U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
Old 04-12-2016, 08:38 AM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57


The Fiery Serpent

†. John 3:14-17 . . As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The incident to which Christ referred is located at Num 21:5-9. Long story short: Yhvh's people became weary of eating manna all the time at every meal. But instead of courteously, and diplomatically, petitioning their divine benefactor for a different diet, they became hostile and confrontational; angrily demanding tastier food.

In response to their insolence, and their ingratitude for His providence; Yhvh sent a swarm of deadly poisonous vipers among them; which began striking people; and every strike was 100% fatal, no exceptions.

After a number of people died, the rest came to their senses and begged Moses to intercede. In reply; The Lord instructed Moses to fashion an image of the vipers and hoist it up on a pole in plain view so that everyone dying from venom could look to the image for relief.

The key issue here is that the image was the only God-given remedy for the people's bites-- not sacrifices and offerings, not tithing, not church attendance, not scapulars, not confession, not holy days of obligation, not the Sabbath, not the golden rule, not charity, not Bible study and/or Sunday school, not self denial, not vows of poverty, not the Ten Commandments, not one's religion of choice, no; not even prayers. The image was it; nothing else would suffice to save their lives.

In other words then: Christ's crucifixion is the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God; and when people accept it, then according to John 3:14-17 and John 5:24, they qualify for a transfer from death into life. Those who reject his crucifixion as the only God-given rescue from the wrath of God are already on the docket to face it.

†. John 3:18 . .Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

His son's "name" in this case is relative to the fiery serpent incident.


Last edited by NyawehNyoh; 04-12-2016 at 09:03 AM..

Old 04-17-2016, 09:24 AM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57
How Christ Is Related To Adam

I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. That notion is easy to debunk.

According to the book of Genesis; God created Adam's flesh from the earth's dust. Not so Eve.

She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's side. Thus Eve's flesh wasn't the flesh of a second species of h.sapiens. Her flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's except for gender. In other words: Eve was the flip side of the same biological coin. In point of fact, the Bible refers to Eve as Adam just as it refers to Adam as Adam, (Gen 5:22)

From that point on; any human flesh biologically produced from Eve's flesh-- whether virgin conceived or naturally conceived --would be biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's because the source of its mother's flesh was Adam's flesh.

†. Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Just about everybody agrees that the seed spoken of in that passage is Christ. Well; seeing as how his mom's flesh was derived biologically from Eve, then Christ's flesh is just as much Eve's flesh as Eve's, and seeing as how her flesh was just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then it's readily deduced that Adam is Christ's biological progenitor.

It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't. However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of man flesh; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a sample of woman flesh. And seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would actually be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was produced from Adam's flesh.

Bottom line: In order to qualify as one of Adam's biological descendants, a person need only be one of Eve's biological descendants: which we all are.

†. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

So then; unless somebody can prove-- conclusively and without ambiguity-- that Jesus Christ's mother wasn't biologically related to either Adam or Eve; then we are forced to conclude that Adam is Jesus Christ's biological father.

Old 04-18-2016, 10:49 PM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57
How Christ Became Related To Solomon

Q: Seeing as how Christ was virgin conceived; how did he get into Joseph's genealogy as per the first chapter of Matthew?

A: At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his own two biological grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and power to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of adding additional children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid Bilhah— Dan, and Naphtali.

Jacob's motive for adopting his son Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for his deceased wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own. Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.

Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream and ordered him to take part in naming Mary's out-of wedlock baby.

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt 1:21)

Joseph complied.

"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)

So Christ went in the books as Joseph's son; because that's how it worked in those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child. In other words: Christ became his dad's son by means of adoption, just as Ephraim and Manasseh became Jacob's sons by means of adoption.

Old 04-19-2016, 07:29 PM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin

Q: If Jesus Christ was made from one of his mother's human eggs; wouldn't she have passed the curse of sin down to her son?

A: Yes; absolutely, because everybody descending biologically from Adam stands condemned for tasting the forbidden fruit. The reason for that is because Adam is humanity, and humanity is Adam; viz: he's all there is because God created no other humanity but Adam. In other words: everyone is just simply more Adam; including Eve because she was derived from Adam's flesh. (Gen 2:21-23, Acts 17:26)

Note the grammatical tense of the passage below-- it's past tense; indicating that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, his entire race became guilty of tasting it-- in real time --including those of his race who've yet to be born.

†. Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

†. Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners.

Well; the trick is: though Adam's disobedience made his race sinners; it didn't make them sinful: that's something else altogether. We're not talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, we're just talking about a universal felony, so to speak.

The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to clear his sin off the books seeing as how Adam's demise is the proper satisfaction of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his race's own personal sins is another matter.

Q: If Jesus Christ was made a sinner due to Adam's slip-up, then how can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?

A: Adam's slip made Christ a sinner right along with his fellow men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful; viz: Christ committed no personal sins of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22, 1John 3:9)

Old 04-20-2016, 10:20 AM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57

At his demise; Christ went to hades. (Acts 2:25-31)

A place he described as "in the heart of the earth" (Matt 12:40)

Christ's corpse wasn't interred in the heart of the earth. In point of fact, his corpse wasn't even interred in the earth's soil. It was laid to rest on the surface of the earth inside a rock tomb.

Acts 2:25-31 refers to Psalm 16:8-11. In that scripture the Hebrew word sheol is used instead of hades; which means that hades and sheol are talking about the same place; viz: they're interchangeable, so that whatever is true about the one, is true about the other; ergo: if hades is in the heart of the earth, then so is sheol.

Jonah went to sheol. (Jonah 2:2)

A place that he described as the roots of the mountains. (Jonah 2:6)

Mountains are not rooted in the tummies of fishes. They're rooted down deep in the earth.

Acts 2:25-31 speaks of Christ escaping corruption; viz: putrefaction.

The word used for putrefaction in Ps 16:8-11 is shachath, which is an important element in the story of Jonah.

†. Jonah 2:6 . .Thou hast brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.

"pit" is translated from shachath; a common word in the Old Testament for putrefaction; viz: Jonah 2:6 is the language of resurrection; which means that at some time during his nautical adventure, Jonah was deceased.

Was Jonah ever alive in the fish? Yes, (Jonah 2:1). But was he alive the whole three days and three nights? No; because in order for Jonah to be at the roots of the mountains and in the tummy of the fish simultaneously, he and his body had to part company; which is exactly what happened to Christ. While his corpse was reposing on the surface of the earth, he was in its heart.

The story of Jonah is very handy for explaining what was going on with Christ between the time of his death and the time of his resurrection; and it's also handy for standing up to folk who insist that hades and sheol refer only to the grave.

Old 04-21-2016, 09:53 AM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57
Hell vs. Common Sense

I watched an educational series on NetFlix in September of 2014 called "The Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries" hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson Ph.D. director of the Hayden Planetarium. Mr. Tyson said, in so many words; that in the study of Physics, one must sometimes abandon sense and accept discoveries as they are no matter how contrary to logic they may seem.

The NASA teams that sent Pioneers, Voyagers and Mariners out to explore the planets came to the very same conclusion: they learned to abandon their logical expectations and instead expect the unexpected; and they encountered plenty.

The discovery of the cosmos' accelerating expansion was very discouraging for cosmologist Alan Sandage— once a proponent of the theory that the universe would eventually run out of explosive energy from the Big Bang and gradually pull itself back together —called the discovery of the ever increasing velocity of the expanding universe a terrible surprise. And of course it is because the known laws of gravity, combined with common sense, demand that the ballooning universe eventually slow down, stop expanding, and shrink rather than picking up speed.

In the field of Christianity, as in the fields of Physics and planetary exploration, faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only what makes sense to it.

I readily admit that the idea of people existing in an altered state, consciously suffering to time indefinite, makes no sense at all, and seems to totally contradict the nature of a divine patron reputed to be kind, caring, and sympathetic. But just as science admits to many unsolved mysteries; so does Christianity. And there's no shame in that. The shame is in pretending to have complete understanding of a supernatural entity that by its very nature defies reason and common sense.

Old 04-22-2016, 10:21 AM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57
Ways To Define Grace

†. 1Cor 1:3 . . Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I seriously doubt the average rank and file pew warmer even knows what grace is. I suspect that most are under the impression that grace is somehow a quantifiable substance like butter and gasoline; but in regards to God, grace is an abstract noun that expresses personal qualities apart from substance.

