Persuaded

...which Paul explains nicely for us in Phi 2, quoted above. Christ emptied Himself and took on flesh. As a man, He allowed Himself to be subject to several limitations. He wasn't omnipresent in His human body. He gained knowledge as he grew from childhood. He submitted Himself to obedience to the Father through the power of the Spirit, rather than using His own power, so that He could in all ways be tempted "like us". So all the "Father statements" Jesus makes as a man are in this context.

Inchrist, "My Lord and my God" is not "my translation": John 20:28 (NKJV) And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28 (HCSB) Thomas responded to Him, "My Lord and my God! " John 20:28 (NLT) "My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed. John 20:28 (ASV) Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28 (KJV) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28 (NET) Thomas replied to him, "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28 (ESV) Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28 (NIV) Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28 (NASB) Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28 (RSV) Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28 (YLT) And Thomas answered and said to him, `My Lord and my God;' John 20:28 (WEB) And Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God. John 20:28 (HNV) T'oma answered him, "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28 (BBE) And Thomas said in answer, My Lord and my God!

If Paul (in a personal editorial in 1 Cor 7) could suggest non-marriage as a higher road for the committed Christian, I think it's safe to assume that wanton baby making is not a commandment in this era.

Thanks, Willamina. That is very much in line with my views of the proper way to approach church finances. I'm just baffled at our church leadership, who sit in on the same adult Sunday School sessions we have, where we discuss all this. And then they ignore it all and do their own thing, as if the biblical approach is something to teach but not actually apply.

The Bible says all three persons of the godhead are responsible for the creation: Creation, by Jesus: John 1 (which I think I've read elsewhere that you dispute, using a novel approach, differently than the JW's rather unimaginative insertion of the article "a" in front of "God". But still, their company is not one I'd join lightly.) [Heb 1:1-2 NKJV] God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by [His] Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; [Col 1:16 NKJV] For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Creation, by the Holy Spirit: [Psa 104:30 NKJV] You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth. Creation, by the Father/Jehovah: [Psa 33:6 KJV] By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Other instances where the Son is spoken of as YHWH: Hebrews 1 quotes Psalms that speak of both elohiym and YHWH, and attribute both as referring to the Son. Philippians 2, the kenosis: [Phl 2:5-11 NKJV] Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to [the point of] death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. To whom shall every knee bow? Isaiah 45 (and Romans 14:11) tells us emphatically that it is the LORD, YHWH. Who is the first and last, the alpha and omega? Is it the Father, or the Son? Or do they both make the claim? [Rev 1:8 NKJV] "I am the Alpha and the Omega, [the] Beginning and [the] End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." [Rev 1:11 NKJV] saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send [it] to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea." [Rev 21:6 NKJV] And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. [Rev 22:13 NKJV] "I am the Alpha and the Omega, [the] Beginning and [the] End, the First and the Last." [Rev 2:8 NKJV] "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, 'These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: And "doubting" Thomas' expression on seeing Christ in His resurrection body; "My Lord and my God". I suspect he said it in shame and awe. We all will say that phrase some day: perhaps with adoration, or with shame, or outright terror.

God doesn't need our money to get His work done. We give so that we may receive some of the blessing and reward from participating in His plan. Every Christian should give, no question about that. "Freely you have received, freely give", and the more you understand what exactly you have been given, the more enthusiastic is your giving. But from the ministry side, every successful ministry I've been aware of has started and been supported in spite of finances, where the clear hand of God's provision has been an integral part. If a ministry is lacking resources to accomplish God's plan, that seems like a signal that the ministry is outside God's plan. One teacher said it well: "Every time you hear somebody telling you they need your money to get God's will accomplished, praise the Lord, because you now know that it is a ministry the Holy Spirit is trying to shut down ". And that's not always a negative reflection on the ministry itself. God put division between Paul and Barnabus when He wanted them to stop working together and branch out separately, not because their work together was bad, but because God had a different plan for the next phase of their ministry. How many ministries today hang on by the will and effort of the ministers, despite God's will?

Yes: of water is natural birth, of "wind" (pneuma, the word used for spirit, but also see v8) the second birth, into Christ.

