|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 9, 2010 14:38:29 GMT -5
Zechariah 5.9 says nothing about the women being angels. And, Genesis 1.27 says nothing about angels being created. So, how many women do you know who have wings like a stork? In visions, probably quite a few. Haven't you seen women flying in you visions. That is what Zechariah did. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 9, 2010 21:02:38 GMT -5
Does that mean the vision is 'imaginary' or somehow mythical? Explain Ezekiel's cherubims then! Angels are described with wings often enough in scripture - why doubt it here? Hopefully not because they are wim'in - Careful, I may make it to heaven before you!
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 17, 2010 7:49:08 GMT -5
Sounds like serpent-seed doctrine to me. God has declared that a person's natural blood-line is irrelevant. Things like that are used to support notions of racism (not that I'm accusing anyone here or that). He can create sons of Abraham from stones if He wanted to but He isn't interested in a persons genealogy; it's the heart that He searches. Interesting that you bring this up. I was listening to Arnold Murray (Bulllinger) who teaches this doctrine. And this is how it is developed: Arnold says that because Eve told the serpent that God said not to even 'touch' the tree, what she really was speaking about (her understanding of what God meant) was not to have sexual intercourse with the devil. And that this is what really happened between her and the serpent which made her pregnant with Cain who fathered the Kenite nations. Of course this is also in line with his understanding of the nephilim as being fallen angels who also tried to corrupt the seed of Adam after that in the same way. And he gets all this for his understanding because in the Greek LXX the same word for touch was used by Paul in 1 Cor 7:1 where he says 'it is good for a man not to touch a woman'. Now he takes that euphisim Paul used there, back to Gen 3:3 and gives Eve's words that new meaning. And now thinking he has his biblical support, he goes off into never-never land with the rest of his ideas, whereby Adam was merely the first soul God created, and that the other races were not 'souls' (sub-human?). And then moving forward into the gospels, also pours that new meaning into the parable of the tares and elsewhere to show that the children of disobedience were actual literal sons of Satan. Does any of this sound familiar as to what we are hearing from the CC crowd in how they are doing much the same with scripture to develop their doctrine? Now in Arnold's case it is easy to refute his ideas because in Gen 4:1 we are told that Adam knew his wife and she conceived and bore Cain. And Eve declares that this child is from the Lord. So his whole Kenite paradigm which is racially biased, falls apart just by reading a bit further. All because he wants to teach that Christ could only come from a pedigree perfect white man! |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 17, 2010 12:44:24 GMT -5
That's a good breakdown of the doctrine, Robin. I read a book written by (or rather, transcribed from an audio tape of William Brenham, including every "um" and 'cough') some dozen years ago or more. What amazed me was how much I agreed with what he said (call it his preamble before getting into the doctrine itself). Even in that early stage in my study of scripture my head just flooded with scripture that made his assertions unbelievable.
I read the entire book. (I never was one to be afraid to read something that challenged my understanding or may in fact alter my understanding). It was his premises that persuaded me against what he said. It was too racial-centric.
