Useful In A Pinch

[WeberHome]

-
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin

Q: If Jesus Christ was made from one of his mother's eggs; wouldn't she
have passed the curse of sin down to her son?

A: Yes; absolutely, because everybody descending biologically from Adam
stands condemned for tasting the forbidden fruit. The reason for that is
because Adam is humanity, and humanity is Adam; viz: he's all there is
because God created no other humanity but Adam. In other words:
everyone is just simply more Adam; including Eve because she was derived
from Adam's flesh. (Gen 2:21-23, Acts 17:26)

Note the grammatical tense of the passage below-- it's past tense;
indicating that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, his entire race
became guilty of tasting it-- in real time --including those of his race who've
yet to be born.

†. Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

†. Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were
made sinners.

Well; the trick is: though Adam's disobedience made his race sinners; it
didn't make them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking
about the so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about a universal
felony, so to speak.

The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to
clear his sin off the books seeing as how Adam's demise is the proper
satisfaction of justice for his sin (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for
his race's own personal sins is another matter.

Q: If Jesus Christ was made a sinner due to Adam's slip-up, then how can it
be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?

A: Adam's slip made Christ a sinner right along with his fellow men, yes; but
it didn't make him sinful; viz: Christ committed no personal sins of his own.
(John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
How Christ Is Related To Solomon

Q: Christ's dad, Joseph, biologically descended from Solomon. However,
Christ didn't. He biologically descended from Solomon's brother Nathan. But
according to the genealogy in Matthew, Christ is in Solomon's line. How so?

A: At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his own two biological grandsons Manasseh
and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and
power to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of adding additional
children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid
Bilhah— Dan, and Naphtali.

Jacob's motive for adopting his son Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for
his deceased wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which
subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own.
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph and his wife Asenath.

Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The Lord spoke
to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to take part in naming Mary's out-of
wedlock baby.

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt
1:21)

Joseph complied.

"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)

So Christ went in the books as Joseph's son; because that's how it worked in
those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child.

Bottom line: Heirs to the throne have to be David's biological progeny— that
much is irrevocable. However, they only have to be Solomon's by law.

Not too many Jews are happy with the way Christ became heir to David's
throne; but who are they to argue with Jacob's precedent? He's the grand
paterfamilias of the entire people of Israel; in point of fact, they are
identified by Jacob's spiritual name: the one that God himself personally
pinned on him very early in their history. (Gen 32:28, Gen 35:10)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
What, And Where, Sheol Is

Sheol is a transliteration of the Hebrew word sheol (sheh-ole'). It's very first
appearance in the Bible is the passage below; recording Jacob's reaction
upon being informed of his son Joseph's alleged death.

†. Gen 37:33-35 . . And he recognized it and said: It is my son's tunic. A
wild beast has devoured him. Without doubt Joseph is torn to pieces. Then
Jacob tore his clothes, put sackcloth on his waist, and mourned for his son
many days. And all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him; but
he refused to be comforted, and he said: For I shall go down into the grave
to my son in mourning. Thus his father wept for him.

The editors of that translation arbitrarily translated sheol as the grave; but
the actual Hebrew words for grave are qibrah (kib-raw') and/or qeburah
(keb-oo-raw') for example Gen 35:20 and Gen 50:5 et al.

Sheol is just a bit more complicated than burial. According to Jonah 2:1-6,
sheol is located at the roots of the mountains. Well; I think it goes without
saying that mountains aren't rooted in the bellies of fishes; rather: they're
rooted deep in the earth; which is exactly why Jonah said the earth beneath
imprisoned him rather than the lips of a big fish.

Q: How could Jonah be in the tummy of a big fish while at the roots of the
mountains; viz: both places at the same time?

A: Jonah was dead; and this is a bit tricky to discern because the second
chapter begins with Jonah praying from the innards of the fish just before it
regurgitated him out on dry land. But in his pre-regurgitation prayer, Jonah
recounts what he prayed while in the belly of sheol; specifically about his
resurrection.

†. Jonah 2:6 . . I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with
her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from
corruption, O Lord my God.

Bringing up somebody from corruption (a.k.a. putrefaction) is the language
of resurrection; for example Acts 2:23-31 recounts how that Christ's corpse
was not left to rot in the tomb; but was revived.

But where was Christ's soul while his body was interred? Well; according to
Acts 2:31 it was in haides (a.k.a. hades) which is the Greek equivalent of
sheol; which Jonah sited at the roots of the mountains. So then, just as
Jonah's corpse was in the fish's belly while his soul was in sheol's belly, so
Christ's corpse was in the tomb's belly while his soul was in hades' belly. And
coincidentally, both men's experiences were identical in length.

