Jump to content


Royal Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Retrobyter last won the day on December 14 2013

Retrobyter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,846 Excellent


About Retrobyter

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 10/28/1957

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Wesley Chapel, Florida
  • Interests
    Computers, Mathematics, Science, Languages (particularly Hebrew and Greek), and above all a correct understanding of G-d's Word.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,613 profile views
  1. Shalom, Jayne. Yep! If I'm ever needing a good belly-laugh, can't-breathe-for-laughing attack, I watch Monk! "Larry, Curly, .... WHERE'S MOE?!" as he's up on the table! (Snakes.)
  2. Shalom, all. My favorite comical, mystery series has been "Monk." (My wife thinks I'm strange.) It is hilarious, however, and I LOVE the way he works out "who done it!" Once in a while, I'll binge watch old episodes on Hulu. If you've never seen it, Adrian Monk is a detective who has all sorts of phobias and inhibitions, most of which apparently started with the loss of his wife, Trudy. Her murder (by an explosive placed under her car in a parking lot) is the story behind the story. He lost his job at the police precinct in San Francisco because of his inabilities to function normally in society, but they recognize his amazing talents as an observant detective. Thus, the captain and his lieutenant will frequently call upon his expert input as a consultant. He must be attended by a nurse or an assistant, who helps him in social situations that would otherwise be his defeat. In early episodes, this nurse is Sharona, but in later episodes, she is replaced by his assitant Natalie, who really isn't a nurse, but she has the empathy (and the time) he needs to get through the day. He's very particular about many things, and is a fastidious perfectionist about certain things, almost always to distraction! He's also a "neat freak" and cleans all the time, even things he's not supposed to clean! He frequently sends his shirts to a dry cleaner and drives the dry cleaner owner NUTS by constantly needing to ring the bell on her counter. "Get this crazy man out of my dry cleaner!"
  3. Shalom, JLB. Well, natch ("naturally")! One must SIT in the chair to show that one has FAITH in the chair to support him or her.
  4. Shalom, JLB. (I just took out some of your vertical white space in quoting you.) Yes, but even words read in context can be misread if they can be taken in two different lights - two different perspectives. For instance, one person might ask, "Have you ever seen a housefly?" And a child might say, "No!" thinking the question was "Have you ever seen a house fly?" (Yes, I was watching Disney's "Dumbo," lately.) Regarding, ... Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, many focus on the "THINGS HOPED FOR" and "THINGS NOT SEEN." However those are both objective phrases of the prepositions "of," and thus they both are phrases as part of adjectivally modifying prepositional phrases. The REAL predicate nominatives are "SUBSTANCE" and "EVIDENCE!" What is the "substance," or "hupostasis" in Greek, is the "underpinnings" or "assurance" of what we can know about God's works in the past. The very ACCOUNTS (not STORIES, which implies fabrications) that are listed within Hebrews 11, commonly called "the Faith Chapter" of the Bible, ARE the "SUBSTANCE" that we can trust God CAN do! What is the "evidence," or "elegchos" in Greek, is the "proof" of what God has done for others of LIKE FAITH or SIMILAR TRUST as we have or can have! The "evidence" IS the VERY WORD OF GOD ITSELF, which records for us these accounts! It shows us what God has been WILLING to do for others in the past! (In Greek grammar, both predicate nominatives, "hupostasis" and "elegchos," are in the nominative case. The Greek word, "elpizomenoon," and the Greek phrase, "ou blepomenoon," are in the genitive case, neuter gender, and plural number.) Regarding, Hebrews 11:5-6 (KJV) 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, "Enoch" (Chanokh) was renowned by the words "he pleased God" and the author of Hebrews added that it's impossible to please God without faith, and also adds that "he who comes to God must, first, believe that He exists, and, second, that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seeks God out." One should notice, however, that faith is nothing alone without the Object of our faith, GOD HIMSELF! One absolutely MUST trust in GOD, not just have some blind "faith," falsely so-called. Regarding, Romans 14:23 (KJV) 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, That last phrase, "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin," should NOT be taken out of its context, even within the VERY SAME VERSE! Paul is talking to the Roman believers about eating meats offered once to idols: If a person cannot be confident in his "God-given right to eat that meat without God's disfavor," then he or she has NO BUSINESS eating that meat! "Why not?" one may ask. The answer is because that person, in truly still believing that God disapproves of eating such meat and going AGAINST that belief and eating it anyway, has sinned against what he or she believed God disapproved! That person has begun to allow himself or herself to start the downhill spiral into the habit of going against God's will, real or imaginary! THAT'S the intent of the phrase, and the phrase should NOT be universalized beyond its context. My point is this: Greek and Hebrew grammar as well as vocabulary helps in defining the words we use, and this is PARTICULARLY TRUE within the Greek or Hebrew contexts in which those words are found. How they translate into English is a bit tricky, but English alone is not always sufficient to understand a word's meaning.
