|
|
Post by Cindy on Nov 19, 2015 14:06:00 GMT -5
Sorry I am going to be a little late answering the next one because we had a big wind and rain storm ( lost electric 3 times and had several big leaks to keep us busy).
It is going to start raining again soon, but first I have to babysit for awhile...
( I just figured out granddaughter will prob babysit 2 or perhaps 3 times a week ( but still that is a big break for us).
She won't babysit on whatever 2 days our daughter has off....neither will we,
nor
will she sit on weekends.
But we may get 4 days off some weeks instead of 2 yeah!!
I will have to sit for the hour difference, elem school gets out and hour earlier than HS. each school day tho.
So hopefully after my hour, and assuming the electric doesn't go off, I will try again. I squeeze my mind, I read those scriptures, but I don't have the answer yet. I try to think and pray that God opens my mind. I had to get up at 3am to babysit but here I am with 2nd try.
I did pray and I didn't look anywhere for hints...
sooooo either try #2 will either be my 'creative') LOL ideas
or
answer to my prayers.
Either way, I have always needed a great deal of help discerning what is from the Lord and what is my mind,
so this is a good exercise to begin to get a clearer understanding ,
because you will be able to let me know for sure,
and slowly on as we do these questions,
I will begin to know which is which,
so this study is doubly good for me, thank you.
Well to start you already sort of gave a major 'hint' or explanation! We know people did see God in the Old Testament quoting you:
"we know that the Angel of the Lord in the OT, was in fact Jesus, so we know that people "saw" God and didn't even know it. They thought they'd seen an angel which was more then terrifying enough for them."
Also in the New Testament, after Jesus died and rose again...
His earthly body was changed...I will give a scripture about that...
but
first this scripture:
"who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body Philippians 3:20-21.
2 men saw Jesus after he rose from the dead,
on the to Emmaus,
they did not recognize Him, which suggests they had seen Him before He died.,
But now, they didn't recognize Him because He 'looked' , and was different. (keep this part in mind, they didn't recognize Him, so his body was different, but......)
But we get a clue as to His new Heavenly body( how He will look for the rest of eternity as God?) when He visit the disciples in the upper room after He rose from the dead. (We get clues, yes, but think about His description in Rev 1, does that sound like what He looked like when He rose from the dead on earth?)
He can walk thru 'material'
"Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them "
John 20:26
So in that sense they 'saw' God the Son
I was going to try to write more but if I am on the wrong track......
|
|
|
|
Post by evafromgreece on Nov 19, 2015 16:06:48 GMT -5
I think, children (even babies) are by nature sinners, if they have parents who are unbelievers who hate God, the children have 2 strikes against them.
Children won't seek after God
"“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God."
And children often imitate their parents.
Sin is basically contagious, so quite often they will adopt many of the sins of their parents, to the degree they follow in the footsteps of the same sins as their parents, they will eventually ( if they don't repent and turn to the Lord) suffer the same consequences and must pay the same payment for the same sins of their parents.
But when they reach the age of accountability having made the choice to sin like their parents, the payment they must pay is a result of their own choice for what is now their sins.
2 Kings 14:6
"....."Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin"
Deuteronomy 24:6
"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."
Ezekiel 18:20
"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."
Ezekiel 18:4
"For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child--both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die." The above post of Barbara does help, this is what I was trying to say also. But, I cannot apply this to the baby of David and Bestheba . I don't know how it applies to this since the baby was some days old. |
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Nov 20, 2015 11:04:10 GMT -5
I think, children (even babies) are by nature sinners, if they have parents who are unbelievers who hate God, the children have 2 strikes against them.
Children won't seek after God
"“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God."
And children often imitate their parents.
Sin is basically contagious, so quite often they will adopt many of the sins of their parents, to the degree they follow in the footsteps of the same sins as their parents, they will eventually ( if they don't repent and turn to the Lord) suffer the same consequences and must pay the same payment for the same sins of their parents.
But when they reach the age of accountability having made the choice to sin like their parents, the payment they must pay is a result of their own choice for what is now their sins.
2 Kings 14:6
"....."Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin"
Deuteronomy 24:6
"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."
Ezekiel 18:20
"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."
Ezekiel 18:4
"For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child--both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die." The above post of Barbara does help, this is what I was trying to say also. But, I cannot apply this to the baby of David and Bestheba . I don't know how it applies to this since the baby was some days old.
