a-seeker

I am sure that you are not reading what I have actually written; is it not clear, or do you insist on misrepresenting what I have said because you have an opinion of me? AS far as I can tell, you are responding negatively to the exact opposite of everything I posted: which is another way of saying you agree with me, but don't know it. I revised a few things above; perhaps they will clarify. clb I go by what you post. I play no games nor do I skirt lines. You say they were turned away, I say the chose not to follow. I asked you to show scripture of Jesus turning people down that wanted to follow Him and you provide me with verses showing that they chose not to. So I ask again, is there scripture where Jesus turned people away that wanted to follow Him outside of sending the multiple home at night? I see, So why didn't Jesus allow the man to bury his parents and then join him. It was required by Jewish Law. Elijah allowed Elisha to say goodbye to his parents. Obviously had Jesus said, "Yes, go bury your parents then join me" there would be no question here; I would never have even thought of this verse. But that is not what we have. So, we can put this on a spectrum of hypothetical alternatives: at one end we have Jesus permitting the burial of the man's parents, and the man deciding afterwards that, in fact, he did not want to follow Jesus. This would match your evaluation perfectly, Jesus was purely passive; in the middle we have Jesus not allowing the burial (which is what we actually have): that is, the man was perfectly willing to follow Jesus, he just wanted to bury his parents, Jesus said No (that is not passive); at the far end we have the man willing to leave his dead parents, but Jesus STILL not permitting him to follow. You are wrong, Jesus is not passive, but holds to scripture and moves accordingly. Remember how He chased the sellers out of the temple? How He spoke to the Pharisees, Saducees and scribes? You hav eno idea how I see Christ and I reject your assumption that what you say is true. You also forgot one thing. Jesus knew the hearts of each and knew they were not willing to die to themselves or the world. He just brought what was dearest to their heart into the open so they would make a heart felt decision. Jesus never rejected them, they rejected Him. Nowhere did Jesus say "No". He always gave them a choice so your adding your personal twist to scripture to cover your false teaching. What you did was suggest he leave the only place he probably was being taught the truth. You are playing God in this instance, removing him from being fed and believing you have the right answer. You could of suggested that he seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but you didn't. Instead of pointing to Christ, you pointed to your philosophy, sending him to secular counseling. No, it is not a yes or no question. Again, you twist the meaning of His words to cover yourself. Jesus said, and I stand on: Matthew 8:21-22 Then another of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” Jesus gave him a choice and set precedence. Later, we read in Matthew 10:37-38 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. You do not read me to understand, One Light. It is tiresome. If this continues I will ahve to ignore your responses to me. I did not say Jesus was passive; I said in a hypothetical alternative (hypothetical means it didn't actually happen) he would have been passive--the choice to join him would have been entirely on their side without qualification. That didn't happen. Jesus set down qualifications. In short, I was pointing out that in the actual situation, Jesus wasn't passive. Your response: you slam me with a reminder that Jesus isn't passive?!!!!! Once more, you insist on using the term "reject" which I again and again and again have "rejected". Jesus didn't reject them. He refused them immediate discipleship. The situation is a matter of logic. Did the men wish to be Jesus' disciples? Yes. Did they have certain erroroneous ideas about discipleship? Yes. Would Jesus allow them discipleship so long as they clung to those erroneous ideas (which, by the by, with the second man, were actually good intentions--burying one's parents fell under the commandment Honor father and mother)? No. And No, whatever church he was attending is not the only place where God can work on his heart; my God is bigger than buildings. Is yours? Do you even know what doctrines that church was teaching? Do you know anything about the church? I don't. Elsewhere it was implied that his and his ex's relationship crossed physical boundaries--did his church condone such things? I recommended counseling. For all I know the counselor him/herself might be a Christian. And No, I offered leaving the church as an opinion, and admitted I might be wrong. No, I am not playing God. I know that you are a servant on this forum; probably you feel it is your duty to save people. It isn't. That's God's job and I think He is quite equal to the task. I admit I have a very low estimate of my role in saving people; that is God's job. My job is to be honest. I honestly believe that leaving that church for a time might be the best way for him to return. I have given perfectly good reasons for this. I have quoted such wise minds in this regard as C.S. Lewis. I could easily accuse you of playing God by limiting God's influence to a building. I know it sounds so much more pious to keep saying things like, keep praying, keep going to church; but all of this places so much weight on the subject's side. I put more weight on God's side of the equation. Our search for God is merely the corollary of God's search for us. Perhas I did not make it explicit that whether he stay or go, I think he will still be in God's hand. i.e. I was not recommending him leave God, but a building. God will be working on him regardless. I simply know from experience, mine and others, that what appears to us to be a man leaving God.....BUT I HAVE SAID THIS ALREADY! clb (And I am serious OneLight, if you continue to misread what I write I will ignore you. I know I have pushed buttons elsewhere on inerrancy and Genesis 1 and 2, and many here would love it if I just left this forum. I suspect one or two would praise God if they heard that some calamity befell me which rendered me incapable of posting--lost my limbs, or my life: and so a thought... If nothing would please you more than that I leave these forums, recommend other Christian sites that also promote discussion and I will check them out. If they are good, then I promise, you will never see me again on this site).

