Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Kingdom


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

John 8:1 ¶ Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

John 8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

John 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

John 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

The Law - Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Under the Law that is being proclaimed on here by a few members, Jesus would of stoned her to death and sent them to find the man so they could stone him to death too.

Under Grace, Jesus had mercy on the woman protected her from the law of death, set her free, and gave her the instruction to sin no more. This was an act of grace to a Jewish woman in front of a Jewish crowd in the Temple.

Can you see the gospel of grace here? Can you see the light of the world shining? Is "I AM" the light of the world or is it the Jewish people?

MC, I am not disagreeing with you here just quoting you because of the subject you were on.

All God ever wanted from Israel was heart felt faith. He gave them all the Law and all the Ordinances so they could demonstrate with obedience their heart felt faith in Him. But what Israel did in reality was turn the Law & Ordinances into works in themselves without faith MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT throughout the OT and the Gospels.

Jesus demonstrated with this adulterous woman His real message to the Jews which was a total lack of heart felt faith in Him. If they had had it, they would understand mercy and be without hypocrisy.

Matthew 22: 37, Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38, This is the first and great commandment. 

39, And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Ritualizing the Law and Ordinances as Israel sinfully did throughout the OT leaves no understanding of love and mercy. Here is a good IFB church example:

Long time church members who back bite and look down on another woman member who dresses immodestly. I could give you 10s of these by the way. Makes me often wonder if these types of "Christians" are saved at all or if they are simply religious tares living by a new set of law and ordinance.

Prayerfully teach privately the lady in Immodest clothing without gossip/backbiting and snubbing their noses, that is what true faith and salvation generates in a person. This is what Jesus is explaining with this adulterous woman. If this immodestly clad lady is truly born again, she will get it, it might take some patient prayer, but she will.

The reason why the Gospel of the Kingdom and that of Peter, James and is contained in Hebrews seems markedly different than that of church Epistles from Paul has nothing to do with mixing works and faith to save. It has to do with Jewish understanding ingrained in them by of the Law. Jesus' point eluded them throughout the OT and the Gospels and they still wanted to ritualize their work in their flesh without obedience in heart felt love and faith. However, it is obvious that many of these ordinance bound Jews were saved because of how the Gospel was presented to them specifically.

This and this alone is why the Gospels were explained so differently to Jew and Gentile IMO. It is the same Gospel but to completely different types of mindsets and understanding.

I wonder sometimes if God named them differently for the exact same reason. Think about it: to a Jew bound by ordinances, just the title "Gospel of Grace" is a stumblingblock. But to a gentile, it is welcome good news.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Heir of Salvation,"

First, I thank you for your encouragement toward my presentations.

Second, I was previously aware of the argument that the Hebrew noun "n'philiym" originated through the Aramaic word for "giant."  However, I myself have not given that particular aspect of the study a significant enough study to make the argument with conviction.  I thank you for the information from one who has.  That is indeed helpful to me.

NICE!

Well, good on you that you've heard that argument and have taken it into consideration.....

If you buy it, great......if not, well, as long as the Scriptures and text itself is primary than you'll be on the right track.

 

Personally, I think that argument's explanatory power, and explanatory scope, simply affirms not only a better exegetical understanding of Genesis, but it affirms the KJV rendering of the text as well..............

Thanks for considering it brother ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, Invicta said:

Yes

Strange flesh should be self evident seeing it was Sodom,

Jude 1:6-7  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

so verse seven is conected to verse six, Going after strange flesh was similar to what the Angels did.Cain was of the evil one, the seed of the serpent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 minutes ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

Jude 1:6-7  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

so verse seven is conected to verse six, Going after strange flesh was similar to what the Angels did.Cain was of the evil one, the seed of the serpent.

What do you mean "Cain was of the evil one, the seed of the serpent"?

There is no indication in Scripture that spirit beings (angels) can mate with physical beings (humans).