  5. Shalom, iamlamad. Sorry, bro', but you're forgetting all about the MILLENNIUM! There's a THOUSAND YEARS in between the coming of the Lord Yeshua` the Messiah and the Final Judgment (the Great White Throne Judgment)! The "DAY of the Lord" is a THOUSAND-YEAR DAY! (There'll be no night in His presence as His glory outshines the sun!)
  6. Shabbat shalom, Fran C. That IS interesting! Perhaps, that would be a good way to solidify what we are saying to one another. However, WHO decides the "correct" definitions of the terms within that "Christian Dictionary?" This is going to be somewhat complicated, but I'll try it anyway: I've learned that there are TWO different ways to show a definition for a word. There's the more complicated ... 1. UNION principle, which is showing EVERY way that a word can be used in common speech by every person in the world who speaks that language, ... and there's the far less complicated ... 2. INTERSECTION principle, which shows what that word means in common to EVERY person in the world who speaks that language. I'll try to use a diagram to make this more simple: Here's a basic Venn diagram showing the Universal Set (U) and two intersecting sets, circles A and B. Their intersection is the area seen as C. The union is all three sections, A, B, and C. The intersection is C only. Now, imagine a set (circles A, B, D, E, F, .....) for EVERY person who speaks that language. Assuming that the context of this word is the same for each individual (although it's NOT), then every person's circle should have some "C" intersection where they have a commonality of that word's usage within that context. Context adds another "wrinkle" to the situation. See, in a living language, words typically in one context, may be BORROWED by individuals into a different context for a SIMILAR meaning within that context. One might even borrow a word from another language and "Anglicize" the word or use that word directly for a particular context. Take for instance, the word "file": In the typical UNION principle, the definitions are... One can see from this set of definitions how complicated this can be! Because certain words and usages of words come from other languages in other cultures and at other times in history, we also add TIME to this mix! Perhaps, one can lessen the complication: one might be able to group the definitions of certain individuals into a single definition for a particular denomination, and perhaps, each definition should have sections for each denomination(??? ) I've chosen the INTERSECTION principle and the BEST way to intersect is to go the origins of those words, their ETYMOLOGY! For instance, in the etymologies of the first two definitions, the word that stands out as a synonym is "string." Associated words would be "line," "list," and "queue." If you'll go through the first two definitions, replace the word "file" with "string" (or its past tense): a string of correspondence do you want to save this string [of data]? the contract, when signed, is strung [with other contracts]? he still had the moment strung away [with other moments] in his memory criminal charges were strung against the firm the company had strung [a case] for bankruptcy [with the courts] on [a] string on a string or a stringing system For the second definition, let's substitute the word "line" instead: Cree warriors riding in [a] line down the slopes a line of English soldiers had ridden out from Perth the mourners lined into the church Finally, what the Greek and Hebrew words may lack in etymology, they gain in FAMILIES of words. The commonalities between words within a family of Hebrew words, for instance, can explain the basic meaning of the root word for that family! No, my methodology may be different, but I'm putting together all of the CONTEXTS for those words in all of the verses of both the Tanakh (the O.T.) and the B'rit Chadashah (the N.T.), and coming up with the common meaning for those words in both Hebrew and Greek.