I am sure that you are not reading what I have actually written; is it not clear, or do you insist on misrepresenting what I have said because you have an opinion of me? AS far as I can tell, you are responding negatively to the exact opposite of everything I posted: which is another way of saying you agree with me, but don't know it. I revised a few things above; perhaps they will clarify. clb I go by what you post. I play no games nor do I skirt lines. You say they were turned away, I say the chose not to follow. I asked you to show scripture of Jesus turning people down that wanted to follow Him and you provide me with verses showing that they chose not to. So I ask again, is there scripture where Jesus turned people away that wanted to follow Him outside of sending the multiple home at night? I see, So why didn't Jesus allow the man to bury his parents and then join him. It was required by Jewish Law. Elijah allowed Elisha to say goodbye to his parents. Obviously had Jesus said, "Yes, go bury your parents then join me" there would be no question here; I would never have even thought of this verse. But that is not what we have. So, we can put this on a spectrum of hypothetical alternatives: at one end we have Jesus permitting the burial of the man's parents, and the man deciding afterwards that, in fact, he did not want to follow Jesus. This would match your evaluation perfectly, Jesus was purely passive; in the middle we have Jesus not allowing the burial (which is what we actually have): that is, the man was perfectly willing to follow Jesus, he just wanted to bury his parents, Jesus said No (that is not passive); at the far end we have the man willing to leave his dead parents, but Jesus STILL not permitting him to follow. No one here obviously is pushing the last; but neither do we have the first. What we have is exactly the situation I suggested as a parallel to KK. The context of my reference dealt with a specific situation. We had a person who was going to church for the wrong reason and knew it and didn't care, and in fact didn't really want to continue attending church (he was rather muddled and contradictory). I suggested he let church be for a while. It was insinuated that I was acting as spokesperson for Satan. I cited an instance where Jesus himself would not take disciples because they approached him from the wrong direction. I suggested that this was in fact to their benefit. Now if all that was a little jumbled I will present it in the form of a question, "When the man requested to bury his parents as required by Jewish law, did Jesus say 'Yes'?" This is a simple yes or no question. You can turn this into a semantic debate over technicalities; I can play along. But all of this is out of context. clb

I am sure that you are not reading what I have actually written; is it not clear, or do you insist on misrepresenting what I have said because you have an opinion of me? AS far as I can tell, you are responding negatively to the exact opposite of everything I posted: which is another way of saying you agree with me, but don't know it. I revised a few things above; perhaps they will clarify. clb