Look at what David said: “David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”” (2 Samuel 12:5–6) We see truth here, as we know that adulterers were to be stoned to death, so both David and Bathsheba deserved to die because of what they did. And of course murder is also a death sentence according to God. So David deserved to die two times over for what he did. BUT, we also know and see here that God is merciful and willing for forgive sin when the person repents. The next part of the story is also hard to understand because it sure doesn't sound like God is being merciful here, but He really is: Nathan says this is what God says: “Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ “This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’ ”” (2 Samuel 12:9–12) We know that God is always in control. Nothing happens without His knowledge and consent. He is not literally going to cause these things to happen to David, but rather they will all happen as a consequence of his sins and would have happened anyway. Here God is telling him in advance what his sins have caused to be put in motion in his life. This includes the death of the baby: “Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die.”” (2 Samuel 12:13–14)
Remember, David was the King and many other pagan nations watched what happened in Israel to see what God would do. So when David sinned this way, it made God look bad and He had to show that He would not allow people to get away with these things, and so David had to pay the price by losing his son. To the unsaved, death is seen as "bad". So for others to see that God took the son that came from adultery, would show that He would not allow his people to get away with that sin. Of course death is also "bad" to us because we miss the people that die. So in this way it punished David and Bathsheba too. However, the baby was NOT punished. The baby went to Heaven and is there to this day. In this case, David was the one who unknowingly, set his own punishment when he said that the man should pay 4 times over, that means, 4 deaths, and that's exactly what happened. The first was his baby, the next was another son years later and so on. Also one of his sons, took his wives and laid with them in public just as God said would happen, and then he too was killed.
Back to the baby dying though. In this life, we tend to see death as "bad", but God doesn't want us to. Death is not bad unless the person has not been saved. Then there's nothing worse. But for a baby, or child under the age of accountability, or for someone who is saved, death is a good thing. It's basically being born to live for eternity with God without any sin nature. There's nothing at all "bad" about that. So really, by taking the baby, God did not punish the baby, He punished David and Bathsheba as they would miss him. David knew that, and David understood that death was not bad, but that he would miss the child. That's why he stopped mourning and praying as soon as the child died. So the baby did not pay for his parents sins, in a way you could say he got the best gift of all and didn't have to live to die the way his brothers would later, not to mention go through all the trials that life brings us. Instead he got to go spend eternity with God right away and would meet his parents again when they joined him.
We have to be careful not put put our values which are often wrong, on God. He doesn't see things like we do, He sees the Truth. Our view is often if not always corrupted by our sin nature and what the world has taught us.
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383 
|
Post by fearnot on Nov 22, 2015 17:47:04 GMT -5
I just loved the way you said this Cindy!!!! I added some changes tho :)
Quote:
"Death is not bad unless the person has not been saved. Then there's nothing worse. But for a baby, or child under the age of accountability, or for someone who is saved, death is a good thing.
It's basically being 'born'.... to live for eternity with God... without any sin nature.
There's nothing at all "bad" about that.
Arrggghhh I forgot to lookup and read Revelation but I think I remember some of the description of Jesus and it's quite dramatic and different than even His resurrected body before He went to Heaven.
I will go read it soon and try again
|
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Nov 23, 2015 9:46:53 GMT -5
LOL glad you liked it hon. I'll be back tomorrow. Have to babysit my grandkids today so will be busy.
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383
|
Post by fearnot on Nov 23, 2015 13:01:20 GMT -5
I am thinking there is confusion ( for me, not that God created my confusion because God is not the author of confusion)...
about this question, because I am not sure if the question is:
has any man ever seen God means in His absolute glory.....
or
have they seen God but not in His infinite absolute glory?
No one has ever or could ever see God in His absolute glory...they would die.
Even Jesus in Revelation 1 Jesus is basically in a 'human" form.
In the Old Testament people saw ( Jesus) in an 'angelic' form
and in the New testament Jesus was in several forms:
first as 100 percent human body, while at the same time He was 100 percent God ( He never stopped being God the Son)
Then, after Jesus died, and was raised from death, He had yet a different human body, (one that could walk thru walls etc).
And in Revelation yet a more glorified human body.
When Stephen was dying and was full of the Holy Spirit he saw Jesus standing by the Fathers i ( so Jesus was in an advanced human body).
Hebrews 1:3 says:
"...The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being."
Colossians 1:15 says:
"The Son is the image of the invisible God"
So God the Father ( and God the Holy Spirit), cannot be seen, because they are invisible and to see the total glory of the Father would kill a man.....
however, Jesus is the image of God in human form, and therefore can be seen.