  7. Shalom, dhchristian. No, of course not. HOWEVER, I DO believe that our language and language usage has become so corrupt that we barely know what was originally meant in the Scriptures! It's not that He's so complicated; it's that we are so out-of-touch with His simple reality! We have so many synonyms and statements that need their contexts to know what is meant in those statements, that it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to fully understand the nuances of what is written without going back to the original languages! No, He did not. You're ASSUMING that it is "yet to come" because you can't make sense of it in history; however, it DID happen in the First Century, even if you can't see it or recognize it. Why do you think God allowed the works of Josephus and those of Eusebius Pamphili and those of Epiphanius of Salamis to survive all these years? They give us the RECORD of what the Christians did in that early church of Jerusalem! They DID escape when they saw Jerusalem being surrounded by armies and when the Roman Gentiles stood within the Temple grounds, desecrating those grounds! They escaped into the mountains of Israel and then to Pella in the region of the Decapolis ("Ten towns") in 66 A.D., long before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. They managed to get out while God distracted their enemies, fighting against one another. You'll have to show me where exactly. See, what you've said thus far sounds like you're talking about Revelation 20:7-8 and I HOPE that's NOT what you're talking about! That comes AFTER the Millennium, however, we will be resurrected BEFORE the Millennium begins! No, what YOU are doing is trying to walk on top of the fence, trying to satisfy both sides of the issue. That's a TREACHEROUSLY TRICKY position to try to maintain! Too far to one side, and your "simple" has fallen into the "inane"; too far to the other side, and you'll start to sound too much like the "intelligentsia" you're trying to avoid! Oh, and thanks for the left-handed compliment: "Doctorate level Greek studies." Hardly. However, we need some to keep us on track as to how we're interpreting Scripture, especially those passages that are frequently misread. One of the simplest and most common errors, for instance, is "This is the day that the LORD has made! Let us rejoice and be glad in it!" How many different ways have you heard this verse applied? How many of those ways are even CLOSE to the true meaning of the text? Well, you can believe what you want to believe. However, you should be aware that much was changed in the First, Second, and Third Centuries A.D. This is why a church that started in Jerusalem is now a bunch of believers that know practically NOTHING about the Jews! Without that background, how can anyone HOPE to understand a book like Revelation?
  8. Shalom, Fran C. I can see that having similar language can lead to what SOUNDS like agreement, but without common definitions, we really have some disagreement. (It's a little like trying to talk with a Mormon; common usage of terms can SOUND like agreement, but subtle differences in the definitions of the words being used by both will actually reveal how far apart the discussion truly is.) In looking at the diagram, I disagree with the dividing of the body and the soul at all. The "will, mind, and emotions," which comprise your circle labeled "Soul," are ramifications and complex relationships within your brain. God has made our brains very intricately; we have self-awareness and a perspective that allows us to project our thoughts and feelings to others for empathy and sympathy. Because of the complex connections within our brains, we can learn indefinitely as our sleep cycles arrange our thoughts and knowledge into a readily accessible hierarchy into which we can hang other pieces of information, often triggered by some of our senses, like smell. A particular smell, for instance, can trigger a memory you thought was long buried. Your "Spirit" circle doesn't exist at all because the "Spirit Realm" doesn't exist, either. That's a totally fabricated notion based upon the poor interpretations of the words "ruwach" and "pneuma." Our "God part" is our entire self. The way that we are designed bleeds into our thoughts and recognitions of our Creator's ability, just as it did with David: Psalm 139:14 (KJV) 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul (air-breather) knoweth right well. Our "spirit," our "breath" is within us while we are still breathing. When we exhale our last time, our "spirit" is gone, not to be reclaimed until the Resurrection. It goes back to the Creator of all as a part of the rest of His Creation. When He re-creates us within the Resurrection, He will once again breathe life into our new bodies, and we will be air-breathers again; better, we'll be air-BLASTERS, able to give life to other bodies, just as He can. I believe that's what Paul was implying in 1 Corinthians 15: 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 (KJV) 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory (literal brightness): it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural (Greek: psuchikon = air-breathing) body; it is raised a spiritual (Greek: pneumatikon = air-blasting) body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45And so it is written, "The first man Adam was made a living soul"; (Gen. 2:7) the last Adam was made a quickening spirit (Greek: pneuma zoo-opoioun = "a life-giving blaster"). 