You are right in saying God didn't command Adam not to eat of the tree of life, He commanded they couldn't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as mentioned here in Genesis 2:16-17.
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
But how do we know that they didn't eat of the tree of life BEFORE they disobeyed?
Here's all we have that is written.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, THE MAN IS BECOME AS ONE OF US, ((TO KNOW GOOD AND EVIL)): and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Perhaps God forbidden them from eating of the tree of life AFTER their disobedience.
The results of their disobedience is that they knew they were naked and they tried to cover themselves. Now naked is also used throughout scripture to mean " Sin exposed" Here's one of several.
Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
These garments is the covering of the blood of Christ. "White robes"
Christ was ordained to come into the world before the world began, to be the sacrificial Lamb. For Adam too!
Scipture doesn't say Adam "BECAME" naked after he disobeyed.
Scripture says he KNEW he was naked after he disobeyed.
See here ;
Genesis 3:10-11 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
And he said, WHO TOLD THEE THAT THOU WAST NAKED? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
I believe the issue is what would he do with that knowledge!
They tried to cover up their guilt and shame with the product of their own efforts. This may have been the first attempt at a works salvation.
My understanding, Jesus coming, the Messiah/Christ was not a secret, Daniel 9:25 prophesied when He would come. Jesus came to fulfill the prophets and the law, and when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus, and Jesus was filled without measure, John 3:34.
John the Baptist proclaimed it, John 1:34 and His disciples did as well, John 1:41 Jesus told the woman at the well He was the Messiah, John 25:25-26 and Martha John 11:27. It was confirmed by all the miracles Jesus did by the Spirit of God, Matt. 12:28 the kingdom of God has come, but the death and resurrection were, at that time a secret/mystery, Rom. 11:25.
The kingdom of God has come, John said it was at hand, Matt. 3:1-2. After John was put in prison Jesus came preaching Mark 1:14-15. The mystery of the kingdom; they were looking for the stone to crush Rome and the kingdom would be set up then Daniel 2:44, but it was like the parables of the mustard seed and the yeast Matt. 13, increasing even today until the crushing blow at Jesus second coming.
The disciples knew Jesus was the Messiah/Christ, so I am sure that was part of their preaching, but Jesus' death and resurrection were hidden even from the disciples Luke 9:45. We see how they fled when Jesus was arrested, Matt. 26:56, and they did not believe He resurrected Mark 16:10-11Luke 23:10-11 it was hidden from them for if Satan had known the results, he would have tried to stop it.
Jesus spoke mainly to the Pharisees and Sadducees in parables to fulfill the prophecy, Matt. 13:10-15Mark 4:10-13Luke 8:10. The mystery was not revealed until after Jesus was resurrected as Jesus told them the Holy Spirit would bring remembrance and teaching to them John 14:26John 16:3-4Romans 11:25Romans 16:25 the promise to Abraham Genesis 17:4-7 and that seed was Jesus the Messiah/Christ.
This is my understanding may someone else have another, pray and study for your understanding.
We therefore have all possibilities. We could have an illness leading to death which according to scripture may be due to sin in certain cases. As with any other prayers if someone is harboring sin then God may be attempting to use their afflictions to drive them to repentance; or it may have nothing to do with anything but a body living in a fallen world.
So God can choose to heal; and the cause of the illness may be physiological; or spiritual (often intertwined). I would venture to say that most things publicized are not true healings; but also would say that we are called to pray for such things as I outlined in my last piece. What is important is that the person is open to trusting God in faith AND the person praying isn't harboring sin and under a subsequent curse as a result of an ongoing lifestyle of sin. THAT is often neglected; and we need to insure that a "blessing" isn't a demonic curse put on us by the practitioner. Thus we should RUN from those people as we don't want to be infected as they are. This is serious business. We need to be as little children sensing when His presence is in someone; as well as sensing wolves out there.
True repentance produces joy but it never appeals to the flesh. This is how we can see what is true revival (hard to find today in this country). A vision of God is as Isaiah 6:5 it makes us undone.
That gets us into part three: Money and having a balanced perspective.
When it comes to healings the argument over whether healings can occur today supernaturally is an unwise thing to ponder. We see evidence of "spontaneous" healings that are unexplained even in the scientific community. Satan certainly is as active as ever; and with that of course we need to discern what are so called "miracles" that may be mind control; or something that actually IS caused by demons; and/or the power of suggestion. It is important to remember also that Christ would tell many especially early on in His ministry NOT to tell anyone who He was. Therefore; this notoriety and naming ministries after people and calling it "healing" ministries (as if they have an exclusive right to such things) is not scriptural. The gospel of repentance was emphasized as most important and truly more miraculous was salvation than healing (See Matthew 9:1-8).
In light of these statements; wisdom should decry just as Jesus utilized; confirmation from doctors as to a healing (or the Levitical priests in Biblical times). I have been in a situation where a friend committed suicide about 12 years ago who was bipolar and decided to stop taking her medications. Usually those who think they don't need something do; and vice versa (those who are drug addicts and think they need to take the substance). In certain cases like this there has to be a slow reduction of medicine because of physiologic affects; if a true miracle occurs we can trust God to show doctors that indeed there is no withdrawal symptoms; etc.
