Bible Verses: Fill-In-The-Blank

[Toddbt12y1]

Well, it happened to the Virgin Mary.

 

Lol, but that Spirit is the Spirit of God, not an Angel. God can create life: Angels cannot. I am sure Jesus being God Himself could manifest as a baby with ease.

 

God > Devil,or any fallen angel, in terms of what he can do. That's no way to defend sexual reproduction of spirits. God doesn't sexually reproduce, he spoke things into creation.

 

Once again: it is how you believe. However, if we are taking into light(whether athiest or other) that there is a God: and are thusly talking about what He can do: we should use Biblical evidences. It didn't say God sexed Mary up, lol.

 

That's putting God at a man's level. Sex, in the spiritual world is for three purposes: Enjoyment, Reproduction, and to show a Oneness between two people, that is suppose to reflect the oneness of God and those who believe Him.

 

Highly doubt He'd need that. The only reason Jesus is called Son, is cause he came down as a baby.

 

(Once again, we are all of different beliefs)

[M30USA]

Todd, you continue to debate from a "rational" standpoint based on what sounds good. But your line of Seth view falls apart biblically, grammatically, historically, and extra-biblically in other ancient texts.

 

If you look at the early church history, the angel view was the ONLY view for the first 4 centuries. I repeat: it was the ONLY view. Then in the mid 400s AD, the line of Seth view popped up. Why? Not because it was biblical, but because it was more "reasonable" than the "superstitious" angel view. Christians became embarrassed by this view and succumbed to the social pressure. Just like today.

Edited March 30, 2013 by M30USA

[Toddbt12y1]

Todd, you continue to debate from a "rational" standpoint based on what sounds good. But your line of Seth view falls apart biblically, grammatically, historically, and extra-biblically in other ancient texts.

 

If you look at the early church history, the angel view was the ONLY view for the first 4 centuries. I repeat: it was the ONLY view. Then in the mid 400s AD, the line of Seth view popped up. Why? Not because it was biblical, but because it was more reasonable than the "superstitious" angel view.

 

Lol! I am not debating on what sounds good. We truly do not know how the first church believed, other then what Peter and the other founding members said/did in the bible. Bible is to be our final authority on God: not other ancient texts. Although, they can give clues as to what people believed back than.

 

You have used everything but biblical: where is your sources from the bible? Other then the weak arguement about modern men whom think they're God, or Jude and Genesis, you haven't presented a much more refined bibilical stand. I've linked several in-bible verses. Even one of the best in church history PAUL who said such things where impossible.

 

Now you're trying to twist things around to make it sound as if I am ignoring certain pparts, to justify my own means. There are certain equal scholars who do not believe in this angel sexed up women stuff: they must not compare though to your Gods in the flesh I do not appreciate I tr when someone acts as if I cutout anything to "sound reasonable" to my point.

 

All you've done is use a few in-bible scriptures and then what arrogant scholarsbelieve.

[M30USA]

Lol! I am not debating on what sounds good. We truly do not know how the first church believed, other then what Peter and the other founding members said/did in the bible. Bible is to be our final authority on God: not other ancient texts. Although, they can give clues as to what people believed back than.

 

You have used everything but biblical: where is your sources from the bible? Other then the weak arguement about modern men whom think they're God, or Jude and Genesis, you haven't presented a much more refined bibilical stand. I've linked several in-bible verses. Even one of the best in church history PAUL who said such things where impossible.

 

Now you're trying to twist things around to make it sound as if I am ignoring certain pparts, to justify my own means. There are certain equal scholars who do not believe in this angel sexed up women stuff: they must not compare though to your Gods in the flesh I do not appreciate I tr when someone acts as if I cutout anything to "sound reasonable" to my point.

 

All you've done is use a few in-bible scriptures and then what arrogant scholarsbelieve.

 

Genesis 6:

 

6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

 

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

 

The debate is over when you define who the "sons of God" are. As I've written in a previous post, there are only 4 uses of the phrase:

 

1) Adam

2) Christ

2) Angels

3) Believers post-Christ.

 

The line of Seth view takes #4 and stretches it into meaning the "holy line of Seth". The problem is that, in the Old Testament, the phrase "sons of God" is ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION used of angels. Here are the other verses:

 

 

God said to Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ..... when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4-7)

 

Also...

