having been raised in a religious tradition, that is the southern baptist church tradition, i've always kinda sorta believed that baby jesus was kilt by the evil jews. well, i always knew it was the romans who actually did the deed. maybe political pressure placed upon the local governor, i don't know. maybe he felt he had no other choice than to concede to the demands of the members of the local population of predominant jews as represented by their ldrshp.

but, my question today varies from that scenario just a bit. we all know that jesus was miraculously borne. the virgin mary was a key player in the scenario. but there was the god, or king, or creator or whomever that fathered the child. if there's a mother, then de facto, there's a father of some kind, type, sort or description.

in the best and most careful of my readings and understandings, jesus's father was the mighty war god YHWH. is that true? i think it is, but i don't know for sure.

but, anyways, here's the question after having been DNA'd by 23&me dna test. how much different was jesus from the mighty war god YHWH? were they one and same? really? what makes you think that?

if they're not the same, then what are the relevant differences? and how did those differences occur or evolve?

this is a serious subject, so let's try not to hurt anyone's feelings while we make an honest effort to drill down into the heart of the matter.

jesus and his daddy YHWH, they don't seem to resemble each other. are their dna components different from each other?

Gus...Man, including you and me, is a Spiritual Being inhabiting, for a time, a physical body.

God, Yahweh or whatever else He is called, is a Spiritual Being........ period.

Jesus shared the same Spirit with the Father but, like us, inhabited a physical body for a time.

So, it naturally follows that Jesus had only His mother’s dna...... unless, of course, He willed it to be otherwise.

That’s the Catch 22 when you start trying to learn about God........ He is not bound by any rules so He can change the game at will.

Yeah I’m thinking Mary and Joseph got busy.

thanks curdog. that's what i like most about your posts.

you recognize a savvy gambler could play dice with the best of the best, and still win every time if he so chose.

snake eyes coming up every single solitary time, everytime, if it fit the bill.

so, let's see if i'm understanding correctly, some 2,000 years after said event: god converted himself through the human dna into a physical/conscious/spiritual being that we've agreed to call jesus. is that it, pretty much?

there's been lot's of self-proclaimed messiahs over the years, but did jesus ever claim he was messiah? not to get us too far off tract?

i've always figured ol yhwh was in control of everything.

Gus, do you have a Bible around?

a few. which one should i refer to, in response to your request, i mean which version?

mostly i'm an old king james man, but never did much support the kings of england.

Well Gus, we both be better served, if we read more Bible, and less "fire. Any version.

That's a good question, Gus. Don't have a good answer, never thought about it. Guess I don't see how it makes a difference in the exact composition of Jesus's DNA. He was acknowledged by Joseph and between that and Mary's lineage probably fulfilled some prophesy somewhere. Sort of ended my interest in the matter.

You can say that again.

My limited understanding of the scriptures tells me that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. I believe this to be God. I also read that God created us in his own image. I figure you and Jesus would have somewhat similar DNA.

after having understood how the king group in england trted my ancestors, i've questioned everything about that crowd.




i don't really care either. but, i've determined there's still left amongst the rank & file a ton of folks who have questions. ya know? something about a chaldean archer working for, and assigned to the roman army occupying ancient judah & environs. maybe it's all an old wive's tale? i don't know.

dna is a fascinating subject, especially if a god can possess human dna. but, can they?

I'm still trying to figure out Melchizedek.

No, I do not think Joseph and Mary got busy.

My personal opinion is that Mary spent some time as a teenaged lass working as a servant girl in some rich priest's house. Possibly even the same preist who later confirmed to Joseph that Mary was indeed chaste and pure, even though she was obviously with child.

An actual DNA test of Jesus compared to John the Babtist might have found an interesting bit of commonality.

But that is just my opinion, and not to say that Jesus did not have a fine and timely message to deliver. It was high time the Judaic traditional peists got turned on their head, and beyond time for the tribes to learn to get along with other nations unstead of attempting to slaughter any peoples who stood between them and greener pastures.

Gus, as far as I’m concerned, whether Jesus was actually born of no earthly father, or if the Virgin birth narrative was added at a later date to suit the Church’s teaching, is a matter of no consequence to me.

The fact that He exists today and wants a relationship with God’s created ones is what’s important.

How can we begin to understand something we can’t duplicate?

Can we reverse engineer God? What a concept.

More fun is considering the authenticy of the Shroud of Turin, a sort of related subject. Here's an interesting video featuring Fr. Robert Spitzer, trained as a physicist. Between that and his theological and philosophical training it's a pretty good presentation. The Case for Jesus: Science & the Shroud of Turin | Robert Spitzer

Well said curdog. This is somewhat interesting, but not matter how long as many 'fire members can dance on a pin, or all the math wizz's use a thousand blackboards, the question Gus asks can never be solved.

