Genesis 38 - Important Reading
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Mathew Enoch Mount
Nov 10, 2009, 9:02:06 AM11/10/09
to Jesus On the Web
Hello,
Although the truth that I am going to share with you is incredibly
powerful, striking, and awesome it is at the same time one of the most
offensive scriptural truths that I know of. Hopefully you will bare
with me as I explain this truth, and note that the reason why you may
never hear this kind of message from a pulpit anytime soon is because
it is so very extreme. Having said that I will give the message to
you without coating it, and I can imagine many upon hearing the
message going into a rage because of how true it is.
First the salvation of Marry the mother of Christ depended on her
giving birth to Jesus Christ, and this is also the case with every
woman whom gave birth to a child that would produce Joseph the "step
father of God" and this is why the genealogy of Jesus Christ is listed
at the very beginning of the New Testament in the first Chapter of
Matthew. Many of you probably do not believe what I just said, so I
will give you proof. Consider the following text, "A woman should
learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to
teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam
was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was
the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be
saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and
holiness with propriety." 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV) (Notice that
scripture even goes so far as to include all women as being saved if
they produce children, continue in the faith, love and holiness with
propriety.)
Abraham is listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ, and if his wife
had never produced Isaac then she would have never been saved because
from Isaac came the seed of Joseph the stepfather of Jesus Christ.
Also if Abraham would have killed Isaac, then none of us would have
been saved. Overall, if Eve did not give birth to Seth whom was given
to Eve in place of Able whom Cain killed, then the seed of Noah would
have been lost (this is the seed of Abraham as this is the seed of
Joseph the stepfather of Jesus Christ). Genesis 4:25
Now the purpose of Genesis 38 would be a mystery to someone whom is
unaware of everything that I just said or who does not believe in it.
Judah whom is one of the twelve sons of Jacob (also known as Israel)
whom is one of the forefathers of Joseph (whom was the stepfather of
Jesus Christ) had three sons specifically. The names of the sons had
been Er, Onan, and Shelah.
Judah got a wife for his son Er whose name was Tamar, but he was
wicked and as a result he died (he died because it would be a
testimony against Christ to have him as a forebear of the stepfather
of Jesus Christ). Next Judah told his other son Onan to lay with
Tamar in order to produce a son for Er whom was dead, but since Onan
knew that the son would not be his he spilled his seed on the ground
and God killed him as a result (thus Onan also was against the seed
that would produce the stepfather of Jesus Christ). Lastly Judah told
Tamar just to be as a widow until Shelah (the last son of Judah) got
old enough for him to be her husband, and he said this because he
thought that Shelah would die like his brothers (like the other two
sons of Judah).
Tamar knew that she would not be saved unless she produced fruit for
the lord, so after the wife of Judah died, Judah mourned and Tamar
through her cleverness tricked Judah into laying with her unknowingly
(this is what produced Perez Genesis 38:29 Matthew 1:3). Perez is the
forbear of Joseph the stepfather of Jesus Christ. Overall, although
the union between Judah and Tamar was condemned (Judah in fact ordered
that Tamar be put to death by fire) the child Perez and Tamar had not
been killed because when Judah realized that Tamar held his son he
could not condemn her because it would be condemning his own actions
(thus Judah as a administrator of justice had his hands tied because
it was as a result of his own sin that Tamar was pregnant with his son
and it was also the result of his own sin that Tamar was not marred to
Shelah).
The story is that after the death of the wife of Judah he mourned, and
then he went to the shearing of the sheep by his servants and when
Tamar heard of this she dressed in a veil putting off her widow’s
cloth and sat in a place that Judah would see her. Judah thinking
that she was a shrine woman whom was paid for intimate services
propositioned her for intimate services and she accepted his
proposition and lay with him in exchange for the pledge of his
judicial items that Judah said would latter be exchanged for a young
goat, and these items had been the seal, cord, and staff. Since Tamar
laid with Judah for the sake of gaining a child thus she kept the
seal, cord, and staff instead of exchanging them for the goat. Thus
when Judah was told that Tamar was with child and ordered her burned
to death she presented him with the seal and said "see whom this
belongs to for this is the man whom made me with child", and at that
Judah dropped the charges and said "you are more righteous than I for
I did not give you my son Shelah."
Thus when Jacob (the father of Judah) blessed him before Jacob died he
said, "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff
from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the
obedience of the nations is his." Genesis 49:10 (NIV) This is a
prophesy about Jesus Christ whom is the lion of the tribe of Judah.
Revelation 5:5 Overall, because of the faith of Tamar it was the
‘staff’ of Judah that got passed to her and her descendants until it
came to Joseph (so to speak) the step father of Jesus Christ and then
he passed it (so to speak) on to Jesus Christ whom is perfect God and
perfect man ruling as King over all the nations.
Now it was Judah Genesis 37:26 whom sold his brother Joseph to the
Ishmaelites after Joseph was thrown into the well (much like Judas
sold Jesus into the hands of those in Judicial power over the kingdom
of Judah). It was thus Joseph whom in a spiritual way shows the life
of Christ far more profound than Judah (that is why the step father of
Jesus Christ was named Joseph after the Joseph in Genesis instead of
being named after Judah). In fact the story of Joseph in Egypt in the
next chapter Genesis 39 gives a story of faithfulness as like a
contrasting story to that of Tamar and Judah for in the story of
Joseph he became the property of a Egyption man named Potiphar whom
had a wife whom propositioned Joseph, and he fled from her as she
accused him of misconduct and as a result he was thrown into prison
(sort of like being thrown into the well a second time).
Joseph showed then in the next chapter 40 is shown as presenting God’s
justice in prison to the baker and the cup barrier through the
interpretation of a dream. The interpretation was correct, and
justice was served as God said it would be by the baker being killed
and the cup barrier returning to duty. It was this cup barrier whom
told Pharaoh about Joseph when Pharaoh had a dream, and then Joseph
told Pharaoh about God’s judgment over Egypt regarding the famine.
Because Joseph knew so much about God’s justice as a result Pharaoh
being very incredibly wise made Joseph second in command to him over
all of Egypt. Unlike Judah Joseph administered justice not by his own
reasoning but instead he administer justice by listening to God and
informing the powers that be about God’s decisions. As a result
Christ whom eventually took the staff away from the kingdom of Judah
in 72AD, when Jerusalem was eventually destroyed, took the staff of
Judah away from Jerusalem but be became like Joseph in Egypt (this is
why for the gentiles whom believed in Christ Egypt was figuratively
all around them as they became the body of Christ). Note that it was
Joseph whom also reconciled all of his brothers and gave them
protection in Egypt until the Exodus when they became a nation of
around 600,000.
The seed of Joseph of the stepfather of Jesus Christ was from Judah
and Tamar in order to prove that it is not our acts that we are
righteous but instead Christ is our righteousness, and this is what
the kingdom of Judah did not understand when Christ was crucified in
Jerusalem. Joseph the second in command of pharaoh knew that apart
from God he was nothing, and that is why he only listened to God’s
judgments and told pharaoh about them unlike Judah whom ruled much
differently. Now the Jews represent Judah whom sold the lord in the
act of stuffing him down the well (or the belly of the whale as Christ
was crucified), but Ephraim represent the ten tribes of Israel that
became scatted to the nations whom became known as the gentiles.
Consider the two sons of Joseph for the following is said, "Joseph
named his firstborn Manasseh and said, "It is because God has made me
forget all my trouble and all my father's household." The second son
he named Ephraim and said, "It is because God has made me fruitful in
the land of my suffering."" Genesis 41:51-53 (NIV) Now the story of
the Portugal son whom Jesus talks about is a story about Judah and
Ephraim. Ephraim is the son whom takes the father’s inheritance and
throws it away whereas Judah is the son whom always stays with the
father but as soon as Ephraim comes back and Judah sees the father’s
grace and it makes him mad and causes a division in the house of God
as he ultimately refuses to serve him until his anger subsides.
Read Genesis 48 because it tells the story of Manasseh and Ephraim
being blessed by Jacob before his death, and Ephraim is promised to
become a group of nations. Genesis 48:20 reads, "He blessed them that
day and said, "In your name will Israel pronounce this blessing: 'May
God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.' " So he put Ephraim ahead of
Manasseh." Overall, I think that if you understand this blessing,
then you will also understand how God has, is, and will restore the
Jews and gentiles under one roof through Christ crucifixion.
Read the following scripture in Isaiah 11 for this is how the hose of
God will be restored in the end times. Verses 1-5 talk about Christ
coming to power, verses 6-12 talk about the scatted people (the
gentiles) being reclaimed, and verse 13 says "Ephraim's jealousy will
vanish, and Judah's enemies will be cut off; Ephraim will not be
jealous of Judah, nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim." (NIV) Isaiah 13
then talks about the mystery Babylon, and then Isaiah 14 begins by
saying, "The LORD will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will
choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will
join them and unite with the house of Jacob. Nations will take them
and bring them to their own place. And the house of Israel will
possess the nations as menservants and maidservants in the LORD's
land. They will make captives of their captors and rule over their
oppressors. On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and
turmoil and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the
king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury
has ended! The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked, the scepter of
the rulers" Isaiah 14:1-5 (NIV) Overall, we know that Isaiah is
talking about the end times because he says that nations will return
the house of Jacob to their own place, and the chapter continues to
talk about the fall of Satan.