There is no excuse for elders NOT to be routinely praying for and anointing the sick; and as I see it there is no less need for true deliverance from demons these days. Unlike today's filmed sideshows; a true deliverance should be kept private or at least not for publicity sake. A good testimony can be helpful in a few cases if shown afterwards.
I would state it is not that they ate of the tree of knowledge in preference to the tree of life, but merely they ate of the tree of knowledge for whatever motivations compelled them.
Whether they ate of the tree of life, it seems was not within God's control, but left to Adam and Eve.
It seems to me, for instance, there was time between the eating of the tree of knowledge and God's understanding they had. During this time, through whatever mechanism, they could have eaten of the tree of life. Or, even before. There is no indication of anything to prevent them from having done that.
Indeed, God decided to remove Adam and Eve from the garden LEST they eat of the tree of life. Which to me means it was a possibility they would in God's assessment, but only they had not.
This is one of my thoughts. Adam and Eve could have eaten of the tree of life in the time starting their residence in the Garden of Eden, and when the LORD God decided to evict them. Indeed, the LORD decided to evict Adam and Eve lest they eat of the tree of life. An outcome he decided he did not want, as they too would become like Gods. And the LORD did not want that, a decision he made.
My thinking is these words mean that it was unknown to God whether or not Adam and Eve would have eaten of the tree of life. God stated there were no consequences to it, OR they could have eaten of it after Eve's "seduction" by the serpent.
Thus, from the LORD'S perspective, it would have been possible for Adam and Eve to have eaten of the Tree of Life either before or after their taking of the tree of knowledge.
This to me is intensely meaningful. I also think it is at minimum not contradicted by the words: in fact, it is supported.
I have read that Zechariah, John the Baptists' father) was serving his round for temple service as the priest in the month of Sivan (June-July) when John was conceived, making his birth sometime in the month of Nissan (March). Since John's mother, Elizabeth was six months pregnant when Mary conceived Jesus, Jesus would have been born in the month of Tishri (September) perhaps around Rosh Hoshannah or Yom Kippur. Also Jesus was born while King Herod was still alive. Herod died on about 4 B.C. So, since he decreed that all male Jewish babies 2 years or younger would be killed, it is likely that Jesus was born between 6 and 4 B.C.
Hello Dante, I agree that Adam and Eve were free to eat of the tree of life, just as they were free to eat of any other tree in the garden, even the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They opted to eat of the one tree forbidden to them instead of eating from the tree of life. I don't know it they knew that this tree would make them immortal or not. But they opted not to eat of it prior to eating of the tree forbidden to them. They desired what they were not supposed to have and broke God's good commandment to them instead of being satisfied with all of the fruit from the other trees in the garden, including the tree of life.
In just looking at what Genesis says, we are not given information about what Adam and Eve thought or the motives of their hearts even. We can infer about these, but we truly don't know their hearts, bit God did. Eve did say that she saw that the fruit of this tree was good for foo, was pleasant to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise when the serpent tempted her. Other than that, we do not know what Adam and Eve's true relationship with God was like nor how much they knew about Him. they did not know what sin was until they sinned. And most likely did not know about the evil one.
Christians; in today's society are becoming further marginalized and indeed; hated which is itself a sign that the end is near ( Matt. 10:22-although likely not reaching complete fulfillment until the Tribulation is underway). When we are hated it should be because of His Name's sake not because we are on some side campaign and using scripture to defend it. We cannot focus all our attention on "humanitarian" issues and neglect preaching the total depravity of man; for instance by quoting the beatitudes out of context. As with anything; there are both extremes. If we end up being so caught up in the "doctrines of election" that we fail to love our enemies (since they may be by the eternal counsel of the godhead not be part of "God's elect") then HUMAN logic would tell us that we have no reason to show them love. Now no Calvinist would say that he knows for certain WHO God's elect are but may not consider someone like Judas Iscariot who Christ showed no malice toward until the end. In fact it was prophesied how much it would hurt that a trusted friend would betray him even though it was also prophesied that he would be the son of perdition. We are called to love our enemies; pray for those who despitefully use us ( Matt. 5:44). Again; with the other extreme we somehow think that if we are loving enough (at least some do) that we will win over people because of a "God filled vaccuum". Looking at Christ Himself-the ultimate "selfless" example He didn't mince words with niceties because He knew all too well that the broad road was where most go; and ontly "few" would be saved. Hell was real; originally created for the rebellious angels. He would NOT ever praise anyone unless it was true faith that was motivating them; and made clear the deplorable state of the human heart; especially to those who felt most self justified (Pharisees and lawyers). Somehow unsaved people envision a Christ loved by most; rather than what really happened
Just as many of us do in the Church today. We know the LORD and we fear the LORD, but we have our own set of standards of Worship. We no longer follow a code of holiness. We no longer honor or even fear the presence of GOD in the sanctuary. Some with a thought that the mercy and grace of GOD will cover their sins.