†. Matt 12:40 . . For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of
the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth. (cf. Jonah 1:17)

Well; I should think it wouldn't be necessary to point out that Christ's tomb
wasn't located in the heart of the earth. It was on the surface of the earth;
and it wasn't even in the earth's soil but was above it in stone.

NOTE: The Watch Tower Society teaches its Jehovah's Witness missionaries
that when a human being dies, it goes completely out of conscious
existence, which essentially implies that when Christ died on the cross, he
ceased to exist; viz: for three days and three nights, there was no Christ.
That belief of course assumes that Christ's soul died on the cross right along
with his body; which of course it didn't because assassins can't kill souls.

†. Matt 10:28a . . Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill
the soul.

In other words: the soul doesn't perish along with the demise of one's body.
Not that it's impossible; it's just that only God can pull off something like
that.

†. Matt 10:28b . . but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell.

The Greek word for "hell" in that verse isn't the haides of Acts 2:25-31. No;
this one is geena (gheh'-en-nah) which is much worse than the roots of the
mountains: much worse; but I'll spare you the grim details; though if you
wish to see them; they're on display at Isa 66:22-24 and Mark 9:47-48.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
The Reality Of Hell

I watched an educational series on NetFlix in September of 2014 called "The
Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries" hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson
Ph.D. director of the Hayden Planetarium. Mr. Tyson said, in so many words;
that in the study of Physics, one must sometimes abandon sense and accept
discoveries as they are no matter how contrary to logic they may seem.

The NASA teams that sent Pioneers, Voyagers and Mariners out to explore
the planets came to the very same conclusion: they learned to abandon their
logical expectations and instead expect the unexpected; and they
encountered plenty.

In the field of Christianity, as in the fields of Physics and planetary
exploration, faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only what makes
sense to it.

I readily admit that the idea of people existing in conscious suffering to time
indefinite makes no sense at all, and seems to totally contradict the nature
of a divine patron alleged to be kind, caring, and sympathetic. But just as
science admits to many unsolved mysteries; so does Christianity. And
there's no shame in that. The shame is in pretending to have complete
understanding of a supernatural entity that by its very nature defies reason
and common sense.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Knowing Your Religion is Right

I've been asked several times in the past how I know that my beliefs are
true. My answer is: I don't know if they're true. Then of course they follow
up with: Then why do you believe your beliefs are true when you have no
way of knowing they're true?

Most of the people who ask me those kinds of questions are genuine; they're
not trying to trip me up and make a fool out of me. They really are curious
about it. So I tell them that though I don't know if my beliefs are true, my
instincts tell me they are; in other words: I cannot shake the conviction that
they're true.

Mark Twain once remarked that he didn't believe in an afterlife; but
nevertheless expected one. In other words: Twain logically concluded that
there is no afterlife, but his instincts did not agree with his thinking; and I
dare not criticize him for that because even my own religion requires that I
believe in my heart rather then only in my head.

Why does any believer believe what they believe? Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu,
Bahá'í, Hare Krishna, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Judaism, Voodoo, Wiccan,
Jain, Druze, Native American, etc, etc, etc. The answer is: It appeals to
them.

It's a known fact that quite a few voters do their voting with their gut. In
other words, they settle on a candidate based upon how they feel about him,
and then use their minds to craft a justification for their choice.

Take for instance President Barack Hussein Obama. A large block of
Americans voted for him solely on the basis of his color rather than on the
basis of his executive ability. (Ironically Mr. Obama isn't even Black. He's
what used to be called Mulatto but now called Mixed Race; viz: his father
was Black, but his mother was White. Lucky for him that his skin turned out
dark or he might not be President today.)

Anyway, my point is: I've observed that people typically adhere to a religion
not with their mind; but with their feelings: the meanwhile using their minds
to fabricate a justification for their choice. Goes on all the time.

It is of course impossible that all religions are right; that's pretty much a
given. But on the other hand, it's very possible that none are right. So I
would say that when settling upon a religion, don't worry so much about
picking the one that's right; instead pick the one that's right for you; and if
none are right for you, then in my estimation; you're just as well off because
if your heart's not in it; then let's face it; your choice is no less arbitrary
than randomly selecting a cookie out of a jar of 100.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
The Rich Man, Lazarus, And Abraham

Fiction can be defined as stories about people and events that, though
untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

Fantasy can be defined as stories about people and events that are not only
untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.

For example: a story about a boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while a story
about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio and a
boy with autism is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while the
other is far removed from normal reality.