Most of you know my standard stand.

that, my friend, is an excellent challenge that you have in front of you and us.

the order of melchizedek lives on. a proper anointing lives on as a need.



what is the sound of one hand clapping? this question has been asked before. please don't try to answer.

just accept whatever makes the most sense and carry forward. that's the basics, i think.

i like the discussions, not that anything is ever resolved, or ever will be. that's not the point.

the point is: at least in part, we're asking "where are we, where have we been, and where are we headed next." nobody knows for sure, but it makes for good cheap, low-cost discussion.

Did Mary supply all of the chromosomes? If so, Jesus would have been born a clone of his mother so we'd be worshiping Golda or Ruth or Caitlin the Christ today. Now the deity or God or whatever that created all this I suppose could break his physical rules of the universe and biology and create a male child by altering the DNA of one woman and spontaneously creating a zygote if he/she/it wanted but personally I don't think it works that way.

I think it's a nice story but I don't really believe Jesus was born of a virgin*. Horus, the sun god of Egypt was also supposedly born of a virgin and despite Roman dominance Egyptian culture still exerted some influence in that part of the world, so in the early AD I'm thinking a good way to get your boy elevated status was to claim a virgin birth. That said, to me whether he was or wasn't doesn't detract one iota from the value of the teachings of the man Jesus of Nazareth.


* one could speculate on all sorts of hanky panky where some male seed got past an intact hymen for a "virgin birth" but that's a bit crude for this discussion.

ok. so the story is, in multiple forms, both prior to and after the initiation of the christian religion into the world, that a god, or his son, incarnated on the earth. came to teach us how to be social, kind, fair and honest with each other. is that it? many virgin births in the mythology.

and god loves us all, but we still have to live, suffer, and die. but, he/they are doing their best. i like that dedication on his part.

in a science driven world, we all know that questions and the effort toward a related answer is oh so important to us humans existent in the post modern era.

so, god came to earth. he injected his son into the human race, for Teaching purposes. with me so far?

so, did his Son possess human dna or not? dna is an established fact. so, did god invade human dna to live with us?

Interesting Gus, but I think you are barking up a wrong tree.

i think i am too. i'm thinking of cranking the sthil 391, ranch saw, and sawing said tree down to make sure there's nothing hiding in the top branches.

oh, not to wear the subject out, but if jesus is god's son, which he might well be, not denying it....but, who was jesus's mother? male & female equals an off spring, at least sometimes.

don't shut down the questions. that's what keeps the dna functioning.

the question about a chaldean archer, enslaved to the romans who occupy israel/palestine/judah keeps coming up. why can't we put that archer to rest?

Okay, I was going to to buy some 748 for a new .30-30 but the store will be open for a few hours still. First, the big disclaimer that this is all just my opinion and everybody is welcome to their own, in fact I strongly recommend that every one go by his or her own well examined opinions. But since you asked...

I do not believe that whatever created the Universe we live in - let's call it God since that's the common term - caused his only male heir to be born in a backwater country at a certain time and that was the one and only time God did this. That behavior strikes me as a bit too anthropomorphic. So Jesus as "The One and Only Son of God" ; no. However, if one wants to use human terms then we are all the children of this God, no more and no less than Jesus of Nazareth. I do think Jesus "got it" - what life is all about - more than all but a handful of folks throughout history, or maybe there were a lot more we never heard of but he had better publicists.

Going beyond what you asked:

Now we get into the metaphysical and when one tries to go there one quickly enters left field with every other strange theory of metaphysics ever invented, and they are numerous. However, I strongly believe there is something beyond our ability to see, hear, feel, taste or touch, and Jesus tapped into that better than all but a few people ever have. He tried to teach his followers this, that they could do the same things he did. Since he was a product of a patriarchal society it would be normal for him to refer to "my Father" or "the Father" a lot and I think that has been magnified a bit in areas. And then we have his back story under the control of the dominant organized political power in Europe who probably embellished things a tad here and there over the last 1400-1500 years or so.

But again, how he got here or what his personal relationship was to whatever it is that's in all of us - that's the important part - to me none of that diminishes his teachings one tiny bit.

Jesus is God become man. The Godhead has no DNA. That's only a feature of earthly life. Before Jesus was born, he was one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and had no DNA. He took on DNA when he took on a human nature. Being parts of the same Godhead, they are the same in divine nature. Jesus said that if one knew him, one also knew the Father, so we know that the Father is very much like Jesus.

I always thought the story of immaculate conception was quite clear. One only has to read it with the understanding that God is creator of all things and can do anything.

beautiful song, my friend. thanks for posting.
for us descendents of the highland scots, that song holds identity.
the slaves were set free, after an appropriate war.
the federal gov't knows all about involuntary servitude.
just keep payin' your taxes, and your in good standing.
believe in the god of your choice, there's many choices.

Yes. He did. That's why the scribes often tried to stone him, and eventually tried him and sentences him to death. They called it blasphemy. They understood perfectly what he was saying about himself.

Yeah, exactly. So much curiosity, but not enough to pick up a Bible and read it, I guess.