Jesus says to Phillip in John 14:9
".....Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"
|
|
|
|
Post by evafromgreece on Nov 23, 2015 16:24:11 GMT -5
The above post of Barbara does help, this is what I was trying to say also. But, I cannot apply this to the baby of David and Bestheba . I don't know how it applies to this since the baby was some days old.
Look at what David said: “David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”” (2 Samuel 12:5–6) We see truth here, as we know that adulterers were to be stoned to death, so both David and Bathsheba deserved to die because of what they did. And of course murder is also a death sentence according to God. So David deserved to die two times over for what he did. BUT, we also know and see here that God is merciful and willing for forgive sin when the person repents. The next part of the story is also hard to understand because it sure doesn't sound like God is being merciful here, but He really is: Nathan says this is what God says: “Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ “This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’ ”” (2 Samuel 12:9–12) We know that God is always in control. Nothing happens without His knowledge and consent. He is not literally going to cause these things to happen to David, but rather they will all happen as a consequence of his sins and would have happened anyway. Here God is telling him in advance what his sins have caused to be put in motion in his life. This includes the death of the baby: “Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die.”” (2 Samuel 12:13–14)
Remember, David was the King and many other pagan nations watched what happened in Israel to see what God would do. So when David sinned this way, it made God look bad and He had to show that He would not allow people to get away with these things, and so David had to pay the price by losing his son. To the unsaved, death is seen as "bad". So for others to see that God took the son that came from adultery, would show that He would not allow his people to get away with that sin. Of course death is also "bad" to us because we miss the people that die. So in this way it punished David and Bathsheba too. However, the baby was NOT punished. The baby went to Heaven and is there to this day. In this case, David was the one who unknowingly, set his own punishment when he said that the man should pay 4 times over, that means, 4 deaths, and that's exactly what happened. The first was his baby, the next was another son years later and so on. Also one of his sons, took his wives and laid with them in public just as God said would happen, and then he too was killed.
Back to the baby dying though. In this life, we tend to see death as "bad", but God doesn't want us to. Death is not bad unless the person has not been saved. Then there's nothing worse. But for a baby, or child under the age of accountability, or for someone who is saved, death is a good thing. It's basically being born to live for eternity with God without any sin nature. There's nothing at all "bad" about that. So really, by taking the baby, God did not punish the baby, He punished David and Bathsheba as they would miss him. David knew that, and David understood that death was not bad, but that he would miss the child. That's why he stopped mourning and praying as soon as the child died. So the baby did not pay for his parents sins, in a way you could say he got the best gift of all and didn't have to live to die the way his brothers would later, not to mention go through all the trials that life brings us. Instead he got to go spend eternity with God right away and would meet his parents again when they joined him.
We have to be careful not put put our values which are often wrong, on God. He doesn't see things like we do, He sees the Truth. Our view is often if not always corrupted by our sin nature and what the world has taught us.
Wow! It was so obvious and I could not see it! I should add also 1 Thessalonians 4:13! But how about the children of the pagan nations that had to die. Is it the same thing? That because they are under the age of accountability they went to heaven? |
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Nov 24, 2015 12:15:02 GMT -5
I am thinking there is confusion ( for me, not that God created my confusion because God is not the author of confusion)...
about this question, because I am not sure if the question is:
has any man ever seen God means in His absolute glory.....
or
have they seen God but not in His infinite absolute glory?
No one has ever or could ever see God in His absolute glory...they would die.
Even Jesus in Revelation 1 Jesus is basically in a 'human" form.
In the Old Testament people saw ( Jesus) in an 'angelic' form
and in the New testament Jesus was in several forms:
first as 100 percent human body, while at the same time He was 100 percent God ( He never stopped being God the Son)
Then, after Jesus died, and was raised from death, He had yet a different human body, (one that could walk thru walls etc).
And in Revelation yet a more glorified human body.
When Stephen was dying and was full of the Holy Spirit he saw Jesus standing by the Fathers i ( so Jesus was in an advanced human body).
Hebrews 1:3 says:
"...The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being."
Colossians 1:15 says:
"The Son is the image of the invisible God"
So God the Father ( and God the Holy Spirit), cannot be seen, because they are invisible and to see the total glory of the Father would kill a man.....
however, Jesus is the image of God in human form, and therefore can be seen.
Jesus says to Phillip in John 14:9
".....Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"
When Jesus tells us that if we've "seen" Him, we've "seen" the Father, He's not talking about His body, He's talking about His character. He's saying that if we know what He is like, then we can know what the Father is like, because they are both the same. He's not talking about His body or what we would refer to as physical looks. Again, when we read that Jesus is "the image of God", it is not talking about His body or what He looks like. It's talking about what He is like. We can trust the Father, because we know the Son, not because we know what they look like ...that wouldn't help us at all.