I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that could not possibly
be a real-life story. They're all actually quite believable-- farmers sowing
seed, women losing coins, sons leaving home, wineskins bursting, tares
among the wheat, leavened bread, barren fig trees, the blind leading the
blind, et al.

Now; if he had told one that alleged the moon was made of green cheese;
we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was fantasy;
but none of them are like that. No; there's nothing out of the ordinary in his
parables. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as fiction; but never
fantasy because none of them are so far removed from the normal round of
human experience that they have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies
that the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable
theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life
man; held in very high esteem by at least three of the world's prominent
religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And he's also the friend of God
(Isa 41:8). I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among
normal Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say something
untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about one of his Father's
buddies.

And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the
story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said
things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the
commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.

There is something else to consider.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No,
it originated with his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro
managed.

†. John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words

†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things
as the Father taught me.

†. John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

†. John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who
sent me.

So, by implying that Luke 16:19-31 is false, the parable theory insinuates
that God is a person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the
truth about people, not even about His own friends, which is ridiculous
seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that God cannot lie.

His impeccable character is what makes that narrative all the more
terrifying. Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
Christ's Father is a tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume the narrative
was drawn from real-life; and if not drawn from real life, then at least based
upon real life.

In other words: there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where
people endure unbearable anxiety worrying that loved ones are on a road to
where they are and there is no way to warn them.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
The God Begotten Of God

Q: One translation of John 1:18 says that Jesus is the only begotten god;
while another translation of John 1:18 says Jesus is the only begotten son.
Which translation is correct?

A: Either one will do because, biologically speaking, they're both saying the
very same thing.

God has lots of sons; but only one is His son by means of procreation.

The Greek word for "only begotten" in John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16,
John 3:18, is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combination of two
words.

The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel rather
than two or four in surround-sound stereo. Mono is very common; e.g.
monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome,
monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which
Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls
or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing.

In other words: monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than
many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's sole
biological child. If a parent has two or three biological children, none of them
qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a monogenes child, the
child has to be an only child. Obviously then, an adopted child can never be
monogenes in the home because it wouldn't be the home's biological child.
Examples of monogenes children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and
Luke 9:38.

Now if God's monogenes son is really and truly His biological offspring, so to
speak, then we are going to have to admit that His son is a chip off the old
block; which in fact the Bible declares.

†. Col 2:9 . . In him all the fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form.

Webster's defines "divinity" as the quality, or the state, of being a god.

According to the Greek version, "divinity" is modified by a definite article; so
that what we're looking at here isn't nondescript divinity; rather, the
divinity; viz: the quality, or the state, of being Almighty God.

People have difficulty with the literal meaning of "only begotten" because it's
unthinkable to them that God is somehow able to reproduce. Well; I don't
know how God goes about it; but if single cell organisms like amoeba can
reproduce by means of a process called binary fission; then we shouldn't be
all that aghast at the prospect of God multiplying Himself in a similar way.
And if God actually did reproduce; then His offspring is more of Himself; viz:
God would produce God just as humans produce humans.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Christ's Demise

According to Muhammad; Christ didn't die on the cross.

The Women [4.157] . . And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah,
Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did
they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those
who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge
respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

But according to the New Testament; Christ fully expired.

†. Luke 23:46 . . And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into
Thy hands I commit my spirit. And having said this, he breathed his last.

Other sources corroborate Luke.

†. John 19:31-35 . . But when they came to Jesus and found that he was
already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers
pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He
knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

Since Jesus was somewhat elevated, (it's not stated exactly how high) the
spear point would have entered his body at an upward angle. The text
doesn't say which side was penetrated, but from John's description, and
judging from the intent of the soldier to leave no doubt about Jesus' death,
the heart side was very likely the side they cut into and the spear point
would've entered just under his rib cage.

The heart is surrounded by a membrane called the pericardium; which
serves to contain a serous material resembling water to prevent the surface
of the heart from becoming dry and/or chafed by its continual motion. It was
very likely this which was pierced and from which the water flowed. The
point of the spear also seems to have reached one of the ventricles of the
heart, and the blood, yet warm, rushed forth, either mingled with, or
followed by, the liquor of the pericardium, so as to appear to John to be
blood and water flowing together. Though not medically accurate in our day,
John's calling the serous fluid "water" was accurate enough in his own day.

Had Christ managed to survive the spear he most certainly would have died
of suffocation. According to the records, his friends covered his face with a
towel, wrapped him with strips of cloth like a mummy, and coated him with
a paste consisting of 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes: all of which served to
not only put him in a straight jacket, but also sealed him in an air-tight
cocoon of sorts.

