Handy To Know

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#21
-
The Fate Of Noah's Ark

Gen 8:3b . . At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters
diminished, so that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the
month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

The precise topographic location, where the ark went aground, was not
really up on a specific mountain by the name of Ararat nor up on any other
mountain for that matter. The Hebrew word for "mountains" in Gen 8:4 is
haareey which is the plural of har (har). It doesn't always mean prominent
land masses like Everest or McKinley; especially when it's plural. Har can
also mean a range of mountains like the Pyrenees bordering Spain and
France and/or a range of hills or highlands; like the region of Israel where
Miriam's cousin Elizabeth lived.

"At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of
Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth." (Luke
1:39-40)

In California, where I lived as a kid, the local elevation 35 miles east of San
Diego, in the town of Alpine, was about 2,000 feet above sea level. There
were plenty of meadows with pasture and good soil. In fact much of it was
very good ranchland and quite a few people in that area raised horses and
cows. We ourselves kept about five hundred chickens, and a few goats and
calves. We lived in the mountains of San Diego; but we didn't live up on top
of one of its mountains like Viejas, Lyon's, or Cuyamaca.

Another inhabited region in the continental U.S. that's elevated is the area of
Denver Colorado; which is located on the western edge of the Great Plains
near the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Denver is a whole mile above
sea level-- 5,280 feet. However, Denver, even though so high above sea
level, isn't located on the tippy top of a mountain, nor even on the side of
one; it's just located up on high ground.

The ark contained the only surviving souls of man and animal on the entire
planet. Does it really make good sense to strand them up on a mountain
peak where they might risk death and injury descending it?

When my wife and I visited the San Diego zoo together back in the early
1980's, we noticed that the Giraffes' area had no fence around it. The tour
guide told us the Giraffes' enclosure doesn't need a fence because their area
is up on a plateau 3 feet high. The Giraffes don't try to escape because
they're afraid of heights. There's just no way Giraffes could've climbed down
off of Turkey's Mount Ararat. It's way too steep and rugged. Those poor
timid creatures would've been stranded up there and died; and so would
hippos, elephants, and flightless birds.

The Hebrew word for "Ararat" is from 'Ararat (ar-aw-rat') which appears
three more times in the Bible: one at 2Kgs 19:36-37, one at Isa 37:36-38,
and one at Jer 51:27. Ararat is always the country of Armenia: never a
specific peak by the same name.

So; where is the ark now? Well; according to the dimensions given at Gen
6:15, the ark was shaped like what the whiz kids call a right rectangular
prism; which is nothing in the world but the shape of a common shoe box.
So most of the lumber and/or logs used in its construction would've been
nice and straight; which is perfect for putting together cabins, sheds, fences,
barns, corrals, stables, gates, hog troughs, mangers, and outhouses.

I think it's very safe to assume Noah and his kin gradually dismantled the
ark over time and used the wood for many other purposes, including fires.
Nobody cooked or heated their homes or their bath and laundry water using
refined fossil fuels and/or electricity and steam in those days, so everybody
needed to keep on hand a pretty fair-sized wood pile for their daily needs.
There was probably plenty of driftwood left behind by the Flood, but most of
that would be water-soaked at first. But according to Gen 6:14 the ark's
lumber was treated. So underneath the pitch it was still in pretty good shape
and should have been preserved for many years to come.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#22
-
Eating Meat

Gen 9:1-4 . . Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them: Be
fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you
will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon
every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the
sea; they are given into your hands.

. . . Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you
the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that
has its lifeblood still in it.

Blessings should never be construed as commandments and/or laws and
edicts. In other words: God gave Noah and his sons the green light to eat
meat, but He didn't say they had to.

Rom 14:2-3 . . One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another
man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats
everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does
not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has
accepted him.

FYI: Prior to the Flood, humans were vegans. Afterwards; they were given
permission to become omnivorous. People are often curious about that.

According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York
Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture
all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to
manufacture all but K and D.

That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old,
but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7
8). Well, Noah at 175 was about equivalent to Abraham at 32; so the human
body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in
Abraham's.

Apparently the inclusion of meat in Man's diet after the Flood was intended
primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the human
body's gradually lessening ability to manufacture all it's own essential
nutrients; much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic
supplements in order to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.