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Who told you there were only 66 books? God told me the Apocrypha is his word i studied the Apocrypha. you can't just throw out a claim something is not scripture or fake if you haven't even studied it
Thanks for your thoughts, Gerald. I'm trying to the way I read and think about Genesis to Genesis itself.
Regarding the tree of life:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
I take from this that it was within Adam's power to eat of the tree of life at any time.
To prevent Adam from eating of the tree, God kicks Adam out of the garden for the express purpose of preventing him from eating from the tree of life:
Genesis 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, . . .
This seems plain to me, that Adam could have eaten of the tree of life, but had not, and the LORD God decided to prevent him from being able to.
Would you agree Adam could have, but had not, and that the LORD decided to prevent him from eating of the tree?
I don't know much; just a sinner saved by grace. The Bible verses usually I am able to find on the search engine which I am aware exist but not just where in the Bible.
No exact answer; there in regard to your question. Scholars say that the sheep grazing as mentioned in the scripture (not sure which Gospel) indicate that it is probably more likely in the early spring than December. Since December 21 to 23 is the "winter solstice" the pagans would often celebrate that event; and since the Catholic church in particular likes to celebrate events so that there is some familiarity to the time we likely ended up with December 25. Another example is Easter whose name came from "Ishtar" which was borrowing directly from pagan tradition with the fertility symbols related to the egg. THAT season corresponds according to scripture as Passover; and many think it was in reality Wednesday evening the Lord was crucified (for 3 FULL days and nights that He was physically dead).
Anyway; the bigger issue here is the YEAR. AD 0 BTW doesn't exist; we go from BC 1 to AD 1. There were said to be 490 years ( Daniel 9:25) from the building of the Temple was announced by Cyrus until the coming of the Messiah. A lot depends exactly what year THAT was on. Also there are those convinced that there had to be a planetary conjunction to appear as the star mentioned; although it would seem it was a distinctly supernatural event (as well as the sun AND full moon darkening at the same time which BTW there is historical record around the world of such an event). There was also the specific rulers in Jerusalem; etc.; all told many think it was closer to AD 30 when the crucifixion occurred making the actual fulfillment of His public ministry starting in 27 AD.
Hope that is helpful. At any rate I know better than trying to do only what the Lord can do in a battle of intellectual wits. Nonetheless we need to be prepared to have an answer for the hope in us ( 1 Peter 3:1-5).
I'm glad to see that the moderators, of which you are not one , are more respectful of the right to free speech and less presumptuous of the motives of others , than you are. If you want this site to be filled only with posts that you agree with then I am very sorry for you . Personally I love free speech and try not to guess at the motives of others in regard to what they say and why they might be saying it . Stimulation is good for the brain . Stagnation is bad for my faith . I have lived and worked in countries that do not have any free speech at all . It's horrible , fearful , paranoid , secretive and soul destroying . If you had ever experienced a society in which everyone is trying to second guess everyone else's motives and reasons for doing and saying every and any thing , you would understand what an enormous privilege , to be treasured , free speech is . When reading posts on here , I also try to remember that not everyone is as articulate or educated as everyone else and sometimes the way a person expresses themselves may not be accurately interpreted if English is their second language or they are not used to writing things that are going to be read by others . A little leeway is in order I think ?
Hello, maybe your ancestors were slave owners? That can't be disproven.
I agree with Spencer that this seems to be a tabloid-style attack that only takes away from the point you were trying to make. Who are "early church fathers" to you? Maybe your fathers aren't others' "fathers". My father is God the father.
Pondering on the verse of the day, I notice the pronouncement of Paul, the benediction. First he talks about the capability of the Lord. He says, now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.
When I pause here, I don't believe anyone
can piece together words like that in any literature better than that. He is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think!
All that I'm complaining about, all that I'm asking the Lord about, He's doing much more. And He knows so much more.
And it's according to the power that is working in us. The word working is the word energy. According to the DUNAMIS, the power that is energizing in us.
And then the creed concerning the Lord in the next verse ( Ephesians 3:21). Unto him be glory in the church in Christ Jesus into all ages, world without end. Amen.
Just by these verses, Verses 17 through 21, you get that sense and understanding that Paul knows who Jesus is!
Disabled children are also born, is that God's Will or God planned it? No, not at all. Something went wrong during the pregnasy, probably some drugs taken, probably something during baby's formation in the womb, diffected/altered DNA, many reasons may cause bad things. Homosexuality may be something created since birth, but it can be also caused due to psychological reasons during growing up, many people that don't receive love during their time as childs and teenagers have often problems with it. But besides that in our days it has become kind of a fashion, especially among famous people (and not only) and since those are often examples, many follow.