1• The towel

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)

The koiné Greek word translated "napkin" is soudarion (soo-dar'-ee-on)
which defines a sweat-cloth; viz: a towel for wiping the perspiration from the
face, or binding the face of a corpse.

2• The mummy

"Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes" (John
19:40)

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)

The Greek word translated "wound" is deo (deh'-o) which means to bind

The Greek word translated "linen cloths" is othonion (oth-on'-ee-on) which
defines bandages.

3• The cocoon of sorts

"And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night,
and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the
spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19:39-40)

Myrrh is a gum resin. The aloe of that day was a thick liquid taken from an
aromatic tree and used in medicines and cosmetics, etc. Blending those two
ingredients together produced a nice sticky goo that could be slathered and
plastered all over the deceased to seal the body and retard putrefaction
and/or seal in odors and thwart vermin. This was likely the final step just
prior to wrapping the whole affair in a shroud (Matt 27:59).

So all told-- the spear, the face towel, the wrappings, and the gooey paste --
there is just no way in nature that Christ could have possibly survived either
his crucifixion or his burial.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Christ's Recovery

There lacks a universal consensus regarding the nature of Christ's
resurrection. Some say his crucified body came back to life. Some say that
his crucified body was exchanged for a glorified body. Still others say that
Christ's crucified body not only didn't recover, but he came back with a spirit
body; and his post resurrection physical appearances were done as an angel
disguised in a fully-functioning human avatar.

It's evident that Christ has a glorified body at present (Php 3:20-21). But I
really don't think such was the case out at the cemetery.

†. John 2:19-22 . . Jesus answered them: Destroy this temple, and I will
raise it again in three days. The Jews replied: It has taken forty-six years to
build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days? But the temple
he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his
disciples recalled what he had said.

Had not Christ's crucified body revived, then his prediction would be easily
proven false because the temple he spoke of was "this temple" viz: the body
he was standing in as he spoke with the Jews.

Q: If Christ didn't come back from death with the glorified body spoken of in
Php 3:20-21, then how and when did he obtain it?

A: Some day the bodies of all Christ's believing followers will be raised from
the dead and taken up to meet the Lord in the air (1Thes 3:14-17). On the
way up, the bodies will undergo a sudden and miraculous transformation.
(1Cor 15:51-53). I think it's pretty safe to assume that Christ's body
underwent a similar transformation while on the way up to heaven as per
Acts 1:9 so that today his body is no longer a normal human body; but
instead a superhuman body to which all his believing followers' bodies will
one day conform.

Q: What about the fact that he was able to pass through a locked door?
(John 20:19). Surely a normal human body could never do such a thing.

A: Jesus Christ was virgin-conceived, walked on water, calmed storms,
restored withered limbs, put the lame up on their feet, healed blindness and
leprosy, multiplied loaves and fishes, converted water into wine, raised the
dead, withered a fig tree, levitated into the sky, etc. Come on now; what's
one more miracle more or less for a man like that?

Q: Why make a big deal out of the nature of Christ's resurrection?

A: The nature of Christ's resurrection is one of the essential components of
the gospel that must be accepted if one is to have any hope of escaping the
wrath of God.

†. 1Cor 15:1-4 . . Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I
preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which
also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless
you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also
received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that
He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures

Paul goes on to say that if Christ's crucified body did not revive, then his
followers haven't a prayer of escaping the wrath of God.

†. 1Cor 15:17 . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you
are still in your sins.

Bottom line: If one's concept of Christ's resurrection is false, then they do
not yet believe in his recovery.

FYI: What and/or where are the scriptures about which Paul spoke? There's
at least two. One is the story of Jonah; which Christ appropriated as a "sign"
of his own resurrection. (Jonah 1:17, Matt 12:40). Another is in the book of
Psalms at 16:8-10 (cf. Acts 2:22-36)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Inspiration

A common interpretation of inspiration is as follows:

†. 2Pet 1:20-21 . . No prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets
themselves or because they wanted to prophesy. It was the Holy Spirit who
moved the prophets to speak from God.

That's actually motivation rather than inspiration. This next example is
better.

†. 2Tim 3:16 . . All Scripture is inspired by God

The Greek word for "inspired" is theopneustos (theh-op'-nyoo-stos) which is
a combination of theo which means God, and pneustos which means to
inflate: as in blowing up a balloon or a soccer ball.

Theopneustos is probably about as close as you'll get for a Greek word
corresponding to Gen 2:7 where it's stated:

"Then Yhvh God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

"breathed into" is pretty much what theopneustos says. But the breath of life
isn't artificial respiration. Pumping air into a corpse doesn't work. It's been
tried. The breath of life is a mysterious energy with enough power to even
make solid rock sentient and aware. (Luke 3:8)

What all this means is: scripture is more than just text-- God has willed
scripture to have a peculiar kind of life all its own.