Many choices Gus, only ONE correct one.

ok, fair enough, i reckon. so, by some process, understanding, or set of conditions, god decided to use a virgin girl to incubate, then incarnate his only Son? is that it? not sayin' he didn't. just asking if you believe that is what he did? and then i ask why? why would he choose to do it that way. why not just let baby jesus appear in a wicker basket and float down a river until a young priestess/goddess find it, adopt it, and then raise it as one of her own? she wouldn't have to do that, the basket could flow into fast water and overturn and said baby be eaten by a nile crocodile? seriously, we're dealing with a story here, in the face of many competing stories. who's gonna come up with the better story at the end of the day?

He was the original priest appointed by God. The Hebrew priesthood started by Moses was a different line of priesthood. Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Melchisedec WAS God.

There have been many "great teachers" over the millennia. What makes Jesus different and standout is His resurrection from the dead.

Teaching was a very small part of Jesus' mission. His main purpose was our redemption through his sacrifice on the cross.

Gus, I suspect you're only trying to stir up trouble, and not actually interested in learning what Christianity and Bible teach about Jesus.

Someone needs to bring up SIN. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross to save mankind.

there it is again: the order of melchizedek.



he wasn't really dead, was he? i mean a lowly human, even a jew or roman surrogate can't kill a true god, can they? if so, how? seriously, the story needs to be addressed in current terms & understandings.

Mary supplied the body and God the Father supplied the blood.

Sinless blood that is because nothing else would/will work.

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." - Matthew 27:50

A woman never supplies the blood.
Look at the medical field.
Man supplies the blood.
Couldn’t have nothing of Mary.

not long for a personal attack to occur? and that's fine. my skin is probably about as thick as yours, or maybe more so?

i'm not interested in old stories that might not be very accurate, but self-serving?

vicarious salvation by a god. not a bad idea, but does it work?

what about ancient hebrews & the end of the line?

if i have to bring my pig to the debate i will.

Personal attack? I merely shared with you my suspicions, and suspicion is an understatement. More like certainty.

the whole place is under attack, especially us humans. the place is corrosive, maybe by design.

no one gets out alive, but many believe & think that we will. and maybe so.

what we're speaking of is human consciousness. the rest is ..........?

https://youtu.be/gdXbT5cII7U

And I am okay with that. I never understood the NEED to believe in resurection.

It's the body that dies. We all have a soul that will live on, either in heaven or hell. There are no other choices. It can't be avoided. Jesus also died physically, and brutally. His spirit lived on and he's God almighty. His body came back to life with his spirit in it.
It's almost impossible for our human minds to comprehend how God can be 3 in one but he is exactly that.

If Mary wasn't a virgin when Jesus was born, then the Bible lied. If the Bible lied, then all of Christianity is a lie as it relies on the infallibility of the Bible.

It may well be that, many are called, but few are chosen. As for me, and my family, I pray we are chosen.

Yes, Jesus is the Word made flesh. Jesus could not be from a natural birth ,for then he would have had the sin nature and his death on the cross would have been for his own sin. As the sinless lamb of God Jesus could die as the sacrifice for the whole world. Jesus himself would be innocent from any sin,so his death could pay the price for sin for anyone who would accept it.

Whose side are you on? If you're on the side of Jesus, and that's true in your heart, then you are among the chosen. Perfection through your own efforts isn't a requirement. He satisfies for all that. On judgment day, if in life you put your faith in him, when the list of your sins is being read, he interrupts the proceedings, takes your list out of the reader's hands and puts it in his pocket. Then he hands over the list of his own sins in its place ... a blank sheet of paper.

Actually,a Christian doesn't have to wait until judgement day. All their sins were cleared on the day of their salvation,having been taken care of by Jesus at his sacrifice.
Colossians 2:14New King James Version (NKJV)

14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

and i agree. i also hope you and yours are chosen. and me and my kind as well. but, if not then so be it.

according to the stories we've been told, it's better to be chosen than not.

some were saved before they arrived, others here.

the final third, they'll have to be re-sent?

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 10:32

So, if God and Mary had a son and he was the son of man and it was all good, then why was it a problem when the sons of God had chlldren with human women????

Rock chuck said that “ Christianity rests on the infallibility of the Bible”.

That’s simply not so.

Christianity rests on an individual human establishing and maintaining a relationship with Jesus, the Creator of all that is.If a man limits that relationship to what he can read in one of the various translations of the Bible,I reckon that’s his business. It’s a pretty small view filled with contradictions.

The vicarious death for our sins is the most horrendous example of “short selling” in history.

If a man wants to define the meaning of Jesus life by that one segment, he is not just looking thru a dark glass, he is refusing to let his Creator open his spiritual eyes to a much larger picture.

At minimum, Jesus, in His Personhood, provided a way for ALL of creation to be reconciled with the Creator.

The sons of God were those who believed God in those days, as today. Another way to say it is children of God. God the Father is your father when you believe him, through Christ. In the days of Genesis, there were sons of God, too, i.e., people who believed God. What makes Jesus different in this respect is that he's God's only begotten son. The daughters of men were those who were not God's children, i.e., those who didn't care about Godliness.