So it is not somebody to be condemned, especially those who have problems with it, these people need real love but they also need freedom. BUT, and this is the important thing we all have to have in mind, all these things that occur to people, during their lives here on earth are a result of man's apostasy from God, they are a result of the sinful life we are living away from God's commandments and God's protection. We have chosen to live away from God and those (everything bad in our lives) are the inevitable consequences. Sin causes death, both biological and psychological. If people stayed obedient in the beginning and stayed pure as they were created none of those would have happened. So it is our fault, not God's, like any other sin. So what can somebody do now? As for any other passion or sin the only person that can set us free is only God. If one goes to God humble, with faith, and having decided in their heart that they want to get free, God will definately set them free. Also you should know that God is love but He is also truth. That means that everything outside truth (and how things were designed and created by God), are not His likings. He wishes people to become in His image, pure and clean from any sin, whatever that sin is, from the least to the biggest.
"it's not often possible to discern some ones motive for posting and I think it's folly to try to do so . I don't believe that we know anyone's heart or mind fully . Secondly , the truth often makes uncomfortable reading , but if it is the truth it must not be ignored or covered up".
Here's the issue.
When Stlouistv stated; "the early church fathers who were slave owners btw had no business removing these books out of the bible and lied and said they were not inspired.
( That was contentious) There wasn't a need to discern anything being there was no proof provided with that racially tone msg that had no other purpose but to be contentious.
"THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WHO WERE SLAVE OWNERS." ???
Did that have to be added?
Is that not purposely contentious?
Where is the reasoning behind the comment or explanation. Proof and purpose?
Who and how is that statement declared truth?
Because he said so?
Just because you have freedom of speech means you have to speak, He should have pleaded the fifth.
Sammi I believe a person don't have to agree with peoples "opinions" but we all should earnestly covet what is truth and clarity.
I'm not a partial person and I am not influenced by any worldly culture or mans traditions whether male, female, or race. We're all held accountable to true worship in the church, without the world's influence.
Some love to use these sites to function in a way their local Church won't allow them. However this site has Guidelines.
We come here and take advantage of its liberty but let's not ignore
Galatians 5:13 "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."
Concerning the topic of the books of the Apocrypha there are groups out there that use those books to divide racially.
I've debated them and is very familiar with their catch phrases.
Man is the head of the woman or wife as God is the head of the man .
Only God is incorruptible . Therefore anything that God created being not God is or can be corrupted .
Man was not created corrupted nor was it Gods will that man be corrupted ( and die) For it is written " Man shall not LIVE by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God "
The Word of God to Adam was " of all the trees in the garden you may freely eat "
This then included the tree of life .
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt surely die for in the day you eat of you shall surely die "
Thus God revealed HIS will for man that he should live and not die .
Moreover God also revealed that man was free to eat of the tree of life .
Thus God by that word that came forth from His mouth gave Adam His knowledge of what was good to eat and what was evil to eat .
It was the rejection of Gods word as to what is good and what is evil and believing the lie' thou shalt not surely d" that they died .
Man is still doing that which is right or good in his own eyes and in doing so is faced with its consequences .
God is not a tyrant . Nor indeed is He democratic .
But while He is not a tyrant nor democratic He does have His own imperatives .
You MUST be born again ,"not of corruptible seed but of the incorruptible seed which is the Word of God "
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm trying to limit myself to the words in Genesis, not as those clarified and/or modified in later texts.
From my reading of Genesis, there was nothing stated that prevented Adam or Eve from eating of the tree of life. That to me is an important point in my personal interpretation of Genesis.
Projecting, as I read Genesis, that Adam chose mortality to eternity without Eve is supported as an interpretation. It's an interpretation that has much meaning to me.
Hi Mary, I agree with your last few sentences that we are absolutely to love each other. Love a person, but not love sin; hate sin. Sins are not people, and people are not sins. One common deception is to bundle these together as if people have "no choice" but to choose to sin 24/7 and if you don't accept it then you're "wrong." We shouldn't attempt to judge people's salvation, but the Bible supports discernment on who you let influence or corrupt you, and it doesn't mean for you to put you or your family in danger, for example. Someone would not hire an atheist for a pastor of a Christian church, for example, for fear of not wanting to "judge" them for their beliefs.
I don't believe God created anyone LGBT but he gives the gift of freewill which means people can choose good or evil. God is clear on what is good or evil and that is not in agreement with the world that has its own different list. Many things God deemed evil, the world calls "good". People use all kinds of clever rationalizations. One of those is that "I can't help it, I'm born this way" rationalization. Currently its being used to rationalize committing sodomy and other acts God said is sin. But the same doesn't even apply to those who consider themselves heterosexuals. Just because someone may choose to find someone average or above in attractiveness doesn't mean they will act on their passion, fantasy, or lust. Most don't. This means its a choice, yet when it comes to a LGBT the claim is that they somehow have no choice in the matter but to act out their desires. I don't think God buys it.
Ironically, what is claimed as a lack of choice for this sin is then suddenly a choice for committing the sin of murder. So the rationalizations are hypocritical and contradict themselves as the world's invented morals usually do. So, a mother rationalizes that murdering her son or daughter in the womb is ok, because its her choice. And they call that "health care." Satan is the father of lies.