I would talk much more about these things, but I have been asked to
limit my writing and I am afraid that I have already said to much at
this time (I do not want to burden anyone). Remember the words of the
lord in his crucifixion talking to the women as he said, "weep for
yourselves as the time will come that man will say, ‘cursed is the
womb that produces fruit’"; moreover, if the womb does not produce any
fruit then how can it be saved by the fruit of the vine of Jesus
Christ? The point is that the fruit of the vine that goes forth from
the womb is what saves a person because the fruit of the vine is what
God produces in a person as it is entirely the work of God, and it is
this fruit that this generation has been rising against.
Thank you,
Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com
Although the truth that I am going to share with you is incredibly
powerful, striking, and awesome it is at the same time one of the most
offensive scriptural truths that I know of. Hopefully you will bare
with me as I explain this truth, and note that the reason why you may
never hear this kind of message from a pulpit anytime soon is because
it is so very extreme. Having said that I will give the message to
you without coating it, and I can imagine many upon hearing the
message going into a rage because of how true it is.
First the salvation of Marry the mother of Christ depended on her
giving birth to Jesus Christ, and this is also the case with every
woman whom gave birth to a child that would produce Joseph the "step
father of God" and this is why the genealogy of Jesus Christ is listed
at the very beginning of the New Testament in the first Chapter of
Matthew. Many of you probably do not believe what I just said, so I
will give you proof. Consider the following text, "A woman should
learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to
teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam
was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was
the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be
saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and
holiness with propriety." 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV) (Notice that
scripture even goes so far as to include all women as being saved if
they produce children, continue in the faith, love and holiness with
propriety.)
Abraham is listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ, and if his wife
had never produced Isaac then she would have never been saved because
from Isaac came the seed of Joseph the stepfather of Jesus Christ.
Also if Abraham would have killed Isaac, then none of us would have
been saved. Overall, if Eve did not give birth to Seth whom was given
to Eve in place of Able whom Cain killed, then the seed of Noah would
have been lost (this is the seed of Abraham as this is the seed of
Joseph the stepfather of Jesus Christ). Genesis 4:25
Now the purpose of Genesis 38 would be a mystery to someone whom is
unaware of everything that I just said or who does not believe in it.
Judah whom is one of the twelve sons of Jacob (also known as Israel)
whom is one of the forefathers of Joseph (whom was the stepfather of
Jesus Christ) had three sons specifically. The names of the sons had
been Er, Onan, and Shelah.
Judah got a wife for his son Er whose name was Tamar, but he was
wicked and as a result he died (he died because it would be a
testimony against Christ to have him as a forebear of the stepfather
of Jesus Christ). Next Judah told his other son Onan to lay with
Tamar in order to produce a son for Er whom was dead, but since Onan
knew that the son would not be his he spilled his seed on the ground
and God killed him as a result (thus Onan also was against the seed
that would produce the stepfather of Jesus Christ). Lastly Judah told
Tamar just to be as a widow until Shelah (the last son of Judah) got
old enough for him to be her husband, and he said this because he
thought that Shelah would die like his brothers (like the other two
sons of Judah).
Tamar knew that she would not be saved unless she produced fruit for
the lord, so after the wife of Judah died, Judah mourned and Tamar
through her cleverness tricked Judah into laying with her unknowingly
(this is what produced Perez Genesis 38:29 Matthew 1:3). Perez is the
forbear of Joseph the stepfather of Jesus Christ. Overall, although
the union between Judah and Tamar was condemned (Judah in fact ordered
that Tamar be put to death by fire) the child Perez and Tamar had not
been killed because when Judah realized that Tamar held his son he
could not condemn her because it would be condemning his own actions
(thus Judah as a administrator of justice had his hands tied because
it was as a result of his own sin that Tamar was pregnant with his son
and it was also the result of his own sin that Tamar was not marred to
Shelah).
The story is that after the death of the wife of Judah he mourned, and
then he went to the shearing of the sheep by his servants and when
Tamar heard of this she dressed in a veil putting off her widow’s
cloth and sat in a place that Judah would see her. Judah thinking
that she was a shrine woman whom was paid for intimate services
propositioned her for intimate services and she accepted his
proposition and lay with him in exchange for the pledge of his
judicial items that Judah said would latter be exchanged for a young
goat, and these items had been the seal, cord, and staff. Since Tamar
laid with Judah for the sake of gaining a child thus she kept the
seal, cord, and staff instead of exchanging them for the goat. Thus
when Judah was told that Tamar was with child and ordered her burned
to death she presented him with the seal and said "see whom this
belongs to for this is the man whom made me with child", and at that
Judah dropped the charges and said "you are more righteous than I for
I did not give you my son Shelah."
Thus when Jacob (the father of Judah) blessed him before Jacob died he
said, "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff
from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the
obedience of the nations is his." Genesis 49:10 (NIV) This is a
prophesy about Jesus Christ whom is the lion of the tribe of Judah.
Revelation 5:5 Overall, because of the faith of Tamar it was the
‘staff’ of Judah that got passed to her and her descendants until it
came to Joseph (so to speak) the step father of Jesus Christ and then
he passed it (so to speak) on to Jesus Christ whom is perfect God and
perfect man ruling as King over all the nations.
Now it was Judah Genesis 37:26 whom sold his brother Joseph to the
Ishmaelites after Joseph was thrown into the well (much like Judas
sold Jesus into the hands of those in Judicial power over the kingdom
of Judah). It was thus Joseph whom in a spiritual way shows the life
of Christ far more profound than Judah (that is why the step father of
Jesus Christ was named Joseph after the Joseph in Genesis instead of
being named after Judah). In fact the story of Joseph in Egypt in the
next chapter Genesis 39 gives a story of faithfulness as like a
contrasting story to that of Tamar and Judah for in the story of
Joseph he became the property of a Egyption man named Potiphar whom
had a wife whom propositioned Joseph, and he fled from her as she
accused him of misconduct and as a result he was thrown into prison
(sort of like being thrown into the well a second time).
Joseph showed then in the next chapter 40 is shown as presenting God’s
justice in prison to the baker and the cup barrier through the
interpretation of a dream. The interpretation was correct, and
justice was served as God said it would be by the baker being killed
and the cup barrier returning to duty. It was this cup barrier whom
told Pharaoh about Joseph when Pharaoh had a dream, and then Joseph
told Pharaoh about God’s judgment over Egypt regarding the famine.
Because Joseph knew so much about God’s justice as a result Pharaoh
being very incredibly wise made Joseph second in command to him over
all of Egypt. Unlike Judah Joseph administered justice not by his own
reasoning but instead he administer justice by listening to God and
informing the powers that be about God’s decisions. As a result
Christ whom eventually took the staff away from the kingdom of Judah
in 72AD, when Jerusalem was eventually destroyed, took the staff of
Judah away from Jerusalem but be became like Joseph in Egypt (this is
why for the gentiles whom believed in Christ Egypt was figuratively
all around them as they became the body of Christ). Note that it was
Joseph whom also reconciled all of his brothers and gave them
protection in Egypt until the Exodus when they became a nation of
around 600,000.
The seed of Joseph of the stepfather of Jesus Christ was from Judah
and Tamar in order to prove that it is not our acts that we are
righteous but instead Christ is our righteousness, and this is what
the kingdom of Judah did not understand when Christ was crucified in
Jerusalem. Joseph the second in command of pharaoh knew that apart
from God he was nothing, and that is why he only listened to God’s
judgments and told pharaoh about them unlike Judah whom ruled much
differently. Now the Jews represent Judah whom sold the lord in the
act of stuffing him down the well (or the belly of the whale as Christ
was crucified), but Ephraim represent the ten tribes of Israel that
became scatted to the nations whom became known as the gentiles.
Consider the two sons of Joseph for the following is said, "Joseph
named his firstborn Manasseh and said, "It is because God has made me
forget all my trouble and all my father's household." The second son
he named Ephraim and said, "It is because God has made me fruitful in
the land of my suffering."" Genesis 41:51-53 (NIV) Now the story of
the Portugal son whom Jesus talks about is a story about Judah and
Ephraim. Ephraim is the son whom takes the father’s inheritance and
throws it away whereas Judah is the son whom always stays with the
father but as soon as Ephraim comes back and Judah sees the father’s
grace and it makes him mad and causes a division in the house of God
as he ultimately refuses to serve him until his anger subsides.
Read Genesis 48 because it tells the story of Manasseh and Ephraim
being blessed by Jacob before his death, and Ephraim is promised to
become a group of nations. Genesis 48:20 reads, "He blessed them that
day and said, "In your name will Israel pronounce this blessing: 'May
God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.' " So he put Ephraim ahead of
Manasseh." Overall, I think that if you understand this blessing,
then you will also understand how God has, is, and will restore the
Jews and gentiles under one roof through Christ crucifixion.
Read the following scripture in Isaiah 11 for this is how the hose of
God will be restored in the end times. Verses 1-5 talk about Christ
coming to power, verses 6-12 talk about the scatted people (the
gentiles) being reclaimed, and verse 13 says "Ephraim's jealousy will
vanish, and Judah's enemies will be cut off; Ephraim will not be
jealous of Judah, nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim." (NIV) Isaiah 13
then talks about the mystery Babylon, and then Isaiah 14 begins by
saying, "The LORD will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will
choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will
join them and unite with the house of Jacob. Nations will take them
and bring them to their own place. And the house of Israel will
possess the nations as menservants and maidservants in the LORD's
land. They will make captives of their captors and rule over their
oppressors. On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and
turmoil and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the
king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury
has ended! The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked, the scepter of
the rulers" Isaiah 14:1-5 (NIV) Overall, we know that Isaiah is
talking about the end times because he says that nations will return
the house of Jacob to their own place, and the chapter continues to
talk about the fall of Satan.