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven (Greek ek tou ouranou = "from/out of-the sky"). 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly (Greek: epouranios = "the-One-from-above-the-sky"), such are they also that are heavenly (Greek: epouranioi = "those-from-above-the-sky"). 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly (Greek: epouraniou = "of-the-above-the-sky"). I can't say this for sure, but it's a thought: Since the word "aggelos" (commonly transliterated as "angel") means "messenger," and was even used of John the Baptist in Mark 1:2, ... Mark 1:1-4 (KJV) 1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. ... it's possible that WE might be the "messengers" - the "angels" - that are sent out into all the world to resurrect the rest! Think about it; we might be resurrected by those who were responsible for our "salvation" (justification), and we are the instruments to resurrect those whom we led to the Lord! I don't know if that's true or not, but it's ... a fun possibility to imagine, isn't it?
  9. Shalom, dhchristian. Nope. Still not there. The "abomination of desolation" is mentioned, but NOT "the rule of the Antichrist." And, just to nip the next statement in the bud, Daniel 9:24-27 doesn't talk about the "Antichrist" nor does Daniel 11. Daniel 11 is talking about Antiochus IV "Epiphanes." HE was the one who set up the "abomination" in Daniel 11, setting up a statue of Zeus in the Temple and sacrificing a pig on the Altar! There you go again with a "final week!" The seventieth Seven of Daniel 9:27 is NOT the "tribulation," "great" or otherwise! The seventieth Seven was SPLIT IN TWO by the Messiah by making the house of the Jews of Jerusalem "DESOLATE" in Matthew 23:38 and fulfilling Daniel 9:27 in part. Now, they are the two halves of Yeshua`s Advents. When He came the first time - His First Advent, He was the Lamb of God sacrificed for all mankind; when He comes the second time - His Second Advent, He will be the Lion of the Tribe of Yhudah coming to reign on the throne of His father (ancestor) King David. The Seven Years are NOT "The Great Tribulation"; rather, they are like three-and-a-half-year BOOKENDS to the 2000-year Great Tribulation. While it is "simple," it's not very logical. The problem is that you aren't giving enough attention to the PRONOUNS of Matthew 24, Mark 13, or Luke 21. See, Yeshua`s discourse on the Mount of Olives was of a saw-tooth method: He would start a segment by talking directly to His disciples sitting there on the Mount before Him. Then, as He looked forward into the future, the pronouns changed as He went farther and farther into the future. Then, He'd abruptly return to the present, talking directly to His disciples about THEIR near future before He'd drift off into the distant future again. The SIGNAL is the usage of the Greek pronouns... "humeis" (2nd person, plural, nominative subject, "ye"), "humoon" (2nd person, plural, genitive or ablative, where the "oo" represents an omega, "of you" or "from you,"), "humin" (2nd person, plural, locative, instrumental or dative, "in you," "at you"; "with you," "by you"; "to you," or "for you"), and "humas" (2nd person, plural, accusative object, "you"), and ... the Greek verbs that end in "-te" or "-the" (the 2nd-person, plural ending in which the "t" is a tau or the "th" is a theta, and the "e" is an epsilon). When you see these words in the Greek New Testament, Yeshua` was talking DIRECTLY to His disciples about His TWELVE DISCIPLES' future. When the pronouns change, He is talking indirectly about the distant future of all. This is true not only for Matthew's account of this incident, but also Mark's account and Luke's account, as well! In fact, since all three witnessed the same event, it's best to HARMONIZE the three accounts in the Greek FIRST, and THEN translate the results into English, paying attention to the pronouns! No other way gives one the necessary details to understand truly to what and when Yeshua` is referring. Look carefully at the Greek of Matthew 24:9-29; Mark 13:10-27; and Luke 21:10-28. Actually, I am HIGHLY motivated to look for logic and proper, simple linguistic vernacular, particularly in the original languages.