When Jesus said that to Philip, He was letting Philip know in unmistakable terms, that He was God. He was telling him and the other disciples that He and the Father were one and the same, and beginning to teach them of the Trinity. Remember, this was before His death and resurrection and the disciples really didn't grasp it until after the resurrection. They were still confused about it all. He was letting them know that they had been given a very rare privilege and that they need not worry about committing idolatry, because He was God, He and the Father are One. It's more easily understood when you read the dialog in context there.
Again, Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus is the exact representation of God. What does representation mean? Let me quote MacArthur here: The term translated “exact representation” is used only here in the NT. In extrabiblical literature, it was employed for an engraving on wood, an etching in metal, a brand on animal hide, an impression in clay, and a stamped image on coins. The Son is the perfect imprint, the exact representation of the nature and essence of God in time and space (cf. Jn 14:9; Col 1:15; 2:9). The MacArthur study Bible So again we are not talking here about what God looks like physically.
Now let's look at what Rev. says: “and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.” (Revelation 1:13–16) Revelation 1:17 says John fell down as though dead when He saw this in his vision. Notice that John can't really describe what Jesus looks like. Instead of saying He has white hair, He's tall, etc. he keeps saying He "looked like", trying to find something to compare what He looked like that we might be able to understand. He was not saying that Jesus fee were bronze, but that they "looked like" bronze glowing in a furnace, etc. But, we can also tell from the way John worded this, that some of it at least is symbolic and not actual. What Jesus showed Him in this vision was not necessarily what God looks like, but rather what Jesus wanted John to understand from what he was shown. So John too didn't actually see God as God. Instead he saw a vision of what God wanted him to see, but even that was so overwhelming that John couldn't handle it.
The way I look at it is like when we as parents are trying to explain an especially difficult concept to a very young child. We have to use terms and pictures that they can understand to try and get that concept across. Although we tend to think we're pretty intelligent, compared to God, we're more like little toddlers who really don't have a clue. So God tries to explain things in a way that gets His message across to us.
The bottom line is that no one has ever actually seen God in His own form and lived to tell about it. I'd say that Stephen came as close as anyone could, but even he may not have seen Jesus as He really is because if he had, He wouldn't have been able to say a word. He would have been instantly overwhelmed and died. Jesus in His love and mercy, showed Stephen a glimpse of Himself to comfort him and the Holy Spirit gave him the words he spoke to be a witness to Israel one more time, and of course to us as well. Let's look at what the scriptures say: “But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”” (Acts 7:55–56) Saying he saw the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God, was saying to the Jews that Jesus was their Messiah and that He had the right to judge them, as it would have called to their minds the scene of Dan 7:13. By this time, Israel was already under God's judgement for not accepting Jesus as their Messiah, and this let them know that that Judgement was coming and that it would come from Jesus. (it came in full in 70ad). So, as in most things, what Stephen saw was what God allowed him to see. We have to simply believe what all the scripture says though and not just that one line. And we know that scripture teaches that no one can see God and live. That leaves 2 possibilities: Stephen did see God and of course died, or Stephen saw a representation of God (kind of like the transfiguration) just before he died to be a witness. Either way works I suppose, because regardless, Stephen didn't live, he died.
Does that help?
OK, good! Let's look at it closer then. The story of David's baby can be very hard to understand when we look with eyes that tend to see things the way the world does. First, we have to realize that what David did was very wrong and God had to punish him. David wasn't just a regular guy anymore, he was the King of a whole nation, and God tells us that a leader, whether they are a king or a president, or the leader of a church, is responsible for all their people, and therefore their sins are judged more harshly because they can and will affect all the people they lead. If you read the beginning of the story where God sends the prophet Nathan, and Nathan tells David a story, you see that David, when he judged the man in Nathan's story, actually judged himself, and God accepted his judgement. This was part of David's job as King. He had to judge between people and carry out those judgements, so God allowed him to actually judge himself though he didn't know it at the time.