Is there any proof that you can share that would show without a doubt that these books were indeed inspired by God?
I find it interesting what Paul said in Acts 20:27, " For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God."
What a great verse!
He hasn't withheld anything from them. He wanted them to know the (whole council) of God. That's why he sat house to house and publicly, any way he could, day and night as a slave of Christ, in order that every believer that he came in contact with would have the whole council of God.
That is one of the reasons why we have these times together, to go through the whole bible, chapter by chapter to see what it says. To know the whole council of God!
Now, Paul's statement would not make much sense if he left any part of those apocryphal books out. And Paul says he gave them the entire council of God, meaning nothing left out.
However, in all of Paul's writings, he never once quoted from any of those books. None of the apostles did either.
Plus, not once did Jesus ever quote from any of those books. It would seem that if they were inspired, Paul would have taught from them.
Perhaps there might be some valuable historical information in these books, but are the truly inspired by God?
would mean Mary Conceived around sometime early April,standard American time
at that time,maybe in April,Elizabeth was 6 mths pregnant
3 mths.later would mean John might of been born round the latter part of July
You are right in saying God didn't command Adam not to eat of the tree of life, He commanded they couldn't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as mentioned here in Genesis 2:16-17.
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
But how do we know that they didn't eat of the tree of life BEFORE they disobeyed?
Here's all we have that is written.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, THE MAN IS BECOME AS ONE OF US, ((TO KNOW GOOD AND EVIL)): and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Perhaps God forbidden them from eating of the tree of life AFTER their disobedience.
The results of their disobedience is that they knew they were naked and they tried to cover themselves. Now naked is also used throughout scripture to mean " Sin exposed" Here's one of several.
Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
These garments is the covering of the blood of Christ. "White robes"
Christ was ordained to come into the world before the world began, to be the sacrificial Lamb. For Adam too!
Scipture doesn't say Adam "BECAME" naked after he disobeyed.
Scripture says he KNEW he was naked after he disobeyed.
See here ;
Genesis 3:10-11 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
And he said, WHO TOLD THEE THAT THOU WAST NAKED? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
I believe the issue is what would he do with that knowledge!
They tried to cover up their guilt and shame with the product of their own efforts. This may have been the first attempt at a works salvation.
Just my thoughts.
GB.
My understanding, Jesus coming, the Messiah/Christ was not a secret, Daniel 9:25 prophesied when He would come. Jesus came to fulfill the prophets and the law, and when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus, and Jesus was filled without measure, John 3:34.
John the Baptist proclaimed it, John 1:34 and His disciples did as well, John 1:41 Jesus told the woman at the well He was the Messiah, John 25:25-26 and Martha John 11:27. It was confirmed by all the miracles Jesus did by the Spirit of God, Matt. 12:28 the kingdom of God has come, but the death and resurrection were, at that time a secret/mystery, Rom. 11:25.
The kingdom of God has come, John said it was at hand, Matt. 3:1-2. After John was put in prison Jesus came preaching Mark 1:14-15. The mystery of the kingdom; they were looking for the stone to crush Rome and the kingdom would be set up then Daniel 2:44, but it was like the parables of the mustard seed and the yeast Matt. 13, increasing even today until the crushing blow at Jesus second coming.
The disciples knew Jesus was the Messiah/Christ, so I am sure that was part of their preaching, but Jesus' death and resurrection were hidden even from the disciples Luke 9:45. We see how they fled when Jesus was arrested, Matt. 26:56, and they did not believe He resurrected Mark 16:10-11 Luke 23:10-11 it was hidden from them for if Satan had known the results, he would have tried to stop it.
Jesus spoke mainly to the Pharisees and Sadducees in parables to fulfill the prophecy, Matt. 13:10-15 Mark 4:10-13 Luke 8:10. The mystery was not revealed until after Jesus was resurrected as Jesus told them the Holy Spirit would bring remembrance and teaching to them John 14:26 John 16:3-4 Romans 11:25 Romans 16:25 the promise to Abraham Genesis 17:4-7 and that seed was Jesus the Messiah/Christ.
This is my understanding may someone else have another, pray and study for your understanding.
God bless,
RLW
We therefore have all possibilities. We could have an illness leading to death which according to scripture may be due to sin in certain cases. As with any other prayers if someone is harboring sin then God may be attempting to use their afflictions to drive them to repentance; or it may have nothing to do with anything but a body living in a fallen world.
So God can choose to heal; and the cause of the illness may be physiological; or spiritual (often intertwined). I would venture to say that most things publicized are not true healings; but also would say that we are called to pray for such things as I outlined in my last piece. What is important is that the person is open to trusting God in faith AND the person praying isn't harboring sin and under a subsequent curse as a result of an ongoing lifestyle of sin. THAT is often neglected; and we need to insure that a "blessing" isn't a demonic curse put on us by the practitioner. Thus we should RUN from those people as we don't want to be infected as they are. This is serious business. We need to be as little children sensing when His presence is in someone; as well as sensing wolves out there.