"Strange flesh" is regarding homosexuality, not interbreeding between angels and humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

 

Ge 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I believe this culminates in Christ, but I also believe that the evil spirit entered into the human race at that time. IE the seed of the serpent working through wicked men is an enemy of mankind. Remember also 'ye are of your Father the devil', and 'get thee behind me satan'.

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gigantes (from Classical Greek Legends) were a race of great strength and aggression, though not necessarily of great size, fully human in form.

The Jewish translators of the Hebrew-into-Greek Septuagint had no doubt about who the nephilim were.  It was 6 centuries later that "Augustine of Hippo" decided that their "origins" were too "lewd" for the Catholic Christians, and came up with the "Sons of Seth" scheme, whereby the so-called "godly line of Seth" intermarried with the "ungodly daughters of Cain".

Sons of God Sons of Seth mating with the Daughters of Adam Daughters of Cain  = 4th century Catholic "doctrine"

Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
35 minutes ago, beameup said:

Gigantes (from Classical Greek Legends) were a race of great strength and aggression, though not necessarily of great size, fully human in form.

The Jewish translators of the Hebrew-into-Greek Septuagint had no doubt about who the nephilim were.  It was 6 centuries later that "Augustine of Hippo" decided that their "origins" were too "lewd" for the Catholic Christians, and came up with the "Sons of Seth" scheme, whereby the so-called "godly line of Seth" intermarried with the "ungodly daughters of Cain".

Sons of God Sons of Seth mating with the Daughters of Adam Daughters of Cain  = 4th century Catholic "doctrine"

On the other hand, in Genesis 6:4 itself God the Holy Spirit through inspiration indicated that the "giants" (Hebrew, "n'philiym") existed on the earth before "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" produced children.

In addition, in Genesis 6:4 itself God the Holy Spirit through inspiration indicated that the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" became "mighty men (not "n'philiym") which were of old, men of renown."

Finally, in Numbers 13:32-33 God the Holy Spirit through inspiration indicated that the "n'philiym" were still on the earth in the time of Moses (which means that they were not completely removed by the flood), and that they were "men of great stature."

In truth, I do NOT CARE what the Jewish commentators thought, or what the Jewish translators of the Septuagint thought, or what the Book of Enoch says, or what the church fathers thought, or what Augustine of Hippo taught.  On the other hand, I CERTAINLY CARE what God the Holy Spirit inspired.

(Yet it must be remembered that Brother "Beameup" will not receive this response because he has "blocked" my postings from his awareness.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

On the other hand, in Genesis 6:4 itself God the Holy Spirit through inspiration indicated that the "giants" (Hebrew, "n'philiym") existed on the earth before "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" produced children.

In addition, in Genesis 6:4 itself God the Holy Spirit through inspiration indicated that children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" became "mighty men (not "n'philiym") which were of old, men of renown."

Finally, in Numbers 13:32-33 God the Holy Spirit through inspiration indicated that the "n'philiym" were still on the earth in the time of Moses (which means that they were not completely removed by the flood), and that they were "men of great stature."

In truth, I do NOT CARE what the Jewish commentators thoughts, or what the Jewish translators of the Septuagint thought, or what the Book of Enoch says, or what the church fathers thought, or what Augustine of Hippo thought.  On the other hand, I CERTAINLY CARE what God the Holy Spirit inspired.

(Yet it must be remembered that Brother "Beameup" will not receive this response because he has "blocked" my postings from his awareness.)

"..and also after that" refers to the giants AFTER the flood. Angels were still procreating with women on earth after the flood. These giants were might men in the earth.

 

Edited by Critical Mass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

 

Ge 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I believe this culminates in Christ, but I also believe that the evil spirit entered into the human race at that time. IE the seed of the serpent working through wicked men is an enemy of mankind. Remember also 'ye are of your Father the devil', and 'get thee behind me satan'.

I had to ask because some teach that Eve and Satan had sex and offspring.

21 minutes ago, Critical Mass said:

"..and also after that" refers to the giants AFTER the flood. Angels were still procreating with women on earth after the flood. These giants were might men in the earth.