Hi Tristen, I have read it numerous times since this last post. Your suggestion insinuates that reading Genesis 1 and 2 as separate creation narratives is original to me! May I inform you that it is quite a popular reading, and by no means modern (i.e. a response to modern science). Even if it were, it is not as if only this reading is liable to charge of ulterior motives; motives exist on both sides. What baffles me is that people like you don’t admit the several problems that arise from your own reading—or, when you do, you immediately dismiss it with the exegetical “Well, God can do what He wants.” But I will attempt to play along: I present here a running commentary of my reading of Genesis; I will attempt to ignore issues typically answered by the “God can” trump card, i.e. the fact that vegetation sprouts at a miraculous rate, or that light appears without a physical source (suns), and indeed is held at bay without a physical object (light and darkness are equally present, yet there are no objects to cast a shadow upon regions of light). So, here I go. (Oh, in order to avoid discussions of evolution, Big Bang, Age of the earth, I will call your reading of Genesis 1account, mine 2accounts. On Day 3 of Genesis 1 we are told that God created at the very least a wide variety of plants. There is no explicit indication of other species forthcoming. At least not in English. Now, perhaps, as some 1accounters claim, the Hebrew of Day three relays a very specific scope of vegetation. A modern parallel would be a story in which a farmer says, “today I will plant every coniferous tree”—anyone with a smidgen of arboreal knowledge would see what was missing and might expect to hear of deciduous trees later. Some 1accounters have argued that the plants specified here are edibles; or perhaps there is a clue in the reiterated description SEED. So, if the Hebrew indeed indicates this, then we would have here a subtle, but not extradinary, instance of foreshadowing. The original recipient of this narrative would pick up on what was missing as easily as we would in the farmer’s narrative given above. But I have yet to find a lexicon that supports major distinctions among the vegetation mentioned on day 3. On day 3 we are given (as of now) no indication, no hint, that God has done anything other than create every single species of plant. The ancients did not make a distinction between seed and spore or pollen. There is nothing in the plants here to suggest that only edible plants are being created. As of now, the author has done his best to say, “We have them all”; God is done creating vegetation. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POINTING FORWARD TO GENESIS 2….WE ARE NOT THERE YET. IF I HAVE MISSED SOMETHING IN THIS SECTION, THEN THAT IS OBVIOUSLY PERTINENT TO THIS EXPERIMENT. On day 4 God creates lights and fixes them in the “expanse of the heavens”. IF I allowed my preconceptions to operate, this would be unproblematic. The author has basically said, God created lights in space. But when I go back and read carefully, that is not what the author has said. God fixed lights in the “expanse”. And the expanse is (day 2) what separates water below from water above. That is strange cosmology: water above an expanse, luminaries below an expanse, and water below the luminaries…odd, moving on. Day 6 clearly has beasts created from the earth, and then the creation of Man/Woman (interesting, I have always assumed that we have a single couple—but upon a fresh reading, I see that the numbers are not explicit; similar to the assumption, perhaps, that there were 3 wise men at Jesus’ birth). 2.4b says “on the day God made the earth and the heavens”. Hmm, this is a little odd. We just saw He made it over 6 days. Why didn’t the author say, 6 days? You urged me to read this again and see if “on the day” is really what the text says. Perhaps you see something I do not? I see “on the day”, nothing more. I have looked up this detail and found that even answersingenesis and creation.com thought it worth solving (so, it is a potential problem for 1accounters). Their answer is that the Hebrew construction used here can be translated “when”. And of course this is true. “When” can always replace “on the day” in any instance. This is a subterfuge. The real question remains: does this Hebrew construction ever, EVER, indicate a time period MORE than a day? I have made it through the Pentateuch and found none. It always points to a single 24 hour period. The text says, "in the 24 hour time period that God created the heavens and the earth". If we play with meaning of "day" here, we leave room for day=agers to play with the word elsewhere. Moving on. v. 5 I read that no bush of the field or small plant had sprung up and this because it had not rained and there was no man to work them…. …now this is a little odd. Last I heard plants were created several days before man and with no indication that their growth and survival depended on man. So when is this taking place? Day 3? Well that would be very odd, for then days 4 and 5 are completely skipped. Again, it is fruitless to explore the Hebrew as YECs do (or claim) and say that the plants here mentioned are quite distinct from those indicated on day 3. The Hebrew does not support this. To fit all this in day 6 (per YEC) the mind has to make a sudden revision of day 3, and without any literary help from the author—no foreshadowing given on day 3; no explanation at 2.5 of plants missing on day 3. Only a mind long fostered on a YEC reading would deny that this is odd; for of course hardened custom can make almost anything sound natural. In v. 18 the Lord declares it is not good for man to be alone and that He will form a helper. The Hebrew of “formed” is the same used wherever God is creating something new. So one should expect God to make something new. Now, what do we have? Something to do with birds and beasts: beasts made from the earth and (hmm…day 4 didn’t have this detail) birds as well). Hmm, that is odd. I thought birds and beasts were created before Man? Now, my ESV has “had formed” which would resolve this….but I look up the Hebrew and see that what would easiy yield a perfect, is absent. It is used elsewhere to indicate things that had already happened, but not here. Thus far, every time this form of “made” has been used it is used of things being created there and then. Maybe the next verse illuminates….well, not exactly, we have Adam naming the beasts. So, God just declared that he was going to make a helper, and now he has Adam naming beasts?! Odd. Next we see this highly suggestive bit, “But no helper was found for Adam”. What? God just said he was going to make Adam a helper. We see something to do with birds and beasts. We see Adam naming them, and somehow through this naming process, no helper is found. What’s next? The creation of Eve. What happens after? He names her, simultaneously with the realization that she is a suitable helper! So, to yield a consistent account, I have to suppose something like this: God declared he was going to make a helper He postpones this by having Adam name birds and beasts already created. How to explain…Either God, or the author, thought that perhaps a new creative process might not be necessary—“hmm. let’s see what we already have. No need for extra work, after all!” Or God has Adam consider unsuitable creatures by naming them in order to show him how suitable Eve is (compare and contrast). MASSIVE EISOGESIS. Nowhere do we see this in the text. The author was very intentional in explaining why God had Abraham attempt a sacrifice on his son (Now I know!). Nothing of the like is here. We do not have a subjective explanation (but Adam could find no helper) or any kind of explanation from God, “Now you know that Eve is….”. What we have is the very objective, “But for Adam there was no helper”. Even on your own reading, without eisogesis, God had Adam consider animals as a real, viable source for companionship. Assuming a) (for only ‘a’ avoids the enormous amount of eisogesiis) Nope, I guess God will, after all, have to make something new; animals will not do He makes Eve, Adam names her, lo and behold, she works. Now, my request of you. Do you recognize these are real difficulties in your reading? To admit they are difficulties is not the same as admitting you were wrong. But if you cannot even see these as difficulties, then we operate on such different planes of thought that discussion here is pointless. Of course, if you have solutions or corrections not mentioned above I am, of course, interested in hearing them. Now, a second request, I invite you to treat my own reading similarly (showing the exegetical problems that arise from reading the two accounts as separate and distinct, though overlapping thematically). clb