Look at what David said: “David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”” (2 Samuel 12:5–6) We see truth here, as we know that adulterers were to be stoned to death, so both David and Bathsheba deserved to die because of what they did. And of course murder is also a death sentence according to God. So David deserved to die two times over for what he did. BUT, we also know and see here that God is merciful and willing for forgive sin when the person repents. The next part of the story is also hard to understand because it sure doesn't sound like God is being merciful here, but He really is: Nathan says this is what God says: “Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ “This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’ ”” (2 Samuel 12:9–12) We know that God is always in control. Nothing happens without His knowledge and consent. He is not literally going to cause these things to happen to David, but rather they will all happen as a consequence of his sins and would have happened anyway. Here God is telling him in advance what his sins have caused to be put in motion in his life. This includes the death of the baby: “Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die.”” (2 Samuel 12:13–14)
Remember, David was the King and many other pagan nations watched what happened in Israel to see what God would do. So when David sinned this way, it made God look bad and He had to show that He would not allow people to get away with these things, and so David had to pay the price by losing his son. To the unsaved, death is seen as "bad". So for others to see that God took the son that came from adultery, would show that He would not allow his people to get away with that sin. Of course death is also "bad" to us because we miss the people that die. So in this way it punished David and Bathsheba too. However, the baby was NOT punished. The baby went to Heaven and is there to this day. In this case, David was the one who unknowingly, set his own punishment when he said that the man should pay 4 times over, that means, 4 deaths, and that's exactly what happened. The first was his baby, the next was another son years later and so on. Also one of his sons, took his wives and laid with them in public just as God said would happen, and then he too was killed.
Back to the baby dying though. In this life, we tend to see death as "bad", but God doesn't want us to. Death is not bad unless the person has not been saved. Then there's nothing worse. But for a baby, or child under the age of accountability, or for someone who is saved, death is a good thing. It's basically being born to live for eternity with God without any sin nature. There's nothing at all "bad" about that. So really, by taking the baby, God did not punish the baby, He punished David and Bathsheba as they would miss him. David knew that, and David understood that death was not bad, but that he would miss the child. That's why he stopped mourning and praying as soon as the child died. So the baby did not pay for his parents sins, in a way you could say he got the best gift of all and didn't have to live to die the way his brothers would later, not to mention go through all the trials that life brings us. Instead he got to go spend eternity with God right away and would meet his parents again when they joined him.
We have to be careful not put put our values which are often wrong, on God. He doesn't see things like we do, He sees the Truth. Our view is often if not always corrupted by our sin nature and what the world has taught us.
Wow! It was so obvious and I could not see it! I should add also 1 Thessalonians 4:13! But how about the children of the pagan nations that had to die. Is it the same thing? That because they are under the age of accountability they went to heaven?
About the babies and children of the pagan nations who died it's similar. God does not make anyone, including children and babies pay for the sins of their parents. BUT, those babies and children do wind up having to deal with the consequences of their parents sin(s). It's easier to understand if you think of parents who sin and get divorced. Their children are not responsible for their sin of divorce, but they still have to deal with the consequences of it, because their parents no longer live with each other and no longer love each other. Children often wind up living with only one parent, and often that parent will tell them lies about the other one to make them hate the other parent. So the children get stuck dealing with the consequence of their parents divorce, not because God makes them pay the consequences, but because the parents do. Or a father who robs a bank will go to prison. God will not hold the child responsible for robbing a bank. But the child will not get to see their father as a consequence of their father's sin. The child may be called names or made fun of because their father was wicked, as a consequence of their father's sin. That's not God's fault, it's the father's fault.
For the pagan children of those nations, it looks like they had to pay the consequences of their parents sins, but they really didn't because God took them all to heaven. If they had been allowed to grow up to the age of accountability, they would have done the same things as their parents because that's what they'd seen and been taught, and they would have gone to hell for eternity instead. So in this case, God was being very merciful to them, even though it didn't look like it to those who are afraid of death. It also served as a warning not to sin again the one true God.
Does that help?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Nov 24, 2015 12:22:59 GMT -5
Ok when you're ready for the 3rd one,It's this: In Matthew 7:21 Jesus says not everyone that calls the name of the Lord shall be saved but in Acts 2:21 Paul says whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. It sounds like they're saying the opposite thing. What's true?
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383
|
Post by fearnot on Nov 25, 2015 0:07:03 GMT -5
Thanks again Cindy!
It's like I said a grrrreat exercise for me in more ways than one.