In v 3 & 4, the contrast is between being born of the mother's womb (v4) and being "born again" (v3). To clarify this, Jesus explains that there is a second birth needed. He phrases the same idea in two ways, to help Nicodemus understand. Born of the mother's womb, of water, and of the flesh each refer to the same thing: your natural birth. Born again, born the second time, born of the Spirit each refer to the Christian's new life in Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There are two fundamental contrasts being discussed here, and as you try to understand the whole passage it's obvious "water baptism" has nothing to do with it.

Seems the context makes it pretty clear: [Jhn 3:3 NKJV] Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." [Jhn 3:4 NKJV] Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" [Jhn 3:5 NKJV] Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [Jhn 3:6 NKJV] "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [Jhn 3:7 NKJV] "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' Jesus is explaining the second birth, being born again, the Spirit rather than the flesh. It seems clear that "of water" in v5 is the same as "of the flesh" in v6. The second birth is the focus here, and the second birth is of the Spirit, not of water AND the Spirit. Jesus is adding one thing here, not two.

The two verses that most influence my view of Christian giving are probably: [2Co 9:7 NKJV] [so let] each one [give] as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. and [Phl 4:17 NKJV] Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. ...and having been brought up in a church where giving was taught as part of the study of the Word, but was never harped upon: the approach that says the way to make good givers is to make strong Christians, not to repeatedly harass untaught Christians to give more. The pastors I respected most were those who could say "I've never asked you for a gift". Now, in the small town church where I live, every year or two they set aside a month to "pay down the debt", and the pastor gives a series of giving-related messages about doing without, trusting in God for your needs, giving until it pinches, etc. My reaction is to withhold my tithe and offering for the month, and give it somewhere else. But by nature I'm a little contrarian... What are your thoughts, and what else does the Word say about Christian giving, and ministries that solicit funds?

I'm not much of a story teller, and long format stories don't work on the Internet... But basically I'm a thinker more than a feeler (without disparaging feelers- the tallest pillar of faith in my life has been a feeler, a person who walked directly with God and for whom the scriptures seemed like a side dish rather than the thinker's main course). So for me, the scriptural substance and evidence, the more sure word of prophecy, the consistent use of types and models, the fingerprints of the Spirit throughout the Word, which prove day by day that Christ is Lord of time, that He spoke of Himself in the volume of the book, that His Word is true and His promises sure, all team up to establish Him as Lord. Yet He chose to become a servant and to take on flesh and humble Himself on the cross, and the constant realization of that fabulous gift of love constrains me to do all I can to serve Him. Perhaps it is an interesting topic, whether He can be your savior if he isn't your Lord? "Belief" in scripture means much more than intellectual assent; it includes the element of obedience. Unless our belief comes in our dying moment, our belief will be lived out through our obedience to His lordship over our lives. I'm not sure the two concepts can exist, separately. But, there is a process the new believer goes through, as they learn to trust God more and more, before entering His rest. I'm not sure where His Lordship begins there- we often fumble on the way between salvation (Israel saved from Egypt), and rest (the promised land), so that the 8 day's journey can last forty years. Perhaps recognition of His Lordship, and the full, selfless obedience that entails, is synonymous with His rest.

Perhaps more to your point, it's interesring to review each encounter between man and the Lord in His non-flesh aspect. Offhand, I'm thinking of Moses and the bush, and later on the mountain, Joshua and the captain of the Lord's host, Isaiah, Daniel, John at the first appearance of Christ by the Jordan, Peter James and John at the transfiguration, Saul on the Damascus road, and John here in Revation 1- each has an equivalent response to "woe is me, I am undone". No matter how tall we stand among the pillars of faith in the scripture or since, we shall all be undone by His presence. We all will say, like Thomas, "my Lord and my God". It is interesting that that phrase can be said with adoration, or with terror.

Job 38:31 (KJV) Canst thou bind the sweet influences (bonds, bands) of Pleiades, or loose the bands (cords) of Orion? I've taken this to refer to constellations which have gravitationally related stars- a somewhat rare thing in the visible sky. It "so happens" that Job knew that Pleides and Orion were so linked. See the part about "open clusters", here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterism_(astronomy)

Does a woman have "seed", in either the biological sense or in Jewish idiom? Pretty sure there's lots more going on here than "simple"! The "you" in this passage is satan/lucifer. The passage goes way beyond zoology...