  10. Shalom, dhchristian. No, it doesn't! Where did you get all that in the verse we're talking about?! Matthew 24:21 (KJV) 21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Where do you see ANYTHING about the "Abomination of desolation" or the "rule of the Antichrist" in that verse?! That's TOTAL NONSENSE! Good! Because that is NOT what I'm saying at all! Nope. You're misunderstanding Matthew 24:22. Yeshua` was saying that the DAYS OF TRIBULATION within this 2,000-year period will be shortened! He is NOT saying that the period will be shortened! And, what gives you or anybody the proof that the "tribulation period" is either "7 years" or "3.5 years?"
  11. Shalom, Fran C. I'll make this short because I have to get to bed for work tomorrow. This much is good. Our "spirit," "ruwach" in Hebrew, "pneuma" in Greek, is our "BREATH!" (Technically, our "WIND!") It often refers to our words and consequently to the thoughts we have behind those words. (The Greek word, btw, is the root of our word "pneumatic.") When one "gives up his spirit," he or she is "giving up his last breath." Realistically, our breath simply dissipates into the atmosphere to join God's winds. It is simply the physical energy that is expelled by the dying person. When the person is resurrected and begins to be an air-breather (a "soul") again, he is given his breath (his "spirit") again. When you look at the Tanakh (the "O.T."), put the words "air-breather" and "breath" (or "wind") in place of the words "soul" and "spirit," and read the passage again. I think you'll be surprised at how easily these words fit in the passage you're reading. It also gives you a much better understanding of what is going on and what the people at that time believed. Actually, "justification" is "making someone just" or "making someone justified," and "sanctification" is "making someone holy" or "making someone clean." "Holy" is a word that is often MISUNDERSTOOD; which is why some use it improperly in speech. It doesn't mean that one is "righteous" or justified"; it means that one is ceremonially "clean" for God's use. God has specially chosen that person for a particular task. There's nothing special about the person; the "specialness" of that person is in the attention that God gives that person! Sorry, but I can't see your image. Check the Greek of this verse. You will find that the correct definitions of these three words fit fine within this verse and its context. I agree.
  12. Shalom, dhchristian. So, why do you fail to acknowledge that this "great tribulation" didn't start in the first century A.D? Matthew 24:9 (KJV) 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. The Greek of this verse is ... Kata Maththaion 24:9 (UBS Greek New Testament) 9 Tote paradoosousin humas eis thlipsin kai apoktenousin humas, kai esesthe misoumenoi hupo pantoon toon ethnoon dia to onoma mou. 9 Tote = 9 Then paradoosousin = they-shall-give-up humas = you (plural) eis = into thlipsin = tribulation kai = and apoktenousin = they-shall-kill humas, = you (plural), kai = and esesthe = you (plural)-shall-become misoumenoi = hated-ones hupo = under pantoon = all toon = of-the ethnoon = nations dia = through to = the onoma = name mou. = of-me. The word "humas" is "you (plural)," and it refers to those gentlemen who were seated upon the Mount of Olives that day when Yeshua` was talking to them! It was THEIR generation that faced the persecutions of Rome, the beginning of the tribulation that formed the beginning of the Great Tribulation that has lasted almost 2,000 years! A 2,000-year tribulation has never had anything like it, and there'll never be anything like it again!