Actually that was not the allegation. I used the term "reject" of man's (I am removing the specific individual on whom this topic centered) attitude of Jesus; I used "refused discipleship" when talking of isolated incidents when men were not ready to join him because they did not understand what true discipleship entailed. OneLight inadvertently switched reject with refuse. Reject has far too much of an ultimate connotation. I would never, EVER suggest that Jesus condemns persons to hell who truly seek him. I will, however, maintain that what appears to us to be a turning away from Christ, might in fact be the Spirit operating to bring a man closer than otherwise possible. I give here a quote to clarify: "Many a man, brought up in the glib profession of some shallow form of Christianity, who comes through reading Astronomy to realize for the first time how majestically indifferent most reality is to man, and who perhaps abandons his religion on that account, may at that moment be having his first genuinely religious experience. . . ." Such a man may later come back to Christianity, and discover that it had all along been what he had seeking. But Only by walking away could he truly see it as it is for the first time; as any GPS will tell you, sometimes the quickest way home is the longest route there. and sometimes we have to backtrack if we want to get ahead. The topic revolved around, let's say, Sam. Sam was going to church for the wrong reasons. I suggested he/she stop going to church because it was ultimately not going to satisfy and may even create a greater distaste for the Church. I was accused (more or less) of speaking for Satan, not God. The implied premise was: it is always better to go to church for the wrong reason than to not go. I do not see that as the case. Now, as to Sam's actual situation, perhaps it is best for him to stay at the church. Obviously I have my doubts and gave them. clb Oh, apologies, I did not provide examples of Jesus refusing discipleship (quite distinct from Jesus rejecting persons seeking him) which was what this thread was really about. In both Luke and Matthew two men come to Jesus offering to follow him; yet Jesus' response is hardly enthusiastic. One asks first to bury his parents (as required by Jewish Law). The other is given the rather cryptic warning about foxes and holes. Now, I admit that some eisogesis is operating when I list these as instances of Jesus refusing immediate discipleship. But there is as much eisogesis to assume that these became disciples immediately. The tone is negative. It is historically implausible that this pericope would have made it into Scripture as it is if the men had in fact been enlisted immediately as disciples. We have plenty of positive examples of discipleship occurring immediately upon calling (Peter, Levi, etc.). It seems that these men did not understand what discipleship was, and so were initially turned down: that is, they wanted discipleship on their own terms, and thus Jesus would not have them. We do not know the ultimate fate of these men; for all we know, post-resurrection, they became followers (James, after all, was a disbeliever once). If so, we shall have to say that refusing their discipleship initially was the best thing for them ultimately (and not at all synonymous with rejecting them). (The bold shows revision clarifying what might have been misleading).