People subsisting on vegan diets, such as many of the people of India, often
eat lots of minute insect eggs along with their fruits and vegetables without
knowing it, thus providing themselves with a number of essential nutrients
that most everyone else obtains by deliberately eating animal products. It's
kind of humorous that in their care to avoid meat they end up eating bugs.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#23
-
Abraham And Hagar

Gen 21:10-12 . . Sarah said to Abraham: Cast out that slave-woman and
her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my
son Isaac.

The common laws of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the
laws of Lipit-Ishtar) entitled Ishmael to the lion's share of Abraham's estate
because he was Abraham's firstborn biological son. However, there was a
clause in the laws stipulating that if a slave-owner emancipated his child's
in-slavery biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any
and all claims to a paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The trick is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her, for the
clause to take effect; no, he had to emancipate her; which he did.

Gen 21:14 . . Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin
of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then
sent her off with the boy.

The phrase "sent her off" is from the Hebrew word shalach (shaw-lakh')
which is a versatile word that speaks of divorce as well as the emancipation
of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed;
no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail that down in our
thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar, then her son
Ishmael would have retained his legal status as Abraham's eldest son.

Later, when Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac; God referred to him as
the patriarch's only son.

Gen 22:2 . .Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and
go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of
the mountains of which I will tell you.

Gen 22:12 . . Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing
to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your
son, your only son, from Me.

Biologically, Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's sons (Gen
25:9) but not legally; no, his legal association with Abraham was dissolved
when the old boy emancipated Ishmael's mother; and I sincerely believe
that is precisely how Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, and Heb 11:17 ought to be
understood.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#24
-
Who/What The Firstborn Is

Col 1:15 . . He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation.

Christ wasn't even the one born first in the human family let alone the entire
creation so what gives here?

Well; firstborn is just as much a rank as it is a birth order; and though the
latter is set in biological concrete; the title, and it's advantages, are
transferable to a younger sibling; e.g. from Esau to Jacob (Gen 25:23) from
Reuben to Joseph (Gen 49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1) and from Manasseh to Ephraim
(Gen 48:13-14). This situation can lead to some interesting ramifications;
for example:

Matt 22:41-46 . . Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus
asked them a question; saying: What do you think about the Christ, whose
son is He? They said to Him: The son of David. He said to them: Then how
does David in the Spirit call Him "Lord" saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit
at My right hand until I put thine enemies beneath thy feet. If David then
calls Him "Lord" how is He his son?

Jesus referenced Psalm 110:1, where there are two distinct Hebrew words
for "lord". The first is yhvh, a name reserved exclusively for God. The second
is 'adown, which is a very common word in the Old Testament used to
simply indicate a superior. Sarah labeled Abraham her 'adown (Gen 18:12)
Rachel addressed her dad by 'adown (Gen 31:5) and Jacob addressed his
brother Esau by 'adown (Gen 33:8).

So then; Psalm 110:1 could be translated like this:

"Yhvh said unto my superior: Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool."

Anybody who knew the Old Testament in Jesus' day knew good and well
from Ps 89:27 that David has no superiors but God because he holds the
rank of God's firstborn; viz: no king that you might name is David's superior
other than Yhvh: the king of all kings.

So Psalm 110:1 suggests that David's rank-- and subsequently its
advantages --as God's firstborn has been transferred to another man; and
seeing as how Jesus' opponents agreed that the other man is David's son,
then the position has been transferred not to one of David's siblings; but to
one of his own posterity; so that now David has to bow and scrape to one of
his own grandchildren, which up to that time was not only unheard of; but
just wasn't done.

Matt 22:46 . . And no one was able to answer him a word

Well; no surprise there. This was something not only strange to their Jewish
way of thinking; but entirely new, yet there it was in black and white in their
own scriptures; and they had somehow failed to catch its significance until
Jesus drew their attention to it.

Now; here's something else that I'm 110% positive crossed the minds of
Jesus' learned opposition. To their way of thinking, David's position as God's
firstborn as per Ps 89:27 is irrevocable. Well; seeing as how there is no
intermediate rank sandwiched in between the firstborn position and the
paterfamilias position, that means David's son, about whom he spoke in Ps
110:1, is equal in rank to God; which is a blasphemous suggestion to say
the least. (chuckle) Those poor know-it-all Pharisees were utterly baffled
beyond words.