I would talk much more about these things, but I have been asked to
limit my writing and I am afraid that I have already said to much at
this time (I do not want to burden anyone). Remember the words of the
lord in his crucifixion talking to the women as he said, "weep for
yourselves as the time will come that man will say, ‘cursed is the
womb that produces fruit’"; moreover, if the womb does not produce any
fruit then how can it be saved by the fruit of the vine of Jesus
Christ? The point is that the fruit of the vine that goes forth from
the womb is what saves a person because the fruit of the vine is what
God produces in a person as it is entirely the work of God, and it is
this fruit that this generation has been rising against.
Thank you,
Mathew Enoch Mount
mmo...@essex1.com
ON EARTH Ministries
Nov 10, 2009, 4:38:44 PM11/10/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Wow. Let me see if I can state my thoughts clearly...
Good old Genesis 38. Strange, alien, and disturbing. This Chapter
has been under scrutiny for well over a thousand years. Because it
appears to be an add-on, (no continuity in style with 37 or 39, abrupt
change of setting and circumstance, etc), Walter Russell Bowie
states, it “is like an alien element, suddenly and arbitrarily thrust
into a record that it only serves to disturb”, and goes on to say,
“Certainly few people would choose this chapter as a basis for
preaching and teaching.” and even, "entirely unsuited for homiletical
use."
Most Bible scholars consider the genealogies of the New Testament to
be legalese used to establish direct bloodlines that grant rights to
the throne of David. Mathew is a political document in particular, as
it’s theme is primarily, “Christ as King”, the word “King” being used
more here than in any of the other Gospels. Other Gospel themes being
Mark “Jesus as Servant”, Luke “Jesus as Man”, and the latest of the
four, John “Jesus as Deity”.
This also makes me want to warn against Phariseel legalism. This is a
terrible compulsion that can obscure the Spirit of our Father.
Also, as far as the culturally ancient way in which women’s roles are
defined, I find them understandable in context, but inexcusable in
circumstance. Rabbi, I will have to evoke my right as a fellow
teacher, and Priest in the Kingdom, to do some binding and loosing on
this one.
Also, I think you may be mixing apples with oranges, on the "fruits"
issue, I have to graph that one out and pray about it.
Peace, and All Good Things,
--
Brother Larry Roy Woodsmall
ON EARTH MINISTRIES
Mathew Enoch Mount
Nov 10, 2009, 5:05:46 PM11/10/09
to Jesus On the Web
Hello,
I can see that my teaching got received the way that I envisioned it
would be received. Note that the genealogy of Jesus Christ is the
genealogy of Joseph the stepfather of Jesus Christ whom physically
cared for him, guarded him, and protected him until he was no longer
confined to such a limited form as an infant (and such). We know that
the ‘real’ father of Jesus Christ is God the Father whom through the
Holy Ghost gave Marry the seed (Yet Christ is not created but instead
he is eternally begotten). What I wrote is about the descendants of
Adam for the most part, but we are descendants of Christ because we
are born again (also note that the fruit of the womb that the new
nature produces is the fruits of the spirit).
On Nov 10, 3:38 pm, ON EARTH Ministries
I can see that my teaching got received the way that I envisioned it
would be received. Note that the genealogy of Jesus Christ is the
genealogy of Joseph the stepfather of Jesus Christ whom physically
cared for him, guarded him, and protected him until he was no longer
confined to such a limited form as an infant (and such). We know that
the ‘real’ father of Jesus Christ is God the Father whom through the
Holy Ghost gave Marry the seed (Yet Christ is not created but instead
he is eternally begotten). What I wrote is about the descendants of
Adam for the most part, but we are descendants of Christ because we
are born again (also note that the fruit of the womb that the new
nature produces is the fruits of the spirit).
On Nov 10, 3:38 pm, ON EARTH Ministries
Evan Hale
Nov 13, 2009, 3:50:18 PM11/13/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
" . . .I can imagine many upon hearing the |
message going into a rage because of how true it is." |
|
lol. This is my explanation for why any of you disagree with anything I say from now on.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying infertile women are evil, or am I retarded?
Evan "The alternative to tragedy is damnation." --C.S. Lewis --- On Tue, 11/10/09, Mathew Enoch Mount <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote: |
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
ON EARTH Ministries
Nov 13, 2009, 4:32:11 PM11/13/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Evan -
Mat had explained to me that there were other "fruits" to be considered. I told him I thought he enjoyed being a provocateur!
Mathew Enoch Mount
Nov 13, 2009, 6:09:58 PM11/13/09
to Jesus On the Web
Hello,
Yes their is a spiritual fruit and their is a physical fruit. Women
whom could not bare children would have been seen as a picture of
Jerusalem prior to Christ crucifixion. Also note that Abraham was
told he would have a son even through his wife was like the age of a
great grandmother, and we know according to the scripture that
Abraham’s wife had a son whom was the greatest early foreshadowing of
Christ that ever existed (besides David). Overall, we should learn a
incredible truth about God’s desires for fruitfulness by considering
such things.
On Nov 13, 3:32 pm, ON EARTH Ministries
Yes their is a spiritual fruit and their is a physical fruit. Women
whom could not bare children would have been seen as a picture of
Jerusalem prior to Christ crucifixion. Also note that Abraham was
told he would have a son even through his wife was like the age of a
great grandmother, and we know according to the scripture that
Abraham’s wife had a son whom was the greatest early foreshadowing of
Christ that ever existed (besides David). Overall, we should learn a
incredible truth about God’s desires for fruitfulness by considering
such things.
On Nov 13, 3:32 pm, ON EARTH Ministries
Stoneracket
Nov 22, 2009, 11:58:48 PM11/22/09
to Jesus On the Web
Brother Matthew, you are in error for you are overextending this
particular verse in the Scriptures:
"But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in
faith, love and
holiness with propriety." 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV) (Notice that
scripture even goes so far as to include all women as being saved if
they produce children, continue in the faith, love and holiness with
propriety.)"
For the married woman in the church, her primary ministry is not in
the church itself but in raising Godly children. The use of the word
"saved" in this particular verse has nothing to do with spiritual
salvation but in the preservation of the married woman's primary role
outside of the church. You continue to overextend your interpretation
by saying "all women" are saved through childbearing, but you so
easily forget what the Scriptures have to say about the unmarried
woman: I Corinthians 7:25-40. In short, Paul does not write that
single ( or even infertile ) women cannot be saved -- quite the
contrary, eh.
When discussing the genealogy in Matthew you need to also be aware of
the genealogy in Luke. The former is illustrative of Christ's legal
line through the tribe of Judah and the latter solves the problem of
the blood curse on this same royal line. From King Jeconiah on there
was a blood curse on the House of David ( Jeremiah 22:30 ) and the
virgin birth through Mary got around this blood curse problem. Luke's
genealogy traces the royal line through another son of David's -
Nathan - and down through Heli, the father of Mary. Heli had no sons,
so he adopted Joseph as his son via the special Mosaic law concerning
the daughters of Zelophehad ( Num. 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12; Josh
17:3-6; I Chr. 7:15 ). Thus, in Matthew's genealogy Joseph is listed
as the son of Jacob and in Luke's genealogy he is presented as the son
of Heli - albeit 'as reckoned by law' as stated in the original Greek.
particular verse in the Scriptures:
"But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in
faith, love and
holiness with propriety." 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV) (Notice that
scripture even goes so far as to include all women as being saved if
they produce children, continue in the faith, love and holiness with
propriety.)"
the church itself but in raising Godly children. The use of the word
"saved" in this particular verse has nothing to do with spiritual
salvation but in the preservation of the married woman's primary role
outside of the church. You continue to overextend your interpretation
by saying "all women" are saved through childbearing, but you so
easily forget what the Scriptures have to say about the unmarried
woman: I Corinthians 7:25-40. In short, Paul does not write that
single ( or even infertile ) women cannot be saved -- quite the
contrary, eh.
When discussing the genealogy in Matthew you need to also be aware of
the genealogy in Luke. The former is illustrative of Christ's legal
line through the tribe of Judah and the latter solves the problem of
the blood curse on this same royal line. From King Jeconiah on there
was a blood curse on the House of David ( Jeremiah 22:30 ) and the
virgin birth through Mary got around this blood curse problem. Luke's
genealogy traces the royal line through another son of David's -
Nathan - and down through Heli, the father of Mary. Heli had no sons,
so he adopted Joseph as his son via the special Mosaic law concerning
the daughters of Zelophehad ( Num. 26:33; 27:1-11; 36:2-12; Josh
17:3-6; I Chr. 7:15 ). Thus, in Matthew's genealogy Joseph is listed
as the son of Jacob and in Luke's genealogy he is presented as the son
of Heli - albeit 'as reckoned by law' as stated in the original Greek.