Being chosen is kind of a trick question. We all have the choice of salvation or not. All of us. We do the choosing. The trick is that God knows our choice in advance. He knows everything, past, present, and future. He knows before you're conceived what your choice will be and he guides you accordingly. The choice is still yours, though. It's not predestined and you can change your mind at any time but God still knows what your final choice will be.

That’s making awfully short work of comments that have baffled researchers for years.

Those researchers needed only to read their Bible.

Keep in mind that Jesus said the angels don't marry, which knocks out the "researcher's" theories about that.

I've heard this subject come up several times. The Gospel of John answers that question definitively.

In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. John 1:1-3 ESV

Gus,a while back a fellow that had some common sense said something like this:Religion is like lifts in your shoes,what works for me might not work for you.
Find your own lift and go with it.

It will be right for you.
I know that when i die and i will ,i will no longer feel pain.

That is what works for me.
Not that i am in any hurry to get there.
Have a good night.

This is good stuff. Answers most of your questions.

kd

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news...es-confirm-real-presence-of-jesus-christ

thank you for going to the trouble and effort of sharing. i do love to hear of reports related to confirmed 'miracles" from time to time.

have heard of a true resurrection of the dead occurring in a church basement out in california. probably on the internet given a proper search.

it was several years ago, but what has time got to do with anything?

i wish we could hear of a current day miracle every sunday from church.

The sons of God were only people who believed God? They weren't Angels ie the Watchers? And the daughters of men were not God's children? I certainly wouldn't think that if they were not God's children that God would even give a damn what they did, but, it appears God was quite upset over the whole charade. And especially with the offspring, which brings it back to the question: what was the problem with sons of God doing what God did with Mary?

What do you mean? I assume Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus.

I believe Roman Catholic Tradition claims that Mary remained chaste all her life and that what we suppose were the half brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually Joseph’s children from a former marriage. At least that’s what I’ve read.

Yet there is this: We aspire to please Him means this scripture is referring to Christians (believers), and does not refer to all men. The names of Christians are written in the Book of Life. They alone appear before the judgement throne of Christ.
2 Corinthians 5
9So we aspire to please Him, whether we are here in this body or away from it.10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad. 11Therefore, since we know what it means to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is clear to God, and I hope it is clear to your conscience as well.…

Stop thinking like men.
Mary and Joseph were chaste their entire earthly life.
Mary exceptionally so was born without original sin because God wanted a pure vessel
for Jesus.
Through Mary, Jesus became "Son of Man" therefore entitling humankind to be called
"Children if God".
Through the Church and the Sacraments we can be "holy" because the Holy Spirit then
dwells within us.

Don’t look now, but your bullschidt detector is all out of whack.

Something I texted doesn't sit right with you?
Don't be afraid...spit it out...I'll try to be patient with you.

Also consider that in the early texts the words interpreted into "brother" etc. could also be translated as "kindred." Please don't make me search for a source on that, but I bet I could find one.

Oh, that wasn't too hard. First hit:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/kindred/

Have not read the whole thread...but when 24HCF get started on
some religious topic I am amazed at some of the things you believe or were
taught. Just amazed!

The Bible says that Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL the child was born. That word 'until' is big. It puts a definite end to her virginity. Later there are numerous references to Jesus' brothers. The references are to his family brothers, not fellow believers.

I guess that took some wind out of some sails, or should i say sales.

Guys we get so distracted by the non-significant details that we lose sight of the eternal. God came down to earth, and taught us, and healed us, and loved us. He died (a terrible, painful, excruciating death) to pay the price for our wickedness. He alone could do that, because He alone was holy. What an incredible, beautiful, and amazing story. It's true, it really happened and it is the most significant thing that has ever occurred in the history of this world.

To God be the glory,

bludog

He died and then rose from the dead. Without that, his death doesn't count because we can all die. We can't rise again

Amen, brother. That's what sets Christianity apart from any other religion. He died, He arose, He sits at the right hand of God now, He lives and He will come again.

By Jack Zavada

The Judgment Seat of Christ is not judgment over a person's salvation. The Bible is clear that our salvation is by grace through faith in the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross, not through our works:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:18, NIV)

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, (Romans 8:1, NIV)

For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. (Hebrews 8:12, NIV)

At the Judgment Seat of Christ, only Christians will appear before Jesus, to be rewarded for their works done in his name while they were on earth. Any references to loss at this judgment concerns loss of rewards, not salvation. Salvation has already been settled through Jesus'redeeming work.