"Your throne O God is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the
scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and hated
wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy
more than your fellows." (Ps 45:6-7)

If that passage has been translated correctly, it says one of two things.
Either God is speaking to Himself, or He is speaking to a king of the Davidic
dynasty that has been promoted to a level of dignity and authority equal to
His own; which of course outranks David by a pretty large amount; and in
point of fact: is superior to the entire cosmos-- all of its forms of life, matter,
and energy --no contest.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#25
-
David's Little Boy

Long story short: David breached the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed
upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy by
committing the capital crimes of premeditated murder and adultery (2Sam
11:1-2Sam 12:23). As bad as those two breaches are; what really rattled
heaven's cage was that David's conduct was an embarrassment.

2Sam 12:14a . . Because by this deed you have given occasion to the
enemies of The Lord to blaspheme,

What might the nature of that blasphemy be? Well; you probably already
know because it's very popular: "How can God call David a man after His
own heart when he was nothing but a premeditated murderer and
adulterer?"

Behavior like David's also causes the world to question the wisdom of Yhvh's
choice of a people for His name. That too is a very common form of
blaspheme: it goes on all the time. (e.g. Isa 62:5, Rom 2:24)

2Sam 12:14b-18 . . the child also that is born to you shall surely die . .
.The Lord struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was
very sick . . .Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.

How was that fair? Well; it wasn't meant to be fair to the boy; it was meant
to be fair to David. His little boy was just collateral damage.

Ex 34:6-7 . . Then Yhvh passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed: Yhvh,
Yhvh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in
loving-kindness and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who
forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished: visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the
grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

It is apparently God's prerogative to get back at people by going after their
posterity and/or the people they govern.

There's a horrific example of collateral damage located at Num 16:25-34.
Another is the Flood. No doubt quite a few underage children drowned in
that event due to their parents' wickedness. The same happened to the
children in Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ham's punishment for humiliating
Noah was a curse upon his son Canaan, and during Moses' face-off with
Pharaoh, God moved against the man's firstborn son along with all those of
his subjects.

The grand-daddy of all collateral damages is everybody has to die because
the human race's progenitor disobeyed God in the very beginning. (Rom
5:12-18)

Interesting isn't it? There are times when Heaven's anger seems to come out
of the blue; but if truth be known; sometimes it actually comes out of the
past; for example:

2Sam 21:1 . . Now there was a famine in the days of David for three
years, year after year; and David sought the presence of the Lord. And the
Lord said: It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites
to death.

Joshua agreed to a non-aggression pact with the Gibeonites during the
conquest of Canaan (Josh 9:3-16). Saul, when king, dishonored the pact. He
apparently got away with it; but not his countrymen, no; God slammed them
for what Saul did; and that posthumously.

Moral of the story: The sins of today, jeopardize the lives of tomorrow; and
sometimes those lives are very large in number.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#26
-
The Meaning Of "Under The Law"

Rom 6:14 . . Sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not
under the law but under grace.

The apostle Paul was a well-trained Jew (Acts 22:3, Php 3:5). He and his
fellow Pharisees generally understood the law as that of Moses', a.k.a. the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The important thing to note about the covenant is that it's a legally binding
contract. So then the term "under the law" refers to contractual obligations.

Seeing as how Christ's followers are not contracted with God to comply with
the Jews' covenant, then neither is God contractually obligated to penalize
Christ's followers for breaching it.

God has to lower the boom on Yhvh's people with any and/or all of the
curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 for
breaching the covenant, but He doesn't have to lower the boom on Christ's
followers with those curses because He isn't contracted with them to do so.
This is a very important aspect of Christianity.

In a nutshell: where there is no contract, there is no contract to breach; and
where there is no law, there is no law to break; and where there is no law to
break, there are no indictments. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

This principle applies in a really big way to people who have undergone the
baptism described at Rom 6:3-11 because it essentially means that they
cannot be sent to hell for breaking the Ten Commandments, or any of the
other covenanted commandments for that matter.