Mathew Enoch Mount
Nov 23, 2009, 1:48:36 AM11/23/09
to Jesus On the Web
Hello,
Yes, Stoneracket you should post more often. I was not imposing that
women can only be eternally saved through the act of baring physical
descendants, but rather women are saved through the act of child
baring meaning that they are saved by the fruit that God has designed
them to produce (as we all are designed both in spirit and in flesh to
produce fruit). Yes it is true that we have a spiritual fruit and we
have a physical fruit, and we should not take the physical fruit as
evidence of eternal salvation but instead the spiritual fruit is given
as evidence of eternal salvation. Nevertheless, spiritual fruit
produces physical fruit eventually.
God gave Abraham faith, and it is this faith that eventually bore the
son Isaac. Abraham was thus saved by faith, but Sara was saved
through childbearing. Now we know about how Sara did not believe God,
and we know about Abraham’s other son that was thrown out. We are
thus saved by faith through works, but those works only come as a
result of God having given us the gift of faith (it is the faith that
produces the works).
What I want you and everyone else to know about my writing is that
like all the allegory that Saint Paul makes of the law it is to not be
removed from the rest of the context of scripture. We should not make
the mistake of denying the work of the Holy Ghost by only reading
scripture in a literal method and thus deny the links made through
faith expressing itself through the voice of scripture. On the other
had we should not make our so called, "faith" in what we believe the
scripture to mean to be taken as greater than the authority of the
scripture such that some one reads scripture and we say, "you are in
error because you have not read what the doctors of our church have
written or what the pastor or priest has said." My point is that we
should listen to the voice of God both in the plain meaning of the
scripture, and we should listen to the voice of God communicate
through others whom speak through faith such that we thus become the
recipients of spiritual fruit.
You are most likely correct Stoneracket in a lot of ways, and I will
evaluate your writing on this subject in detail if I have an
opportunity to do so. I however must inform you that I see nothing
wrong with taking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and communicating a message of
eternal salvation based upon its premises because I am not going to
say, "this is the more literal message of the verse thus you should
not believe any other message than what the bible literally says."
God made both the things that are obvious and the things that are
hidden, so we should not take the things that are obvious to deny the
things that are hidden.
Yes, Stoneracket you should post more often. I was not imposing that
women can only be eternally saved through the act of baring physical
descendants, but rather women are saved through the act of child
baring meaning that they are saved by the fruit that God has designed
them to produce (as we all are designed both in spirit and in flesh to
produce fruit). Yes it is true that we have a spiritual fruit and we
have a physical fruit, and we should not take the physical fruit as
evidence of eternal salvation but instead the spiritual fruit is given
as evidence of eternal salvation. Nevertheless, spiritual fruit
produces physical fruit eventually.
God gave Abraham faith, and it is this faith that eventually bore the
son Isaac. Abraham was thus saved by faith, but Sara was saved
through childbearing. Now we know about how Sara did not believe God,
and we know about Abraham’s other son that was thrown out. We are
thus saved by faith through works, but those works only come as a
result of God having given us the gift of faith (it is the faith that
produces the works).
What I want you and everyone else to know about my writing is that
like all the allegory that Saint Paul makes of the law it is to not be
removed from the rest of the context of scripture. We should not make
the mistake of denying the work of the Holy Ghost by only reading
scripture in a literal method and thus deny the links made through
faith expressing itself through the voice of scripture. On the other
had we should not make our so called, "faith" in what we believe the
scripture to mean to be taken as greater than the authority of the
scripture such that some one reads scripture and we say, "you are in
error because you have not read what the doctors of our church have
written or what the pastor or priest has said." My point is that we
should listen to the voice of God both in the plain meaning of the
scripture, and we should listen to the voice of God communicate
through others whom speak through faith such that we thus become the
recipients of spiritual fruit.
You are most likely correct Stoneracket in a lot of ways, and I will
evaluate your writing on this subject in detail if I have an
opportunity to do so. I however must inform you that I see nothing
wrong with taking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and communicating a message of
eternal salvation based upon its premises because I am not going to
say, "this is the more literal message of the verse thus you should
not believe any other message than what the bible literally says."
God made both the things that are obvious and the things that are
hidden, so we should not take the things that are obvious to deny the
things that are hidden.
Stoneracket
Nov 19, 2009, 8:43:49 PM11/19/09
to Jesus On the Web
Brother Matthew, you are in error for you are overextending this
particular verse in the Scriptures:
particular verse in the Scriptures:
"But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in
faith, love and
holiness with propriety." 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV) (Notice that
scripture even goes so far as to include all women as being saved if
they produce children, continue in the faith, love and holiness with
propriety.)"
faith, love and
holiness with propriety." 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV) (Notice that
scripture even goes so far as to include all women as being saved if
they produce children, continue in the faith, love and holiness with
propriety.)"
For the married woman in the church, her primary ministry is not in
the church itself but in raising Godly children. The use of the word
"saved" has nothing to do with spiritual salvation but in the
the church itself but in raising Godly children. The use of the word
preservation of the married woman's primary role outside of the
church. You continue to overextend your interpretation by saying "all
women" are saved through childbearing, but you so easily forget what
the Scriptures have to say about the unmarried woman: I Corinthians
7:25-40. In short, Paul does not write that single ( or even
infertile ) woman cannot be saved -- quite the contrary, eh.
church. You continue to overextend your interpretation by saying "all
women" are saved through childbearing, but you so easily forget what
the Scriptures have to say about the unmarried woman: I Corinthians
7:25-40. In short, Paul does not write that single ( or even
When discussing the genealogy in Matthew you need to also be aware of
line through the tribe of Judah and the latter solves the problem of
the blood curse on this same royal line. From King Jeconiah on there
was a blood curse on the House of David ( Jeremiah 22:30 ) and the
virgin birth through Mary got around this blood curse problem. Luke's
genealogy traces the royal line through another son of David's -
Nathan - and down through Heli, the father of Mary. Heli had no sons,
so he adopted Joseph as his son via the special Mosaic law concerning
the daughters of Zelophehad ( Num. 26:33, 27:1-11, 36:2-12 ). Thus, in
the blood curse on this same royal line. From King Jeconiah on there
was a blood curse on the House of David ( Jeremiah 22:30 ) and the
virgin birth through Mary got around this blood curse problem. Luke's
genealogy traces the royal line through another son of David's -
Nathan - and down through Heli, the father of Mary. Heli had no sons,
so he adopted Joseph as his son via the special Mosaic law concerning
Matthew's genealogy Jacob is listed as Joseph's father and in Luke's
genealogy Heli is presented as the father of Joseph - albeit
'according to the law' as implied in the original Greek.
Adam Colbert
Nov 23, 2009, 5:19:00 PM11/23/09
to Jesus On the Web
i typically try to say what i agree with, and then expound upon that,
when i reply, and i try to steer away from going around pointing out
points of dissention, though the latter is much easier to do (but
oftentimes not spiritually healthy, although i can be). but i just
wanted to point out that the 1 Corinthians verses you cited is hard to
NOT take out of context, for verse 26 says, "Because of the present
crisis..." and i'm not saying that the message of this section of
scripture can't be broadened and applied to our lives, but we really
have to look at it in context. and here's the context that i'm
speaking of: Paul is writing a letter. they didn't exactly have the
modern day system of mail, but it's essentially the same. you write a
letter, send it to someone, and they get it. and what you say in that
letter is addressed to them. perhaps Paul realized that his letters
would be passed down thousands of years later, but perhaps he was just
writing a letter to the church of Corinth, and in that letter, apart
from spreading the Gospel, he was also just keeping in touch. it's
abundantly obvious by now that i'm driving this point into the ground.
the point is, our present crisis, whatever it may be, is not "the
present crisis" of the church of Corinth.
also, i really like that last paragraph regarding the two lineages.
when i reply, and i try to steer away from going around pointing out
points of dissention, though the latter is much easier to do (but
oftentimes not spiritually healthy, although i can be). but i just
wanted to point out that the 1 Corinthians verses you cited is hard to
NOT take out of context, for verse 26 says, "Because of the present
crisis..." and i'm not saying that the message of this section of
scripture can't be broadened and applied to our lives, but we really
have to look at it in context. and here's the context that i'm
speaking of: Paul is writing a letter. they didn't exactly have the
modern day system of mail, but it's essentially the same. you write a
letter, send it to someone, and they get it. and what you say in that
letter is addressed to them. perhaps Paul realized that his letters
would be passed down thousands of years later, but perhaps he was just
writing a letter to the church of Corinth, and in that letter, apart
from spreading the Gospel, he was also just keeping in touch. it's
abundantly obvious by now that i'm driving this point into the ground.
the point is, our present crisis, whatever it may be, is not "the
present crisis" of the church of Corinth.
also, i really like that last paragraph regarding the two lineages.
Stoneracket
Nov 23, 2009, 9:31:09 PM11/23/09
to Jesus On the Web
Blast! Both my revised forum post and the original are now appearing
here at once! Please ignore that second post. The first post has more
Scripture cited in the second paragraph on the genealogies and also
makes certain corrections. Thank you, Brother Matthew for quoting this
first and revised forum post. Brother Adam .... what am I gonna do
with you! You quoted the wrong one, eh! I just won't ever get over
this and I ........ I'm just kidding. I should've been more careful
when I posted it the first time. No matter, eh.