Doctrine - The Judgment of the Lost

Following the release of Satan after the thousand year reign of Christ (Revelation 20:7), Satan will deceive the
nations of the earth and gather them to battle against the saints and the beloved city, at which time Satan and his
army will be devoured by fire from heaven (Revelation 20:9). Following this, Satan will be thrown into the lake
of fire and brimstone (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10) whereupon Christ, who is the judge of all men (John
5:22), will resurrect and judge the great and small at the Great White Throne judgment.
This resurrection of the unsaved dead to judgment will be a physical resurrection, whereupon receiving their
judgment (John 5:28-29), they will be committed to an eternal conscious punishment in the lake of fire
(Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:11-15).

The Great White Throne Judgement is for those whos name is not in The Book of Life.,

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". Revelation 20:11-15 ESV

Many like to think they are and will be listed in that book....however,

Exodus 32:33
" And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book"

So ones only hope is Gods grace, for all humans are born into sin and can never
make themselves worthy of God.

If Gus, or anyone wants to see a miracle, all they need to do is look around.

Yes, that is Catholic Tradition. It would seem highly odd if it were the actual case, though. The Bible doesn't say that.

Of course Jesus is what Christianity rests on but the Bible is the word of God. If it's wrong in even one place, then God's word is wrong. How could we rely on a faulty God?

Yes, that's pretty stupid Catholic tradition since the Bible does mention Jesus's siblings. Mary either had more immaculate conceptions or she had sex.

I'm with you on this, but the Catholic position isn't completely without reasonable argument, i.e., they claim that the original word used was a word that can either mean cousin or sibling. Chinese, likewise, only has one word that covers both relations. Chinese people will often introduce a cousin as a brother or sister, because their language only has the one word for it, and they often carry that over to when they're speaking English, too.

The immaculate conception wasn't Jesus' birth. It was the unBiblical idea that Mary was born without sin. There's nothing whatever in the Bible to support that. It's part of the Catholic theology that Mary is a co-redeemer with Christ which is equally unBiblical.

The Bible flat out states that Joseph kept Mary as a virgin until Jesus was born and then had sex with her afterwards.

Late to the party as usual, and haven't yet read the rest of the thread, but this is really all that needs to be said. You either believe it or you don't. No need to overthink things. "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Yep, I missed that. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is indeed a reference to Mary being conceived and born without the stain of original sin on her soul, and does not refer to the virgin birth of Jesus. It's an early tradition, not corroborated in the Bible, that the Catholic Church eventually adopted as a doctrine of faith.

Naturally, the Catholics do offer evidence from the Bible supporting their position, however. They also argue that it was not the New Testament Scriptures that God gave authority to teach believers, but rather God gave teaching authority to the Church, and the Church then wrote the New Testament Scriptures to advance that mission, but that the Church also retains authority to teach other truths not found therein.

It's a hard argument to deny, since for several decades there wasn't a New Testament set of scriptures at all, and even after there were New Testament Scriptures, Christians didn't agree as to what that set actually was till centuries later, when the Church used its teaching authority to decide the question. So, in the meantime, during that early period, the teaching authority on questions Christian was with the Church alone, or else there was no teaching authority during that early period.

Valid arguments on each side of this question, but I tend to believe that Mary wasn't without original sin, since it's not in the Bible (in fact, the Bible says nobody is without original sin but Christ), and it was only centuries later that the Catholic Church made this an actual doctrine, rather than simply what some Catholics believed.

Looks like what I was alluding to cannot be seen. Lots of Church and Religious Theology cloaking used to cover up the intent and the truth of what transpired back in Genesis then in Gospels. Ezekiel 12:2 and Revelation 3:17 seem to apply now days.
Staying out of the debates or arguments concerning the "Traditions of Men" is my preference.

I bow out of this discussion.

there are two ways to live:
you can live as if nothing is a miracle;
you can live as if everything is a miracle
albert einstein


we've pretty much cleared things up on this thread and come to terms with the fact and/or understanding that god will save whomever he chooses.

Not at all. I think that's Calvinist doctrine,to which I do not subscribe. Scripture clearly states that God wills that all be saved.

I think the only thing you could say for sure is that you could put 100 Christians in a room and read the Bible to them and only about 70 would agree about what it said.

[quote=Gus}
we've pretty much cleared things up on this thread and come to terms with the fact and/or understanding that god will save whomever he chooses.
[/quote]

I must differ: God will save who ever chooses him. God is not willing that any should die, but that all should come to repentance (perhaps not an exact quote, but accurate in meaning.)

Nope. Wrong. Catholic theology is that Christ is the sole redeemer. Mary is is a person in the story. An admirable person but one of us none the less.

Agreed, but he also knows from the dawn of time who will and will not choose salvation. Seems contradictory, but it's not actually. Closest comparison is that I can see from a distance a child running between two parked cars into the road after a bouncing ball where there's an oncoming car that will arrive just as he runs into the street (not quite prescience, but close), but at the same time the child is still operating with free will. So prescience (being able to see what's going to happen) doesn't negate free will.

The Catholic Church specifically permits the belief that Mary is co-redeemer, but doesn't bind Catholics to believe it. It's considered a pious opinion. I can understand Protestant objection, however, even to holding officially that such an opinion is permissible. Co-Redemptrix is also an official title the Catholic Church approves for Mary for devotional purposes, which also scandalizes non-Catholic Christians.

