:1 suggests that David's rank-- and subsequently its advantages --as God's firstborn has been transferred to another man; and seeing as how Jesus' opponents agreed that the other man is David's son, then the postion has been transferred not to one of David's siblings; but to one of his own posterity; so that now David has to bow and scrape to one of his own grandchildren, which up to that time was not only unheard of; but just wasn't done.

    †. Matt 22:46 . . And no one was able to answer him a word

    Well; no surprise there. This was something not only strange to their Jewish way of thinking; but entirely new, yet there it was in black and white in their own scriptures; and they had somehow failed to catch its significance until Jesus drew their attention to it.

    Now; here's something else that I'm 110% positive crossed the minds of Jesus' learned opposition. To their way of thinking, David's position as God's firstborn as per Ps 89:27 is irrevocable. Well; seeing as how there is no intermediate rank between the firstborn position and the paterfamilias position, that means David's son, about whom he spoke in Ps 110:1, is equal in rank to God; which is a blasphemous suggestion to say the least. (chuckle) Those poor know-it-all Pharisees were utterly baffled beyond words.

    "Your throne O God is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy more than your fellows." (Ps 45:6-7)

    If that passage has been translated correctly, it says one of two things. Either God is speaking to Himself, or He is speaking to a king of the Davidic dynasty that has been promoted to a level of dignity and authority equal to His own; which of course outranks David by a pretty large amount; and in point of fact: outranks the entire creation-- no contest.

    =============================

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  17. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Why David's Little Boy

    -
    Long story short: David breached the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Deut 29:9-15 by committing the capital crimes of premeditated murder and adultery (2Sam 11:1-2Sam 12:23). As bad as those two breaches are; what really rattled heaven's cage was that David's conduct was an embarrassment.

    †. 2Sam 12:14a . . Because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of The Lord to blaspheme,

    What might the nature of that blasphemy be? Well behavior like David's causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's choice of a people for His name. That's a very common form of blaspheme: it goes on all the time. (e.g. Isa 62:5, Rom 2:24)

    †. 2Sam 12:14b-18 . . the child also that is born to you shall surely die . . .The Lord struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick . . .Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.

    How was that fair? Well; it wasn't meant to be fair to the boy; it was meant to be fair to David. His little boy was just collateral damage.

    †. Ex 34:6-7 . . Then Yhvh passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed: Yhvh, Yhvh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished: visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

    It is apparently God's prerogative to get back at people by going after their posterity and/or the people they govern.

    There's a horrific example of collateral damage located at Num 16:25-34. Another is the Flood. No doubt quite a few underage children drowned in that event due to their parents' wickedness. The same happened to the children in Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ham's punishment for humiliating Noah was a curse upon his son Canaan, and during Moses' face-off with Pharaoh, God moved against the man's firstborn son along with all those of his subjects.

    The grand-daddy of all collateral damages is everybody has to die because the human race's progenitor disobeyed God in the very beginning. (Rom 5:12-18)

    Interesting isn't it? There are times when Heaven's anger seems to come out of the blue; but if truth be known; sometimes it actually comes out of the past; for example:

    †. 2Sam 21:1 . . Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David sought the presence of the Lord. And the Lord said: It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.

    Joshua agreed to a non-aggression pact with the Gibeonites during the conquest of Canaan (Josh 9:3-16). Saul, when king, dishonored the pact. He apparently got away with it; but not his countrymen, no; God slammed them for what Saul did; and that posthumously.

    Moral of the story: The sins of today, jeopardize the lives of tomorrow; and sometimes those lives are very large in number, and sometimes very young too.

    =============================

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

  19. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post The Meaning Of "Under The Law"

    -
    †. Rom 6:14 . . For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.

    The "law" in question is the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The important thing to note about the agreement is that it's a legally binding contract. So then the term "under the law" refers to contractual obligations. Seeing as how Christ's followers are not contracted with God to comply with the covenant, then neither is God contractually obligated to penalize Christ's followers for breaching it.

    God has to lower the boom on His people for breaching the covenant, but He doesn't have to lower the boom on Christ's followers for breaching it because He isn't contracted with them to do so. This is a very important aspect of Christianity.

    In a nutshell: where there is no contract, there is no contract to breach; and where there is no law, there is no law to break; and where there is no law to break, there are no crimes to prosecute. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

    This principle applies in a really big way to people who have undergone the baptism described at Rom 6:3-11. Their status "in Christ" positions them where the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God does not apply. So then, "in Christ" people have 110% immunity from the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 which are curses that God is obligated to bring down upon His people for breaching the covenant; which includes all ten of the Ten Commandments; and then some.

    =============================

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-20-2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
You can avoid expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Chrysler. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in surprise expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.