I think Marilyn is on the right track here, and using Jesus' interpretation and looking back, we see the prophecy given to Rachael through this lens: [Gen 25:23 KJV] And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger. In Esther, it can be argued that the key element of the book occurs in 3:1,2 when Mordecai chooses not bow to Haman (the Agagite, a descendant of Esau, a representative of the flesh). And this is the subject of John 3 and being "born again". We never fix our old hearts- God gives us a new one instead. Paul says "reckon the old man to be dead" and "put on Christ", and "renew your mind". These are all thematically linked to Genesis 3:15, and the enmity, the war between the natural man and the righteousness that only "the seed of the woman", Christ can provide. "The seed of the woman" also can be viewed as the line of redemption, or the genealogy of Christ (and onward?), and the enmity is further amplified in Rev 12 as the dragon trying to devour the child, throughout the history of the redemptive line (Cain, perhaps the Gen 6 stuff, Nimrod, Moses and the Nile, Saul and David, the pollution of the royal line afterward, Herod and the babies, and finally the crucifixion.)

???

A fav: Isaiah 26:19-2- (NKJV) 19 Your dead shall live; Together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in dust; For your dew is like the dew of herbs, And the earth shall cast out the dead. 20 Come, my people, enter your chambers, And shut your doors behind you; Hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment, Until the indignation is past. 21 For behold, the LORD comes out of His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; The earth will also disclose her blood, And will no more cover her slain.

Haha!

-snip- When Peter writes in 1Peter 4:7 "the end of all things is near", given the definitions from both the English and the Greek of the word, how do you possibly justify it applying to people living 2,000 years later??? So you agree that the time statements are literal? If so, how can they possibly pertain to us??? The proper manner by which to interpret scripture (or any text) that is both a mixture of the literal and symbolic, is to read the literal at face value and use it as the key for understanding the symbolic. What the church has done is flip this completely on its head, so that the symbolic ("stars falling to earth") becomes literal and the clearly literal time statements ("the end of alll things is near") are symbolic! In other words, in order to understand the symbolic, people must view it in terms of the literal! This is the only proper way to approach Biblical hermeneutics! And again, if the words the apostles wrote to their audiences were not relevant to them, why did they bother writing to them as though they were??? Again, as the part of my post that you edited says, each person that reads Peter's (or James', or John's, or Paul's, or Jesus') words will, themselves, soon see "the end of all things". Maybe tomorrow (my car's brakes are squeaking, maybe they'll give out at the bottom of that hill...), maybe in another 70 years, but for each reader of the scripture, there is a very finite time window we each are allotted, in which to accept or deny Christ. That is the "literal", but not simplistic, and not contrary to other plain teachings, way to interpret the "time statements". I'm vastly more comfortable seeing these statements as "be ready" warnings. If we instead take them to apply to fist-century-only readers, then Christ's second coming has already happened, and such emphatic promises as "every eye shall see him" and His coming will be "as the lightning across the whole sky" are made of no effect- instead, you are in effect arguing that He came in secret, or in hidden chambers, or in the wilderness, or some such. Most non-liberal (in their theology) Christians see the plagues as real, literal events. The lightnings and earthquakes of Sinai are real, literal events. The manna, the cloud, and the shikinah glory were literal. Jericho was a literal event. The long day of Joshua, and the hail (or fiery rocks/meteorite) shower afterward, are literal. Yet we have the temerity to assume that God can't do such things again, that He will will no longer intervene, and He will allow all things to remain as they are, since the fathers fell asleep. So yes, in some unmistakably obvious way, the "stars will fall from the sky". We use the phrase "shooting star" today. Is everyone that says this an ignorant buffoon that really thinks a star is shooting through the atmosphere? If I describe a sunset, is my astronomy suddenly ptolemaic rather than copernican? Literal doesn't require letter-ism. All languages contain figures of speech, and various literary and rhetorical devices. When we shelter under His wings (Psa 36, 91), it doesn't mean God has feathers.

Ugh. I had hoped you had a different point, that was some sort of nuance to this topic, but annihilation is too far off to be worthy to address. The contrarian interpretation to every scripture you've provided should be evidence of the loneliness of your position.