  13. Shalom, wingnut-. Then you're going to keep getting things wrong as you try to merge this information with the correctly interpreted information about the future. There have been MULTIPLE "days of the LORD," times when YHWH has had enough and steps in to correct the situation. The phrase "day of the LORD" is NOT unique! If you have a Bible program that allows you to look up phrases instead of just words, look up this phrase. Another thing that you will have to consider is the timing of the prophecy in which you find this phrase. Prophets wrote God's prophecies down as God instructed them. Some wrote about their current events and what God was going to do about them as those current events came to a head. Some wrote, as per God's instruction, about the ultimate conclusion of mankind's rebellion. You should consider WHEN the prophet lived, WHERE he lived, to WHICH group of people was He prophesying, WHO were the king and the leaders at that time, WHAT was happening to God's people at the time, and what God was saying about those events. How was He going to step in and correct the situation? All of God's prophecies were NOT about OUR future. Much of what is written was about the future of His people at THAT time in history.
  14. Shalom, Fran C. 1. The soul is one's "air breather." That's what the Hebrew word means. Does an "immaterial part of man" breathe air? I don't think so. Therefore, the soul CEASES to exist at death. So,... 2. No, I don't believe in "soul sleep"; I believe in "temporary soul annihilation!" This, more than anything, can convince an atheist of our authenticity. We don't "go" anywhere after death; we WAIT in the ground, totally oblivious to the passage of time, for our redemption! When the Lord Yeshua` returns, we are awakened and raised to new life QUITE LITERALLY. I am totally convinced and believe in the principle of "Sola Scriptura." That is, only the Scriptures have absolute truth. Anything else has error because they are products of fallible men (and women). THEREFORE, if one wants to get to the truth of a topic, one MUST go back to the Scriptures - the Bible. The outside sources are merely to confirm our understanding of what we are reading in the Scriptures, especially as we delve into the modern English versions and compare them to their Greek and Hebrew sources. That's what I thoroughly believe.
  15. Shalom, iamlamad. What did Yeshua` say about His Father, whom He identified to others as "God?" John 4:19-26 (KJV) 19 The woman saith unto him, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye ('you' plural, the Jews, including Yeshua`) say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." 21 Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye ('you' plural, the Samaritans or Shomroniym, including the woman) worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit ('breath' - words - the thoughts behind the words) and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." 25 The woman saith unto him, "I know that Messias (Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word 'Mashiyach' or 'Messiah') cometh, which is called Christ (Greek translation of 'Mashiyach': 'Christos' = 'Anointed One'): when he is come, he will tell us all things." 26 Jesus saith unto her, "I that speak unto thee am he." Yeshua` NEVER identified Himself as just "God"; He usually referred to Himself as the "Son of man," but occasionally He accepted being identified as "the Son of God." He was advertized that He was by the demons (Matthew 8:29) and the devil (Matthew 4:6), and He allowed Pilate to call Him that (Luke 22:70). Shim`own Kefa ("Simon Peter") acknowledged Him as such: Matthew 16:16 (KJV) 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ (again, Greek 'Christos'), the Son of the living God." I believe that the God, Yeshua`s "Father," who is a Spirit and who said, "Be ye holy for I am holy," IS the "Holy Spirit!" Leviticus 11:44-45 (KJV) 44 "For I am the LORD (YHWH) your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." Regarding your question, "Was the preincarnate Son everywhere at once?" there's no such thing as the "preincarnate Son." That's something that theologians invented. The Scriptures say, John 1:1-5, 14 (KJV) 1 In the beginning was THE WORD (Greek: ho Logos), 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. ... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory [John was one of the few on the Mount of Transfiguration], the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. He was named before His conception by the messenger Gavri'el ("Gabriel"): Luke 1:26-35ff (KJV) 26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel (Hebrew: Gavri'el) was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary (Hebrew: Miryam). 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, "Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women!" 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, "Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS (Greek: Ieesous = Hebrew: Yeeshuwa` = "He shall save"). 