†. Heb 4:12-13 . . For the word of God is living and active and sharper than
any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of
both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the
heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open
and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Scripture, then, is a divine agent: it speaks about God, it speaks for God,
and it speaks as God. In a manner of speaking then: scripture can be
thought of as a close encounter.

"In its pages we recognize His voice, we hear a message of deep significance
for every one of us. Through the spiritual dynamism and prophetic force of
the Bible, the Holy Spirit spreads His light and His warmth over all men, in
whatever historical or sociological situation they find themselves." (Paulus PP
VI, from the Vatican, September 18, 1970)

Paulus PP VI said it well. So then: when people listen to the Bible, they listen
to God; and when they mock and ridicule the Bible, they mock and ridicule
God.

The voice of God is set to be called as a witness in the prosecution's case
against certain individuals.

†. John 12:48-49 . . He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings,
has one who judges him: the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last
day. For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father himself who
sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Jephthah's Daughter

†. Judg 11:30-32 . . And Jephthah made a vow to Yhvh and said: If you will
indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatever
comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from
the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up as a burnt
offering.

Long story short: Yhvh gave Jephthah the victory and the first person to
meet him coming home was his daughter; and she was his only child; but
Jepthah, with his daughter's consent, kept his end of the bargain.

There's some very important things to consider if we're to correctly sleuth
what happened.

1• Bloody human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy; so Jephthah couldn't take his daughter to the
Levitical priests to be offered on the altar as a literal burnt offering.

2• Heb 11:32 lists Jephthah as a man of faith. Men of faith don't kill their
children in pagan rituals knowing full well that God regards all such sacrifices
as abominations.

3• According to Judges 11:29, Jephthah was under the influence of Yhvh's
Spirit when he made the vow. I seriously doubt that Yhvh would lead that
man to kill his daughter contrary to God's feelings about sacrificing one's
own children in a bloody pagan ritual.

4• Jephthah's daughter didn't bewail an impending death, but rather, she
bewailed her virginity; in other words: she wept at the prospect of spending
the rest of her life as an old maid.

5• The Bible doesn't mention her demise, but rather, that she never slept
with anybody.

When all of the above is taken into consideration; I think it's fairly safe to
conclude that Jephthah's daughter took a vow of celibacy and became
equivalent to something in that day and age equivalent to a nun in our
day and age.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Eating Meat

†. Gen 9:1-4 . . Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them: Be
fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you
will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon
every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the
sea; they are given into your hands.

. . . Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you
the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that
has its lifeblood still in it.

Blessings should never be construed as commandments and/or laws and
edicts. In other words: God gave Noah and his sons the green light to eat
meat, but He didn't say they had to.

†. Rom 14:2-3 . . One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another
man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats
everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does
not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has
accepted him.

FYI: Prior to the Flood, humans were vegans. Afterwards; they were given
permission to become omnivorous. People are often curious about that.

According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York
Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture
all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to
manufacture all but K and D.

That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old,
but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7
8). Well, Noah at 175 was about equivalent to Abraham at 32; so the human
body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in
Abraham's.

Apparently the inclusion of meat in Man's diet after the Flood was intended
primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the human
body's gradually lessening ability to manufacture all it's own essential
nutrients; much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic
supplements in order to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.

People subsisting on vegan diets, such as many of the people of India, often
eat lots of minute insect eggs along with their fruits and vegetables without
knowing it, thus providing themselves with a number of essential nutrients
that most everyone else obtains by deliberately eating animal products. It's
kind of humorous that in their care to avoid meat they end up eating bugs.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Spiritual Body vs Spirit Body

†. 1 Cor 15:44 . . It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If
there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Watch as I revise that passage because the difference is significant.

"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirit body. If there is a natural
body, there is also a spirit body.

The Greek word translated "spiritual" is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily
refer to spirit. Below is a list of spiritual things that bear absolutely no
resemblance whatsoever to the bodily chemistry of an angel or a demon.

spiritual gifts (Rom 1:11)
spiritual law (Rom 7:14)
spiritual things (Rom 15:27)
spiritual people (1Cor 2:15)
spiritual nourishment (1Cor 10:3)
spiritual water (1Cor 10:4)
spiritual rock (1Cor 10:4)
spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3)
spiritual music (Eph 5:19)
spiritual understanding (Col 1:9)
spiritual housing (1Pet 2:5)
spiritual sacrifices (1Pet 2:5)

1Cor 15:43 says that the spiritual body is raised in power. That works for me
because it describes a human body similar in some respects to the man of
steel popularly known at Comic Con as Superman. The heroic figure from the
planet Krypton isn't constructed of spirit; but rather; of some sort of
indestructible material. It looks like ordinary human tissue; but in his case,
appearances can be deceiving.