The New Testament Greek word for "grace" is charis (khar'-ece); which means: graciousness.

Webster's defines graciousness as: kind, courteous, inclined to good will, generous, charitable, merciful, altruistic, compassionate, thoughtful, cordial, affable, genial, sociable, cheerful, warm, sensitive, considerate, and tactful.

Cordial stresses warmth and heartiness

Affable implies easy approachability and readiness to respond pleasantly to conversation or requests or proposals

Genial stresses cheerfulness and even joviality

Sociable suggests a genuine liking for the companionship of others

Generous is characterized by a noble or forbearing spirit; viz: magnanimous, kindly, and liberal in giving

Charitable means full of love for, and goodwill toward, others; viz: benevolent, tolerant, and lenient.

Altruistic means unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others; viz: a desire to be of service to others for no other reason than it just feels good to do so.

Tactful indicates a keen sense of what to do, or say, in order to maintain good relations with others in order to resolve and/or avoid unnecessary conflict.

Compassion defines a sympathetic awareness of others' distress, coupled with a desire to alleviate it.

The Old Testament Hebrew word for grace is chen (khane); and means the same as charis (e.g. Gen 6:8).

When you put all those lovely attributes together, you get a pretty good picture of the bright side of God's personality; and the extent of His good will towards the Corinthian church. There's a dark side too, and plenty of ill will; but grace doesn't go there.

I picked up an interesting line from an exasperated father in the final episode of Downton Abbey that goes like this:

"As my son, I love you, but I have tried, and failed, to like you."

The father who spoke that line wasn't a difficult man. He was actually a very gracious man who had it up to here with his grown son's toxic personality.

That so reminds me of a passage in the book of John: here paraphrased a bit:

"For God so loved the world, that He offered His only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be rescued through him." (John 3:16-17)

Yes, God loves His human creations; enough to even sacrifice His only son's life and limb to protect them; but I honestly believe that he has tried, and failed, to like them. For example:

"Now the Lord observed the extent of the people's wickedness, and He saw that all their thoughts were consistently and totally evil. So the Lord was sorry He had ever made them. It broke His heart. And the Lord said: I will completely wipe out this human race that I have created. Yes, and I will destroy all the animals and birds, too. I am sorry I ever made them." (Gen 6:5-7)

Bottom line: God doesn't owe humanity anything. God's offering of His only son was neither an obligation nor a duty; it was a courtesy. Far from deserving kindness, humanity deserves the cold shoulder. But God, being the sensitive person that He is, willing to go the extra mile, still finds it in Himself to extend humanity an opportunity to turn itself around and give Him cause to like them instead of humanity, with its overall toxic demeanor, always making it impossible for Him to do so.

Old 04-27-2016, 10:11 AM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57
The Rich Man, Lazarus, And Abraham

Fiction can be defined as stories about people and events that, though untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

Fantasy can be defined as stories about people and events that are not only untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.

For example: a story about a boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while a story about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio and a boy with autism is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while the other is far removed from normal reality.

I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that could not possibly be a real-life story. They're all actually quite believable-- farmers sowing seed, women losing coins, sons leaving home, wineskins bursting, tares among the wheat, leavened bread, barren fig trees, the blind leading the blind, et al.

Now; if he had told one that alleged the moon was made of green cheese; we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was fantasy; but none of them are like that. No; there's nothing out of the ordinary in his parables. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as fiction; but never fantasy because none of them are so far removed from the normal round of human experience that they have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies that the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life man; held in very high esteem by at least three of the world's prominent religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And he's also the friend of God (Isa 41:8). I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among normal Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say something untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about one of his Father's buddies.

And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.

There is something else to consider.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No, it originated with his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro-managed.

†. John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words

†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me.

†. John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

†. John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.

So, by implying that Luke 16:19-31 is false, the parable theory insinuates that God is a person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth about people, not even about His own friends, which is ridiculous seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that God cannot lie.

His impeccable character is what makes that narrative all the more terrifying. Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Christ's Father is a tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume the narrative was drawn from real-life; and if not drawn from real life, then at least based upon real life.