 

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them." (Job 1:6)

 

So in the OT every use of "sons of God" refers to angels. Did you know many translations automatically translate the phrase sons of God into angels and you wouldn't even realize its used? Look into it.

 

It wasn't until NT (post-Christ) that sons of God was used in reference to believers. And even then you'll notice that we will be "revealed" as sons of God and we are yet to become sons of God until Christ returns when, as he said, we shall be "like the angels". But even aside from this, it doesn't matter because every OT use of sons of God means angels. In addition to the Bible, every ancient text usage of sons of God in other documents ALWAYS means angels.

 

So plug this meaning into Genesis 6 and debate is over.

Edited March 30, 2013 by M30USA

[pie2]

M30,

 

Sometimes it feels like you hold UFOs in higher regard than women. It seems (at least on LS) that you spend more time promoting the incredible attributes of angels, and yet lean towards making less-than-positive comments about women's qualities.

 

I don't think that was Jesus' message.

[M30USA]

M30,

 

Sometimes it feels like you hold UFOs in higher regard than women. It seems (at least on LS) that you spend more time promoting the incredible attributes of angels, and yet lean towards making less-than-positive comments about women's qualities.

 

I don't think that was Jesus' message.

 

Sorry if it seems that way. I think women have a lot to contribute. I just oppose the unbiblical yet widely-prevalent view that women are the same as men from a spiritual authority standpoint. When people praise women (rightly so) for their gifts in other areas, nobody raises a fuss.

[pie2]

I think women have a lot to contribute.

 

Men and women have a lot to contribute, in different ways. One is not more important than the other.

 

I just oppose the unbiblical yet widely-prevalent view that women are the same as men from a spiritual authority standpoint.

 

I also oppose the view that men and women have been given the same roles within the body of Christ. But not agreeing with a church's stance on leadership is different than touting perceived inadequacies of women as a whole.

 

But I'm glad to read that you can see some good in womenkind .

 

When people praise women (rightly so) for their gifts in other areas, nobody raises a fuss.

 

Of course no one should raise a fuss! And at the same time, men should be built up for their strengths. But neither party is the complete package. Men need women, just as the opposite is true.

 

Nonetheless, women do not rely on men for their salvation, in any way. "The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them". Ezekiel 18:20

[M30USA]

FYI, no UAP posts in a while. I've been trying to refrain but my probable Aspbergers makes it hard, lol.

[M30USA]

Nonetheless, women do not rely on men for their salvation, in any way. "The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them". Ezekiel 18:20

 

That is debatable but not for sure. Here is just a starting point for the opposite view:

 

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. (Ephesians 5:22-30 ESV)

 

It's not exactly something I WANT to hear (that I was responsible for my exs purification) but that's what it says.

[M30USA]

But not agreeing with a church's stance on leadership is different than touting perceived inadequacies of women as a whole.

 

Every human being is inadequate. The only question is in what area and to what degree. Inadequacy isn't necessarily a bad thing if we're aware of it and it leads us to rely more on God and less on ourselves.

[pie2]

FYI, no UAP posts in a while. I've been trying to refrain but my probable Aspbergers makes it hard, lol.

 

There was a noticable break, lol! When there's a will, there's a way (possible - though unlikely - Aspergers and all ).

 

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -Voltaire

 

That is a very interesting quote. I imagine that it is true...though being filled with God's spirit prevents us from criticizing others in a way we otherwise might.

 

Ephesians 5:22-30

 

Children are to submit to their parents. Does that mean the parent is responsible for the child's salvation?

 

I personally imagine that some men would find it easier to think that husbands have a duty and a responsibility to their wives' salvation, because it puts them in a position of power. To some, it probably would feel awesome to try and think "at the end of the day, I made this woman into who she is", when standing before Christ.

 

Much easier than following the command that husbands should love their wives, so that she can become more perfect when she stands before Christ...for her own and Christ's glory. Much less selfish view, imo.

 

Every human being is inadequate. The only question is in what area and to what degree. Inadequacy isn't necessarily a bad thing if we're aware of it and it leads us to rely more on God and less on ourselves.

 

Very true. "When we are weak, then we are strong" (2 Corinthians 12:10). You may even argue that women are then the stronger ones, according to your view that women are extra fallible . However, I wouldn't say that either. Like I've said before, we're equally weak, in different ways.

 

But, recognizing that human beings have problems is much different than leaning towards heavy critique of one gender.

Edited April 2, 2013 by pie2

[M30USA]

That is a very interesting quote. I imagine that it is true...though being filled with God's spirit prevents us from criticizing others in a way we otherwise might.

 

Somewhere along the line society started viewing criticism as negative. I don't know about anyone else, but when someone criticizes my views, assuming it's not personal and offensive, I actually appreciate it as long as they present a strong argument and case which gets me to reconsider. I have changed my views in the past on things when presented with better reasnoning. I don't cling to any views. The truth, to me, is most important--whether it is accepted, unaccepted, weird, cool, etc. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) this is why I discovered the truth about UAPs, lol. I don't care if it's considered fringe.

 

The idea of criticism is very important. It's a dangerous situation, for example, when any criticial analysis (ie, criticism) of a pastor in the church is deflected as negative and deconstructive. Paul instructed us to do the exact opposite: to examine ALL doctrine by the standard of Scripture. Obviously we shouldn't insult the PERSON, but the DOCTRINE is (and should always be) up for scrutiny. Otheriwse we risk being led astray and subjecting ourselves to tyranny.

 

Can you think of any people in your personal life, or work life, or on a national and social scale who we aren't allowed to criticize? (Many times it's "unofficial" and unspoken.) I can think of a few, but this post would probably get deleted if I made a list. ...which right there proves my point.

 

Children are to submit to their parents. Does that mean the parent is responsible for the child's salvation?

 

I personally imagine that some men would find it easier to think that husbands have a duty and a responsibility to their wives' salvation, because it puts them in a position of power. To some, it probably would feel awesome to try and think "at the end of the day, I made this woman into who she is", when standing before Christ.

 

Much easier than following the command that husbands should love their wives, so that she can become more perfect when she stands before Christ...for her own and Christ's glory. Much less selfish view, imo.

 

Maybe I wasn't too clear. I don't believe that a wife's salvation is her husband's decision. What I do believe is that a husband is ACCOUNTABLE for his wife--just as a parent is ACCOUNTABLE for his/her children. God is not a socialist egalitarian. I can prove that Biblically. He has a hierarchy in which people, while not necessarily better, are accountable for those "under" them. There have been prophets in the OT who were flat-out told by God that if a nation perishes because they refused to prophesy to them that it will be on the prophet's own head (meaning the prophet is accountable for the nation). Parents, likewise, are told that if we instruct a child in the way he should go, he will not depart from it. So parents are clearly accountable for their children. Sure, this doesn't mean that in these examples of children, nations, and women that they can't make decisions for themselves about salvation, etc; what it does mean is that God places people in the hierarchy over them who are accountable for them.

 

Very true. "When we are weak, then we are strong" (2 Corinthians 12:10). You may even argue that women are then the stronger ones, according to your view that women are extra fallible . However, I wouldn't say that either. Like I've said before, we're equally weak, in different ways.

 

But, recognizing that human beings have problems is much different than leaning towards heavy critique of one gender.

 

If I seem to be constantly harping on this point, it's only because society constantly brings up the false premise. I would be doing the same if a similar false premise was consistently brought up about men.

Edited April 2, 2013 by M30USA

[TheFinalWord]

Somewhere along the line society started viewing criticism as negative. I don't know about anyone else, but when someone criticizes my views, assuming it's not personal and offensive, I actually appreciate it as long as they present a strong argument and case which gets me to reconsider. I have changed my views in the past on things when presented with better reasnoning. I don't cling to any views. The truth, to me, is most important--whether it is accepted, unaccepted, weird, cool, etc. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) this is why I discovered the truth about UAPs, lol. I don't care if it's considered fringe.

 

Criticism can be good; but it is not always the right time for it (John 7:6). Also, not every battle is worth fighting. People can have a critical spirit, in which they major on the minors. Nitpick, poke, prode, argue (Paul actually said fruitless debate is a waste of time--2 Tim. 2:23). I've seen it and experienced it. I think this is especially true with new Christians and giving them time to grow.

 

Anyone can criticize, but usually it is only received if we respect the person. And even then it can take time to sink in. But that is the important part, the receiving. Anyone can criticize. Just like our politics, everyone is an armchair quarterback, but few actually do anything about it. This often happens in churches; pastor and church is bashed, but those same people aren't doing anything about it themselves. It's why I've said on here a few times, that we need to gain some perspective. Try pastoring a church. It's not easy to have an entire congregation's burden placed on you. It's one reason I'm not a pastor lol I don't think I can handle it, spiritually. But it has caused me to step back before tearing a pastor apart, b/c that burden (called the burden of the Lord in the bible) is not easy to carry. Look how Moses asked God to kill him b/c he couldn't bear it anymore; everyone's complaining and backbiting.

 

Critical nature can also lead to a rebellious heart. So we have to examine ourselves and ensure pride is not the root (often it is, especially when criticism turns towards a pastor). Primarily, we should be examining ourselves...Examine ourselves, search ourselves, seek ourselves, with humility before God as the prerequisite. If Christians spent more time judging themselves, and less on others, our faith would get a lot more respect from unbelievers.

 

The idea of criticism is very important. It's a dangerous situation, for example, when any criticial analysis (ie, criticism) of a pastor in the church is deflected as negative and deconstructive. Paul instructed us to do the exact opposite: to examine ALL doctrine by the standard of Scripture. Obviously we shouldn't insult the PERSON, but the DOCTRINE is (and should always be) up for scrutiny. Otheriwse we risk being led astray and subjecting ourselves to tyranny.

 

Can you think of any people in your personal life, or work life, or on a national and social scale who we aren't allowed to criticize? (Many times it's "unofficial" and unspoken.) I can think of a few, but this post would probably get deleted if I made a list. ...which right there proves my point.

 

I can think of a lot of ideas which are unpopular to criticize. That to me is more of a freedom of speech issue. We don't really have freedom of speech b/c our words can be used against us in our professional life. It's why most people here remain anonymous.

 

Anyway good discussion!

[M30USA]

Yes, I probably have the spirit of criticism. But I think it's the downside of having the gift of discernment of spirits. God usually allows me to see right through spirits and doctrines, so as a result I generally have a lot to say--including good things for those doctrines which are soundly biblical. Still, I try to control it and be aware of this downside.

Edited April 3, 2013 by M30USA

[TheFinalWord]

Yes, I probably have the spirit of criticism. But I think it's the downside of having the gift of discernment of spirits. God usually allows me to see right through spirits and doctrines, so as a result I generally have a lot to say--including good things for those doctrines which are soundly biblical. Still, I try to control it and be aware of this downside.

 

I don't think your a critical person. I enjoy your insights. But we can all turn into that if we're not careful!

 

It's good to apply a filter. Is this going to be received? B/c a lot of times we can just argue for the sake of arguing. Proverbs has a lot to say about that

[pie2]

I don't know about anyone else, but when someone criticizes my views, assuming it's not personal and offensive, I actually appreciate it as long as they present a strong argument and case which gets me to reconsider.

 

 

Can you think of any people in your personal life, or work life, or on a national and social scale who we aren't allowed to criticize?

 

Thankfully, being in the US, no, I can't think of anyone I'm not allowed to criticize. There's always a consequence to speaking up though, whether good, bad or both. And I know what you mean.

 

I don't believe that a wife's salvation is her husband's decision. What I do believe is that a husband is ACCOUNTABLE for his wife--just as a parent is ACCOUNTABLE for his/her children.

 

If you say that husbands don't make decisions relating to the salvation of their wives, then what do you mean when you say they are accountable for their wives? Because when you use the example,

 

"There have been prophets in the OT who were flat-out told by God that if a nation perishes because they refused to prophesy to them that it will be on the prophet's own head (meaning the prophet is accountable for the nation)"

 

...it makes it seem like you are saying that husbands are accountable for their wives' salvation.

 

I'm still going with the bible's clear verses that say that each is responsible for their own salvation (2 Corinthians 5:10, Hebrews 4:16, Ezekiel 18:20).

 

Husbands are accountable for themselves, and are accountable to God and to love their wives.

 

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing about the fact that the bible mandates a clear order when a husband and wife become one flesh in the physical realm in which we live. But in the spiritual realm, we're on our own! Let me say it again: I'm not saying that men and women are the same and have the same roles.

Edited April 3, 2013 by pie2