To both of you I can only say that I take the Scriptures both
literally ( taking in account the various uses of language like
metaphors, etc. ) and seriously. I also accept that all of the
Scriptures are inspired or, literally in the Greek, 'theopneustos' or
God-breathed. God wrote all of the Scriptures and I accept His
authority. The instruments God used to write down all of the
Scriptures were men filed with His Holy Spirit. Since God wrote all of
the Scriptures and He inhabits Eternity why would I limit the
Scriptures to only one context? God's Word is alive with His Holy
Spirit ( Heb. 4:12 ) and the Scriptures apply to each of us today just
as much as they did to believers in the past and will to those in the
future. We don't put God in a box so why should we limit His Word as
well? See 2 Tim. 3:16; 4:2 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 .
Brother Larry Woodsmall knows me well and he'll tell you that I'm one
of those rock-hard conservative, fundamentalist Christians. I also
come from a solid, non-denominational Bible teaching church
background. So don't be surprised if I come on really strong about the
role of women in the Church, spiritual gifts, so-called liberal
Biblical scholars, knowing all of your basic Bible doctrines and how
to deal with Christian hippies like Brother Woodsmall. Oops! Strike
that last comment -- I just did that for a cheap laugh and to see if
Brother Larry is keeping up with all of us here on this thread. I love
you, Brother Larry!!!
About the different genealogies I discussed in the above forum post: I
give full credit to C. I. Scofield and the Scofield Study bible notes.
I highly recommend this Study Bible. But only get the Scofield King
James version!!! Sorry, that was just another joke, eh. Be seeing you!
here at once! Please ignore that second post. The first post has more
Scripture cited in the second paragraph on the genealogies and also
makes certain corrections. Thank you, Brother Matthew for quoting this
first and revised forum post. Brother Adam .... what am I gonna do
with you! You quoted the wrong one, eh! I just won't ever get over
this and I ........ I'm just kidding. I should've been more careful
when I posted it the first time. No matter, eh.
To both of you I can only say that I take the Scriptures both
literally ( taking in account the various uses of language like
metaphors, etc. ) and seriously. I also accept that all of the
Scriptures are inspired or, literally in the Greek, 'theopneustos' or
God-breathed. God wrote all of the Scriptures and I accept His
authority. The instruments God used to write down all of the
Scriptures were men filed with His Holy Spirit. Since God wrote all of
the Scriptures and He inhabits Eternity why would I limit the
Scriptures to only one context? God's Word is alive with His Holy
Spirit ( Heb. 4:12 ) and the Scriptures apply to each of us today just
as much as they did to believers in the past and will to those in the
future. We don't put God in a box so why should we limit His Word as
well? See 2 Tim. 3:16; 4:2 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 .
Brother Larry Woodsmall knows me well and he'll tell you that I'm one
of those rock-hard conservative, fundamentalist Christians. I also
come from a solid, non-denominational Bible teaching church
background. So don't be surprised if I come on really strong about the
role of women in the Church, spiritual gifts, so-called liberal
Biblical scholars, knowing all of your basic Bible doctrines and how
to deal with Christian hippies like Brother Woodsmall. Oops! Strike
that last comment -- I just did that for a cheap laugh and to see if
Brother Larry is keeping up with all of us here on this thread. I love
you, Brother Larry!!!
About the different genealogies I discussed in the above forum post: I
give full credit to C. I. Scofield and the Scofield Study bible notes.
I highly recommend this Study Bible. But only get the Scofield King
James version!!! Sorry, that was just another joke, eh. Be seeing you!
Mathew Enoch Mount
Nov 24, 2009, 4:49:02 AM11/24/09
to Jesus On the Web
Hello,
First of all, I am sorry that you attend a liberal congregation, and I
say this because to me non-denominational teaching is to my
understanding a incredibly liberal doctrine. I myself am in favor of
anti-denominational teaching and what that means is that I am against
anything that would cause divisions in the body of Christ. Overall, I
can see how despite the fact that I am a lot more conservative than
you are that you might have some very important things to say even if
you do deny the intended use of scripture and its truth.
I am very much in favor of literal reading of scripture, but at the
same time I am against holding only to literal reading of scripture as
opposed to reading the scripture allegorically so to speak. As seen
by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the scripture has the four levels of
interpretation known as Pashat (simple), Remez (hint), Drash (search),
and Sod (hidden). PRDS spelled Pardes refers to a garden, and what is
believed is that by reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John one after
another in a way that we are open to God so to speak that we gain a
revelation of Jesus Christ. This revelation of Jesus Christ
eventually brings about the return to the garden of Eden. We however
must not make the mistake of Judas by acknowledging Jesus as teacher
and not also as Lord.
Yes indeed just as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy ushered
in the new kingdom promised to the descendants of Abraham in the book
of Judges so to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John usher in the new kingdom
promised to the descendants of Christ through Acts. Obviously we thus
go before the two cherubim guarding entrance to the throne room before
we go before the two cherubim on the blood atonement cover before we
go before the throne of God. Therefore just as Jesus Christ detested
the liberal teachings of the Pharisees of his day and revealed an even
more conservative doctrine thus we to should detest all these so
called conservatives whom are really liberals making themselves look
like conservatives.
My hope is that you may not use so called conservative teachings to
denounce the work of God like the Pharisees did. These Pharisees held
so closely to the literal meaning of the scripture that they would not
recognize any other reading of it, and as a result they did not
recognize the lord Jesus Christ when he came in the flesh. Because
they read the scripture and believed themselves to be holders of the
Word of God they did not recognize the Word of God (Jesus Christ) when
he came whom is the righteous one. We thus should not make the
mistake of Judas and the Pharisees to rely on our own righteousness to
understand the scripture, but instead we should rely on the Word of
God just as the other disciples did as they questioned the Word of God
by saying, "is it I lord" regarding the one whom would betray him.
Unless the scripture shows us the Word of God and makes him lord over
us we have only the same reason that Judas had for being involved in
the ministry of Jesus Christ and that reason was for him to go to his
own destruction as Jesus said after Judas took communion, "do what it
is you are going to do and do it quickly." Overall, it was thus Judas
and ultimately the Pharisees whom handed Jesus over to be crucified at
the same time that the Father handed Jesus over to be crucified, and
thus we should be on our guard against conservative teachings that are
really not conservative at all but instead are liberal teachings
making themselves look like conservative teachings.
First of all, I am sorry that you attend a liberal congregation, and I
say this because to me non-denominational teaching is to my
understanding a incredibly liberal doctrine. I myself am in favor of
anti-denominational teaching and what that means is that I am against
anything that would cause divisions in the body of Christ. Overall, I
can see how despite the fact that I am a lot more conservative than
you are that you might have some very important things to say even if
you do deny the intended use of scripture and its truth.
I am very much in favor of literal reading of scripture, but at the
same time I am against holding only to literal reading of scripture as
opposed to reading the scripture allegorically so to speak. As seen
by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the scripture has the four levels of
interpretation known as Pashat (simple), Remez (hint), Drash (search),
and Sod (hidden). PRDS spelled Pardes refers to a garden, and what is
believed is that by reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John one after
another in a way that we are open to God so to speak that we gain a
revelation of Jesus Christ. This revelation of Jesus Christ
eventually brings about the return to the garden of Eden. We however
must not make the mistake of Judas by acknowledging Jesus as teacher
and not also as Lord.
Yes indeed just as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy ushered
in the new kingdom promised to the descendants of Abraham in the book
of Judges so to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John usher in the new kingdom
promised to the descendants of Christ through Acts. Obviously we thus
go before the two cherubim guarding entrance to the throne room before
we go before the two cherubim on the blood atonement cover before we
go before the throne of God. Therefore just as Jesus Christ detested
the liberal teachings of the Pharisees of his day and revealed an even
more conservative doctrine thus we to should detest all these so
called conservatives whom are really liberals making themselves look
like conservatives.
My hope is that you may not use so called conservative teachings to
denounce the work of God like the Pharisees did. These Pharisees held
so closely to the literal meaning of the scripture that they would not
recognize any other reading of it, and as a result they did not
recognize the lord Jesus Christ when he came in the flesh. Because
they read the scripture and believed themselves to be holders of the
Word of God they did not recognize the Word of God (Jesus Christ) when
he came whom is the righteous one. We thus should not make the
mistake of Judas and the Pharisees to rely on our own righteousness to
understand the scripture, but instead we should rely on the Word of
God just as the other disciples did as they questioned the Word of God
by saying, "is it I lord" regarding the one whom would betray him.
Unless the scripture shows us the Word of God and makes him lord over
us we have only the same reason that Judas had for being involved in
the ministry of Jesus Christ and that reason was for him to go to his
own destruction as Jesus said after Judas took communion, "do what it
is you are going to do and do it quickly." Overall, it was thus Judas
and ultimately the Pharisees whom handed Jesus over to be crucified at
the same time that the Father handed Jesus over to be crucified, and
thus we should be on our guard against conservative teachings that are
really not conservative at all but instead are liberal teachings
making themselves look like conservative teachings.
Peter VanGee
Nov 24, 2009, 11:21:56 AM11/24/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Hi all:
The fact is denominations exist. Why? God must want them too. Matt and I had a conversation on facebook where these three readings on universal salvation were brought up: Is 8.14, Lk 3.34-35 and Acts 4.9-11.
"Yet he shall be a snare, an obstacle and a stumbling stone to both the houses of Israel, A trap and a snare to those who dwell in Jerusalem." Is 8.14
"and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts and hearts of many will be revealed." Lk 3. 34-35 - Matthew - I gave you the wrong chapter here in our initial conversation.