Paul speaking of himself: Romans 7:9 (NKJV) I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. Where do you see anything about "spiritual" in this passage? A person, physically alive, speaking of death in the past tense. Many of Jesus' descriptions, and Paul's, share this construct. You need to "re-interpret" each of them to make them fit a future, physical death. I believe you're way off trying to apply day-fo-a-thousand-years to this. The Psalmist clearly has no such use in mind, and Peter tells us the very limited application that he makes of it. It isn't some kind of "general rule" that can be applied as an allegorical approach to all scripture. No other place in scripture do we see any man of God applying scripture in such a way. The 6-day creation is commemorated with the seventh day of a literal week (Gen 2:3); when Daniel read Jeremiah and understood the captivity would be 70 years he saw that time was almost up and prayed to God to remember His promises (Dan 9). To allegorize Adam's "day" is without basis. John 3 says "except a man be born again". This clearly goes beyond Nicodemus! The possible error of using the term "spiritual death" is to then try to justify annihilationism, the idea that those who fail to come to Christ through grace by faith are simply "no more" after their physical death, and that for them there is no eternal soul and no eternal punishment. Again, lots of scripture needs to allegorized away, made of no effect, for this to be true.

Close. Before the age of accountability he was spiritually alive, not subject to death. When he became old enough to be accountable to the law, the law showed him he could not keep the law, that he was a sinner. He tells us this is the purpose of the law: Romans 3:20 (NKJV) 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. So now, by the law he knows he's a sinner, and he declares himself dead. "Spiritual death" is just a way of saying subject to death, a person over whom death reigns, a person subject to "the second death" and not the "first resurrection" (which are categories, not events...). Eternal life is the opposite.

Paul speaking of himself: Romans 7:9 (NKJV) I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

Yes, 1 Pet 4:7, James 5:8, and Rev 1:3 are for us. We are to live as though our life will be required of us, at any moment. Also, the only context in which scripture expressly indicates that God is using a different clock than we on the earth is in regard to Christ's second coming, as an expression of His mercy. How many on this forum would have been denied a chance to believe, if He had come ten or twenty years ago? Peter says His delay is so that more may choose Him: [2Pe 3:7-10 NKJV] But the heavens and the earth [which] are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day [is] as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Mat 24:32-34 is for the generation that sees the signs, they will see the whole drama unfold. The prior verse, linking it to the parable of the fig tree, sheds light on this. When you see the fig tree shoot forth leaves, you know summer is near, so you also when you see these things (what things- the signs he has spoken of in verses 7 -after He says the end is not yet- through 24) know the end is near, and the generation that sees the beginnings of the signs, will see them completed. (my paraphrase) Rev 1:1 gives a further hint of this idea, when it says "things which must shortly take place". The word "shortly" is translated a few ways, but basically means quickly, in quick succession, or suddenly. It's talking about how it will take place, not when. And Mat 16:28 is understood by most to refer to the transfiguration, His "appearing in His kingdom", which happens six days later -the chapter break is in a tragic location here. "Not taste death" is also a euphamism for "before the next sabbath (sacrifice)". If, as you claim, this refers to those standing there seeing His second coming, then it happened in secret. Jesus emphatically said His second coming would not be secret: [Mat 24:23-27 NKJV] "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here [is] the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe [it]. "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. "See, I have told you beforehand. "Therefore if they say to you, 'Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; [or] 'Look, [He is] in the inner rooms!' do not believe [it]. "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Preterists are to be commended for the importance they place on the "time statements", but if they'd apply the same literalness to the rest of scripture I think they'd see they've painted themselves into an untenable corner.

It might be the case that they are different- I wouldn't insist that they are the same, but it seems more likely they are. They are more similar than different, with four or six wings, eyes all around, having coal (Isa 6 and Eze 10), and again the association with the throne of God which almost becomes one of His titles- "He who dwells between the cherubim". "Seraph(im)" is also the word for fiery serpent, used in Num 21 and Deu 8. I see Ezekiel using a word that evokes what he thinks those looked like, to describe what he sees in this vision. I imagine the tabernacle and temple (carved) cherubim were beautiful, and quite different than these in Ezekiel's vision.