I am up at 1:45 tonight to grandchildren sit
|
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Nov 25, 2015 12:13:45 GMT -5
You're welcome hon. I'd really like to make sure that you could explain this to someone though...about seeing God I mean. Can you explain it in your own words now?
|
|
|
|
Post by evafromgreece on Nov 25, 2015 15:45:13 GMT -5
About the babies and children of the pagan nations who died it's similar. God does not make anyone, including children and babies pay for the sins of their parents. BUT, those babies and children do wind up having to deal with the consequences of their parents sin(s). It's easier to understand if you think of parents who sin and get divorced. Their children are not responsible for their sin of divorce, but they still have to deal with the consequences of it, because their parents no longer live with each other and no longer love each other. Children often wind up living with only one parent, and often that parent will tell them lies about the other one to make them hate the other parent. So the children get stuck dealing with the consequence of their parents divorce, not because God makes them pay the consequences, but because the parents do. Or a father who robs a bank will go to prison. God will not hold the child responsible for robbing a bank. But the child will not get to see their father as a consequence of their father's sin. The child may be called names or made fun of because their father was wicked, as a consequence of their father's sin. That's not God's fault, it's the father's fault. For the pagan children of those nations, it looks like they had to pay the consequences of their parents sins, but they really didn't because God took them all to heaven. If they had been allowed to grow up to the age of accountability, they would have done the same things as their parents because that's what they'd seen and been taught, and they would have gone to hell for eternity instead. So in this case, God was being very merciful to them, even though it didn't look like it to those who are afraid of death. It also served as a warning not to sin again the one true God. Does that help? Read more: fresh-hope.com/thread/1083/next-study-explaining-contradictions?page=2&scrollTo=6464#ixzz3sXQtKx00Yes thank you! It did help a lot :) |
|
|
|
Post by evafromgreece on Nov 25, 2015 16:05:26 GMT -5
Ok when you're ready for the 3rd one,It's this: In Matthew 7:21 Jesus says not everyone that calls the name of the Lord shall be saved but in Acts 2:21 Paul says whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. It sounds like they're saying the opposite thing. What's true? In Matthew it says that it's not enough to claim you are a Christian, but you have to do the will of the Father, you have to become day after day like Jesus. You have to live, and act like Him. Saying that you are a Christian doesn't make you a Christian. In Acts it says that whoever seeks for the Lord and accept Him as a Father will be saved, that person will receive the Holy Spirit and will gradually change way of life, and will act like Him. So, it says the same thing in both verses |
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Nov 27, 2015 13:00:30 GMT -5
About the babies and children of the pagan nations who died it's similar. God does not make anyone, including children and babies pay for the sins of their parents. BUT, those babies and children do wind up having to deal with the consequences of their parents sin(s). It's easier to understand if you think of parents who sin and get divorced. Their children are not responsible for their sin of divorce, but they still have to deal with the consequences of it, because their parents no longer live with each other and no longer love each other. Children often wind up living with only one parent, and often that parent will tell them lies about the other one to make them hate the other parent. So the children get stuck dealing with the consequence of their parents divorce, not because God makes them pay the consequences, but because the parents do. Or a father who robs a bank will go to prison. God will not hold the child responsible for robbing a bank. But the child will not get to see their father as a consequence of their father's sin. The child may be called names or made fun of because their father was wicked, as a consequence of their father's sin. That's not God's fault, it's the father's fault. For the pagan children of those nations, it looks like they had to pay the consequences of their parents sins, but they really didn't because God took them all to heaven. If they had been allowed to grow up to the age of accountability, they would have done the same things as their parents because that's what they'd seen and been taught, and they would have gone to hell for eternity instead. So in this case, God was being very merciful to them, even though it didn't look like it to those who are afraid of death. It also served as a warning not to sin again the one true God. Does that help? Read more: fresh-hope.com/thread/1083/next-study-explaining-contradictions?page=2&scrollTo=6464#ixzz3sXQtKx00Yes thank you! It did help a lot :) Ok when you're ready for the 3rd one,It's this: In Matthew 7:21 Jesus says not everyone that calls the name of the Lord shall be saved but in Acts 2:21 Paul says whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. It sounds like they're saying the opposite thing. What's true? In Matthew it says that it's not enough to claim you are a Christian, but you have to do the will of the Father, you have to become day after day like Jesus. You have to live, and act like Him. Saying that you are a Christian doesn't make you a Christian. In Acts it says that whoever seeks for the Lord and accept Him as a Father will be saved, that person will receive the Holy Spirit and will gradually change way of life, and will act like Him. So, it says the same thing in both verses |
|
|
|
Post by evafromgreece on Nov 27, 2015 16:13:34 GMT -5