Luke 2:8-11 . . And in the same region there were some shepherds staying
out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel
of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone
around them; and they were terribly frightened.

. . . And the angel said to them: Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you
good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the
city of David there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Well; I have to say that if people's path to heaven incorporates compliance
with the Ten Commandments, then their religion contains no good news at
all, nor do they have any reason to be joyful; rather, they have plenty of
cause for anxiety.

Gal 3:10 . . All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is
written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written
in the book of the law. (cf. Deut 27;26)

/
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#27
-
The Meaning Of "Under The Law"

Rom 6:14 . . Sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not
under the law but under grace.

The apostle Paul was a well-trained Jew (Acts 22:3, Php 3:5). He and his
fellow Pharisees generally understood the law as that of Moses', a.k.a. the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The important thing to note about the covenant is that it's a legally binding
contract. So then the term "under the law" refers to contractual obligations.

Seeing as how Christ's followers are not contracted with God to comply with
the Jews' covenant, then neither is God contractually obligated to penalize
Christ's followers for breaching it.

God has to lower the boom on Yhvh's people with any and/or all of the
curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 for
breaching the covenant, but He doesn't have to lower the boom on Christ's
followers with those curses because He isn't contracted with them to do so.
This is a very important aspect of Christianity.

In a nutshell: where there is no contract, there is no contract to breach; and
where there is no law, there is no law to break; and where there is no law to
break, there are no indictments. (Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13)

This principle applies in a really big way to people who have undergone the
baptism described at Rom 6:3-11 because it essentially means that they
cannot be sent to hell for breaking the Ten Commandments, or any of the
other covenanted commandments for that matter.

Luke 2:8-11 . . And in the same region there were some shepherds staying
out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel
of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone
around them; and they were terribly frightened.

. . . And the angel said to them: Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you
good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the
city of David there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Well; I have to say that if people's path to heaven incorporates compliance
with the Ten Commandments, then their religion contains no good news at
all, nor do they have any reason to be joyful; rather, they have plenty of
cause for anxiety.

Gal 3:10 . . All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is
written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written
in the book of the law. (cf. Deut 27;26)

/

"This principle applies in a really big way to people who have undergone the
baptism described at Rom 6:3-11 because it essentially means that they
cannot be sent to hell for breaking the Ten Commandments, or any of the
other covenanted commandments for that matter."


this is really far off from the truth, and it ignores vast amounts of scripture to create an illusion of security, in fact its EXACTLY what caused God to end His side of the first covenant. false prophets explaining to the people "God will never punish us, were chosen" for the same reason they were ignoring all of the warnings in the Law. Just like you are totally ignoring all of the warning after warning in the new testament.

eternal security....is to repent and follow the gospel. its not to say" i beleive"
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#28
-
Who/What The Schoolmaster Is

Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be acquitted by faith.

The koiné Greek word for "schoolmaster" is paidagogos (pahee-dag-o-gos')
which defines not a headmaster, nor a teacher, nor a tutor. It essentially
defines a servant whose responsibility it was to get their master's children to
school. In other words: a sort of chaperone who made sure the kids got
there; even if the servant had to take them by the hand to do it.

The "law" to which the writer refers is the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Although Gentiles aren't contracted with God to comply with the covenant,
it's useful for revealing God's feelings about certain kinds of behavior; for
example:

Lev 19:11 . . You shall not deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

Once a Gentile is made aware that their maker disapproves of dishonesty,
henceforth they get in hot water every time they lie because God is lenient
with uninformed liars but has little patience with scofflaws.

Num 15:30-31 . .The person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly
reviles the Lord; that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has spurned the word of the Lord and violated His
commandment, that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.

So; what might "cut off" amount to? Well; for one: no liar will be allowed
entrance to the holy city.

Rev 21:27 . . No one who practices lying shall ever come into it

Rev 22:14-15 . . Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they
may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into
the city. But outside are whoever loves and practices a lie.

The law's task then; is to instill fear in dishonesty, and make liars aware that
if they opt to take their chances, and stand before God to be judged on their
own merits; that they haven't the slightest, slimmest possibility of coming
away unscathed. It's a 110% forgone conclusion that they will come away
dead.