I sincerely believe that the spiritual body spoken of at 1Cor 15:44 is in no
way composed of spirit. Of what material it is composed I don't know; but I
do know at least three things about it. One is that the material is totally
unknown to science, and two; it's living tissue, and the third is that it's
impervious to aging, death, and putrefaction.

All of the natural elements listed on the periodic table are those that God
created in the first chapter of Genesis. But those elements were custom
crafted for the current cosmos with all of its known and unknown forms of
life, matter, and energy. Heavenly elements are not of this cosmos; and it is
those elements that God used to construct Christ's spiritual body. It
resembles normal flesh and blood, but that's where the resemblance ends.

The spiritual body is patterned after Christ's body.

†. Phil 3:20-21 . .Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a savior
from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to
bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that
they will be like his glorious body.

The spiritual body is capable of dining upon ordinary foods.

†. Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer. For I tell you: I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in
the kingdom of God.

The spiritual body is capable of imbibing ordinary beverages.

†. Matt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now
on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

The spiritual body is visible to the naked eye.

†. Acts 1:11 . . Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This
Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the
same way as you have watched him go into heaven.

†. Rev 1:7 . . Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
God's Good Faith

†. Eph 1:13-14 . . Having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of
promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the
purchased possession

†. Eph 4:30 . . Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were
sealed for the day of redemption.

The Holy Spirit of God is the seal; which is from the koiné Greek word
sphragizo (sfrag-id'-zo). The word has no reference whatsoever to a zip lock
bag, or a strip of tape, or a gasket, or that little widget that the power
company clips onto electric meters, or a cork, or a bar code, or a bottle cap,
or a label, or a tag, or the lid on a jar, or glue, or the ring of bee's wax that
goes in between the base of a toilet and the flange of the soil pipe it drains
into.

Sphragizo refers to the impression that's made upon wax with a signet ring.
In other words: the Holy Spirit is God's own personal signature on the dotted
line; and it serves a very important purpose.

The Holy Spirit is also the "guarantee" of a believer's inheritance. Let me
explain.

The koiné Greek word is arrhabon (ar-hrab-ohn') which refers to a pledge;
viz: part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for
the rest.

When we bought our home, I had to submit, along with the escrow papers,
an amount of money called a "good-faith" deposit. In the event that my wife
and I backed out of the deal, for any reason at all; we would've forfeited the
deposit. That's no doubt an incentive to make sure people mean business
about buying a home.

Eph 1:13-14 explains a difficult spiritual truth by putting it into a context
easy to understand by anyone familiar with the process of buying a home.
Another context, also easy to understand, is located in the 38th chapter of
Genesis.

Long story short, Judah left his staff and signet with Tamar as a pledge that
he would pay her with a young goat as compensation for sleeping with him
(Gen 38:18). The Hebrew word for Judah's pledge is 'arabown (ar-aw-bone')
which is equivalent to the Greek word for guarantee.

Well; Judah was unable to make good on his promise because Tamar took a
powder. So his response was:

"Let her keep what she has or we will become a disgrace." (Gen 38:23)

You bet your bippy they would have been a disgrace because until such a
time as Judah paid Tamar what he promised; she had a legitimate right to
keep his staff and his signet because that's the way an 'arabown works.

Bottom line is: at this point in the plan of salvation, should God not spare a
Believer from the sum of all fears; then He has to forfeit the Holy Spirit. In
other words: should a believer end up in hell, they get to keep the Holy
Spirit and take Him down there with them because that's the way the
arrhabon and the 'arabown work; and believers have God's signature holding
Him to it..

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
How People Stay In Heaven

I should think that producing enough piety during one's lifetime in order to
get to heaven would be really hard. But people who make it to haven don't
face a lifetime; no, they're facing eternity. Producing piety for that long has
to be even harder.

According to Rom 2:6-11, people's piety has to be consistent. In other
words: there's no reward for complying with some of God's wishes some of
the time, nor even most of His wishes most of the time. No, people have to
comply with all of His wishes all the time in order to stay in heaven; no
slacking off-- people have to give it everything they've got.

†. Mark 12:30 . . You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.

Christ is the lucky one. Piety is second nature to him. Christ doesn't even
have to work at it because he was born with the nature of God rather than
only the nature of a human. That's quite an advantage over the rest of us.