"If we are being examined today about a good deed done to a cripple, namely, by what means was he saved, then all of you and all the people of Israel shall that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead; in his name this man stands before you healed. He is 'the stone rejected by you the builders, which has become the cornerstone.'" Acts 4.9-11
The stone is a cornerstone, but it is also a seed. Simeon is like a tree that has reached its completion, now he can move on...Trees grow...but at some point they reach a point where seeds have to dispersed...in order to reach universal salvation. Some like old wine, some like new...May we be like Simeon and have the grace to find no offense in the workings of the Kingdom. For the seed grows of itself. Mk 4 26-29.
Know the Lord,
Pete
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jesus On the Web" group.
To post to this group, send email to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jesus-the-chri...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jesus-the-christ?hl=en.
Adam Colbert
Nov 24, 2009, 7:05:48 PM11/24/09
to Jesus On the Web
what do you take "conservative" and "liberal," respectively, to mean?
mmo...@essex1.com
Nov 25, 2009, 1:52:12 AM11/25/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Hello,
I have to confess Adam that I think that the scripture talks about the
conservatives being the circumcised and the liberals being the un-
circumcised. This distinction is thus made in terms of both Jesus and
gentiles. The point that I was making regarding being conservative is that it
does not do any good to be half conservative and point fingers at people whom
are not conservative. Overall, Jesus came as a righteousness apart from the
law for both the Jews and also for the gentiles that both the conservatives
and the liberals may be saved.
------- Original Message -------
From : Adam Colbert[mailto:adamc...@hotmail.com]
Sent : 11/24/2009 6:05:48 PM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Genesis 38 - Important Reading
I have to confess Adam that I think that the scripture talks about the
conservatives being the circumcised and the liberals being the un-
circumcised. This distinction is thus made in terms of both Jesus and
gentiles. The point that I was making regarding being conservative is that it
does not do any good to be half conservative and point fingers at people whom
are not conservative. Overall, Jesus came as a righteousness apart from the
law for both the Jews and also for the gentiles that both the conservatives
and the liberals may be saved.
------- Original Message -------
From : Adam Colbert[mailto:adamc...@hotmail.com]
Sent : 11/24/2009 6:05:48 PM
To : jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Cc :
Subject : RE: Re: Genesis 38 - Important Reading
Peter VanGee
Nov 25, 2009, 10:59:33 AM11/25/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Hi Adam:
Conservatives and liberals are merely different factions fighting for their place in the world. They are put in place by the devil to keep the Kingdom scattered. As St. Paul has pointed out, this is a sin of the flesh. Do not listen to either side when they stray from the Gospel.
Know the Lord,
Pete
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jesus On the Web" group.
To post to this group, send email to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jesus-the-chri...@googlegroups.com.
ON EARTH Ministries
Nov 25, 2009, 3:09:36 PM11/25/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Brother Peter -
That sounds very wise to me.
Brother Mathew-
Well, I think we both can agree that it is good to confess one’s sins.
And if Brother Adam doesn’t take your confession and intercede in
pray for you, I want you to know that I certainly will.
As a fellow gentile, I know you are as thankful as I am for our
Father’s good Grace and unconditional love. Even we are forgiven.
I am not Jewish nor am I Israeli. I believe Scripture talks about the
very specific plans He has for the Children of Israel.
As a member of the biggest, most powerful gentile empire in history, I
am inspired to claim no worldly nationalism. We are a Holy nation.
Inhabiting occupied lands taken from indigenous people through
genocide, inspires me to be mindful of, not only that of the Jewish
people but, all who are displaced, denied and killed, including Native
Americans and Palestinians. Let us deny the circumstantial ethics of
empire, conquest, and acquisition.
As a onetime Marine with a combat occupation, and a longtime health
care worker, the sanctity of ALL life is crystal clear to me.
Abortion, war, the death penalty, and any other actions that lead
intentionally to death, are all murder.
Remember what I said to you in a recent email?
I have recently revisited the model I had used to measure the distance
between liberals and conservatives and decided that it isn’t a
straight line. I think it is best modeled by the Moebius strip. If
we start on our own sides of the strip, and continue on, in our
perspective directions toward the ideal, we will find that we meet.
We meet in Christ.
The one thing that we REALLY are voting for only our Father can give us.
Peace. Unilateral, triune peace.
Peace, and All Good Things,
That sounds very wise to me.
Brother Mathew-
Well, I think we both can agree that it is good to confess one’s sins.
And if Brother Adam doesn’t take your confession and intercede in
pray for you, I want you to know that I certainly will.
As a fellow gentile, I know you are as thankful as I am for our
Father’s good Grace and unconditional love. Even we are forgiven.
I am not Jewish nor am I Israeli. I believe Scripture talks about the
very specific plans He has for the Children of Israel.
As a member of the biggest, most powerful gentile empire in history, I
am inspired to claim no worldly nationalism. We are a Holy nation.
Inhabiting occupied lands taken from indigenous people through
genocide, inspires me to be mindful of, not only that of the Jewish
people but, all who are displaced, denied and killed, including Native
Americans and Palestinians. Let us deny the circumstantial ethics of
empire, conquest, and acquisition.
As a onetime Marine with a combat occupation, and a longtime health
care worker, the sanctity of ALL life is crystal clear to me.
Abortion, war, the death penalty, and any other actions that lead
intentionally to death, are all murder.
Remember what I said to you in a recent email?
I have recently revisited the model I had used to measure the distance
between liberals and conservatives and decided that it isn’t a
straight line. I think it is best modeled by the Moebius strip. If
we start on our own sides of the strip, and continue on, in our
perspective directions toward the ideal, we will find that we meet.
We meet in Christ.
The one thing that we REALLY are voting for only our Father can give us.
Peace. Unilateral, triune peace.
Peace, and All Good Things,
Mathew Enoch Mount
Nov 25, 2009, 4:03:22 PM11/25/09
to Jesus On the Web
Hello,
Larry, I agree with you to some extent, but I must clarify that war
and the death penalty involve God judging between people and these are
acts of killing but not murder. If a man was in a crowd of civilians
and shooting to murder like a mad man, then I would want to be the
first one to put him to death (no law on heaven or earth would condemn
my actions other than what someone imagined in their mind that is not
real at all). The time however to be crucified is when the system of
jurisdiction that is put in place by God is administered in such a way
as to bring about your death. Thus their is a time to kill and their
is a time to be crucified, but their is never under the jurisdiction
of God a time to murder.
If you look at how many people are kept alive in prison because of a
lack of death penalty and then you consider how much money that costs
and then if you look at how many slaves exist in China to produce our
products and how little they are paid while they work diligently for
more than ten hours a day without the national legal rights to
practice Christianity, then one might incorrectly conclude from this
very fact that God is unjust. People could say, "why do you bless the
murders by giving them jail cells, food, and everything that they
could want or need for free while you enslave those in China forcing
them to work for next to nothing when they in fact may be eager to
learn of the gospel that would set them free?" The reason why the
murders get extended stay for free paid for by a huge wealth of money
while the slaves in China whom work diligently in service get so
little that if they get the lest bit sick then they could parish is
because one if closer to home, and although one may not cry out to God
the other one will if they can ever learn of him and when they do the
score will be settled (this is one of two correct ways of viewing the
situation).
If you are a gentile believer or a Jewish believer, then you have not
yet been saved because you have not yet been born into the nature of
Christ the King and thus into the new nation. Christianity is my
nationality and not my religion, and all of us Christians share one
sovereign nation that will emerge. This is not a democratic
government nor is it a oppressive one, but instead it is a government
ruled by one King with twenty-four thrones before him whom together
judge between people and nations.
On Nov 25, 2:09 pm, ON EARTH Ministries
Larry, I agree with you to some extent, but I must clarify that war
and the death penalty involve God judging between people and these are
acts of killing but not murder. If a man was in a crowd of civilians
and shooting to murder like a mad man, then I would want to be the
first one to put him to death (no law on heaven or earth would condemn
my actions other than what someone imagined in their mind that is not
real at all). The time however to be crucified is when the system of
jurisdiction that is put in place by God is administered in such a way
as to bring about your death. Thus their is a time to kill and their
is a time to be crucified, but their is never under the jurisdiction
of God a time to murder.
If you look at how many people are kept alive in prison because of a
lack of death penalty and then you consider how much money that costs
and then if you look at how many slaves exist in China to produce our
products and how little they are paid while they work diligently for
more than ten hours a day without the national legal rights to
practice Christianity, then one might incorrectly conclude from this
very fact that God is unjust. People could say, "why do you bless the
murders by giving them jail cells, food, and everything that they
could want or need for free while you enslave those in China forcing
them to work for next to nothing when they in fact may be eager to
learn of the gospel that would set them free?" The reason why the
murders get extended stay for free paid for by a huge wealth of money
while the slaves in China whom work diligently in service get so
little that if they get the lest bit sick then they could parish is
because one if closer to home, and although one may not cry out to God
the other one will if they can ever learn of him and when they do the
score will be settled (this is one of two correct ways of viewing the
situation).
If you are a gentile believer or a Jewish believer, then you have not
yet been saved because you have not yet been born into the nature of
Christ the King and thus into the new nation. Christianity is my
nationality and not my religion, and all of us Christians share one
sovereign nation that will emerge. This is not a democratic
government nor is it a oppressive one, but instead it is a government
ruled by one King with twenty-four thrones before him whom together
judge between people and nations.