Rev 21:8 . . All liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire
and brimstone, which is the second death.

I am willing to bet that nobody can get through the day without dishonesty--
we need dishonesty, we have to have dishonesty or interactions with our
friends, with strangers, with associates, with superiors and loved ones would
be very strained indeed. It is just humanly impossible to be honest all the
time. I would even go so far as to say that in the world in which we live; it's
not smart to be 110% honest all the time; viz: "Honesty is the best policy"
just isn't true; not in the world we live in anyway; which is a bit of a catch
22.

Q: Why does everyone find it so easy to lie?

A: Because human beings are natural-born liars.

Ps 58:3 . . The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies
go astray from birth.

That's an interesting statement. It's saying-- in so many words --that
although infants are too young to lie; they are born with a proclivity to lie,
and that's what makes them wicked because that proclivity to lie is in them
and will eventually have its way with them.

Q: How are people supposed to obey that commandment seeing as how
we're all natural-born liars?

A: Nobody can, it's impossible.

Jer 13:23 . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Well; the Schoolmaster's goal is not just to frighten liars and make them
nervous; but also to show them the God-given way out of their predicament.

Gal 3:24 . .The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be acquitted by faith.

The cross' first and foremost purpose was to satisfy justice for all kinds of
sin, including dishonesty. That right there should make liars breathe a little
easier in respect to the sum of all fears.

1John 2:1-2 . . If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous; and he himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not
for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Isa 53:6 . . All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to
his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.

FYI: The June 2017 issue of National Geographic magazine contains a very
interesting article titled: Why We Lie. There's actually been studies done
about this.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#29
-
The Brazen 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 for the sins of the world 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 for the sins of the worlds as
the only God-given rescue from the sum of all fears 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.

/
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#30
-
The Brazen 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 for the sins of the world 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 for the sins of the worlds as
the only God-given rescue from the sum of all fears 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.

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

do you know that the brazen serpent was later destroyed because of idolatry? Israel was trusting in the serpent and ignoring Gods Word of the Law. they had the thought " well God told moses to look at the serpebt and well never die" that lead to the mass idolatry and mass sin of the people because " Hey, Gods word of what we need to do and not do doesnt really apply if all we really have to do is gaze at the brazen serpent"

heres what Happened to the serpent

2 kings 18:3-6 "And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. 4He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. 5He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses."


the Israelites did what many Christians are doing now days, worshipping the cross, rather than God who sent Jesus to die Upon the cross. Like the brazen serpent, the cross is a symbol of what God in His goodness has done. the israelites looked to it and were saved, but the brazen serpent wasnt the power, it is because God has said to them " when anyone is bitten, look at the serpent and they will live" the power of it is that God said it. God could have told moses to Hold up a rock and all who look will be saved and it would have been no different.

the thing is with this analogy in the op, is that the brazen serpent was a means to get through the vipers. God never said after that to keep looking at the brazen serpent it was provision to be saved from certain death. its not as if they were told to worship it or trust in it when some other calamity came. the Cross is a beautiful reminder to us of what Jesus did for us, it has no power the power is in the man who suffered and died on the cross. and the things that He said, are where Life is found in Gods Word, Knowing He suffered, died and rose for us, is meant to bring us into His word that saves and Gives Life, the cross like the brazen serpent keeps us while were in "the swarm of vipers" it is not the new covenant however, that is found in the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#31
-
The Flesh

Rom 8:13 . . For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the
Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

The koiné Greek word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which basically indicates the
meaty parts of either man or beast. The meat of the human body would of
course include the 3-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within its
bony little skull sufficing for a mind; and it's not all that difficult to tamper
with a brain and make its owner quite mindless.

The meaty parts of the human body are the source of a human being's
human nature and it isn't all that difficult to define. Webster's says its (1)
the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are common to most people,
and (2) the nature of humans; especially the fundamental dispositions and
traits of humans.

In a nutshell then: the flesh, as per Rom 8:13, can be concisely defined as
that which comes natural to an organic species of life.

Ironically, when God finished assembling the cosmos with its various forms
of life, matter, and energy; He pronounced it all not just good; but "very"
good. In other words, God was satisfied that the human body came out just
exactly as He designed it to come out; but it didn't stay that way.