"Mary’s role as Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix of grace is not a formally defined dogma of the Catholic Church. It remains a pious opinion." - Catholic Answers

So how many Catholics have been condemned to hell because they followed a 'pious opinion' and relied on Mary to redeem them instead of Christ? It's an extremely dangerous opinion when your salvation depends on knowing the truth. We might not see it much in the US but there are numerous places in the world where Mary is worshiped instead of Christ.

Yep.

The words in the Bible were scribed by men who thought they were being guided by The Holy Spirit. Some undoubtably were.

Other men , who believed they were being led by The Holy Spirit, determined the validity of the writings. Among this second group, a man has to be willfully ignorant to deny that politics and a lust for power are what motivated many of them.

The Holy Spirit can teach from a comic book if it suits His purposes. He is not dependent on, nor restricted to, a book compiled by man. It is blasphemous to believe otherwise. And..... if you believe the Bible..... blasphemy against The Holy Spirit is the big Nono.

Christians who place the Bible ahead of the Spirit are much like Muslims and their Koran.

I think you are correct.

Why do you keep saying that I put the Bible ahead of the Spirit? That's nonsense. The Bible was given to us to teach us about God, Jesus, and the Spirit. It was given to us as an infallible book to keep us from error. It's a book of instructions but it's just words. It saves no one but it leads us to the one who does. If it's just the words of men, then it can lead to error.

BTW, read the context of blasphemy against the Spirit in Mark 3: 22-30. It says that the eternal sin is calling the Spirit evil. It's very specific.

This portion of John 1 describes all I need to know about Who the Christ is and why I should and have received Him. Personally, I have no doubt about the virgin birth or any other miracle found in the Bible. None require God to invalidate his laws when we realize we don't fully know his laws or anything except what has been revealed, however that revelation happens.The mission of the Holy Spirit is to lead and guide us to the Truth. Should we die without finding that Truth, we are guilty of the blaspheme Gene mentioned and nothing else can bring that upon mankind. Those are my beliefs. Here's the portion of John I, describing the Man and the Mystery of Jesus of Nazareth :

John 1King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Perhaps in the sense that Mary is given uncommon grace and is a venerable person, but she is not divine, all her grace is sourced in He who is divine and is the one redeemer. That is Church doctrine.

My post was intended “if the shoe fits, wear it”. If it doesn’t fit you personally you should just ignore it.

I look at what happened prior to Jesus commenting about an unforgivable sin: Some priests had just claimed that He had used the power of Satan to heal the sick and to cast out demons, rather than the power of the Holy Spirit. Common sense dictates that the blasphemy He is referring to is denying the works done by the Spirit by assigning credit to another source.

To believe a man is capable, relying on his intellect, of discerning God’s will for him by reading words written by other men is usurping the role of the Spirit and thus is blasphemy. I care not how many Strong Concordance volumes a student studies to help him understand the Bible, he is relying on man made doctrine.

In short, the Spirit can instruct without using a bible, but the bible is just another book unless the Spirit opens a man’s mind to truth found in it.

To claim the Bible MUST be infallible to have any worth is, once again, blasphemy against the Spirit.

23 So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan?
24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.
...
29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

They weren't saying that Jesus had used the power of some demon. Jesus knew they were referring to the Spirit and he called them on it. They were toast and he told them so...or is this one of the places where you say the Bible is wrong?

Why did you start your quote at verse 23? Could it be because verse 22 is the one that proves my point?

That’s where the teachers of the law say something like:

“ He is possessed by Beezlebub. By the prince of demons he is casting out demons.”

They knew who Jesus was and Jesus knew they knew. They hated him and tried to accuse him in front of the people. Their lies cost them their very souls.

Why do you insist that Jesus was wrong? He's God. He's infallible. He's all knowing. Jesus called them for calling the Holy Spirit evil. It's right there in scripture but you keep saying they were talking about a demon. Jesus knew they weren't talking about a demon.

The mere fact God gave mankind 'free will' means that Gods willingness/desire that all be saved,
will not be fore filled.

As far as Gods offering of grace goes, Its not a compulsory offering, its only something God
chooses to offer.

Grace is God blessing people despite the fact they do not deserve it. Mercy is deliverance from judgment.
Grace is extending kindness to the unworthy.

According to Bible, we have all sinned (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8). As a result of that sin,
we all deserve death(Romans 6:23) and eternal judgment in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:12-15). With that
in mind, every day we live is an act of God's mercy. If God gave us all what we deserve, we would all be,
right now, condemned for eternity.

Its only Gods choices that then give humans choices.

Well said and i agree.

You are making no sense at all.

I’m done.

They rejected Him. Its easy to be better than the Pharisees.

Despite all that,

> Jesus expressed that he felt forsaken by God. (Matthew 27:46)

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

> Jesus made clear he did not share the same will and 'all knowing' capability as God the Father.
He was dependent on and subservient to the Father.