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called 'the Son of God.' ..." His name doesn't mean "Jah shall save." That's the name "Jehoshua," "Jehoshuah," or "Joshua": "Yhowshuwa`." Here's where a study of the Hebrew GRAMMAR would be helpful! His name, "Yeeshuwa`" or "Yeshua," means "HE shall save" or "HE shall deliver" or "HE shall rescue." It's the third person, masculine, singular form of the verb! In Hebrew, verbs also carry person, gender, and number and must agree with the subject. Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV) 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name 'JESUS' (Greek: Ieesous = Hebrew: Yeeshuwa` = "He shall save"): for 'he shall save' his people from their sins." As the WORD, He was God - and therefore, He had all the attributes of God. However, when He was incarnated, He BECAME flesh and was GIVEN the name "Yeeshuwa`" after His birth by both His mother and His stepfather. It was THEN that He began to be called "the Son of the Highest" or "the Son of God!" Notice, too, that Gavri'el doesn't say whether this is a good thing or a bad thing; it's just a statement of fact: "He ... shall be called the Son of the Highest," right or wrong. Actually, I believe that this is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant prophecy, as Gavri'el said: 1 Chronicles 17:7-14 (KJV) 7 "Now therefore thus shalt thou say unto my servant David, 'Thus saith the LORD of hosts, "I took thee from the sheepcote, even from following the sheep, that thou shouldest be ruler over my people Israel: 8 And I have been with thee whithersoever thou hast walked, and have cut off all thine enemies from before thee, and have made thee a name like the name of the great men that are in the earth. 9 Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning, 10 And since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel. Moreover I will subdue all thine enemies. Furthermore I tell thee that the LORD will build thee an house. 11 And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever. 13 I WILL BE HIS FATHER, AND HE SHALL BE MY SON: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: 14 But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore."'" Actually, the verse you are talking about has a different context than that for which you are using it. Here's the context: Matthew 7:13-23 (KJV) 13 "... Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, 'Lord, Lord,' ('Master! Master!') shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?' 23 And then will I profess unto them, 'I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.' ..." The context suggests that these "fruits" are OFFSPRING, not deeds! In point of fact, the deeds in verse 22 count as NOTHING by comparison! The context is talking about a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP - SONSHIP - with the Father! Even the best "soul-winners" can be deceived and can be wrong! Furthermore, the disciples didn't trust Paul at first! It wasn't UNTIL they got to know him better that they lowered their guard! Acts 9:26-31 (KJV) 26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. 29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. 30 Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. 31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. This goes back to my previous argument: Yeshua` was the Word in the flesh, the Word was God before that, but we are NOT told that Yeshua` is God! He is identified now as "the SON of God." The Word was made and is now FLESH, and even resurrected flesh is LIMITED in ways that God never was! He is no longer omnipresent! He is LOCALIZED to a three-dimensional space! That's important because, as Paul noted, 1 Timothy 2:1-6 (KJV) 1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. The Word opted for a physical and limited body of flesh to become Yeshua` our mediator and pay our ransom. I do indeed deny a rapture to some mythical place called "Heaven!" That's a LIE invented by someone who didn't know the Scriptures! Yeshua` didn't go to "Heaven" to build homes for us; He went to THE NEW JERUSALEM, YERUSHALAYIM HA-CHADASHAH, to build homes for us. HOWEVER, we don't go there; it comes HERE! And, it doesn't come right away! It has at least A THOUSAND YEARS before it lands on the New Earth, fashioned from the old! We're not moving to some other planet; God is RECLAIMING HIS OWN CREATION! That's what "REDEEMING" means! He's not going to suffer a loss of any kind to haSatan! That would be admitting that haSatan won in some sense! Romans 8:18-25 (KJV) 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory (literal brightness) which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest (downpayment) expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (THIS is Resurrection!) 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Read Revelation 20:7-22:5 in a single sitting.
  • Create New...