Even the Old Covenant was open to foreigners. Many people don't (or don't want to) realize this. There were specific things that they had to go through to be a citizen of Israel - but they could. God was never limited by genetics.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 17, 2010 13:32:50 GMT -5
Robin, Is that Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel?  |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 17, 2010 16:40:46 GMT -5
Robin, Is that Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel? Yep that's him - and getting more perverse every day! The trouble with teachings like his is that without his instructions, you wouldn't arrive at his conclusions. And CC seems to be of this mindset as well. Pages and pages must be written to guide you into their doctrinal understanding. Now that is too much work as far as I'm concerned. I know some seem to have an avid appetite for all so called scholarly works of men, but a man who can keep it simple is worth hearing from! How many books did Calvin write that comprise his Institutes? He seems to have thought this verse was to be his model, and many follow his ways: Eccl 12:12 - And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. When our instruction is found here: Eccl 12:13 - Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. And it was that part, he seemed to not be moved to obey! |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 18, 2010 1:41:19 GMT -5
Robin, I am shocked. I use to watch Shepherd's Chapel every day. It comes on at 5am, M-F, on a local TV station. He has quite a following in these parts. I haven't always agreed with him, but I always thought he was fairly good teacher. I never heard him go that far off the track. Thanks for the info.  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 18, 2010 1:43:30 GMT -5
That's a good breakdown of the doctrine, Robin. I read a book written by (or rather, transcribed from an audio tape of William Brenham, including every "um" and 'cough') some dozen years ago or more. What amazed me was how much I agreed with what he said (call it his preamble before getting into the doctrine itself). Even in that early stage in my study of scripture my head just flooded with scripture that made his assertions unbelievable. I read the entire book. (I never was one to be afraid to read something that challenged my understanding or may in fact alter my understanding). It was his premises that persuaded me against what he said. It was too racial-centric. Even the Old Covenant was open to foreigners. Many people don't (or don't want to) realize this. There were specific things that they had to go through to be a citizen of Israel - but they could. God was never limited by genetics. Morris, Is that William Brenham, or Brennam? |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 18, 2010 16:57:01 GMT -5
Hi Morris, Christ was to come through the godly line of Seth and the Sethites threatend that by intermarrying with the daughters of Cain. God replied by destroying them all in the flood and started over again with the pure line. So natural blood line was important. But now that Christ has come natural blood line is irrelevant. Roo God could create the blood line if He so chose. He said " that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones" (Matthew 3:9) Natural bloodline means little to God. he destroyed people with a flood because He " saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually". It always has been, and always will be, about the heart. Even Christ's bloodline wasn't by actual blood. You could say that God did indeed create a child of Abraham (and David) from a 'stone'. Morris, The narrative explicitly says that it was the unholy union between the sons of God (Seth's line) with the daughters of men (Cain's line) that provoked God to destroy them. All other "wickedness" came from that unholy union. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 18, 2010 17:18:10 GMT -5
Roo wrote: Where do you get that from Scripture?  - tea time |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Sept 18, 2010 17:38:49 GMT -5
Roo wrote: Where do you get that from Scripture? - tea time Does it not say that the sons of God took the daughters of men to themselves as wives? There were only two races in existence which were Seth's and Cain's. Do the math.  Morris suggests that it was wickedness in general which provoked God. But God's statement that His Spirit shall not always strive with man was His reply to the unholy marriages. Therefore, the unholy marriages were the "wickedness" that provoked God and brought the flood. The promised Seed was to come throught the line of Seth and the Sethites corrupted the line by intermarrying with Cain's daughters. So God wiped them all out and started over again with Noah's family which was of Seth's line. Thus Christ came through Seth's line (Luke 3:38). Roo  |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 20, 2010 12:41:42 GMT -5
Morris, The narrative explicitly says that it was the unholy union between the sons of God (Seth's line) with the daughters of men (Cain's line) that provoked God to destroy them. All other "wickedness" came from that unholy union. Roo If it is "explicit", why did you have to insert the Parenthesis? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 20, 2010 18:18:26 GMT -5
Roo wrote: Where do you get that from Scripture? - tea time There were only two races in existence which were Seth's and Cain's. Roo Yes, that is what the Bible says. But there is no indication that the "Sons of God" were of Seth's line. The produce of the sons of God and the daughters of man were the "Nephilim." That word means bully, or tyrant. Are you suggesting that the produce of Seth's line and Cain's line were tyrants? |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 20, 2010 20:01:07 GMT -5
Although Christ wasn't born from Mary's actual bloodline, the womb thru which He was birthed into our world was that of a faithful virgin - not that of a harlot. Holiness is important to the Lord be in body or spirit (you can't sin with one and not the other!).
And Seth's line did not keep faithful when they married the daughters of Cain. Instead their children became like those from whom their mothers came. Idolatrous and violent tyrants. And this pattern is reported over and over again - Esau is just one example.