True repentance produces joy but it never appeals to the flesh. This is how we can see what is true revival (hard to find today in this country). A vision of God is as Isaiah 6:5 it makes us undone.
That gets us into part three: Money and having a balanced perspective.
More on that later.
I'm sure you meant to say Adam and Eve was forbidden to eat of every tree BUT the tree of Knowledge of good and evil, correct?
Genesis 2:16-17. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
BUT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, THOU SHALT NOT EAT OF IT: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God bless.
When it comes to healings the argument over whether healings can occur today supernaturally is an unwise thing to ponder. We see evidence of "spontaneous" healings that are unexplained even in the scientific community. Satan certainly is as active as ever; and with that of course we need to discern what are so called "miracles" that may be mind control; or something that actually IS caused by demons; and/or the power of suggestion. It is important to remember also that Christ would tell many especially early on in His ministry NOT to tell anyone who He was. Therefore; this notoriety and naming ministries after people and calling it "healing" ministries (as if they have an exclusive right to such things) is not scriptural. The gospel of repentance was emphasized as most important and truly more miraculous was salvation than healing (See Matthew 9:1-8).
In light of these statements; wisdom should decry just as Jesus utilized; confirmation from doctors as to a healing (or the Levitical priests in Biblical times). I have been in a situation where a friend committed suicide about 12 years ago who was bipolar and decided to stop taking her medications. Usually those who think they don't need something do; and vice versa (those who are drug addicts and think they need to take the substance). In certain cases like this there has to be a slow reduction of medicine because of physiologic affects; if a true miracle occurs we can trust God to show doctors that indeed there is no withdrawal symptoms; etc.
There is no excuse for elders NOT to be routinely praying for and anointing the sick; and as I see it there is no less need for true deliverance from demons these days. Unlike today's filmed sideshows; a true deliverance should be kept private or at least not for publicity sake. A good testimony can be helpful in a few cases if shown afterwards.
He's able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
"According to the power that worketh in us".
A verse for all ages.
Thanks and God bless.
I would state it is not that they ate of the tree of knowledge in preference to the tree of life, but merely they ate of the tree of knowledge for whatever motivations compelled them.
Whether they ate of the tree of life, it seems was not within God's control, but left to Adam and Eve.
It seems to me, for instance, there was time between the eating of the tree of knowledge and God's understanding they had. During this time, through whatever mechanism, they could have eaten of the tree of life. Or, even before. There is no indication of anything to prevent them from having done that.
Indeed, God decided to remove Adam and Eve from the garden LEST they eat of the tree of life. Which to me means it was a possibility they would in God's assessment, but only they had not.
This is one of my thoughts. Adam and Eve could have eaten of the tree of life in the time starting their residence in the Garden of Eden, and when the LORD God decided to evict them. Indeed, the LORD decided to evict Adam and Eve lest they eat of the tree of life. An outcome he decided he did not want, as they too would become like Gods. And the LORD did not want that, a decision he made.
My thinking is these words mean that it was unknown to God whether or not Adam and Eve would have eaten of the tree of life. God stated there were no consequences to it, OR they could have eaten of it after Eve's "seduction" by the serpent.
Thus, from the LORD'S perspective, it would have been possible for Adam and Eve to have eaten of the Tree of Life either before or after their taking of the tree of knowledge.
This to me is intensely meaningful. I also think it is at minimum not contradicted by the words: in fact, it is supported.
I have read that Zechariah, John the Baptists' father) was serving his round for temple service as the priest in the month of Sivan (June-July) when John was conceived, making his birth sometime in the month of Nissan (March). Since John's mother, Elizabeth was six months pregnant when Mary conceived Jesus, Jesus would have been born in the month of Tishri (September) perhaps around Rosh Hoshannah or Yom Kippur. Also Jesus was born while King Herod was still alive. Herod died on about 4 B.C. So, since he decreed that all male Jewish babies 2 years or younger would be killed, it is likely that Jesus was born between 6 and 4 B.C.
In just looking at what Genesis says, we are not given information about what Adam and Eve thought or the motives of their hearts even. We can infer about these, but we truly don't know their hearts, bit God did. Eve did say that she saw that the fruit of this tree was good for foo, was pleasant to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise when the serpent tempted her. Other than that, we do not know what Adam and Eve's true relationship with God was like nor how much they knew about Him. they did not know what sin was until they sinned. And most likely did not know about the evil one.