†. 1John 3:8 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed
remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

According to Rom 6:23, the wages of sin is death. Well; if the wages of sin is
death down here, wouldn't the wages of sin be death up there too? I can't
imagine why not. So then, it seems to me that people in heaven are living
under a sword of Damocles, hanging by a slender thread easily broken by
the slightest impiety; and thus finding themselves booted out of heaven
right quick.

Human nature being what it is, the obvious solution to this dilemma is to
take people right back to square #1 and route them through birth all over
again. Only next time, instead of them born with human nature; they'd be
born with the nature of God, so that piety would be second nature to them
just like it is for Christ; because unless God can say about ordinary people
"this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" like He says about
Christ; they are not going to stay in heaven for very long.

Is what I'm talking about a possibility? Yes; it certainly is.

†. 2Pet 1:3-5 . . His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to
life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His
own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious
and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become
partakers of the divine nature.

Routing through another birth all over again isn't optional. No; it's a must.

†. John 3:3 . . Jesus declared: I tell you the truth, no one can see the
kingdom of God unless he is born again.

†. John 3:7 . . Do not wonder that I said to you: You must be born again.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Female Pastors, Preachers, and Teachers

NOTE: The comments below pertain specifically to Christian leadership
within the Christian community, rather than to leadership in general
throughout the world community.

Christ's apostles speak for Christ; and obeying them is a walk pleasing to
God.

†. 1Cor 14:37 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of The Lord.

†. 1Ths 4:1-2 . .We beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord
Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please
God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments
we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

Seeing as how the apostles' commandments are Christ's commandments,
then refusal to obey an apostle is all the same as refusal to obey Christ. It's
a domino effect all the way to the top.

†. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.

Therefore, these next commandments are not just one man's opinion; but
are Christ's wishes, and being so, are God's too.

†. 1Cor 11:3 . . But I would have you know, that the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is
God.

†. 1Cor 14:34-35 . . Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is
not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

†. 1Tim 2:11-12 . . Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be
in silence.

People who refuse to obey those commandments are no better than pagans
practicing dark arts and/or worshipping Shiva and Vishnu.

†. 1Sam 15:23 . . Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is
as iniquity and idolatry.

They're Christ's enemies.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

And they're disloyal too.

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

†. John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

Their insubordination insinuates that God's wisdom is absurd.

†. 2Pet 3:15-16 . . Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

Q: What about Deborah? God appointed her to lead men. (Jdgs 4:4-5:31)

A: Rebels are fond of pointing to Old Testament female luminaries like
Deborah to justify Christian women leading Christian men. But they need to
wake up and get their bearings. Deborah wasn't a Christian; and besides:
she lived in the Old Testament era.

That ship has sailed and we today live in the New Testament era-- an era
where Christ's wishes reign supreme. Male leadership may not be ideal; but
the bottom line is: males are Christ's gender of choice; and it is his Father's
wishes that people follow His son's lead.

†. Matt 17:5 . .Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a
voice out of the cloud, saying: This is My beloved son, with whom I am well
pleased. Listen to him!

†. John 3:36 . . He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abides on him.

You know why the issue of Christian women leading Christian men is so
controversial? It's because far more Christians are worldly than heavenly;
they're living the Christian life according to the standards of their culture,
and according to their feelings, instead of according to Christ's wishes; viz:
they're carnal instead of spiritual; and apparently content to be that way.

†. Rom 8:5-8 . .Those who live according to the sinful nature have their
minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with
the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful
man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the
sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do
so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

Christianity isn't everyone's cup of tea. If people find Christ's rules too strict,
too old fashioned and/or too contrary to their culture, then maybe they
ought to take up something else, like maybe Buddhism or Yoga meditation.
But one thing no one should do is follow Christ with the thought of setting
him straight or bringing him up to date. You see, that would be the sin of
heresy, which is a sin that merits ostracizing.

†. Rom 16:17 . .Watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles
in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away
from them.

Stubborn cases of heresy require excommunication.

†. Titus 3:10-11 . . Reject a divisive person after the first and second
admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self
condemned.

Some Christian churches are so insubordinate that they mirror the church of
Laodicea where Christ is depicted outside the building at Rev 3:14-22
banging on the door trying to get someone's attention to let him in. A
Christian church without Christ at the helm is really an odd duck. For all
intents and purposes, it's little more than a religious social club.

†. 1John 5:3-4 . . For this is the love of God: that we keep His
commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[OCTOBER23]

NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT THIS MAN WHO CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN.

The Muslems , Buddhists, and all the rest do not have this

nor the promise to Rule the Universe with God.