It's odd to me that you're surprised to find evangelical passion in any believer, anywhere, much more so on a ministry-based message board. Evangelical passion should be a believer's default setting. Touché, Chloe. {thumps up} Whom are you GUYS EVANGELIZING TO??????????????????????? This is a simple question about the mechanics behind miracles. I made it clear in the OP that I believe in miracles. I have concluded my posts with "I believe in Jesus the risen Lord". I can't be saved "again". What if I was confused about imaginary numbers; would you start asking me whether I believe that God created the multiplication table?! Certainly that would show evangelical passion; but would it be appropriate to the question? What if I was asking how to sew; would I be advised to confess my sins and ask God to show me how to thread a needle?! Passionately evangelical? For sure. The wrong context for such passion? For sure. Let us look at other responses to contrast with yours: here to the question of the multiplication of bread (an event I believe in) An appropriate response; the kind I was hoping for. Nothing blasphemous here guys. a simple thought to a simple question. Here is another one, from a highly respected member of this site... Now, I didn't understand half of it, but I can tell he took my question as it was meant to be and contributed. Btw, hegiveth, by accusing me of meddling youre implicitly accusing Other One of meddling, since he took my question seriously and attempted an answer. clb (I mean really, if you all want to give me hell I promise there are more provocative OPs of mine on this site).

You do realize that the priesthood had not been established at the time of Adam, don't you??? As for the conversation, where else do we find Adam and Eve if not within the Garden? Remember, they had not sinned at that point and were about tending the garden. I see no hint in the text that Adam and Eve were prisoners in the garden; I see it was obvious in my post that that was a minor point. As for the priesthood--are you saying that God in His omniscience could not assign roles to Adam and Eve that He would one day assign to the priests of the tabernacle? Are you saying that Moses, under God's direction, could not see a parallel between Man's role in the garden and the priest's role in the tabernacle? clb

All things on Worthy doesn't edify, as some would define edification, we like to have fun sometimes, we post videos of cats slapping dogs, all in the appropriate forums. IMO, wanting to know just how a miracle comes to be, is none of our business and is poor science - mixing the infinite with the finite. IMO, this desire is meddling with God. That is all I can say in this medium. Interesting opinion (I appreciate that you at least recognized it was an opinion). I recall hearing a sermon once in which the preacher broke down all the biological processes that occurred when our Lord healed a man of his blindness. The point of the sermon was to demonstrate how in control of nature God was that not even the most minute, microscopic details escaped HIm. Many people felt it an edifying sermon; I am certain the preacher intended it as an occasion to glorify God. But in your opinion, God was not glorified by the sermon and the preacher was merely meddling....correct? clb