Christians; in today's society are becoming further marginalized and indeed; hated which is itself a sign that the end is near ( Matt. 10:22-although likely not reaching complete fulfillment until the Tribulation is underway). When we are hated it should be because of His Name's sake not because we are on some side campaign and using scripture to defend it. We cannot focus all our attention on "humanitarian" issues and neglect preaching the total depravity of man; for instance by quoting the beatitudes out of context. As with anything; there are both extremes. If we end up being so caught up in the "doctrines of election" that we fail to love our enemies (since they may be by the eternal counsel of the godhead not be part of "God's elect") then HUMAN logic would tell us that we have no reason to show them love. Now no Calvinist would say that he knows for certain WHO God's elect are but may not consider someone like Judas Iscariot who Christ showed no malice toward until the end. In fact it was prophesied how much it would hurt that a trusted friend would betray him even though it was also prophesied that he would be the son of perdition. We are called to love our enemies; pray for those who despitefully use us ( Matt. 5:44). Again; with the other extreme we somehow think that if we are loving enough (at least some do) that we will win over people because of a "God filled vaccuum". Looking at Christ Himself-the ultimate "selfless" example He didn't mince words with niceties because He knew all too well that the broad road was where most go; and ontly "few" would be saved. Hell was real; originally created for the rebellious angels. He would NOT ever praise anyone unless it was true faith that was motivating them; and made clear the deplorable state of the human heart; especially to those who felt most self justified (Pharisees and lawyers). Somehow unsaved people envision a Christ loved by most; rather than what really happened
"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Who told you there were only 66 books? God told me the Apocrypha is his word i studied the Apocrypha. you can't just throw out a claim something is not scripture or fake if you haven't even studied it
Regarding the tree of life:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
I take from this that it was within Adam's power to eat of the tree of life at any time.
To prevent Adam from eating of the tree, God kicks Adam out of the garden for the express purpose of preventing him from eating from the tree of life:
Genesis 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, . . .
This seems plain to me, that Adam could have eaten of the tree of life, but had not, and the LORD God decided to prevent him from being able to.
Would you agree Adam could have, but had not, and that the LORD decided to prevent him from eating of the tree?
No exact answer; there in regard to your question. Scholars say that the sheep grazing as mentioned in the scripture (not sure which Gospel) indicate that it is probably more likely in the early spring than December. Since December 21 to 23 is the "winter solstice" the pagans would often celebrate that event; and since the Catholic church in particular likes to celebrate events so that there is some familiarity to the time we likely ended up with December 25. Another example is Easter whose name came from "Ishtar" which was borrowing directly from pagan tradition with the fertility symbols related to the egg. THAT season corresponds according to scripture as Passover; and many think it was in reality Wednesday evening the Lord was crucified (for 3 FULL days and nights that He was physically dead).
Anyway; the bigger issue here is the YEAR. AD 0 BTW doesn't exist; we go from BC 1 to AD 1. There were said to be 490 years ( Daniel 9:25) from the building of the Temple was announced by Cyrus until the coming of the Messiah. A lot depends exactly what year THAT was on. Also there are those convinced that there had to be a planetary conjunction to appear as the star mentioned; although it would seem it was a distinctly supernatural event (as well as the sun AND full moon darkening at the same time which BTW there is historical record around the world of such an event). There was also the specific rulers in Jerusalem; etc.; all told many think it was closer to AD 30 when the crucifixion occurred making the actual fulfillment of His public ministry starting in 27 AD.
Hope that is helpful. At any rate I know better than trying to do only what the Lord can do in a battle of intellectual wits. Nonetheless we need to be prepared to have an answer for the hope in us ( 1 Peter 3:1-5).
I agree with Spencer that this seems to be a tabloid-style attack that only takes away from the point you were trying to make. Who are "early church fathers" to you? Maybe your fathers aren't others' "fathers". My father is God the father.
When I pause here, I don't believe anyone
can piece together words like that in any literature better than that. He is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think!
All that I'm complaining about, all that I'm asking the Lord about, He's doing much more. And He knows so much more.
And it's according to the power that is working in us. The word working is the word energy. According to the DUNAMIS, the power that is energizing in us.
And then the creed concerning the Lord in the next verse ( Ephesians 3:21). Unto him be glory in the church in Christ Jesus into all ages, world without end. Amen.
Just by these verses, Verses 17 through 21, you get that sense and understanding that Paul knows who Jesus is!
Disabled children are also born, is that God's Will or God planned it? No, not at all. Something went wrong during the pregnasy, probably some drugs taken, probably something during baby's formation in the womb, diffected/altered DNA, many reasons may cause bad things. Homosexuality may be something created since birth, but it can be also caused due to psychological reasons during growing up, many people that don't receive love during their time as childs and teenagers have often problems with it. But besides that in our days it has become kind of a fashion, especially among famous people (and not only) and since those are often examples, many follow.
So it is not somebody to be condemned, especially those who have problems with it, these people need real love but they also need freedom. BUT, and this is the important thing we all have to have in mind, all these things that occur to people, during their lives here on earth are a result of man's apostasy from God, they are a result of the sinful life we are living away from God's commandments and God's protection. We have chosen to live away from God and those (everything bad in our lives) are the inevitable consequences. Sin causes death, both biological and psychological. If people stayed obedient in the beginning and stayed pure as they were created none of those would have happened. So it is our fault, not God's, like any other sin. So what can somebody do now? As for any other passion or sin the only person that can set us free is only God. If one goes to God humble, with faith, and having decided in their heart that they want to get free, God will definately set them free. Also you should know that God is love but He is also truth. That means that everything outside truth (and how things were designed and created by God), are not His likings. He wishes people to become in His image, pure and clean from any sin, whatever that sin is, from the least to the biggest.
