WHY IS THE WORLD SO OBSESSED WITH COLOR!

[RdJ]

-

Edited March 20, 2024 by RdJ
never mind

[Your closest friendnt]

43 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

But he is in Christ's genealogy.

Still not sure what the "clean flesh"

provision is about. 

It means that he was not defiled by the Idol worship, not poluted by seeking the blessings of the Idols. 

[Mr. M]

11 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

It means that he was not defiled by the Idol worship, not poluted by seeking the blessings of the Idols. 

And you know that how?

Point 1: To be in the genealogy,

he is required to have clean flesh

Point 2: He is in the genealogy,

thus he had clean flesh.

How did you arrive at point 1?

The only scripture I have seen mentioned

in this off topic discussion is Joshua 24:2.

David committed adultery and murder

and you say that is okay because he was forgiven.

Even if it could be proven everyone in Christ's 

genealogy kept themselves from idols, where

does this stipulation come from?

So far, it sounds like something made up

or found on a YouTube video. 

At this point I deeply regret getting involved,

since it has derailed the intended discussion

on color barriers among people.

My apologies to @backontrack.

Maybe he will be able to accomplish that 

for his thread.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2024 by Mr. M

[enoob57]

This thread has made me quite blue

[backontrack]

17 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

You are not making any sense??  Joseph did not impregnate Mary, it says that she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit (God).  So, Joseph is not the biological father.  This means the human side of Jesus' DNA came from his mother.  The other half of his DNA came from God.  This is why he is both Son of Man and Son of God.

Remember the Word walked among us Jesus is the Word God in flesh. He is the Holy Spirit 3 in one. Oh thank you Jesus!

[Your closest friendnt]

19 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

You are not making any sense?? 

Joseph did not impregnate Mary, it says that she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit (God). 

This is not a truth statement according to scriptures in Luke 1:, this is the scripture from Luke 1:34-35 that shows that the statement above is not truth and is contrary to what the Archangel Gabriel said to Mary in Luke 1:34-35 

 Luke 1:34-35. NIV 

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 

●> And one more thing: in verse 35 the Archangel Gabriel said; “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. It is not the same as you posted "Holy Spirit(God)" in away that it does not make the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Most High. That's what the Archangel Gabriel said; the power of the Most High, which a reference to God. The Archangel Gabriel made the distinction between the Holy Spirit and The Most High as in many other scriptures the Most High God. 

●> one more thing; the Archangel Gabriel said;

So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 

the Archangel Gabriel said that his flesh is only from his mother only because the Holy Spirit does not have human flesh. And said that her egg in her womb will be fertilize but not in the way you have put it using the word "impregnate". The Archangel Gabriel said; verse 35 bellow, do you want to argue with the Archangel Gabriel? 

35. The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 

19 hours ago, Jedi4Yahweh said:

So, Joseph is not the biological father.  This means the human side of Jesus' DNA came from his mother.  The other half of his DNA came from God.  This is why he is both Son of Man and Son of God.

 

[FJK]

4 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

That's what the Archangel Gabriel said; the power of the Most High, which a reference to God.

When a Christian references God is he not referring to the Trinity as a whole and not seeing the Holy Spirit as a separated and independent being from it?

This is my understanding, but I've never really tried to critically challenge myself on it so I may be wrong.

[Your closest friendnt]

 

10 minutes ago, FJK said:

When a Christian references God is he not referring to the Trinity as a whole and not seeing the Holy Spirit as a separated and independent being from it?

This is my understanding, but I've never really tried to critically challenge myself on it so I may be wrong.

This post is very unique in that it inquires it seeks to understand (a Berrian kind of Spirit). I can see your question and how it is asked. 

In the scriptures in Luke 1: the words of the Archangel Gabriel who stands before God, that He makes the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Most High and we are in the Old Testament. 

[FJK]

1 minute ago, Your closest friendnt said:

 

This post is very unique in that it inquires it seeks to understand (a Berrian kind of Spirit). I can see your question and how it is asked. 

In the scriptures in Luke 1: the words of the Archangel Gabriel who stands before God, that He makes the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Most High and we are in the Old Testament. 

Maybe that would be something best addressed by a Jew since it would fall under the common Jewish thinking of the time and need to be looked at in that light?

[Your closest friendnt]

14 minutes ago, FJK said:

When a Christian references God is he not referring to the Trinity as a whole and not seeing the Holy Spirit as a separated and independent being from it?

This is my understanding, but I've never really tried to critically challenge myself on it so I may be wrong.

When Jesus said to Peter; that the Holy Spirit has revealed that to you. He is making the distinction between the Holy Spirit and God.