About the babies and children of the pagan nations who died it's similar. God does not make anyone, including children and babies pay for the sins of their parents. BUT, those babies and children do wind up having to deal with the consequences of their parents sin(s). It's easier to understand if you think of parents who sin and get divorced. Their children are not responsible for their sin of divorce, but they still have to deal with the consequences of it, because their parents no longer live with each other and no longer love each other. Children often wind up living with only one parent, and often that parent will tell them lies about the other one to make them hate the other parent. So the children get stuck dealing with the consequence of their parents divorce, not because God makes them pay the consequences, but because the parents do. Or a father who robs a bank will go to prison. God will not hold the child responsible for robbing a bank. But the child will not get to see their father as a consequence of their father's sin. The child may be called names or made fun of because their father was wicked, as a consequence of their father's sin. That's not God's fault, it's the father's fault. For the pagan children of those nations, it looks like they had to pay the consequences of their parents sins, but they really didn't because God took them all to heaven. If they had been allowed to grow up to the age of accountability, they would have done the same things as their parents because that's what they'd seen and been taught, and they would have gone to hell for eternity instead. So in this case, God was being very merciful to them, even though it didn't look like it to those who are afraid of death. It also served as a warning not to sin again the one true God. Does that help? Read more: fresh-hope.com/thread/1083/next-study-explaining-contradictions?page=2&scrollTo=6464#ixzz3sXQtKx00Yes thank you! It did help a lot :) In Acts it says that whoever seeks for the Lord and accept Him as a Father will be saved, that person will receive the Holy Spirit and will gradually change way of life, and will act like Him. So, it says the same thing in both verses Oh sorry! I will see it right now |
|
|
|
Post by evafromgreece on Nov 27, 2015 16:28:42 GMT -5
In Genesis 32:20 and Exodus 33:11, the person that Jacob and Moses saw, I believe was Jesus. The person a human cannot see is the Father. I think it explain this also in John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. ", we as humans we can see only the Son. For example the students of Christ have seen Him again after the resurrection
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383
|
Post by fearnot on Nov 27, 2015 21:46:53 GMT -5
I just realized I misunderstood from the start what we were supposed to do.
I was thinking that we were supposed to explain why two seeming contradicting verses were not only
not a contradiction
but
also both were always true, even tho it might seem impossible
But I realize that may not always be true
it could be a misunderstanding of one or both of the verses ( so that only one is true)?
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383
|
Post by fearnot on Nov 27, 2015 22:05:24 GMT -5
I just want to make sure, am I supposed to be explaining Matthew and Acts verses?
Did you want me to explain it in my own words?
Too much turkey typtophan has muddle my brain
|
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Nov 29, 2015 10:17:33 GMT -5
I just realized I misunderstood from the start what we were supposed to do.
I was thinking that we were supposed to explain why two seeming contradicting verses were not only
not a contradiction
but
also both were always true, even tho it might seem impossible
But I realize that may not always be true
it could be a misunderstanding of one or both of the verses ( so that only one is true)?
I just want to make sure, am I supposed to be explaining Matthew and Acts verses?
Did you want me to explain it in my own words?
Too much turkey typtophan has muddle my brain |
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Nov 30, 2015 10:03:57 GMT -5
OK, so I don't forget, after you do the one about Calling on Jesus, the next one will be Was John the Baptist really Elijah or not, from Matthew 11:13-14 and John 1:19-21.
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383
|
Post by fearnot on Nov 30, 2015 23:01:50 GMT -5
In Matthew 7 the people are not calling on Jesus to save them because they are sinners they are suggesting they did 'good
works':
"did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’"
Matthew 7:22
They are boasting about the fact they prophesied, cast out demons and even performed many miracles.....in His name.
They make it sound like a 50/50 proposition, we did all these things and oh yeah you helped Jesus cuz it was in your name.
So although they 'call on His name' they are also boasting about the 'good deeds' they did that ought to allow them into Heaven.....that is not a true calling on Jesus to save them, because they are of they opinion they have been such good, righteous, godly people they should get in on what THEY have done....oh yeah....in His name.
The people in verse in Acts are not boasting about what they have done, they are just calling on Jesus to save them, they are not relying on anything they have done, only on the Lord.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Dec 1, 2015 12:34:27 GMT -5
Good job! On to the next one then LOL
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383
|
Post by fearnot on Dec 1, 2015 13:14:13 GMT -5
Really yeah!!! That's the first one I got a 'passing' grade on LOL
So maybe when I prayed and asked the Lord about it I did hear? I did not look anywhere else, even for a tiny hint, that time
|
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Dec 3, 2015 11:33:21 GMT -5
No maybe's about it LOL
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383
|
Post by fearnot on Dec 3, 2015 12:57:22 GMT -5
I am sooooo happy to get a confirmation.....nothing better than knowing I got an answer to prayer about a small portion of God's Word!!