GBU
And it is true that our flesh cannot produce anything pleasing to the Lord.
You stated;
"it's not often possible to discern some ones motive for posting and I think it's folly to try to do so . I don't believe that we know anyone's heart or mind fully . Secondly , the truth often makes uncomfortable reading , but if it is the truth it must not be ignored or covered up".
Here's the issue.
When Stlouistv stated; "the early church fathers who were slave owners btw had no business removing these books out of the bible and lied and said they were not inspired.
( That was contentious) There wasn't a need to discern anything being there was no proof provided with that racially tone msg that had no other purpose but to be contentious.
"THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WHO WERE SLAVE OWNERS." ???
Did that have to be added?
Is that not purposely contentious?
Where is the reasoning behind the comment or explanation. Proof and purpose?
Who and how is that statement declared truth?
Because he said so?
Just because you have freedom of speech means you have to speak, He should have pleaded the fifth.
Sammi I believe a person don't have to agree with peoples "opinions" but we all should earnestly covet what is truth and clarity.
I'm not a partial person and I am not influenced by any worldly culture or mans traditions whether male, female, or race. We're all held accountable to true worship in the church, without the world's influence.
Some love to use these sites to function in a way their local Church won't allow them. However this site has Guidelines.
We come here and take advantage of its liberty but let's not ignore
Galatians 5:13 "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."
Concerning the topic of the books of the Apocrypha there are groups out there that use those books to divide racially.
I've debated them and is very familiar with their catch phrases.
Let's see what follows.
God bless.
It is by man's obedience to the gospel do they live .
In truth when a person is truly BORN again he enters into that eternal will of God preordained from before the foundations of the world .
Only God is incorruptible . Therefore anything that God created being not God is or can be corrupted .
Man was not created corrupted nor was it Gods will that man be corrupted ( and die) For it is written " Man shall not LIVE by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God "
The Word of God to Adam was " of all the trees in the garden you may freely eat "
This then included the tree of life .
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt surely die for in the day you eat of you shall surely die "
Thus God revealed HIS will for man that he should live and not die .
Moreover God also revealed that man was free to eat of the tree of life .
Thus God by that word that came forth from His mouth gave Adam His knowledge of what was good to eat and what was evil to eat .
It was the rejection of Gods word as to what is good and what is evil and believing the lie' thou shalt not surely d" that they died .
Man is still doing that which is right or good in his own eyes and in doing so is faced with its consequences .
God is not a tyrant . Nor indeed is He democratic .
But while He is not a tyrant nor democratic He does have His own imperatives .
You MUST be born again ,"not of corruptible seed but of the incorruptible seed which is the Word of God "
For by one man's disobedience all die .
Likewise by one man's obedience do all men live .
From my reading of Genesis, there was nothing stated that prevented Adam or Eve from eating of the tree of life. That to me is an important point in my personal interpretation of Genesis.
Projecting, as I read Genesis, that Adam chose mortality to eternity without Eve is supported as an interpretation. It's an interpretation that has much meaning to me.
I don't believe God created anyone LGBT but he gives the gift of freewill which means people can choose good or evil. God is clear on what is good or evil and that is not in agreement with the world that has its own different list. Many things God deemed evil, the world calls "good". People use all kinds of clever rationalizations. One of those is that "I can't help it, I'm born this way" rationalization. Currently its being used to rationalize committing sodomy and other acts God said is sin. But the same doesn't even apply to those who consider themselves heterosexuals. Just because someone may choose to find someone average or above in attractiveness doesn't mean they will act on their passion, fantasy, or lust. Most don't. This means its a choice, yet when it comes to a LGBT the claim is that they somehow have no choice in the matter but to act out their desires. I don't think God buys it.
Ironically, what is claimed as a lack of choice for this sin is then suddenly a choice for committing the sin of murder. So the rationalizations are hypocritical and contradict themselves as the world's invented morals usually do. So, a mother rationalizes that murdering her son or daughter in the womb is ok, because its her choice. And they call that "health care." Satan is the father of lies.
Is there any proof that you can share that would show without a doubt that these books were indeed inspired by God?
I find it interesting what Paul said in Acts 20:27, " For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God."
What a great verse!
He hasn't withheld anything from them. He wanted them to know the (whole council) of God. That's why he sat house to house and publicly, any way he could, day and night as a slave of Christ, in order that every believer that he came in contact with would have the whole council of God.
That is one of the reasons why we have these times together, to go through the whole bible, chapter by chapter to see what it says. To know the whole council of God!
Now, Paul's statement would not make much sense if he left any part of those apocryphal books out. And Paul says he gave them the entire council of God, meaning nothing left out.
However, in all of Paul's writings, he never once quoted from any of those books. None of the apostles did either.
Plus, not once did Jesus ever quote from any of those books. It would seem that if they were inspired, Paul would have taught from them.
Perhaps there might be some valuable historical information in these books, but are the truly inspired by God?