Rom 7:18 . . I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good
thing: for to will is present with me

When people do something contrary to their own better judgment; it's very
common to hear them complain "I don't know what came over me." Well;
thing that came over them was their fundamental dispositions and traits
having its way with them.

/
 
Last edited:

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#32
-
Eternal Life

Eternal life is often mistaken for immortality. The two are not the same.

Immortality is a material kind of life that has to do with a superhuman body
impervious to age, death, and putrefaction.

Eternal life, on the other hand, isn't a material kind of life; it's a spirit kind of
life; which is why it's possible for people to obtain eternal life before they
obtain immortality.

For example: Christ had eternal life when he was here (John 5:26, 1John
1:1-2) but according to Rom 6:9 and Rev 1:18, he didn't obtain immortality
till he rose from the dead.

Likewise Christ's believing followers have eternal life while they're here
(John 5:24) but according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:51-53, they won't
obtain immortality until their resurrections.

So then; I think we can safely conclude that immortality is something that
can be seen, while eternal life is something that cannot be seen.

The properties of eternal life are a little easier to understand when
juxtaposed with human life.

Human life's primary characteristic is human nature; roughly defined as the
fundamental dispositions and traits of the human being.

Eternal life's primary characteristic is divine nature, roughly defined as the
fundamental dispositions and traits of the supreme being.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#33
-
Erotic Fantasies

Matt 5:27-28 . .You have heard that it was said you shall not commit
adultery; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for
her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first
have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously
somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary carnal activity
between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a
married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in
order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants
has to be married.

The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which
means: to set the heart upon.

Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely
liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something
is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the
ruling of covetousness; which reads:

Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to
"covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy
(1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the
full intention of possessing it.

Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it
condemns scheming to take something of your neighbor's instead of getting
your own.

Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision
for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.

The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires; rather, upon taking
steps to fulfill them; which has the distinction of being the correct
interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.

So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man can't look across
the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it, turning green with
envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom wife, undressing
her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust
we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies a man going
after the neighbor's Harley, and the buxom wife instead of getting his own.

Coming at this from the opposite direction: in the movie The Bridges Of
Madison County
, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca
Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance
photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the
moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an
adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her
heart to make it happen.

Supposing a Catholic man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to
entertain thoughts about women-- any woman, whether somebody's wife or
single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels, then whenever he
does, he's an adulterer.

Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.

Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.

That is indeed tragic because there are decent Catholic men out and about
stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due to their religion
instilling within them a guilt complex related to a perfectly normal, God
given attraction to women.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#34
-
When People Obtain Eternal Life

In the passages below, note the grammatical tense of the "have" verbs.
They're in the present tense; not future, indicating that believers have
eternal life right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.

John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life

John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

John 5:24 . .I assure you, those who heed my message, and trust in God
who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins,
but they have already passed from Death into Life.

1John 5:13 . .I write these things to you who believe in the name of the
Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's
testimony, as an expert witness; people currently lacking eternal life are also
lacking His son; i.e. they are currently quite christless.

1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal
life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; and
whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.

I should think that it goes without saying that christless Christians are in
grave danger of the sum of all fears.

Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

How many christless Christians are there? Well; for starters: Roman
Catholicism-- known everywhere as the largest single denomination in the
world --currently consists of approximately 1.226 billion followers who all, to
a man, including the Pope, insist that no one obtains eternal life before they
die and cross over to the other side.

Well; that can mean but one thing, and one thing only: seeing as how those
1.226 billion souls are currently lacking eternal life, then according to God's
expert testimony they are currently quite christless. And you can safely
apply that rule to any, and all, denominations insisting that nobody obtains
eternal life before they die and cross over to the other side.

FYI: Failure to accept God's testimony is all the same as insinuating that
He's a dishonest person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the
truth. (1John 5:9-10)

/
 
Last edited:

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#35
-
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. Well;
that all depends on how we go about defining "father".

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.

So then; unless somebody can prove-- clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity; air tight and iron clad-- that Jesus Christ's mother wasn't
biologically related to either Adam or Eve; then it's a foregone conclusion
that Adam was the first in Jesus Christ's long line of biological male
ancestors; the final one of course being his biological mom's father.