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383
|
Post by fearnot on Dec 3, 2015 13:20:25 GMT -5
John was not Elijah.
Humans can only be one human. The Bible does not teach reincarnation!!
A person could use an alias ( like the name John but in fact really be a person with a different name).
It's true Elijah did not die but was taken to Heaven in a whirlwind (Enoch also was taken to Heaven without dying). I think they point to the rapture but that is not the question I am to answer
However Elijah is supposed to come back before the 'Day of the Lord' s so one might attempt to use that fact as part of the proof John was Elijah...
BUT...
John clearly states that he John is NOT Elijah:
"20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.”
However it was prophesied that John would be in the Spirit of Elijah.
Luke 1:17
".....And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Dec 5, 2015 12:59:32 GMT -5
OK, so I don't forget, after you do the one about Calling on Jesus, the next one will be Was John the Baptist really Elijah or not, from Matthew 11:13-14 and John 1:19-21.
John was not Elijah.
Humans can only be one human. The Bible does not teach reincarnation!!
A person could use an alias ( like the name John but in fact really be a person with a different name).
It's true Elijah did not die but was taken to Heaven in a whirlwind (Enoch also was taken to Heaven without dying). I think they point to the rapture but that is not the question I am to answer
However Elijah is supposed to come back before the 'Day of the Lord' s so one might attempt to use that fact as part of the proof John was Elijah...
BUT...
John clearly states that he John is NOT Elijah:
"20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.”
However it was prophesied that John would be in the Spirit of Elijah.
Luke 1:17
".....And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah..."
Also ““See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.”” (Malachi 4:5–6) and “But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”” (Mark 9:13) as well. 2 Kings 2:11 tells about Elijah's ascension. Also “A voice of one calling: “In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.” (Isaiah 40:3)
and Isaiah 40:9, not to mention the ones in between lol.
Keep in mind the prophecies about Elijah are from over 400 years before either John or Jesus was born. Also when you're explaining a contradiction you should always try to use other scriptures to show the clear meaning of the ones in question. (not saying you didn't, just saying) You showed Luke 1:17 which is a good start, but you need to quote the whole thing and let us know who is speaking to who so we have it in context, and then tell if it's a quote from another scripture. (which it is: Malachi 4:5–6) Tell us that he's coming "in the spirit of Elijah" is good, but don't you think that may bring up more questions, like then why wasn't Malachi more specific? Or why did Jesus say both that Elijah has already come and that he WILL come and restore all things? John didn't restore all things so that isn't true is it? And why would Jesus say "if you're willing to accept it"? (Matthew 11:14 ) Either a person is or isn't someone right?
While John did seem to state clearly that he wasn't Elijah, we must look at the rest of his conversation with them about this, not just that one verse I gave you: “He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Christ.” They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.” Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’ ”” (John 1:20–23)
What I'm saying hon, is that your answer is good for a start, but you need to go further, ok? Short answers are good, but only when they contain all the needed information. Don't be afraid of a long answer. 
|
|
fearnot
Living With Pain
Posts: 8,383
|
Post by fearnot on Dec 6, 2015 2:50:11 GMT -5
Thank you Cindy. I guess I have swung from too many words to the other extreme of, a little too little.
Should I go ahead and try to answer the new questions that might be brought up ( the ones you suggested)?
Actually, I was a little 'gun shy' because if I was on the wrong track and had kept going on that wouldn't have been good.
And also, I was thinking if a real person had asked me this question, I would give out the min. but hopefully correct answer, and if they then wait to see if they would ask for more info....
But maybe that is not the best way.
I think one reason I was thinking that ( very short answer ) was because of my neighbor, and her asking me to pray to my 'angels'.... I had stated that maybe next time I would go into more detail about that....but I 'think' you said a short direct truthful answer would be best.
So I am a little confuse as how to determine when a very short answer is best, to when a more detailed one with more scriptures would be the correct or better way?
way
|
|
|
|
Post by Cindy on Dec 7, 2015 13:22:48 GMT -5
Look at your answer hon, it's not complete. You didn't answer the question. You simply said that John couldn't possibly be Elijah, but didn't explain why Jesus said he was Elijah. I don't have time now to answer your other questions, but will try to tomorrow. For now, try to answer the contradiction, using what you said (if you want to) and the additional material I gave you (if you want to) to explain what both scriptures are saying and why it is not a contradiction. OK?
|
|
|
|
Post by evafromgreece on Dec 7, 2015 16:14:26 GMT -5
Was my answer complete?
|
|
!!