In his rebellion against Isaac & Rebecca's wishes, he took foreign wives - both before and after he sold his birthright to Jacob. Which shows that his heart was not right with God, else he would have honored his parents. And what was the great sin of his children? When Israel was under judgment, Edom took that opportunity to plunder her. This is the same sort of tyranny that the nephilim were doing. Taking whatever they wanted for themselves because they could.
Certainly not the example of one who 'loves' his brother!
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Sept 24, 2010 20:21:00 GMT -5
Although Christ wasn't born from Mary's actual bloodline,... I don't understand. You don't believe that Mary was Jesus' biological mother? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Sept 25, 2010 22:20:47 GMT -5
Although Christ wasn't born from Mary's actual bloodline, the womb thru which He was birthed into our world was that of a faithful virgin - not that of a harlot. Holiness is important to the Lord be in body or spirit (you can't sin with one and not the other!). And Seth's line did not keep faithful when they married the daughters of Cain. Instead their children became like those from whom their mothers came. Idolatrous and violent tyrants. And this pattern is reported over and over again - Esau is just one example. In his rebellion against Isaac & Rebecca's wishes, he took foreign wives - both before and after he sold his birthright to Jacob. Which shows that his heart was not right with God, else he would have honored his parents. And what was the great sin of his children? When Israel was under judgment, Edom took that opportunity to plunder her. This is the same sort of tyranny that the nephilim were doing. Taking whatever they wanted for themselves because they could. Certainly not the example of one who 'loves' his brother! Again, where does the Bible say that Seth's line maried into Cain's line? That is pure, 100% conjecture. There is no evidence for that at all. That's like saying an empty cup is full. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 27, 2010 9:48:51 GMT -5
Although Christ wasn't born from Mary's actual bloodline,... I don't understand. You don't believe that Mary was Jesus' biological mother? The emphasis here is on the blood; the blood of the mother and baby don't interchange physically. Thus, Jesus did not have Mary's blood. Bloodline by genealogy, but not by actual blood. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 27, 2010 11:10:07 GMT -5
Although Christ wasn't born from Mary's actual bloodline, the womb thru which He was birthed into our world was that of a faithful virgin - not that of a harlot. Holiness is important to the Lord be in body or spirit (you can't sin with one and not the other!). And Seth's line did not keep faithful when they married the daughters of Cain. Instead their children became like those from whom their mothers came. Idolatrous and violent tyrants. And this pattern is reported over and over again - Esau is just one example. In his rebellion against Isaac & Rebecca's wishes, he took foreign wives - both before and after he sold his birthright to Jacob. Which shows that his heart was not right with God, else he would have honored his parents. And what was the great sin of his children? When Israel was under judgment, Edom took that opportunity to plunder her. This is the same sort of tyranny that the nephilim were doing. Taking whatever they wanted for themselves because they could. Certainly not the example of one who 'loves' his brother! Again, where does the Bible say that Seth's line maried into Cain's line? That is pure, 100% conjecture. There is no evidence for that at all. That's like saying an empty cup is full. Pure conjecture? Or where the story is intended to lead us in our understanding - without such 'speculation' as you are implying? As we follow the generations of Adam in Gen 5 & 6, we are presented with a brief lineage of Cain and then an extensive geneaology of Seth thru Noah. And then a comparison is made of these elect sons of God who marry the daughters of men. Scripture tells us Cain took a wife without naming her or telling us anything about her. But when we are told that Adam had other sons and daughters besides the line of Seth which we are given in detail, it is not unwarranted to think there were others inbetween Abel and Seth as well. That is not 'pure conjecture', it is reading the text with the understanding it gives us. It is not the wicked scripture intends to make famous except as an example of their evil in order to teach us about good and evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 1, 2010 19:40:01 GMT -5
I don't understand. You don't believe that Mary was Jesus' biological mother? The emphasis here is on the blood; the blood of the mother and baby don't interchange physically. Thus, Jesus did not have Mary's blood. Bloodline by genealogy, but not by actual blood. Sheldon, thanks for your reply. It seems that "bloodline" is a meaningless term. The blood of the father and child don't interchange physically, either. Bloodline simple refers to heredity and various traits (including blood type) can be inherited from either the father or the mother. |
|