 

[WeberHome]

-
Christ And The Priesthood Order Of Melchizedek

Melchizedek was a high priest of the Most High God in the book of Genesis
contemporary with Abraham. (Gen 14:18-20)

Mel, along with Abraham, existed prior to the covenanted law that Yhvh's
people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. This is very important seeing as how according to the Bible,
law enacted ex post facto isn't retroactive.

†. Deut 5:2-4 . .Yhvh our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Yhvh did
not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us
alive here today.

†. Rom 4:15 . . Law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no
transgression.

†. Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law.

†. Gal 3:17. .The Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does
not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God.

That being the case, then Melchizedek's constituents-- among whom was
Abraham --were immune to the consequences stipulated for breaking the
covenant's law as per Ex 34:6-7, Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut
28:1-69.

Christ's priesthood is patterned after Melchizedek's (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:5-6).
So then, seeing as how Melchizedek and his constituents-- which included
Abraham --were immune to the curses stipulated for breaking the covenant's
law, then Christ and his constituents are immune to the curses too. In a
nutshell: neither Christ nor his followers can be sent to hell for breaking the
Ten Commandments.

†. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Another advantage of Christ's priesthood is its continuity.

Take for example Judaism's priesthood. No one has benefited from its
services since Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70ad. Which means of course
that 1,945 years worth of Yom Kippurs have been merely for show because
the Day Of Atonement cannot be observed properly and effectively without a
fully functioning priesthood.

In contrast: Christ's priesthood isn't effected by wars, and/or geopolitics. He
officiates in heaven where nothing happening on earth can reach to either
interfere with, or interrupt, his services (Heb 8:1-4). And seeing as how
Christ rose from the dead immortal (Rom 6:9, Heb 7:3, Rev 1:18) then old
age and death will never be a factor in either the length or the effectiveness
of his priesthood tenure.

†. Heb 7:24-25 . . He, on the other hand, because he abides forever, holds
his priesthood permanently. Hence, also, he is able to save forever those
who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them.

FYI: The order of Melchizedek is a "high priest" order (Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20).
Well; the Bible limits the number of high priests in office at a time to just
one; and the man stays in office till he's dead before being replaced-- which
of course won't happen with Christ seeing as how he rose from the dead
immortal.

Point being: Mormonism's over-crowded order of Melchizedek is unbiblical:
and so, for that matter, is Mormonism's order of Aaron seeing as how his is
the office of a high priest too.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[WeberHome]

-
Hope For Natural-Born LGBT

Everybody has problems with proclivities; which Webster's defines as
inclinations or predispositions toward something: especially strong inherent
inclinations toward something objectionable.

Everybody also has problems with predilections; which Webster's defines as
a natural liking for something; viz: a natural tendency to do or to be
attracted to something.

†. Eph 2:2-4 . .We too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging
the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of
wrath, even as the rest.

With a pronoun like "we" Paul included himself as someone with natural-born
longings and desires for bad things. And the pronoun "all" precludes the
possibility of any one Christian claiming to be born free of a strong inherent
inclination toward something objectionable and/or a tendency to do, or to be
attracted to, something bad.

The point is: unless something were done to remedy LGBT predilections and
proclivities none of them would qualify for citizenship in either the new
cosmos or the holy city depicted in the 21st chapter of Revelation. All would
be barred entry even though Christ gave his life to atone for LGBT conduct.

The problem is: forgiven LGBT would go right on as LGBT just like always
because their predilections and proclivities would drive them to it; and were
they to suppress their LGBT predilections and proclivities for very long; I
think they would eventually go mad with a nervous break down because
they would be fighting against nature; which everybody instinctively knows
is a fight that can't be won without suffering serious psychological
consequences.

So then, it's futile to tell LGBT to stop acting that way when the problem is
not their conduct; no, their conduct is merely a symptom; and as every
informed person knows: you don't treat an illness by treating its symptoms--
that method has been proven ineffective.

God's remedy for LGBT is pretty extreme. He doesn't remove the LGBT's
longings and desires; instead He regards the natural born LGBT's condition
as so far gone that it can't be treated. In other words: He throws the baby
out with the bath water, so to speak, and starts from scratch with a new
baby.

†. John 3:3 . . I tell you the truth: no one can see the kingdom of God
unless he is born again.

The birth about which Christ spoke isn't an option; no, it's a must.

†. John 3:7 . .You must be born again.

That goes for everybody, not just LGBT, because Christ said "no one" can
see the kingdom of God unless he is born again; which of course has to
include all the holy people in the Old Testament too or otherwise "no one"
has no useful meaning.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=