(Mark 13:32)
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father"

(John 5:19)
"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself,
but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

(John 5:30)
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will,
but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

I agree with what you are saying but there is another aspect that's very important for us to realize.
Once we are saved,and have received God's grace, we should not look at ourselves as undeserving.
To do so is to deny what Jesus has done,for it is He who through his blood has made us to be deserving.
We always know it is not of ourselves but only the gift of grace,but we must also fully receive that gift and through faith see ourselves as God sees us through His blood.
It is only when we see ourselves as righteous,that righteousness takes its rightful place in our lives,for as a man thinketh in his heart,so is he.

Why Emmaculate conception? In all the teachings it is clear Man can't save himself. No matter what we do we fall short. Same reason God chose a drunk (Noah), a Stutterer (Moses), or an Adulterer (Abraham) to lead. If a well spoken natural Leader was chosen, it could easily be said he did good work or led on his own. It's through the imperfect that God's work is credited. Look at the Disciples. None had Shmeha. They weren't the chosen few who were picked to stay in ministry. They all performed poorly in their Rabi's eyes at some point so they took up family occupations. Why did Jesus pick the unspecial, unchosen to be his Disciples? It goes back to the Old Testament. He did it to prove it was God's work and not Mans. I personally believe in the Transfiguration. Jesus became the Messiah. I also think self-sacrifice is above all other things and hold tremendous respect for Serviceman, Fireman, Police, and all other Heros who sacrifice. Our Heros are imperfect but that doesn't change the fact that they give all when called.

In Gus speak "What sense do two Ants make discussing the rotation of the earth while riding on a stray dog's hair?" Sorry Gus, I like your posts but had to have a little fun.

And a quick comment on Starman's last post (didn't read all the posts). Scholars say Jesus comment about being foresaken on the cross reflects Sin and how much God hates Sin. It is something that seemed odd to me. Jesus would doubt God at the end. Until full context is given. Man is dead in Sin and foresaken. Jesus absorb the punishment for our sin and in doing so was also foresaken. He lived the life we couldn't live and died the death we were condemned to die. Forgiveness is not getting what we deserve. Grace is getting what we don't deserve.

One can remain underserving but still show humble sincere acknowledgement and appreciation for God sacrificing
his only begotten son for the world.

Or is that not possible?

I don't see how receiving grace makes one actually deserving of it, for one receives grace despite being underserving.

This thread is starting to get somewhere.

This is a quote from Psalm 22 identifying Jesus as the Messiah so that the Jews could never claim they didn't know he was the Messiah.

Here's Ps 22 in it's entirety. I've highlighted a few of the better known verses concerning Jesus' death. There's no doubt that David wrote this about him 1000 years before. I wonder if any of the Jews put together what they'd done when they considered this Psalm.


1 ¶ For the director of music. To the tune of "The Doe of the Morning". A psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel.
4 In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 ¶ Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no-one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
19 But you, O LORD, be not far off; O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 ¶ I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you descendants of Jacob, honour him! Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly; before those who fear you will I fulfil my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied; they who seek the LORD will praise him—may your hearts live for ever!
27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn—for he has done it.

Only to bring up a point I made on another thread, in which I asked if anyone had ever re-translated the Bible (KJV) from Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic back to English then back into those three languages.
The above quote is an example of why I asked this. Matthew and Mark do not agree on the language used by Jesus when on the cross and Matthew even changed the words to make them agree with Psalms 22:1
Matthew changed Eloi, Eloi to Eli, Eli in order to make it match the Hebrew in Psalms. The give away was the next words. lama sabachthani is not what the original Hebrew in psalms said. Matthew changed the hebrew word "azavthani" to "sabachthani" to match Psalms. Mark stayed with the mythical ie magical Aramaic language.
One last example then I'm done.
I believe it is in Mark 7:34 where Yeshua ie Jesus healed a blind and deaf man. He spoke a word as he performed the miracle. That word was " Ephphatha" which is claimed to be Hebrew and means "be opened". If we are to believe the writers of the bible and the language spoken at that time was Aramaic, then the Ephphatha was not Hebrew, but in fact Aramaic and the word actually was "abracadabra" meaning "I create as I speak".
Another example is a quote from John 1:18. If John spoke in truth, then Enoch never existed or he was not human which then would indicate that his offspring human by the essence of Enoch being nonhuman. Or John is wrong or meant something entirely different. John's writings are suspect anywaMy y, do to the fact that he was a co-traitor along with Judah. Leastwise according to Johns own writing and the NT apocrypha books. Kind of gives new meaning to Rev. 3:17. thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: and know it not. And yes, I know what Religion teaches what that verse means.

All this is only to show that if all of these minor and major mis-translations (whether intentional or not) are grouped and brought together into the light, then that which is now taught by Religious leaders, Theologians, and Church organizations is not what was said or indicated. When they change the words and meanings then the whole story becomes perverted and the truth and meaning become of no effect. Say what you will but Rev. 22:18 was a caveat.