In other words: there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where people endure unbearable anxiety worrying their loved ones are on a road to where they are and there is no way to warn them.

Old 05-01-2016, 06:34 PM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57
The God Begotten Of God

Q: One translation of John 1:18 speaks of "the only begotten god"; while another translation of John 1:18 speaks of "the only begotten son". Which translation is correct?

A: Either one will do because, biologically speaking, they're both saying the very same thing.

God has lots of sons; but only one is His son by means of procreation.

The Greek word for "only begotten" in John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combination of two words.

The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel rather than two or four in surround-sound stereo. Mono is very common; e.g. monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome, monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing.

In other words: monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's sole biological child. If a parent has two or three biological children, none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a monogenes child, the child has to be an only child. Obviously then, an adopted child can never be monogenes in the home because it wouldn't be the home's biological child. Examples of monogenes children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

Now if God's monogenes son is really and truly His biological offspring, so to speak, then we are going to have to admit that His son is a chip off the old block; which in fact the Bible declares.

†. Col 2:9 . . In him all the fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form.

Webster's defines "divinity" as the quality, or the state, of being a god.

According to the Greek manuscripts, "divinity" is modified by a definite article; so that what we're looking at here isn't nondescript divinity; rather, the divinity; viz: the quality, or the state, of being Almighty God.

People have difficulty with the literal meaning of "only begotten" because it's unthinkable to them that God is somehow able to reproduce. Well; I don't know how God goes about it; but if single cell organisms like amoeba can reproduce by means of a process called binary fission; then we shouldn't be all that aghast at the prospect of God multiplying Himself in a similar way. And if God actually did reproduce; then His offspring is more of Himself; viz: God would produce God just as humans produce humans.

Old 05-06-2016, 07:37 AM
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,680 times
Reputation: 57
Christ's Demise

The Koran claims that Christ didn't die on the cross.

"And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure." (The Women 4.157)

The Bible claims that Christ fully expired.

"And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit. And having said this, he breathed his last." (Luke 23:46)

"When they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe." (John 19:31-35)

Since Jesus was somewhat elevated, (it's not stated exactly how high) the spear point would have entered his body at an upward angle. The text doesn't say which side was penetrated, but from John's description, and judging from the intent of the soldier to leave no doubt about Jesus' death, the heart side was very likely the side they cut into and the spear point would've entered just under his rib cage.

The heart is surrounded by a membrane called the pericardium; which serves to contain a serous material resembling water to prevent the surface of the heart from becoming dry and/or chafed by its continual motion. It was very likely this which was pierced and from which the water flowed. The point of the spear also seems to have reached one of the ventricles of the heart, and the blood, yet warm, rushed forth, either mingled with, or followed by, the liquor of the pericardium, so as to appear to John to be blood and water flowing together. Though not medically accurate in our day, John's calling the serous fluid "water" was accurate enough in his own day.

Had Christ managed to survive the spear he most certainly would have died of suffocation. According to the records, his friends covered his face with a towel, wrapped him with strips of cloth like a mummy, and coated him with a paste consisting of 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes: all of which served to not only put him in a straight jacket, but also sealed him in an air-tight cocoon of sorts.

1● The towel

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)

The koiné Greek word translated "napkin" is soudarion (soo-dar'-ee-on) which defines a sweat-cloth; viz: a towel for wiping the perspiration from the face, or binding the face of a corpse.

2● The mummy

"Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes" (John 19:40)

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)

The Greek word translated "wound" is deo (deh'-o) which means to bind; viz: wrap.

The Greek word translated "linen cloths" is othonion (oth-on'-ee-on) which defines bandages.

3● The cocoon of sorts

"And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19:39-40)

Myrrh is a gum resin. The aloe of that day was a thick liquid taken from an aromatic tree and used in medicines and cosmetics, etc. Blending those two ingredients together produced a nice sticky goo that could be slathered and plastered all over the deceased to seal the body and retard putrefaction and/or seal in odors and thwart vermin. This was likely the final step just prior to wrapping the whole affair in a shroud (Matt 27:59).

So all told-- the spear, the face towel, the wrappings, and the gooey paste -- there is just no way in nature that Christ could have possibly survived either his crucifixion or his burial.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top