 

You have yet to show Scripture which indicates angels are capable of mating with humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 minutes ago, Critical Mass said:

"..and also after that" refers to the giants AFTER the flood. Angels were still procreating with women on earth after the flood. These giants were might men in the earth.

Brother Chester,

I have already revealed that the position which you have given above is grammatically false.  However, I shall do it yet again --

Your position is NOT a valid possibility because the Hebrew grammar will NOT allow for it.  In the Hebrew the adverb that is translated "after that" is DIRECTLY connected to tha which FOLLOWS, not to that which precedes.  The King James translators understood this; therefore, they included the semicolon between the word "days" and the word "and" in order to signal this unto the English reader, thereby revealing the end of the first independent clause and the beginning of the second independent clause.  As such, the phrase "after that" is not a modifier that is connected to the first independent clause, but is certainly a modifier that is connected to the second independent clause -- "And also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." 

Furthermore, the conclusion of the second independent clause actually DOES reveal the nature of the offspring for "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Indeed, it reveals that their offspring were MEN, indicating that their children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."  Yes, they became "mighty men," "men of renown;" yet they were still MEN, not some angel-man hybrid.

Even so, as I said before, so say I now again -- It is grammatically invalid to claim from Genesis 6:4 that the “giants” (“n’philiym”) were the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, John81 said:

I had to ask because some teach that Eve and Satan had sex and offspring.

You have yet to show Scripture which indicates angels are capable of mating with humans.

You want me to draw you a picture?

7 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Chester,

I have already revealed that the position which you have given above is grammatically false.  However, I shall do it yet again --

Your position is NOT a valid possibility because the Hebrew grammar will NOT allow for it.  In the Hebrew the adverb that is translated "after that" is DIRECTLY connected to tha which FOLLOWS, not to that which precedes.  The King James translators understood this; therefore, they included the semicolon between the word "days" and the word "and" in order to signal this unto the English reader, thereby revealing the end of the first independent clause and the beginning of the second independent clause.  As such, the phrase "after that" is not a modifier that is connected to the first independent clause, but is certainly a modifier that is connected to the second independent clause -- "And also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." 

Furthermore, the conclusion of the second independent clause actually DOES reveal the nature of the offspring for "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Indeed, it reveals that their offspring were MEN, indicating that their children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."  Yes, they became "mighty men," "men of renown;" yet they were still MEN, not some angel-man hybrid.

Even so, as I said before, so say I now again -- It is grammatically invalid to claim from Genesis 6:4 that the “giants” (“n’philiym”) were the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”

Yup, right to the Hebrew to throw out the English. I guess the KJV isn't good enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Chester,

12 minutes ago, Critical Mass said:

Yup, right to the Hebrew to throw out the English. I guess the KJV isn't good enough. 

Nope, just demonstrating how the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Hebrew is in perfect unity with the King James translation, and how the placement of the semicolon in the King James translation grammatically defeats your position.

20 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Chester,

I have already revealed that the position which you have given above is grammatically false.  However, I shall do it yet again --

Your position is NOT a valid possibility because the Hebrew grammar will NOT allow for it.  In the Hebrew the adverb that is translated "after that" is DIRECTLY connected to tha which FOLLOWS, not to that which precedes.  The King James translators understood this; therefore, they included the semicolon between the word "days" and the word "and" in order to signal this unto the English reader, thereby revealing the end of the first independent clause and the beginning of the second independent clause.  As such, the phrase "after that" is not a modifier that is connected to the first independent clause, but is certainly a modifier that is connected to the second independent clause -- "And also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." 

Furthermore, the conclusion of the second independent clause actually DOES reveal the nature of the offspring for "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Indeed, it reveals that their offspring were MEN, indicating that their children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."  Yes, they became "mighty men," "men of renown;" yet they were still MEN, not some angel-man hybrid.