So maybe the poster who said that the Holy Ghost ie Spirit can teach you without a book was on to something.

My sheep know "MY" voice and another they will "NOT" follow.
Of the sheep you have given me I have lost "NOT" one.
You were saved before the foundations of the world.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the" called" according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did" foreknow", he also did" predestinate" to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom" he did "predestinate", "them he also called": and" whom he called", "them he also justified:" and "whom he justified"," them he also glorified".

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

I believe Romans 8:28 - 31...........So, according to Religion I need to do what??

Okay, I'm done. I promise!

K22, you’ve clearly put a great deal of energy into supporting your disbelief.

Thank you.

I can see it now. The apostles and hard core disciples got together the night after Jesus was crucified and Peter says we gotta make up a great story to pitch to the folks or this whole things gonna unravel on us now that the boss is dead.

An obscure Egyptian follower, known only to history, says eureka, I got it! Let's run the Horace con on the on the Jews. Here's what we do. Let's slip over to the tomb and steal the body. We'll dispose of the body in the desert, and then get this now, we'll say the boss rose from the dead just like Horace! Are you with me! And like Horace, while we are at it, we'll say he was born from a chick who never had sex. Hey, the Egyptians bought it, and my people are not a bunch of dummies by any means, we built the pyramids! What sells in one market will sell in another, simple business 101!

St Pete says, the Jews will never buy it. Our people have been worshiping YHWH since Moses played fullback for Jerusalem High. Soon as they hear that cockamamy story of yours, at best they will flog the schidt out of our asses or stone us, at worst, they sick the Romans on us like they did the boss and we get crucified or God knows what else.

The Egyptian disciple paused and then said to the group....Well duhhhh! Don't be naive Peter. A new religion is gonna have to have a few martyrs to get it off the ground. That is the beauty of my plan. Most of us are going to have to take one for the team. When we allow ourselves to be tortured and killed, it lends bigly gravitas to the con and its no telling how bigly this thing could get. It could be YUUUGE, and one day, perhaps hundreds or thousands of years from now, we will be remembered as the founders of it. You people got to learn how to think long term.....I'm talking really long term.

Peter thought for a moment and exclaimed "BRILLIANT" off the to pit of misery with us dilly dilly"! The rest of the assembly replied in one accord "to the pit of misery dilly dilly" !

And the rest is history as our heroes went forth and gave their lives for a lie for no particular reason.

please don't cause me to defend ol john calvin and his devout followers of Five-Pointers. lol.

but, on the other hand, ol john did prick a lot of hearts (or at least a few?) in his efforts to spread the word. for that, he can receive some credit. (john calvin i'm speaking of, of course so not to confuse).

Paul, talked about zeal for religion, Gus has brought some out here.

None of us deserve grace,but God has chosen to give it to us. When I say that we should now see ourselves as deserving or see ourselves as worthy, I'm not saying that we are deserving or worthy of his grace. I'm saying that because he has given his grace to us, we are now worthy and deserving of all God has to offer us.

I don't want Christians to go around saying how unworthy or undeserving they are. When we do so,we are in effect denying that the blood of Jesus accomplished in us what it was intended to accomplish,which was to make us worthy for all God wants to bless us with.

God made Jesus to be sin,so that through his sacrifice we could be made the righteousness of God in him.(2Cor5:21) Jesus became sin so I could become righteous. I will not deny what he did for me by claiming how unworthy I am. I can't be the righteousness of God and be unworthy at the same time.

TRH,

Quoting erroneous souses only verifies unbelievers can find other unbelievers who have been published.

I agree. I'm just a sinner saved by Grace, as are we all who have surrendered to the Truth of the Gospel. We are no better than any other person, only saved by God's Grace. Certainly, we should be grateful and attempt to live our lives better as a result, but humbly, judging no one and showing love for all. I believe that is the Lord's desire for our lives.

You are never out of humility because you know that what you are is only because of the grace of God. We are righteous because God made us righteous. We are certainly no better than anyone else because we didn't do anything to earn becoming righteous.

All I'm telling Christians to do is to agree with what God says about them. Most can't do it though because they have been told all their lives how unworthy they are. Yes, we were absolutely unworthy,but God through his sacrifice made us worthy.

You keep calling yourself unworthy because you don't understand the new birth. You don't understand that the man of sin died and you were born again,righteous,holy,and accepted by God. Just read Rom.6:3-11

Where do you see "unworthy" in my post? I am worthy because I surrendered myself, said "yes" to God, and accepted His Gift. And that is where worthy humbly ends.

I can be downright militant about my salvation and my God unto death, because I know the Truth and it has set me free. I will not shirk from that but will take it to the world with me as I go.

As usual on the 'Fire, most understand the same thing but express it different ways leading to "talking" past each other. Now, where's that unworthy word again?

Ricky,I never thought we were disagreeing. I was just emphasizing,not arguing.