NOTE: 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,
then any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would
be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was actually his.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#36
-
Jesus Christ And The Original Sin

Some folk posit that Mary was, in some manner, a sort of surrogate mother,
i.e. Jesus' embryo was an implant. Others sincerely believe that Mary's baby
was an alternate species of human life totally unrelated to her own, i.e.
another Adam, so to speak; basing their posit on 1Cor 15:45.

But the Bible testifies that Jesus Christ was Mary's honest to gosh, bona fide
biological human progeny.

Q: How can you be so sure that Jesus Christ was produced from his mother's
human egg, viz: her ovum?

A: Not only the Bible; but also the science of Biology bears that out.

Christ is stated to be born of David's seed-- not spiritual seed, rather,
human seed.

Acts 13:22-23 . . "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine
own heart, which shall fulfill all my will". Of this man's seed hath God,
according to His promise, raised unto Israel a savior, Jesus

Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The koiné Greek word for "seed" in those two passages is sperma (sper'
mah) which in males typically refers to their reproductive stuff and/or their
genetic material.

Bear in mind that we're talking about flesh here; not spirit; viz: an honest to
gosh human being rather than a spirit being; nor-- God forbid --an avatar.

Now, in order for Christ to descend from David's flesh, one of his biological
descendants had to be involved. So then, seeing as how Jesus was virgin
conceived, then his mother became the default progenitor, i.e. Mary was one
of David's granddaughters.

Luke 1:31 . . You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; the Lord God
will give him the throne of his father David

An implanted embryo isn't a conceived embryo. Conception takes place in a
woman's womb when her ovum is involved in the process.

Heb 7:14 . . It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah

Q: If Jesus Christ really was David's biological progeny; then wouldn't his
mom have passed the guilt of Adam's sin to him?

A: Yes; absolutely, because the whole entirety of Adam's posterity--
regardless of age, race, or gender --is automatically condemned for tasting
the forbidden fruit.

Note the grammatical tense of the passage below-- it's past tense; indicating
that the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his posterity
became guilty of tasting it-- in real time --including those of his family 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 posterity 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 joint
principals in Adam's act of disobedience.

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 life's end is the proper satisfaction
of justice for what he did (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his
posterity's own personal sins is another matter.

Q: If Jesus Christ was made a joint principal in 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 culpable right along with his fellow men, yes; but
it didn't make him sinful. In point of fact; Christ committed no personal sins
of his own. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22)

Q: What was the secret to his success?

A: Jesus Christ is a mysterious amalgam of human and divine. Not only did
he descend from David according to the flesh, but Christ also descended
from God according to the Spirit. (Luke 1:32-35). That is quite an advantage
because according to 1John 3:9, that which is born of God not only doesn't
sin, but cannot sin.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#37
-
How Christ Became Solomon's Progeny

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 Joseph's son by means of adoption, just as Ephraim
and Manasseh became Jacob's sons by means of adoption.

Q: But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Jesus was Joseph's foster
child rather than adopted child?

A: Webster's defines "foster" as affording, receiving, or sharing nurture or
parental care though not related by blood or legal ties. In other words:
foster children have no inheritance rights nor a legitimate place in their
foster father's genealogy. Foster children are expendable.

In contrast; Webster's defines "adopt" as to take voluntarily (a child of other
parents) as one's own child. In other words: adopted children have
inheritance rights and a legitimate place in their adopted father's genealogy.
Adopted children are permanent.

Jesus' adoption was essential because even though he was born a biological
candidate for David's throne, he wasn't born a legitimate candidate. The
reason being that the throne passed to Solomon rather than his brother
Nathan. Plus, the throne never passes down through women, only men.
Mary provided Jesus a biological right to David's throne, but she could not
provide him a legal right to it.

John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer are often unaware of the strict biblical
conditions that dictate ascendance to David's throne and so are easily led to
believe that Joseph was Jesus' foster father instead of his adopted father.