On Nov 25, 2:09 pm, ON EARTH Ministries
Adam Colbert
Nov 25, 2009, 11:03:02 PM11/25/09
to Jesus On the Web
-sigh-
okay, Mat, seriously........... i tried to address my question as
minimally and directly as possible. either you're dodging the
question, you don't understand the question, or upon hearing the
question your mind races to such an extent that the question is left
far behind.
what do YOU
take "conservative" and "liberal,"
respectively,
to MEAN?
treat the question like a grade school kid.
"What 'conservative' means to me is..."
"What 'liberal' means to me is..."
wind it down a bit and keep it simple. sometimes that's the very best
thing you can do. if somebody gives you popsicle sticks and Elmer's
glue to build a bird house, don't start worrying about how you're
gonna rig the pulley configuration for the elevator. shave off the
excess with Occam's razor. i double dog dare you to explain what they
each mean to you using one sentence each. not what they mean to
others, not what the Bible takes them to mean (they don't even appear
in the Bible!!!!), but what they mean to YOU.
On Nov 25, 12:52 am, "mmo...@essex1.com" <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have to confess Adam that I think that the scripture talks about the
> conservatives being the circumcised and the liberals being the un-
> circumcised. This distinction is thus made in terms of both Jesus and
> gentiles. The point that I was making regarding being conservative is that it
> does not do any good to be half conservative and point fingers at people whom
> are not conservative. Overall, Jesus came as a righteousness apart from the
> law for both the Jews and also for the gentiles that both the conservatives
> and the liberals may be saved.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mathew Enoch Mount
> mmo...@essex1.com
>
> ------- Original Message -------
>
> From : Adam Colbert[mailto:adamcolb...@hotmail.com]
okay, Mat, seriously........... i tried to address my question as
minimally and directly as possible. either you're dodging the
question, you don't understand the question, or upon hearing the
question your mind races to such an extent that the question is left
far behind.
what do YOU
take "conservative" and "liberal,"
respectively,
treat the question like a grade school kid.
"What 'conservative' means to me is..."
"What 'liberal' means to me is..."
wind it down a bit and keep it simple. sometimes that's the very best
thing you can do. if somebody gives you popsicle sticks and Elmer's
glue to build a bird house, don't start worrying about how you're
gonna rig the pulley configuration for the elevator. shave off the
excess with Occam's razor. i double dog dare you to explain what they
each mean to you using one sentence each. not what they mean to
others, not what the Bible takes them to mean (they don't even appear
in the Bible!!!!), but what they mean to YOU.
On Nov 25, 12:52 am, "mmo...@essex1.com" <mmo...@essex1.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have to confess Adam that I think that the scripture talks about the
> conservatives being the circumcised and the liberals being the un-
> circumcised. This distinction is thus made in terms of both Jesus and
> gentiles. The point that I was making regarding being conservative is that it
> does not do any good to be half conservative and point fingers at people whom
> are not conservative. Overall, Jesus came as a righteousness apart from the
> law for both the Jews and also for the gentiles that both the conservatives
> and the liberals may be saved.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mathew Enoch Mount
> mmo...@essex1.com
>
> ------- Original Message -------
>
Adam Colbert
Nov 25, 2009, 11:13:04 PM11/25/09
to Jesus On the Web
glad to hear someone else has heard of the Mobius strip.
A mathematician confided
that a Mobius strip is one-sided
and if you cut it in half
you'll get quite a laugh
for it stays in one piece when divided
good stuff.
On Nov 25, 2:09 pm, ON EARTH Ministries
A mathematician confided
that a Mobius strip is one-sided
and if you cut it in half
you'll get quite a laugh
for it stays in one piece when divided
good stuff.
On Nov 25, 2:09 pm, ON EARTH Ministries
Mathew Enoch Mount
Nov 26, 2009, 6:01:03 AM11/26/09
to Jesus On the Web
A conservative is a Pharisee.
A liberal is a Sadducee
But a Christian is one born, died, and risen to the lord.
The Pharisees had been overly conservative on the outside with both
the Hebrew scripture and its commentary and they are believed to be
the modern Jews of today whom do not believe in Jesus, but the
Pharisees would hold that their understanding is such that they have
no reason to believe in the message. The Sadducees had been only
mainly for the law while they threw out commentary of the scripture,
and taught that people should do as they please or "worship God
however their conscience dictates" while holding to written code while
denying anything supernatural for the most part (even the resurrection
of the dead). Overall, the Christian is different because he is busy
birthing Jesus into people’s lives, being crucified with Christ on the
cross to show people the way, and being risen with the lord to
heavenly places to exemplify the things of the kingdom to the world
(the Christian thus takes part in all these things while also brining
them to others).
The liberals thus say that a person should do whatever they please
while rejecting liquor and other such things as if to show themselves
to be admit for the law of their conscience while denying anything
supernatural or while denying any sort of understanding of the
scripture. The conservatives hold to scriptural teaching with fervor
and can explain it to one another with little variation among their
ranks, but if the message of the gospel comes to them then they will
not believe in it because they all hold so tightly to a agreed upon
truth that people just made up and that did not originate with
scripture or with anything that God actually said. Overall, for
example the liberal is against ever being seen in a bar while they
hold themselves holy because they do not associate with such people,
but the conservative believes that they can associate with anyone and
bring salvation to many because they have the truth figured out and no
one that they encounter will tell them any different because they all
are in agreement and thus need not fear the people (or the Jesus) they
are trying to evangelize.
I think that the liberal would be on the path to salvation if they
learned to hate sin all together, and felt enough favor for the
scripture to honor those whom administrate biblical justice and
biblical teaching. I think also that the conservative would be on the
path to salvation if they listened not to majority teaching among
their own ranks but instead listened for the voice of God speaking
personally to themselves. Overall, it is only the Christian whom God
has inhabited whom brings the birth of Jesus to people and shows him
to them, surrenders everything for the truth in being crucified out of
love, and is risen to heavenly places to share in the glory of God
with his brothers and those whom God has called.
> > > mmo...@essex1.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A liberal is a Sadducee
But a Christian is one born, died, and risen to the lord.
The Pharisees had been overly conservative on the outside with both
the Hebrew scripture and its commentary and they are believed to be
the modern Jews of today whom do not believe in Jesus, but the
Pharisees would hold that their understanding is such that they have
no reason to believe in the message. The Sadducees had been only
mainly for the law while they threw out commentary of the scripture,
and taught that people should do as they please or "worship God
however their conscience dictates" while holding to written code while
denying anything supernatural for the most part (even the resurrection
of the dead). Overall, the Christian is different because he is busy
birthing Jesus into people’s lives, being crucified with Christ on the
cross to show people the way, and being risen with the lord to
heavenly places to exemplify the things of the kingdom to the world
(the Christian thus takes part in all these things while also brining
them to others).
The liberals thus say that a person should do whatever they please
while rejecting liquor and other such things as if to show themselves
to be admit for the law of their conscience while denying anything
supernatural or while denying any sort of understanding of the
scripture. The conservatives hold to scriptural teaching with fervor
and can explain it to one another with little variation among their
ranks, but if the message of the gospel comes to them then they will
not believe in it because they all hold so tightly to a agreed upon
truth that people just made up and that did not originate with
scripture or with anything that God actually said. Overall, for
example the liberal is against ever being seen in a bar while they
hold themselves holy because they do not associate with such people,
but the conservative believes that they can associate with anyone and
bring salvation to many because they have the truth figured out and no
one that they encounter will tell them any different because they all
are in agreement and thus need not fear the people (or the Jesus) they
are trying to evangelize.
I think that the liberal would be on the path to salvation if they
learned to hate sin all together, and felt enough favor for the
scripture to honor those whom administrate biblical justice and
biblical teaching. I think also that the conservative would be on the
path to salvation if they listened not to majority teaching among
their own ranks but instead listened for the voice of God speaking
personally to themselves. Overall, it is only the Christian whom God
has inhabited whom brings the birth of Jesus to people and shows him
to them, surrenders everything for the truth in being crucified out of
love, and is risen to heavenly places to share in the glory of God
with his brothers and those whom God has called.
>
> - Show quoted text -
mmo...@essex1.com
Nov 26, 2009, 6:07:37 AM11/26/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Hello,
I just want to mention that although I have used the term Pharisee in various
cases in various ways it makes since given the contexts that I use it in.
From : Adam Colbert[mailto:adamc...@hotmail.com]
Sent : 11/25/2009 10:13:04 PM
I just want to mention that although I have used the term Pharisee in various
cases in various ways it makes since given the contexts that I use it in.
From : Adam Colbert[mailto:adamc...@hotmail.com]
Sent : 11/25/2009 10:13:04 PM
Peter VanGee
Nov 26, 2009, 10:43:01 AM11/26/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Hi all:
A conservative is a Pharisee.
Mathew Enoch Mount §§§§ Conservative
Conclusion: Matthew is a Pharisee.
Couldn't resist...Happy Thanksgiving!