Not quite. How big is your God is a question for skeptics. I am not skeptical about the possibility of multiplying bread; I am simply interested in the natural processes that such a miracle must have entailed. Either the extra bread really was bread; or it wasn't. The gospels suggest it really was bread--so then, once we didn't have bread, and then we did--real bread, made up of all the molecules of ordinary bread. I am simply curious how that process occurred. clb Why does God have to do things by natural process? People have given you examples of miracles, quoted scripture of the creation of all, and yet you still don't grasp who God is, and what he is capable of (which is anything). It's called faith, the very foundation of our Christian belief. Do you believe the miracles happened as the Word states? Water to wine, bread in abundance, manna, raising from the dead, the earth swallowing tribes, the parting of the seas, the bringing of rain, the defeat of thousands by hundreds, pillars of fire, virgin birth, alters cracked in two, axe heads floating, etc? Do you believe the miracles occurred? As simple yes or no would suffice. (I don't need you to explain them to me, to rationalize them to me Connor, I just need a simple answer). Yes or No Well, first a "No, you don't" to this: Why in the world would you need to know whether I believe in miracles? What do you care if I do or don't, Fez? As to this: I don't think you've grasped what miracles are. I would start with C.S. Lewis' Miracles and then go on to the books that his will lead you to. clb Thank you, you have answered my question by not answering. And to answer. Because this is a Ministry site, Ministering to believers and the lost, and unbelievers, and I care because the bible is full of miracles, and I believe the bible. As I said, thank you for answering my question. Your welcome; glad I could help you file me away under whatever category satisfies you Fez, clb Does anyone find it ironic that one of the books I referred to above was Lewis' Miracles--a book that obviously defends the miraculous events recorded in the Bible? Anyone?

Hi everyone, I feel like a reminder should be posted that this thread appears on a "Faith/Science" subforum. It is odd to me that so many apparently uninterested in science would respond to this OP and with such evangelical passion. There is nothing scandalous or controversial in the question. If you think there is, you are reading something into it (probably because I am listed as a "Seeker", which is not entirely true--I am a Christian). Or because other posts of mine were "controversial". This post is not about the possibility of miracles. If you are not interested in what miracles are, then that is okay. I am. This is a matter of curiousity, nothing more. clb

Not quite. How big is your God is a question for skeptics. I am not skeptical about the possibility of multiplying bread; I am simply interested in the natural processes that such a miracle must have entailed. Either the extra bread really was bread; or it wasn't. The gospels suggest it really was bread--so then, once we didn't have bread, and then we did--real bread, made up of all the molecules of ordinary bread. I am simply curious how that process occurred. clb Why does God have to do things by natural process? People have given you examples of miracles, quoted scripture of the creation of all, and yet you still don't grasp who God is, and what he is capable of (which is anything). It's called faith, the very foundation of our Christian belief. Do you believe the miracles happened as the Word states? Water to wine, bread in abundance, manna, raising from the dead, the earth swallowing tribes, the parting of the seas, the bringing of rain, the defeat of thousands by hundreds, pillars of fire, virgin birth, alters cracked in two, axe heads floating, etc? Do you believe the miracles occurred? As simple yes or no would suffice. (I don't need you to explain them to me, to rationalize them to me Connor, I just need a simple answer). Yes or No Well, first a "No, you don't" to this: Why in the world would you need to know whether I believe in miracles? What do you care if I do or don't, Fez? As to this: I don't think you've grasped what miracles are. I would start with C.S. Lewis' Miracles and then go on to the books that his will lead you to. clb

I think I have earned the label of "skeptic" from other posts, which is rather unfair. I made it clear in the OP that I was not questioning the possibilities of miracles, I was simply curious about what such involve, and so I made a request to those with more science under their belts than I. As far as edification, 2 things. I saw an OP the other day that was titled "Would you parachute out of a plane?" I glanced through the responses and don't believe I saw a single quote from the Bible, or the name of God mentioned, nor of Jesus. This is not to mock that thread--the OP was simply curious about something, so am I. Secondly, I feel "edified" to think about God's operations on the universe; you may not, but other people might. clb Oh, I believe Jesus is Lord and saved me from my sins--I keep forgetting to end with that as I am still labeled "Seeker".

Not quite. How big is your God is a question for skeptics. I am not skeptical about the possibility of multiplying bread; I am simply interested in the natural processes that such a miracle must have entailed. Either the extra bread really was bread; or it wasn't. The gospels suggest it really was bread--so then, once we didn't have bread, and then we did--real bread, made up of all the molecules of ordinary bread. I am simply curious how that process occurred. clb

Love stories like that; even more when they are from people like you. clb

Yes, these are all miracles that would involve natural processes....although the last one may be a metaphor derived from Roman culture. clb