NOTE: Just in case there's a man looking in on this thinking about adopting
his wife's children from a previous marriage; should the two of you later
divorce; she can legally make you pay child support for another man's kids
because when you adopt them, the law and the courts regard their status as
your own biological progeny.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#38
-
Jonah

Matt 12:39-40 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of
a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth.

The Lord paralleled his afterlife journey with Jonah's. Well, seeing as how
Christ was dead for most of the time that he was in the tomb, then I think
it's valid to conclude that Jonah was dead for most of the time that he was in
the fish.

According to Jonah's second chapter, there were moments during his
nautical adventure when he was in two places at once: the fish's belly and
the bottoms of the mountains.

Seeing as how the Lord paralleled his own journey with Jonah's, then I
believe it is valid to conclude that there were moments in Christ's adventure
when he was in two places at once too: the tomb's belly and also the
bottoms of the mountains; i.e. the heart of the earth.

(It doesn't take much education to know that the bottoms of the mountains
are situated in neither a fish's tummy, nor a tomb.)

Jesus appropriated the story of Jonah to predict his resurrection.
Unfortunately people are typically distracted by the time element;
consequently totally missing the parallel's purpose. The average rank and
file pew warmer is convinced that Jonah was alive the whole time he was in
the fish. Well, had he been, then Jesus would had to been alive the whole
time he was in the tomb; otherwise the parallel fails.

Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites and also a sign to Jesus' generation (Matt
13:39-40, Luke 11:29-30). The word "sign" is translated from a koiné Greek
word that's sometimes used in the gospels to indicate miracles. Now, had
Jonah merely survived the fish's tummy, that would not be the kind of sign
that Jesus had in mind. He needed a miraculous event that would adequately
depict his own; the reason being that Jesus was not on track to be
resuscitated, no, Jesus was on track to be resurrected because he would be
quite dead from crucifixion. (John 19:33)

According to Jonah 2:6, the prophet was spared putrefaction. Well;
according to Ps 16:8-10 and Acts 2:25-31, Jesus too was spared
putrefaction. Thus it all came to pass just as the Lord said: As Jonah, so the
Son of Man.

Q: Why make a fuss over whether Jonah was dead or alive?

A: Because Jonah's adventure gives us a clearer concept of the scope of
hades; the location to which Christ retired during the three days and nights
that his corpse reposed in the tomb (Acts 2:25-31). No doubt hades refers
to the grave, but that's not all. According to Jonah, hades also refers to the
netherworld.

NOTE: Commentators smarter and better educated than I posit that Jonah
2:3-7 recounts Jonah's demise via drowning. In other words: Jonah was
dead before he was laid to rest in the fish's tummy just as Christ was dead
before he was laid to rest in the tomb.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#39
-
Yom Kippur

Lev 16:29-34 . . And it shall be a statute to you for ever that in the
seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves,
and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among
you; for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from
all your sins you shall be clean before The Lord.

. . . It is a sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it
is a statute for ever.

. . . And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father's
place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments; he shall make
atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of
meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and
for all the people of the assembly.

. . . And this shall be an everlasting statute for you, that atonement may be
made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins. And
Moses did as The Lord commanded him.

See also Lev 23:27-32, and Num 29:7

There are many more details to Yom Kippur than the above, but the rest
doesn't really matter all that much to Christians because the New Testament
only concerns itself with the ritual's limitations.

In the letter to Hebrews; it's explained that Yom Kippur's atonement is only
good for sins committed up to that point; i.e. the very moment that the high
priest completes the full and complete ritual, new sins immediately begin to
accumulate on the books that require cleansing by yet another Yom Kippur
ritual; and another, and another, and another, ad infinitum; viz: Yom
Kippur's atonement is never sufficient to cleanse sins once and for all. In
other words: Yom Kippur's atonement is always and only for cleansing the
people's past sins; never their future sins.

FYI: Never wish a Jewish person happy Yom Kippur because it is not a day of
joy like Christmas and birthdays, no, it is specifically a day of sadness and
self-affliction; which is from a Hebrew word meaning to mistreat, humiliate,
oppress, break the spirit, demean, abuse, weaken, injure, abase, etc.

/
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#40
-
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 --and 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 to my human
mind's way of thinking, 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.

1Cor 2:13-14 . . A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of
God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually appraised.

/