Even so, as I said before, so say I now again -- It is grammatically invalid to claim from Genesis 6:4 that the “giants” (“n’philiym”) were the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Critical Mass said:

You want me to draw you a picture?

Yup, right to the Hebrew to throw out the English. I guess the KJV isn't good enough. 

The first clause in Gen 6:4 is a "declarative statement" containing the word "were". The word "were" is a "state of being" verb. The clause declares the fact that there were giants in those days. The clause is actually a complete sentence as it contains a subject, verb, and direct object. But it is followed by a semicolon which is then followed by the connector (conjunction)  "and". The  reason why there was no period (.) is because the two clauses are closely related. The phrase "also after that" contains a pronoun which refers TO the first independent clause namely; "There were giants in those days". The pronoun "that" in "also after that" refers to the "state of being" in the first clause, "there were giants in those days. Neither the grammar, because of the semicolon, the conjunction and the pronoun, nor the context of the two statements supports the idea that "also after that" refers to giants "at a later time" OR the idea that sons of God and daughters were bearing the children/mighty men at a chronologically later time than the giants because, say it with me chillins...the whole story takes place "in those days" :)  So "in those days" is describing the time period of Genesis 4, 5, and 6 because its talking about when men BEGAN to multiply..." which refers to the descendents of Cain in chapter 4, and the descendants of Seth in chapter 5. The part of the second clause which describes "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters......." describes "MEN", not angel hybrids. Furthermore, "sons of God" always refers to God's children in the NT, in the OT, and even in Book of Job, because the Bible clearly defines what a "son of God" is. Yes, the KJV is enough.

Edited by heartstrings
to add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Chester,

Nope, just demonstrating how the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Hebrew is in perfect unity with the King James translation, and how the placement of the semicolon in the King James translation grammatically defeats your position.

 

A semicolon means that the two independent clauses are closely related. Therefore, the giants are associated with the Sons of God and daughters of men. The giants are the mighty men of old. Giants in the bible are always really tall men anywhere from 9 feet to 15 feet tall. Born again males (and for some reason only born again males are backslidding here according to your interpretation) having children with unregenerated women do not produce freakishly tall giants or necessarily "mighty men of old". 

This was going on after the flood too. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah knew that the men who visited Lot were angels but still desired them. This is the "strange flesh" as mentioned in Jude 6,7.

 

Edited by Critical Mass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
40 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

The first clause in Gen 6:4 is a "declarative statement" containing the word "were". The word "were" is a "state of being" verb. The clause declares the fact that there were giants in those days. The clause is actually a complete sentence as it contains a subject, verb, and direct object. But it is followed by a semicolon which is then followed by the connector (conjunction)  "and". The  reason why there was no period (.) is because the two clauses are closely related. The phrase "also after that" contains a pronoun which refers TO the first independent clause namely; "There were giants in those days". The word "that" in "also after that" is speaking of the "state of being" in the first clause, "there were giants in those days. Neither the grammar, because of the semicolon, the conjunction and the pronoun, nor the context of the two statements supports the idea that "also after that" refers to giants "at a later time" OR the idea that sons of God and daughters were bearing the children/mighty men at a chronologically later time than the giants because, say it with me chillins...the whole story takes place "in those days" :)  So "in those days" is describing the time period of Genesis 4, 5, and 6 because its talking about when men BEGAN to multiply..." which refers to the descendents of Cain in chapter 4, and the descendants of Seth in chapter 5. The part of the second clause which describes "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters......." describes "MEN", not angel hybrids. Furthermore, "sons of God" always refers to God's children in the NT, in the OT, and even in Book of Job, because the Bible clearly defines what a "son of God" is. Yes, the KJV is enough.

Nope. "Those days" are the days before the flood. Moses dealt with giants during his time and he is letting his readers know how they came about thus justifying why they all needed to be slaughtered. They were the result of angels (aka sons of God) leaving their original habitations and procreating with women producing mighty, yet wicked, giants. Og of Bashan and Goliath being examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...