Know the Lord,
Pete
Adam Colbert
Nov 27, 2009, 3:56:28 AM11/27/09
to Jesus On the Web
here are my two cents.
as if language hasn't been raped enough already, anytime "liberal" is
used other than describing that which truly frees and "conservative"
is used other than describing that which prevents death and
decomposition, further perversion of semantics occurs. for if the
Bible teaches that in Christ there is Liberation (the Truth will set
you free - John 8:32) and in Christ there is Conservation (eternal
salvation), then truly Christ is the epitome of both a Liberal and
Conservative as Father Yahweh would have such words mean, just as Acts
2:42-47; 4:32-35 is the Biblical precedent for Communism.
as if language hasn't been raped enough already, anytime "liberal" is
used other than describing that which truly frees and "conservative"
is used other than describing that which prevents death and
decomposition, further perversion of semantics occurs. for if the
Bible teaches that in Christ there is Liberation (the Truth will set
you free - John 8:32) and in Christ there is Conservation (eternal
salvation), then truly Christ is the epitome of both a Liberal and
Conservative as Father Yahweh would have such words mean, just as Acts
2:42-47; 4:32-35 is the Biblical precedent for Communism.
Peter VanGee
Nov 27, 2009, 2:34:24 PM11/27/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
Hi Adam:
I like your interpretation here with regard to liberation...I wouldn't have thought about that. I see communism as more of a secular reaction (antithesis) to capitalism. A complex synthesis of the two, which we are seeing now, may very well turn out to be the antichrist. Clearly, the apostles were more just than either capitalism or communism.
Know the Lord,
Pete
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Roy Woodsmall §§§§ Freed from Monasticism
Evan L. Hale §§§§§§§§§§§ Thankful for Whiskey
Adam Colbert §§§§§§§§§§ Jesus look alike
Mathew Enoch Mount §§§§ Conservative
===>
Together we operate Jesus on the Web
----------------------------------------------------------------
You received this message because you are subscribed
To the Google Groups "Jesus On the Web" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
===>
jesus-the-chri...@googlegroups.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
For more options, visit this group at
===>
http://groups.google.com/group/jesus-the-christ?hl=en
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter VanGee
Nov 27, 2009, 2:55:07 PM11/27/09
to jesus-th...@googlegroups.com
As a fellow gentile, I know you are as thankful as I am for our
Father’s good Grace and unconditional love. Even we are forgiven.
It interesting that Jewish society was(or is) matriarchal, while Roman is patriarchal. If your mother is Jewish, your considered jewish. If your father was Roman, you were considered Roman.
I am not Jewish nor am I Israeli. I believe Scripture talks about the
very specific plans He has for the Children of Israel.
Jesus says the wisdom is vindicated by her children...the spirit goes where it wills...who is my mother, my brother, sister the one who does the will of my father.
What I am getting at here? I am saying that sometimes a Jew is actually a gentile (a.k.a. we have no king but Caesar)...and sometimes a Gentile is actually a Jew (St. Maximillian Kolbe).
As a member of the biggest, most powerful gentile empire in history, I
am inspired to claim no worldly nationalism. We are a Holy nation.
I choose rather to say that I belong to the Kingdom of God...I just happen to live in the U.S.
Inhabiting occupied lands taken from indigenous people through
genocide, inspires me to be mindful of, not only that of the Jewish
people but, all who are displaced, denied and killed, including Native
Americans and Palestinians. Let us deny the circumstantial ethics of
empire, conquest, and acquisition.
As a onetime Marine with a combat occupation, and a longtime health
care worker, the sanctity of ALL life is crystal clear to me.
Abortion, war, the death penalty, and any other actions that lead
intentionally to death, are all murder.
A side note to this, my dad was at the Bay of Pigs. He was supposed to be one of the first 45 Americans on the Island before Kennedy called them off. The point being, I might not exist had Kennedy not stopped the invasion. That being said, my dad never liked Kennedy after that. He saw the Cubans go to shore. We told them we'd back them up and didn't. They were sacrificed, for world peace. Thats a hard call to make but all I can say is: I'm glad to be alive but...the antichrist is a liar, and it runs everything.
Know the Lord,
Pete
Adam Colbert
Nov 28, 2009, 4:41:53 AM11/28/09
to Jesus On the Web
i think you'll agree with me that so often the problem is that "-ism"
gets tacked onto a root word, and then that word as a whole takes on a
semantic which disregards the spirit of the root word in the first
place. here's an example: community is good; communion is good;
communism is bad. wait, whaa? of course, the root word is "commune,"
which i did not include, and the examples given were variations in
themselves, namely with "-ity" and "-ion."
i've also done some further thinking on this "liberal/conservative"
issue....... it seems to me that, wherein the term "liberal" gets used
it would often be more appropriate to say "licentious." likewise,
"conservative" is used when "constrictive" would be better.
On Nov 27, 1:34 pm, Peter VanGee <petervan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Adam:
>
> I like your interpretation here with regard to liberation...I wouldn't have
> thought about that. I see communism as more of a secular reaction
> (antithesis) to capitalism. A complex synthesis of the two, which we are
> seeing now, may very well turn out to be the antichrist. Clearly, the
> apostles were more just than either capitalism or communism.
>
> Know the Lord,
>
> Pete
>
> > jesus-the-chri...@googlegroups.com<jesus-the-christ%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
gets tacked onto a root word, and then that word as a whole takes on a
semantic which disregards the spirit of the root word in the first
place. here's an example: community is good; communion is good;
communism is bad. wait, whaa? of course, the root word is "commune,"
which i did not include, and the examples given were variations in
themselves, namely with "-ity" and "-ion."
i've also done some further thinking on this "liberal/conservative"
issue....... it seems to me that, wherein the term "liberal" gets used
it would often be more appropriate to say "licentious." likewise,
"conservative" is used when "constrictive" would be better.
On Nov 27, 1:34 pm, Peter VanGee <petervan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Adam:
>
> I like your interpretation here with regard to liberation...I wouldn't have
> thought about that. I see communism as more of a secular reaction
> (antithesis) to capitalism. A complex synthesis of the two, which we are
> seeing now, may very well turn out to be the antichrist. Clearly, the
> apostles were more just than either capitalism or communism.
>
> Know the Lord,
>
> Pete
>
Mathew Enoch Mount
Nov 28, 2009, 5:38:36 AM11/28/09
to Jesus On the Web
Hello,
One time Adam, Bishop Gentry whom started his missionary cathedral
among a bunch of Baptists had to for much time practice communion
served in individual cups and he always tried to move to giving
communion using a common cup. Bishop Gentry was very much against
communism, so one day he spoke about eventually switching to common
cup communion in order to be more gospel oriented and I made the
phrase to refer to his position of doctrine that is was the "common
cup of communism." I said that the wine was communally held by all
people until consumed and that he was promoting the common cup of
communism, and needless to say Bishop Gentry was unable to make the
switch to common cup communion both as a result of the personal memory
of what I had said and as a result of fear of the people’s reaction as
a result of what I said.
I was overall not against common cup communion at all, but all I was
doing is making the case that Christianity to some extent upheld
politics that are vastly unpopular today. Bishop Gentry being a
executive of his company was highly offended by my use of the phrase,
"common cup of communism", but if that is what it is then that it what
it is. Overall, not only that but also the fact that salvation would
depend upon this common cup of communism that held the blood of Christ
in common property ownership until consumed was incredibly repulsive
to many.
If you read the scripture, then you will find warnings against
dividing the land until no room is left. You will also find
references that strongly suggest that what God desires is for people
to have properties that they care for and when they step off of those
properties that they step onto land that is commonly shared by God and
the people. Overall, this was important for Jesus Christ ministry to
be able to walk about the land freely with all the property belonging
to God and the people just "renting" the land, and not only that but
we learn in the gospels about the profits going to the tenants of the
vineyard to collect a crop for the master.
> > > jesus-the-chri...@googlegroups.com<jesus-the-christ%2Bunsubscribe...@googlegroups.com>
One time Adam, Bishop Gentry whom started his missionary cathedral
among a bunch of Baptists had to for much time practice communion
served in individual cups and he always tried to move to giving
communion using a common cup. Bishop Gentry was very much against
communism, so one day he spoke about eventually switching to common
cup communion in order to be more gospel oriented and I made the
phrase to refer to his position of doctrine that is was the "common
cup of communism." I said that the wine was communally held by all
people until consumed and that he was promoting the common cup of
communism, and needless to say Bishop Gentry was unable to make the
switch to common cup communion both as a result of the personal memory
of what I had said and as a result of fear of the people’s reaction as
a result of what I said.
I was overall not against common cup communion at all, but all I was
doing is making the case that Christianity to some extent upheld
politics that are vastly unpopular today. Bishop Gentry being a
executive of his company was highly offended by my use of the phrase,
"common cup of communism", but if that is what it is then that it what
it is. Overall, not only that but also the fact that salvation would
depend upon this common cup of communism that held the blood of Christ
in common property ownership until consumed was incredibly repulsive
to many.
If you read the scripture, then you will find warnings against
dividing the land until no room is left. You will also find
references that strongly suggest that what God desires is for people
to have properties that they care for and when they step off of those
properties that they step onto land that is commonly shared by God and
the people. Overall, this was important for Jesus Christ ministry to
be able to walk about the land freely with all the property belonging
to God and the people just "renting" the land, and not only that but
we learn in the gospels about the profits going to the tenants of the
vineyard to collect a crop for the master.
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > ===>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/jesus-the-christ?hl=en
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > ===>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/jesus-the-christ?hl=en
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages