My current trip through the Greek New Testament has me in luke 15, the Prodigal Son story. At least one scholar calls it the Parable of the Older Brother because he thinks that's the main focus of the story. In any case, the wayward son comes back. His father throws the party to end all parties.
The older brother hears from the field and comes to find out what's going on. When he learns about his brother, he throws a hissy fit.
My question: why didn't he already know? Why didn't his father call him from the field the instant he saw his other son? Why was he left in the dark and had to go around asking somebody what was going on?
I mean, I know it ruins the story if he does, but besides that...
Thoughts?

This isn't my own answer, but an interesting explanation I've never heard, involving legalism:

http://micahcobb.com/blog/the-older-brother-and-misreading-the-parable-of-the-prodigal-son/

I think it's a simple comparison of the state of mind of the Pharisees with that of Christ.

The party is in heaven, thus not here before us, and when the Pharisees complain about Christ sitting with sinners He gives them this along with the coins and sheep.

It's not as if knowing about the party that mattered, the party should be expected in any case, the issue is the anger derived. It shows a misunderstanding of the character of the father.

The jealousy is unwarranted. If I have given you a kingdom and you toiled to make it wonderful, and then I gave another man a party for simply joining this kingdom, would it be justified to be jealous? Whether or not you were invited?

After a sufficient time, that son would be invited to all the parties. After his toil here is complete he would have sat at the right hand of God and celebrated with the angels at the salvation of sinners.

This parallels the other rebukes of the Pharisees, they always sought their reward now, sought praise for their good works.

I like infojunkie's take.

It's a bit deeper than the usual take, but not SO deep as to get lost in analyzing the parable. Anyway, I never thought of it as Christ explaining (again!) the Kingdom of Heaven, although I should have. I thought of it as life here-and-now, so to speak. When you think of it the way infojunkie said - and probably how Jesus intended - it resonates more profoundly.

I'm probably revealing my shallowness with my comment, but it feels good to gain a new insight into the Gospel. Funny how rereading the Gospels seems to offer never-ending insights into important meanings.

Good post, DW.

And infojunkie's untangling of the story answers my friend's anger as to how lifelong sinners make it into heaven ("the welcome home party") with a last-minute death-bed confession while the lifelong Christian gets ignored.

I too like infojunkie's analysis, and it gives me lots of good insights I didn't have before. My only question about it is, it assumes the older brother knew about his brother's return and the party. If he was working off in a field I'm not sure how he would know unless his father sent a messenger to tell him. In what we have of the story at least, that doesn't seem to have been the case. The way Jesus tells it, the older brother just came in from work and saw what was happening. When he asked, someone explained to him that his brother had come back. If the party was in full swing, it seems to me (I emphasize that part) that someone should have told him already. I'm wondering why they didn't.

Thanks for all the great responses!

And WG, as for your friend's question about deathbed conversions, I think ClassyT could answer that one as well as I can: Grace.

If we're to continue the analogy, it is not that someone should have told him that the party was happening, for he is close by and should have known, he should not have been surprised that there was a party on the occasion of the brother's return.

The character of the father is being called into question. At the beginning of Luke 15 the Pharisees were grumbling saying look at this man (whom they wouldn't have even noticed except that he was being recognized as a great teacher) he sits with the drunkards and tax collectors. These are the people who most wouldn't even talk to because it would seem as if they were consorting with them, partaking of the same sins.

This character should be known. Given the great scriptural knowledge of the Pharisees (or the intamacy of a son in the parable), they would be aware of such character, or maybe they just never really paid attention to the mercy of the father.

The entire Old Testament is the same story repeated of the Jews rejecting God for the worship of idols and the exuberant lifestyles. Only to be opressed by some foreigner or another in their weakened and Godless state, then crying out to God and being saved from absolute anhilation. God shows mercy on the righteous and repentant. Deuteronomy 30 (https://biblehub.com/nkjv/deuteronomy/30.htm) is a great example.

There are stories throughout the Old Testament where where God is merciful and taking delight is the righteousness of man.

Job 33:26 (https://biblehub.com/nkjv/job/33.htm)He shall pray to God, and He will delight in him,
He shall see His face with joy,
For He restores to man His righteousness.

Psalms 86:5 (https://biblehub.com/nkjv/psalms/86.htm)For You, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive,
And abundant in mercy to all those who call upon You.

Jeremiah 31:3-4 (https://biblehub.com/nkjv/jeremiah/31.htm)The Lord has appeared of old to me, saying:
“Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.
Again I will build you, and you shall be rebuilt,
O virgin of Israel!
You shall again be adorned with your tambourines,
And shall go forth in the dances of those who rejoice.

Furthermore I like how Darby expounds on this aspect

"The servants are ordered to bring the best robe and put it on him. Thus loved, and received by love, in our wretchedness, we are clothed with Christ to enter the house. We do not bring the robe: God supplies us with it. It is an entirely new thing; and we become the righteousness of God in Him. This is heaven's best robe. All the rest have part in the joy, except the self righteous man, the true Jew. The joy is the joy of the father, but all the house shares it. The elder son is not in the house. He is near it, but he will not come in. He will have nothing to do with the grace that makes the poor prodigal the subject of the joy of love."

from Darby: "...The elder son is not in the house. He is near it, but he will not come in. He will have nothing to do with the grace that makes the poor prodigal the subject of the joy of love."
The elder son was away, out in the field. He didn't know his younger brother had returned. Darby is incorrect.

Luke 15

25 “Now his older son was in the field. And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and because he has received him safe and sound, your father has killed the fatted calf.’

28 “But he was angry and would not go in. Therefore his father came out and pleaded with him. 29 So he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends. 30 But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him.’

31 “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. 32 It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’ ”

Excellent, infojunkie! (Note to WG: Reread the parable more carefully.)

Plus, the father reassured the older son in verse 31, “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours."

25 “Now his older son was in the field. And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant.

The older brother got angry and wouldn't go in, but not until after he found out what was going on. He had to come back to the house and ask a servant what all the hoopla was.

That's the question.

..Who knows? The Father was so very happy to have his son home he started getting ready to party. He knew the elder son would be back to enjoy the festivities. OR perhaps the Father was very much aware of how unhappy the elder son was going to be. After all, he worked and toiled for his Father and was the "good" son. The spirit of a Pharisee is very obvious and not fun to deal with. Maybe he didn't want his JOY ruined. The point is.....when the elder son DID come in from the field and saw all the wonderful grace the Father was showering on the younger brother...he was given a choice. Come in and enjoy because all things were his as well. Or be resentful and mad because he believed a son must follow the rules and work for his Father's love. I think the entire story is all about the FATHER...the lavish Father and obviously, Jesus told the story to make the Pharisee's understand it isn't about working and following rules in order to receive the Father's love. We never find out if the son went in or not. He was given TRUTH and it was up to him to take is or walk away. Just like the ones he was trying to reach the day he told the parable.

Chad Bird's take on this:

"The older brother thought erroneously that he and his younger brother were competing for their father's affections. He assumed that he deserved more of it. It seemed to him that his dad was playing favorites and giving away all his love to his brother. But the father reminded him that each child, while fully beloved, is loved differently. And even in that mild rebuke, the father was loving his oldest son toward a greater clarity of what love is and does."
From https://www.1517.org/articles/god-doesnt-love-everyone-the-same

Good post and interesting thoughts. I heard someone from the Ravi Zacharias group (don't recall his name) talk about that parable. He said that as Jesus described the initial action of the younger son in asking for his inheritance and the final action of the older son in refusing t come in, it would have been shocking to the Jews of that day to hear of sons disobeying and disrepecting their father. I have also thought about the younger son's confession that he was no longer "worthy" to be his son. It is, I believe, the key to the presence of God. "I am not worthy. I am completely dependent on your mercy and lovingkindness." The older son never understood that. As Psalm 51 says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise."

Interesting, but I don't personally believe the younger son actually thought he was no longer "worthy". The younger son was just starving....it never says he felt unworthy, or that he even felt bad about his sins. What the bible records is he was starving so he started thinking his father had bread enough and to spare. Therefore he rehearsed something to tell his Father so he could go back and eat even if he was merely a servant. To ME this is why the parable is so amazing...all the Father cared about is that his son came home. Do I think the younger son eventually did repent? Oh yeah, but in my view that didn't happen until his Father lavished him with GRACE. See? Its the goodness of God that causes us to repent. That's my thoughts.

His statement was that he was not worthy. That was the conclusion he arrived at in the story. As to what he was thinking, it was a parable, and he is a fictional character, so that is speculative. At any rate, God loves us and moves to rescue and bless us, not because we are worthy, but because He is love, and thank God for that. Romans 3 makes it clear that we are not good nor worthy. I certainly agree with you that it is His goodness that moves us to repentance, and that His grace is indeed a wonderful and amazing thing.

True! But his motivation was his tummy. That is how I read it, anyway.

It can sure be a powerful wake-up call!

It seems to have been a tad more than his stomach, since the text says he "came to his senses" and made his decision.
Still, it's true that hunger is a powerful motivator.

Yes. It certainly seems that he did not merely change his actions, but that he was changed. He went from arrogant to humble, and from a position of "I deserve" to "I am not worthy".

When doing my Fun Trivia Quiz just now, one of the questions had to do with the Prodigal Son story. I answered correctly and noticed this paragraph that was part of FT's explanation for the answer:

"Christians generally take this story as a description of how the heavenly Father feels over the salvation of lost souls. Someone who has attended church all their lives might feel a twinge of this same type of resentment when a sinner suddenly converts and is welcomed into Christianity, but as this text points out, that is likely an incorrect attitude. The underlying theme seems to be that joy should be felt, rather than resentment."

The underlying theme seems to be that joy should be felt, rather than resentment."That is certainly true. When a sinner converts, we should be joyful. I guess I've never observed it to be otherwise.

That is certainly true. When a sinner converts, we should be joyful. I guess I've never observed it to be otherwise.
Long ago, a dear friend who was very active in the congregation we belonged to, frustratedly said, "So I spend my entire life being faithful to God and His Word, accepting His Son as my beloved Savior, do good works as much as I am able in order to thank God for His mercy to me. Then a person who has made no effort to live a God-pleasing life is on his deathbed, cries out 'I believe in You, Jesus!' and is saved? I'm supposed to be joyful about that???"

That is regrettable. Like I said, I have never observed that. I have observed, on fairly rare occasions, people being harsh towards a particular "variety" of sinners. That is likewise regrettable.

I think her point was that she could live her life any way she pleased and finally, on her deathbed, accept Jesus as Savior and be saved? So why bother with years of going to church and Bible class and belonging to church groups when she could have been doing more fun things.

I think her point was that she could live her life any way she pleased and finally, on her deathbed, accept Jesus as Savior and be saved? So why bother with years of going to church and Bible class and belonging to church groups when she could have been doing more fun things.The problem with that is the fact that many people do not die on their deathbed. Besides, I would ten times rather live my life as a Christian than any other way. I would be a Christian even if there was no heaven/hell.

WG, you have asked before about the fate of children that die. Just read tonight in 2 Sam. 12:23 that David said, "He cannot come to me, but I shall go to him." That would certainly seem to show that the child was in heaven, would it not?

WG, you have asked before about the fate of children that die. Just read tonight in 2 Sam. 12:23 that David said, "He cannot come to me, but I shall go to him." That would certainly seem to show that the child was in heaven, would it not?
God caused an innocent baby to die in order to punish David, the father of that baby???

That's certainly what the text says. Children suffer for the misdeeds of their parents.

That's certainly what the text says. Children suffer for the misdeeds of their parents.
Yes, that's true, but God makes that happen? I hope not!

Well, it's what the text reads.

Well, it's what the text reads.
So then, why would God object to abortion?

God's judgment is one thing. Man's murder is entirely different.

God's judgment is one thing. Man's murder is entirely different.
Then He should have killed David, the guilty one, not an innocent baby.

You'll have to talk with God about that one. I didn't make that decision. But I am surprised to see you refer to an "innocent baby", and be upset with God, and yet have no problem supporting liberal dem politicians who kill countless innocent babies. You seem confused.

But I am surprised to see you refer to an "innocent baby", and be upset with God, and yet have no problem supporting liberal dem politicians who kill countless innocent babies. You seem confused.
I have not done that. All I have said is that a woman and her doctor should make that decision together.

Well then, God did what you say it’s ok for a doctor to do. What is your complaint?

Well then, God did what you say it’s ok for a doctor to do. What is your complaint?
I didn't say "it's ok for a doctor to do"!

All I have said is that a woman and her doctor should make that decision together.And thus you have given your permission.

You really don't think that "a woman and her doctor" will always decide to preserve the unborn child's life, do you? You seem to be one of those people who want to vote for pro-abortion candidates, but then try to pretend that you really don't support abortion. Well, you can't have it both ways.

You really don't think that "a woman and her doctor" will always decide to preserve the unborn child's life, do you?
And when that severely disabled baby is born? Then what? Or the mother, who has been told her life is at risk, dies during delivery? Then what?

Well, what happens when any severely disabled baby is born? Do you kill it, or do you raise that child in the same loving way you do any child? Good grief. What on earth are you suggesting? Should we have a gun in the delivery room now? "Sorry kid, but you're a little too imperfect. See ya later!"

Well, what happens when any severely disabled baby is born?
We're talking about during pregnancy, not after birth. OBs do have tests to determine the health of the fetus and how the pregnant woman is faring.

First of all, that is NOT what you said. "And when that severely disabled baby is born? " That was your question. Now, as is your habit, you want to back out of your corner and reverse course.

But at any rate, how convenient. We can just kill the little beggar during pregnancy so it's nice, quiet, and hidden from view. What does that kind of thinking remind you of?

I see. How convenient. We can just kill the little beggar during pregnancy so it's nice, quiet, and hidden from view. What does that kind of thinking remind you of?
Why you so obsessed with killing???

I'm talking with a liberal dem who loves abortion and asked the absolutely disgusting and sickening question of what to do when a severely disabled baby is born, and then wanted to lie and suggest she did not say that. Is that plain enough for you?


And when that severely disabled baby is born?

We're talking about during pregnancy, not after birth.

And this is the same person who either lives on a moderate income or is a monied republican, depending on what political point she is trying to make.

Talk to someone else. I dislike your dishonesty.

I'm talking with a liberal dem who loves abortion and asked the absolutely disgusting and sickening question of what to do when a severely disabled baby is born, and then wanted to lie and suggest she did not say that. Is that plain enough for you?
Nope, you totally misunderstood my question. Please quote me correctly.

Passing by to read WG's posts, the abortion discussion continues. I probably shouldn't jump in, but in for a penny in for a pound.


Do you kill it, or do you raise that child in the same loving way you do any child? Should we have a gun in the delivery room now? "Sorry kid, but you're a little too imperfect. See ya later!"

Any child? Let's see what God says about that. And, "Sorry kid, but you're a little too imperfect. See ya later". God seems to have a mixed message regarding the sanctity of life. Surely, born life is at least as important as unborn life! Here's a smattering of Old Testament Bible references on the subject.

“Thou shalt not kill” (or, as reflected in the original Hebrew text, “Thou shalt not murder,” which refers to unlawful killings), but how can you get from that to some sort of universal declaration regarding the sanctity of life ?

Life is sacred, unless somebody is a homosexual, in which case you are commanded (not just permitted) to stone them to death.

Or, unless that life belongs to a disobedient child, in which case, once again, you are commanded to kill him or her. And don’t forget the time a bunch of children mocked a prophet by calling him “Baldy” and God sent a couple of bears to eat them.

Does somebody claim to be a witch? Her life is forfeit.

What about all the times in the Bible where God commanded his chosen people to commit outright genocide by slaughtering all the men, women, children and, yes, even little infants of various competing nations? Who can forget that wonderful time when God had Moses tell all the Levites to go out and kill their brothers, their companion, and even their neighbors, just to show how devoted they were?

After all, nothing shows “sanctity of life” like being told to kill random people just to show how much you love God.

The Bible even includes instructions on how to induce a miscarriage of a woman if she is suspected of having cheated on her husband? How is that any different from abortion?

Life is so important to God that He just can’t help commanding his people to slaughter others at the drop of a hat. And you think He would actually care if a woman wanted to have an abortion? Maybe some other deity, but not the God of the Bible.

Speaking of the sanctity of life, there’s also that bit about wiping out ALL LIFE ON EARTH in a flood, except for a tiny group that could fit on a wooden boat.

Pro-life is misnamed - it should be pro-SOME life.

So you don't like God. What else do you have to offer?

So you don't like God. What else do you have to offer?
Why is the OT God so different from the NT Jesus?

Nope, you totally misunderstood my question. Please quote me correctly.First you said, "And when that severely disabled baby is born?" Then you said, "We're talking about during pregnancy, not after birth." Then you tell me to quote you correctly?

Honestly, I don't know if you are intentionally lying, if this is a big joke to you, or if you just can't remember what you typed thirty minutes ago. One way or the other, I know our exchanges always go like this.

WG. "I think it's A."
JL. "Why do you think it's A?"
WG. "I didn't say it was A! I said it was B!"
JL. "OK. Why do you think it is B?"
WG. "Have you considered option D? And why are you obsessed with killing?"

And on and on it goes. I'm worn out with it. Done.

First you said, "And when that severely disabled baby is born?"
You're repeating only MY questions (and only partially, at that), which are responses to your comments as I tried to clarify your thinking. My initial questions that apparently threw you off the rails were:
1. "And when that severely disabled baby is born? Then what?"
JL, your focus was on my supposedly killing that baby. No! What happens when the baby survives the birth and yet has virtually no chance of any kind of decent life (e.g., thalidomide baby or DES baby)? What about the parents? siblings? expenses ahead? Will charities or the government help?
2. "Or the mother, who has been told her life is at risk, dies during delivery? Then what?"
Should the mother, who could survive if the baby is aborted, be allowed to die and leave her frantic husband without a wife and her children, including the new baby, without a mother?

I don't expect you to respond any further, but do hope you read my responses, questions that will face the mother -- and father.

Why is the OT God so different from the NT Jesus?

After he reads your responses re the mother and father, I hope he answers this one.

I hope he answers this one.Read Matthew 25:31-46. Perhaps the problem is an incorrect perception of Christ of the part of the 2 of you.


You're repeating only MY questions (and only partially, at that), which are responses to your comments as I tried to clarify your thinking. My initial questions that apparently threw you off the rails were:Hogwash.

Read Matthew 25:31-46. Perhaps the problem is an incorrect perception of Christ of the part of the 2 of you.

So according to your perception of Matthew, Jesus commands us to;

Kill homosexuals?
Kill disobedient children?
Kill children who mock prophets? A particularly gruesome one - children eaten by bears.
Kill witches?
Kill entire groups of people, aka genocide. Including adults, children and infants? INFANTS?
Kill unborn children? Jesus approves of abortion just like in the OT?

Jesus commands all these killings so that you can show your love for him? How do you love your enemy and kill him at the same time? Please provide the Bible verse for that. I'm sure you have one.

Just in case you missed it, Jesus also, and finally, approved of wiping out the entire human race in a flood? According to you.

Still think our reading of Matthew is an incorrect perception?

So according to your perception of MatthewI don't have a perception of Matthew. I have an acceptance of Matthew.

Jesus commands us to;

Kill homosexuals? No
Kill disobedient children? No
Kill children who mock prophets? A particularly gruesome one - children eaten by bears. No.
Kill witches? No.
Kill entire groups of people, aka genocide. Including adults, children and infants? No.
INFANTS?
Kill unborn children? Jesus approves of abortion just like in the OT? No, though I might add that it seems strange that you and WG would be critical of that one since you both vote your approval of abortion now. Strange indeed.


Jesus commands all these killings so that you can show your love for him? How do you love your enemy and kill him at the same time? Please provide the Bible verse for that. I'm sure you have one.Your idea, not mine.


Just in case you missed it, Jesus also, and finally, approved of wiping out the entire human race in a flood? According to you. No, according to the Bible, that is what the God you don't like did.


Still think our reading of Matthew is an incorrect perception? The text is clear and plain.

I might add that it seems strange that you and WG would be critical of that one since you both vote your approval of abortion now. Strange indeed.
When and where have I (and Athos) approved of abortion? If there has to be an abortion, there had better be a darn good reason, as per my previous examples!

Thus, JL's conclusion is that the NT Jesus is as murderous as is the OT God?

When you vote for Biden, you are in favor of abortion.

First you said, "All I have said is that a woman and her doctor should make that decision together." Now you say, " If there has to be an abortion, there had better be a darn good reason." So we are back to saying A, and then saying B.

If there is not a "darn good reason", then what happens next?

When you vote for Biden, you are in favor of abortion.
I know Trump believes in it and has made sure some of his offspring have been aborted.

First you said, "All I have said is that a woman and her doctor should make that decision together." Now you say, " If there has to be an abortion, there had better be a darn good reason." So we are back to saying A, and then saying B.
Yep! A woman and her doctor should make that decision together. If there has to be an abortion, there had better be a darn good reason.

If there is not a "darn good reason", then what happens next?
No abortion.

When you vote for Biden, you are in favor of abortion.

Only if you're a one issue voter. Would you side with the devil if he were against abortions? Or said he was as I suspect the dufus does. Frankly I doubt he cares one way or another unless it's his.

You're assumption has flaws.

If there is not a "darn good reason", then what happens next?


No abortion.

1. Who makes the decision of what is a "darn good reason", and how would that be enforced? By law?
2. What would a "darn good reason" be?

I'm going to take a guess at the answers.

1. The doctor and the woman. How to enforce? It would not be enforced since it would not be law.
2. Whatever the doctor and woman think a "darn good reason" is.

In other words, we will maintain the status quo of abortion for pretty much any reason, and as to the life of the unborn, who cares? In the view of many, the despicable little pest just picked the wrong place and the wrong time. Too bad.

1. Who makes the decision of what is a "darn good reason", and how would that be enforced? By law?
Obstetrician, pediatrician, social worker, professional counselor, lawyer, patient's minister/priest or holy man would meet with the mother and probably father, then confer amongst themselves. Why enforced by law? They would be following the law.

2. What would a "darn good reason" be?
To prevent the death of an otherwise healthy mother. To prevent a probably painful death of a just-born, very disabled infant.

To prevent the death of an otherwise healthy mother. To prevent a probably painful death of a just-born, very disabled infant.Well, that's 1 or 2 percent of abortions. So you would outlaw the remaining 98%, or whatever the figure actually is? Those should be outlawed?

I have the funny feeling that A is about to become B.

Well, that's 1 or 2 percent of abortions. So you would outlaw the remaining 98%?
What does the law say?

If your 12 y/o daughter was (cunningly or forcefully - choose one) impregnated by the lazy and annoying 16 y/o son of your neighbor, would your daughter go full term and have the baby?

Well, we're back to the ole switch a roo. Too bad. Too afraid to answer the question, so just change the subject.

If the doctor told me that she could carry the baby safely, then yes, we would do that. I would not put her life at risk, but I would not also just kill a human being out of convenience.

So would you summon up your courage and answer the question? Would you outlaw the overwhelming number of abortions that lie outside your good reason?

If the doctor told me that she could carry the baby safely, then yes, we would do that. I would not put her life at risk, but I would not also just kill a human being out of convenience.
And if the doctor told you that your daughter's body was not developed enough to carry a child to term?

And if she did indeed carry it to term, then what? an open adoption? you would raise it? a relative would adopt it?

So would you summon up your courage and answer the question? Would you outlaw the overwhelming number of abortions that lie outside your good reason?
No courage is needed or required. Again I ask, what is the law? Plus, it is not within my purview to outlaw or allow abortions. I am responsible only for myself.

I don't have a perception of Matthew. I have an acceptance of Matthew.

Acceptance/perception - for you it comes down to the same thing.


Jesus commands us to;

Kill homosexuals? No
Kill disobedient children? No
Kill children who mock prophets? A particularly gruesome one - children eaten by bears. No.
Kill witches? No.
Kill entire groups of people, aka genocide. Including adults, children and infants? No.
INFANTS?
Kill unborn children? Jesus approves of abortion just like in the OT?

Too bad, you've already painted yourself into a corner by equating Jesus with the God of the Old Testament who approved/started all those things you said "NO" to. Please read Matthew again - YOUR reference. Do you still claim Jesus and the God of the OT are one and the same? If so, how can you possibly say NO to all those actions of God? See what I mean by painting yourself into a corner?


No, though I might add that it seems strange that you and WG would be critical of that one since you both vote your approval of abortion now. Strange indeed.

The "strange indeed" is all yours. I can't speak for WG but I have never voted to approve abortion. Nor have I ever voted to disapprove abortion. The decision is up to the woman.


No, according to the Bible, that is what the God you don't like did. [This refers to my (Athos) citation of the Flood]

So here again you are saying the God of the Flood and Jesus are not the same. Deny all you want, but you are betrayed by your own words. (It's that paint in the corner thing again.)


The text is clear and plain. [This refers to your citation of the verse in Matthew]

Then you have proved your claim to be incorrect. If by "clear and plain", you mean Jesus and God are the same, how do you explain their diametrically opposite commands?

The only question left is will you understand how your reply was self-defeating.

No courage is needed or required. Again I ask, what is the law? Plus, it is not within my purview to outlaw or allow abortions. I am responsible only for myself.

Well, that answer so typifies the average liberal, and it's why I so much regret ever trying to have a discussion with one. You try to put on a brave front, and claim that "they better have a darn good reason". Except, of course, there is no legal enforcement to the "better have", and so it is meaningless drivel. At least with Clete I know where he stands. Tal would also answer questions, but his endless postings of what certainly seemed to be sexual fantasies about men's rear ends were just too disgusting, so I had to block him. But you will never take a stand. It's A, then B, then C, and on and on it goes. It is impossible to know what you believe, and I'm not convinced you even know what you believe yourself. It is just largely, it seems to me, the ethics of convenience.

I answered your question. As to once we had a delivered, live baby, I don't know what we would do with such a hypothetical. I don't know that anyone does. I do know we would not kill the unborn child as you would allow, and I know we would love that child and do the best we could for him/her. And, of course, our daughter would have a say in that as well. I rather suspect we would join together as a family and raise the child.

join together as a family and raise the child.
And the baby's irresponsible father?

I didn't say that! I said the baby's father was responsible, and that it was the baby who was irresponsible! And what color shoes should the baby wear?

I didn't say that! I said the baby's father was responsible, and that it was the baby who was irresponsible! And what color shoes should the baby wear?
Always changing the conversation, and never staying on topic -- typical conservative, afraid to answer honestly. And I'm still waiting for your answer to Athos' question, "If by 'clear and plain', you mean Jesus and God are the same, how do you explain their diametrically opposite commands?"

Always changing the conversation, and never staying on topic -- typical conservative, afraid to answer honestly.Huh. Who does that remind you of?

Huh. Who does that remind you of?
And I'm still waiting for your answer to Athos' question, "If by 'clear and plain', you mean Jesus and God are the same, how do you explain their diametrically opposite commands?"

Remember? A is B.

Remember? A is B.
A was "Why is the OT God so different from the NT Jesus?"

(I hear only crickets chirping.)

No! That's not what I said. I said B! Why are you so hateful?

(I'm really enjoying playing your character.)

No! That's not what I said. I said B! Why are you so hateful?

(I'm really enjoying playing your character.)
Now you're REALLY confused! I'm the one who asked A. Is it your bedtime yet?

I didn't realize Athos had posted above. Didn't see it. At any rate, this was Athos' original question. "Still think our reading of Matthew is an incorrect perception?" So far as I know, he's never stated his "perception" of Matthew 25. I simply replied that I do not attempt to put my own "perception" on what Jesus said in that passage, bur rather I just accept what He said. And the passage clearly portrays Him as the Judge of the earth.

Here is your problem. You are critical of how God acted in the OT. I said that you are free to say you don't like God, and that's fine, but I suspect you are trying to say that Jesus is different in nature from God in the OT. But Mt. 25 clearly showed He is not. He judges masses of people for sin and condemns them to an eternal hell. Even in His earthly ministry he routinely was very harsh with Pharisees and other leaders. Now you are free to not like that if you want to, and you are free to not believe it or put your own spin (perspective) on it. But when you do that, you are reduced to cherry picking both the OT and NT for passages that agree with your preconceived notions. You are, in effect, setting yourself up as God's judge. Just beware that the day is coming when He will judge you, and He will not care about the silly ideas you cooked up from outside of the Bible. And having said that, I have fulfilled part of my responsibility to you. You will not be able to say you did not know.

I really don't know what you are after. Do you want me to tell you to just blow off the OT and pay no attention to it, or to just forget about the many passages about judgment and hell in the NT because, after all, you find them offensive? What do you want out of this?

Very disappointing having to go back to my direct self. I was enjoying the privilege of dissembling by playing the part of WG. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted. And btw, did you ever decide if you are living on a modest income, or are a "monied" republican?

I simply replied that I do not attempt to put my own "perception" on what Jesus said in that passage, bur rather I just accept what He said. And the passage clearly portrays Him as the Judge of the earth.

Here is your problem.

Here is YOUR problem. You can avoid it, but it will follow you wherever you go.

To wit: Your words,

"Jesus commands us to;

Kill homosexuals? No
Kill disobedient children? No
Kill children who mock prophets? A particularly gruesome one - children eaten by bears. No.
Kill witches? No.
Kill entire groups of people, aka genocide. Including adults, children and infants? No.
INFANTS?
Kill unborn children? Jesus approves of abortion just like in the OT? No"

Your NO to all those statements shows you deny God carried out all those things. Yet your own Bible is precise in claiming God carried out every one of those actions.

You believe Jesus and God are one and the same so how do you explain the diametrically opposite commands of Jesus and God? You can't, of course. Unless you DO believe Jesus kills disobedient children, et al. In that case, please provide Bible verses supporting your belief of Jesus' killing all those people.

Even worse, you flee from the question which has now been asked of you three times. Each time you avoided answering.

Your "just accepting what he said" is NOT an answer. It is an escape.

Your NO to all those statements shows you deny God carried out all those things.Your question read, "Jesus commands us to." As Christians, we are not "commanded" to do those things. You did not ask me if God "carried out all those things".


how do you explain the diametrically opposite commands of Jesus and God?The OT law reflects the extraordinary holiness of God. The death of Christ on the cross met the demands of justice and opened the door, "that all might come in." We are no longer living in OT Israel, and the legal requirements of the law of Moses do not apply to those of us who have accepted and follow Jesus. But if you think that Jesus is all sweetness and light, then you are greatly mistaken. He said that all judgment had been given over to Him, and His own words in Mt. 25 show the terrible day that will result from that.

Now you say the teachings of Jesus are "diametrically" opposed to those of the OT, but when Jesus was asked to give his view of the greatest of the commandments, He gave two. Where did He get those two from? It was, of course, the OT.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked WG. "I really don't know what you are after. Do you want me to tell you to just blow off the OT and pay no attention to it, or to just forget about the many passages about judgment and hell in the NT because, after all, you find them offensive? What do you want out of this?" I am not going to discount the Bible because you do not like the God of the OT, and I certainly will not use as a "filter" the concept of whether or not you find a passage to be personally offensive.

Your question read, "Jesus commands us to." As Christians, we are not "commanded" to do those things

You know EXACTLY what is meant. Your lame nit-picking is just another escape for you.


The OT law reflects the extraordinary holiness of God.

Killing entire groups of people is hardly "extraordinary holiness". Nobody but you would make such a strange claim. You are light years away from the true Bible message.


We are no longer living in OT Israel, and the legal requirements of the law of Moses do not apply to those of us who have accepted and follow Jesus.

Before you wander too far away with your deflection, let me repeat the question being discussed. Are the OT God and Jesus one and the same? If so, how do you explain the contradiction of God killing his enemy while Jesus loves his enemy?


Now you say the teachings of Jesus are "diametrically" opposed to those of the OT

I NEVER said the teachings of Jesus are "diametrically opposed" to those of the OT. What I DID ask was for you to explain how God and Jesus could be so diametrically opposed when considering the seven instances of God's wholesale killing of people.


I'll ask you the same thing I asked WG. "I really don't know what you are after.It couldn't be simpler "what I'm after". Once more, are God and Jesus the same?

You know EXACTLY what is meant.I know exactly what you asked which was exactly what I answered. I can't help it if you don't bother to keep up. Don't you libs ever take ANY responsibility?


Before you wander too far away with your deflection, let me repeat the question being discussed. Are the OT God and Jesus one and the same? If so, how do you explain the contradiction of God killing his enemy while Jesus loves his enemy?Have you ever read Luke 3:16&17? It reads, "But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” So rather clearly both God's activity in the OT and Jesus' activity in the future involve severe judgment. Both Lk. 3:9 and the Matthew 25 passage teach the same lesson, as well as a host of other passages. There is no contradiction.


Once more, are God and Jesus the same?Jesus is the second member of the Godhead. He said that if we have seen Him, then we have seen the Father, meaning that He and the Father are identical in purpose, will, and method. You seem to be making the utterly preposterous suggestion that the God of the OT is separate from Jesus, thus establishing TWO completely different gods. It's a silly suggestion with no support in the Bible.

You are missing a rather important point. Jesus told us to love our enemies, and He does likewise. He did so by giving up His life on the cross, thus taking our punishment. But a person must accept that. If a person continues to live in rebellion, the cross does not help him. John 3:16 is very clear on that. So is John 8:24. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

There is a difference between the two of us. You are an angry man because you cannot get the Bible to agree with what you have decided to believe. I simply accept the Bible as God's word. It determines my beliefs.

You seem to be making the utterly preposterous suggestion that the God of the OT is separate from Jesus, thus establishing TWO completely different gods. It's a silly suggestion with no support in the Bible.

Perhaps the OT writers did a bit of tweaking. E.g., the serpent reminded them of their hatred for other nations and encouraged them to fashion a god who would punish those enemies in especially cruel ways. The OT certainly doesn't teach us about love.

Perhaps the OT writers did a bit of tweaking. E.g., the serpent reminded them of their hatred for other nations and encouraged them to fashion a god who would punish those enemies in especially cruel ways.You are suggesting that the OT is utterly unreliable, but you have no real evidence of that other than it does not agree with your preconceived ideas.


The OT certainly doesn't teach us about love.Perhaps yours doesn't, but mine certainly does.

Once you accept that God is both loving and just, it all begins to come together very well.

Once you accept that God is both loving and just, it all begins to come together very well.
"Loving and just" is killing pregnant women and defenseless babies and children?

Justice can certainly include that. But since you decline to oppose the killing of unborn babies, I have no idea of why you would bring that up. In your view, doesn't that make you as unjust and unloving as you are alleging God is?

Really, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If babies are worth defending, they why don't you?

Justice can certainly include that. But since you decline to oppose the killing of unborn babies, I have no idea of why you would bring that up. In your view, doesn't that make you as unjust and unloving as you are alleging God is?

Really, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If babies are worth defending, they why don't you?
Wow! Your reading comprehension is still many notches below normal! I have said more than once that abortion is something that must be decided between the mother and her doctor. It isn't my choice; it's hers -- I hope after examining all the positives and negatives, then making an informed decision. The same with euthanasia -- it's not my call unless I'm the one who wants it.

This is what I said. "But since you decline to oppose the killing of unborn babies..." It perfectly describes your view. You will not so much as lift a finger to defend the killing of, as you put it, "defenseless babies". Own it. My RC was exactly correct.

Jesus is the second member of the Godhead. He said that if we have seen Him, then we have seen the Father, meaning that He and the Father are identical in purpose, will, and method.

Fine. Now please explain how the second member of the Godhead has the same "purpose, will and method" as the first member. Just where in the Gospels does Jesus methodically perform all those killings that God is so famous for? To refresh your memory, the enemies of Israel, the homosexuals, the disobedient children, the witches, the ENTIRE human race except for Noah?


You seem to be making the utterly preposterous suggestion that the God of the OT is separate from Jesus, thus establishing TWO completely different gods. It's a silly suggestion with no support in the Bible.

I'm giving you the great gift of encouraging you to understand your Bible. When you finally realize that you cannot reconcile the OT God with Jesus - which is written right in front of you in the Bible - that will be a giant step for you to go deeper into the Bible.


You are missing a rather.... etc., etc.

This paragraph has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. But I include its beginning to show you how you always wind up by threatening those you disagree with. That is a powerful indication of the weakness - and the sadness - of your position.


There is a difference between the two of us. You are an angry man because you cannot get the Bible to agree with what you have decided to believe.

I note here that striking out at me for being an angry man is another indication of your own sadness/unhappiness by projecting it onto others. You have done the same elsewhere on this website to still others. I understand where it's coming from and I forgive you for it.


I simply accept the Bible as God's word. It determines my beliefs.

That's a good thing but God gave you a brain to discern deeper truths contained in the Bible.

Now please explain how the second member of the Godhead has the same "purpose, will and method"Already done. "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." But if you need another, John 6:38. "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."


I'm giving you the great gift of encouraging you to understand your Bible. When you finally realize that you cannot reconcile the OT God with Jesus - which is written right in front of you in the Bible - that will be a giant step for you to go deeper into the Bible.How wonderful. I've already made that reconciliation. You just don't like it.

As to the rest of your post, it always come back to the same thing. I quote scripture after scripture after scripture. You reply by saying I must agree with you. Well, given the choice between you and Jesus, I'm going with Jesus. If some day you are raised from the dead, then maybe that can change.

I am threatening no one. Here is your warning from the Jesus you claim to understand so well. "John 8:24. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." It is another of His "I am" statements that relate back to the burning bush in Exodus.

This is what I said. "But since you decline to oppose the killing of unborn babies..." It perfectly describes your view. You will not so much as lift a finger to defend the killing of, as you put it, "defenseless babies". Own it. My RC was exactly correct.
Thus, you are saying EVERY human (white?) baby born -- no matter if it's missing a brain or all four limbs or has multiple disabilities, or if its healthy mother will die during the birth -- should live, no matter what. (How many healthy kittens have you drowned?)

human (white?) baby bornWhat a sickening statement.

In my view, you lack the courage to go against your liberal orthodoxy to do what is right, and you can't handle it when your permissive position on abortion is made clear, so you resort to lying implications about me. The bottom line is this. What you accuse God of, you are thoroughly guilty of yourself. You can't be troubled to prevent the death of defenseless human beings. That's you. You can hide behind empty words with others, but not here. I will call you out every time.

What a sickening statement.

In my view, you lack the courage to go against your liberal orthodoxy to do what is right, and you can't handle it when your permissive position on abortion is made clear, so you resort to lying implications about me. The bottom line is this. What you accuse God of, you are thoroughly guilty of yourself. You can't be troubled to prevent the death of defenseless human beings. That's you.
Ah, so you refuse to discuss and thus prove your point, so stumble along, damning me in EVERY response you make to me. I understand your fear. I've encountered it before. I'll pray that God will open your heart and your eyes.

Ah, so you refuse to discuss and thus prove your point, so stumble along, damning me in EVERY response you make to me. I understand your fearWe have already discussed the rest of your "points" beginning in post 59. I'm sure you would have these children killed AFTER they are born as well as before because you view killing as the solution. I view it as the problem. You appeal to the one in a thousand hypotheticals in an effort to hide your pro-death views. Like I said, your empty words have already been demonstrated.

And I'm sure I am over-reacting. I don't really consider you to be pro-death, but it certainly does appear that you are afraid to stand up and take a stand, so you are reduced to appeals about babies with no brains, no arms or legs, or other rare circumstances. You do realize that babies are actually born with those conditions? Should we kill them after they are born?

Already done. "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." But if you need another, John 6:38. "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."

You completely evaded my comment which was as follows: Are the OT God and Jesus one and the same? If so, how do you explain the contradiction of God killing his enemy while Jesus loves his enemy?

Rather than answer my question, you did the usual thing - provided a Bible verse that had absolutely nothing to do with the question.


As to the rest of your post, ..... I quote scripture after scripture after scripture.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM! You quote scripture after scripture after scripture and NEVER respond to my comment about God killing and Jesus loving.


You reply by saying I must agree with you.

I NEVER said that. Do you even know WHY you keep repeating falsehoods? There's a good exercise for you.


Well, given the choice between you and Jesus, I'm going with Jesus.

By all means, go with Jesus. I wish nothing else for you. Just make sure it's the right Jesus and not the one you believe employs the same killing methods as your God.


If some day you are raised from the dead, then maybe that can change.

Another threat - a ghoulish one, this time.


I am threatening no one.

As you immediately threaten me both above and below. Think before you type.


Here is your warning from the Jesus you claim to understand so well. "John 8:24. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." It is another of His "I am" statements that relate back to the burning bush in Exodus.

You are strong on threats but weak on rational explanations. Go in peace.

The short version is this. Your questions have been answered. You cannot separate Jesus from the God of the OT. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's that simple. I have shown you clearly that Jesus obeyed the will of the Father and that there are not TWO wills from TWO Gods. I have shown you clearly that Jesus is the Judge of the earth and His judgment, by His own words, will be a terrible sight, so your constant pleading of a Jesus of love is half, but not all, of the story.

I have not threatened you. I have shown you the warnings of Jesus to you and to all of us. You choose to ignore them. That is your prerogative.

I am interested in what you think about a verse I have posted twice and you have ignored twice. The Amplified version reads, "That is why I told you that you will die [unforgiven and condemned] in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am the One [I claim to be], you will die in your sins.” It simply does away with your contention that Jesus had a message of love ONLY. It is a false argument. Mt. 25 demonstrates the fallacy of your position as well. It is nonsense.

What do you think of that text? And should you choose to ignore it a third time and not answer, which is certainly what I expect, then your "go in peace" is fine.

The short version is this. Your questions have been answered.

You have never explained the contradiction between a killing God and a loving Jesus. Clearly you see the contradiction.


You cannot separate Jesus from the God of the OT.

Of course, I can. And I do.


I have shown you clearly that Jesus obeyed the will of the Father and that there are not TWO wills from TWO Gods.

What you have shown is that you claimed Jesus uses the same killing methods of the OT God. Please cite where I claimed there are TWO wills from TWO Gods.


I have shown you clearly that Jesus is the Judge of the earth and His judgment, by His own words, will be a terrible sight, so your constant pleading of a Jesus of love is half, but not all, of the story.

How does an omnificent, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God visit terrible sights on his own creation? Or do you not believe God is those things attributed to the Godhead.


I have not threatened you.

You use Bible verses to threaten.


I am interested in what you think about a verse I have posted twice and you have ignored twice.

Answer my question about the contradiction between a killing God and a loving God. How do you explain that? Not another Bible verse please. Then I will answer your question.

You asked me a question once before and, if I answered, you would answer the question I posed to you. In the event, I went first although I wasn't required to but I decided to trust you. You never gave an answer after I gave mine. You said my answer was NOT an answer, so you refused to honor your part of the bargain. You proved yourself then to be untrustworthy. Let's see what you do this time.

You use Bible verses to threaten.To warn. But you do not accept the warning since you do not accept the Bible. Or at least that is how it appears to me. If that is a misconception, then please correct it.


What you have shown is that you claimed Jesus uses the same killing methods of the OT God. Please cite where I claimed there are TWO wills from TWO Gods.You just did. I said, "You cannot separate Jesus from the God of the OT." You replied, "Of course, I can. And I do." Thus you attempt to establish two separate Gods with two separate wills. I have not said Jesus will kill. I have said, and in fact Jesus has said, that He will visit terrible judgment in the future which will be worse even than killing. So in that regard He is a God of both love and judgment, just as God is in the OT. In fact, the love of God must be seen in light of the judgment of God.


Answer my question about the contradiction between a killing God and a loving God. How do you explain that? Not another Bible verse please. Then I will answer your question.Already answered in the paragraph above, in post 96, and in posts before then. It's revealing that you have such an aversion to Bible passages, and indeed to even the words of Jesus Himself. It's always a little amusing to meet someone who wants to argue about the Bible, and yet does not want to accept the words of the Bible. It's like trying to discuss the Constitution without making any reference to the text of the Constitution.

It's a shame that you don't like to answer questions. Perhaps you could give us your explanation of your alleged contradiction, and perhaps even using Bible quotes as your support.


You asked me a question once before and, if I answered, you would answer the question I posed to you. In the event, I went first although I wasn't required to but I decided to trust you. You never gave an answer after I gave mine. You said my answer was NOT an answer, so you refused to honor your part of the bargain. You proved yourself then to be untrustworthy. Let's see what you do this time.Just as I predicted. You are averse to answering, so you cook up a silly fake story to use as an excuse. It's the same as when I asked you to explain that if aionios means something less than an eternal hell in Mt. 25, then does that mean that heaven is also less then eternal since aionios is used of both hell and heaven? Never got an answer on that one.

FROM ATHOS - You asked me a question once before and, if I answered, you would answer the question I posed to you. In the event, I went first although I wasn't required to but I decided to trust you. You never gave an answer after I gave mine. You said my answer was NOT an answer, so you refused to honor your part of the bargain. You proved yourself then to be untrustworthy. Let's see what you do this time.



FROM JL - Just as I predicted. You are averse to answering, so you cook up a silly fake story to use as an excuse. It's the same as when I asked you to explain that if aionios means something less than an eternal hell in Mt. 25, then does that mean that heaven is also less then eternal since aionios is used of both hell and heaven? Never got an answer on that one.


I KNOW I answered and NOT with a silly fake story. YOU KNOW I answered and not with a silly fake story. This is what makes discussion with you so difficult. You don't respect the truth.

I gave you an extensive answer (more than one post) re "aionios" which referenced the Greek of the third century and how Jerome translated that Greek into the Latin Vulgate. You have elected to not believe my answer which is fine. But please don't say I gave NO ANSWER. Others here may remember that discussion. If not, there are always the archives.

The other question was when you refused to honor your part and where I called you untrustworthy. We can all see your replies haven't changed.



FROM ATHOS - You use Bible verses to threaten.




FROM JL - To warn. But you do not accept the warning since you do not accept the Bible. Or at least that is how it appears to me. If that is a misconception, then please correct it

I'll be glad to correct your misconception. I've frequently declared to you I accept the Bible. It's the "Good Book". The difference between you and me is that I don't use it as a weapon to warn and/or threaten those who believe other than you do.


FROM ATHOS - What you have shown is that you claimed Jesus uses the same killing methods of the OT God. Please cite where I claimed there are TWO wills from TWO Gods.


FROM JL - You just did. I said, "You cannot separate Jesus from the God of the OT." You replied, "Of course, I can. And I do." Thus you attempt to establish two separate Gods with two separate wills.

As others have said, your reading comprehension is lacking. Your "THUS", and following, does not remotely "establish two separate Gods with two separate wills".

The OT God who kills at random and wipes out the entire human race is a creation myth. Every primitive group, such as a wandering nomadic tribe in the ancient Middle East, has these stories. They are established over time to cohere the people until they are told around the campfires at night by the elders.

Centuries pass, and the priests and leaders write the stories down where they become the creation myths and sacred scripture of the tribe. They are powerful stories that keep the people focused as a unity. Nobody really believes anymore that a God literally drowned the entire human race except for Noah. Well, some do, but they are usually children - and adults on the far margins of the religion.


FROM JL - I have not said Jesus will kill.

That's certainly a relief. But not true. You did equate Jesus with the OT God. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. Simple logic.


FROM JL - I have said, and in fact Jesus has said, that He will visit terrible judgment in the future which will be worse even than killing. So in that regard He is a God of both love and judgment, just as God is in the OT. In fact, the love of God must be seen in light of the judgment of God.


Whew! Jesus is WORSE than killing! Wow! This may be the most amazing paragraph you've ever written here. Talk about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! You literalists always find yourselves tied up in a knot of absurdity.

The God of Love must be seen in the light of his wiping out the entire human race. Forgive my paraphrase, but that is what you are saying. Absurdity.


It's revealing that you have such an aversion to Bible passages, and indeed to even the words of Jesus Himself. It's always a little amusing to meet someone who wants to argue about the Bible, and yet does not want to accept the words of the Bible. It's like trying to discuss the Constitution without making any reference to the text of the Constitution.

I'm glad you're amused. To repeat, I accept the Bible - it's a Good Book. How many times do I have to tell you this? My argument is never with the Bible, it's always been with you and your erroneous interpretation of it. Your memory is now failing you if you can't remember that, and your reading comprehension shows up again with your Constitution reference. Please, let's not go there - I can already see that you're an originalist.

Forgive me if any of this is offensive, I try my darndest to tone down the sarcasm within me which is yearning to breathe free.


Perhaps you could give us your explanation of your alleged contradiction, and perhaps even using Bible quotes as your support.

Been there. Done that. If you don't know by now, nothing can help you.

My dear JL, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your need for Bible quotes."

I KNOW I answered and NOT with a silly fake story. YOU KNOW I answered and not with a silly fake story. This is what makes discussion with you so difficult. You don't respect the truth.

I gave you an extensive answer (more than one post) re "aionios" which referenced the Greek of the third century and how Jerome translated that Greek into the Latin Vulgate. You have elected to not believe my answer which is fine. But please don't say I gave NO ANSWER. Others here may remember that discussion. If not, there are always the archives.

The other question was when you refused to honor your part and where I called you untrustworthy. We can all see your replies haven't changed.You still have not answered. I asked why, if aionios in reference to hell means temporary, then why doesn't it mean temporary for heaven. And in reference to your views on aionios, I will say again, as I have before, that virtually no one, outside of Robert Young, agrees with your view. EVERY other major translation renders it as "eternal".

I hope you realize your shouting (bold text) demonstrates nothing.


As others have said, your reading comprehension is lacking. Your "THUS", and following, does not remotely "establish two separate Gods with two separate wills".

The OT God who kills at random and wipes out the entire human race is a creation myth. Every primitive group, such as a wandering nomadic tribe in the ancient Middle East, has these stories. They are established over time to cohere the people until they are told around the campfires at night by the elders.

Centuries pass, and the priests and leaders write the stories down where they become the creation myths and sacred scripture of the tribe. They are powerful stories that keep the people focused as a unity. Nobody really believes anymore that a God literally drowned the entire human race except for Noah. Well, some do, but they are usually children - and adults on the far margins of the religion.Like I said, you don't accept the Bible. Your rationale for your unbelief is just that...unbelief.


Whew! Jesus is WORSE than killing! Wow!Don't be intentionally stupid. That's not what I said. Go back and look again.


Perhaps you could give us your explanation of your alleged contradiction, and perhaps even using Bible quotes as your support.


Been there. Done that. If you don't know by now, nothing can help you.Well, you have now in your reply above, which basically tries to solve the problem by simply doing away with most of the OT. And that still doesn't explain how Jesus can plan on bringing such terrible judgment on the earth and still be ONLY a God of love.

You know, even with all your bold text and temper, you are completely unpersuasive. Now you are free to believe as you will, and I will never contest that, but you are not free to compel anyone to accept your views simply because they are your views.

I'd still love to know what you think Jesus meant when He said, "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

The OT God who kills at random and wipes out the entire human race is a creation myth. Every primitive group, such as a wandering nomadic tribe in the ancient Middle East, has these stories. They are established over time to cohere the people until they are told around the campfires at night by the elders.

Centuries pass, and the priests and leaders write the stories down where they become the creation myths and sacred scripture of the tribe. They are powerful stories that keep the people focused as a unity. Nobody really believes anymore that a God literally drowned the entire human race except for Noah. Well, some do, but they are usually children - and adults on the far margins of the religion.


As you said, Athos, many cultures had creation myths and flood myths. In college, we read and took apart The Epic of Gilgamesh, and compared it with other flood stories. JL, have you ever read The Epic of Gilgamesh?

Here's a link to a listing and brief summaries of many flood stories (note the similarities):

https://www.mythoreligio.com/15-flood-myths-similar-to-the-story-of-noah-2/

* * * * *
JL: That's not what I said -- that Jesus is worse than killing!

FROM JL - I have said, and in fact Jesus has said, that He will visit terrible judgment in the future which will be worse even than killing.

You suppose it's possible that there are many flood accounts because...there was a flood?

If God decides to end a person's life, does He not have the authority to do so, even if you find it to be offensive? Why would He need our permission or approval?

I hope you realize your shouting (bold text) demonstrates nothing.

I know your reading comprehension and your memory are bad, so I wasn't sure about your hearing. So I shouted.


Like I said, you don't accept the Bible.

Like I said umpteen times now, I accept the Bible but not like a mindless idiot. Not meaning present company, of course.


Don't be intentionally stupid.

Hmm, I may have to take back that mindless idiot quote now.


That's not what I said. Go back and look again.

Here's your actual quote - are you being intentionally stupid? I'll shout it for you. I have said, and in fact Jesus has said, that He will visit terrible judgment in the future which will be worse even than killing.

Here's what I said - Whew! Jesus is WORSE than killing! Wow!


Well, you have now in your reply above, which basically tries to solve the problem by simply doing away with most of the OT.

There you go again - making untruthful statements. I clearly did NOT "do away" with "most of the OT". I interpreted a tiny section of the OT (Genesis) as most major denominations do. Lie much?


And that still doesn't explain how Jesus can plan on bringing such terrible judgment on the earth and still be ONLY a God of love.

Simple. You have misinterpreted the Gospel as you did with Genesis. The answer for you is to read your Bible - especially the Gospels - and ask for guidance to understand. There is nothing more I can do for you since you are so stiff-necked.


Now you are free to believe as you will, and I will never contest that, but you are not free to compel anyone to accept your views simply because they are your views.

You have that backwards. I NEVER threaten (or warn) and I NEVER compel. People are free to believe what they want - an idea you should ponder.


I'd still love to know what you think Jesus meant when He said, "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

Are you sure he said that? Read that yourself in context and think about it.

You suppose it's possible that there are many flood accounts because...there was a flood?
Please reread what I posted. (P.S. There were MANY floods and very similar flood stories.)

If God decides to end a person's life, does He not have the authority to do so, even if you find it to be offensive? Why would He need our permission or approval?
God kills us?

You suppose it's possible that there are many flood accounts because...there was a flood?

There was no flood that wiped out the entire human race. Get real.

As WG said, read The Epic of Gilgamesh - it's practically plagiarized by the the writers of Genesis, it's so close.

Here's your actual quote - are you being intentionally stupid? I'll shout it for you. I have said, and in fact Jesus has said, that He will visit terrible judgment in the future which will be worse even than killing.

Here's what I said - Whew! Jesus is WORSE than killing! Wow!Hmmm. His judgment will be worse even than killing. To you, that means Jesus is worse than killing. Hard to know what to say about that. Intentionally stupid seems still to be appropriate.


There you go again - making untruthful statements. I clearly did NOT "do away" with "most of the OT". I interpreted a tiny section of the OT (Genesis) as most major denominations do. Lie much?OK. So you're OK with the destruction of the Canaanites? Just checking.


And that still doesn't explain how Jesus can plan on bringing such terrible judgment on the earth and still be ONLY a God of love.


Simple. You have misinterpreted the Gospel as you did with Genesis. The answer for you is to read your Bible - especially the Gospels - and ask for guidance to understand. There is nothing more I can do for you since you are so stiff-necked.Thank you for that non-answer. As to the Gospels, I read through the NT four times a year and have been doing so for a number of years.


I'd still love to know what you think Jesus meant when He said, "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."


Are you sure he said that? Read that yourself in context and think about it.And yet another non-answer. If you don't know, then why not just admit that you don't know instead of this phony intellectual professor garbage?

As to the Gospels, I read through the NT four times a year and have been doing so for a number of years.

Try less reading and more thinking.

There was no flood that wiped out the entire human race. Get real.Jesus considered the story to be true, so I'll just side with Him.


As WG said, read The Epic of Gilgamesh - it's practically plagiarized by the the writers of Genesis, it's so close.The two stories differ in significant ways. But even at that, they could both very well be describing the same incident.


Try less reading and more thinking.Vague platitudes will accomplish nothing for you other than being obvious attempts to side step a question which you prefer not to answer.

Let's see. Just to sum up, you have not answered the question about the application of your view of aionios to both hell and heaven, and you have not given your view of the words of Christ in John 8:24. See why I say you don't like to answer questions???

The two stories differ in significant ways. But even at that, they could both very well be describing the same incident.
But only eight humans survived the Genesis flood. Utnapishtim was Noah?

But only eight humans survived the Genesis flood. Utnapishtim was Noah?I wouldn't go that far, but as you said above, there are many ancient accounts of a great flood. These come from virtually all over the world. "Of the flood traditions which have survived to the present time, about 95% describe a global cataclysmic deluge, 88% tell of a favored family of humans saved from drowning to reestablish the human race after the deluge, 66% say the family was forewarned of the coming cataclysm, 66% blame the wickedness of man for the deluge, and 70% record a boat as being the means by which the chosen family (and animals) survived the flood."

Coincidence?

If everyone drowned except Noah and his family, who wrote all these other stories? (P.S. This can be researched.)

The story was passed down by descendants of survivors. You do realize that the flood predated the writing of the Book of Genesis? (P.S. That can also be researched.)


who wrote all these other stories?You do realize that it is virtually impossible to identify WHO wrote those ancient accounts? There is no certainty for the Pentateuch, for that matter.

The story was passed down by descendants of survivors. You do realize that the flood predated the writing of the Book of Genesis? (P.S. That can also be researched.)

You do realize that it is virtually impossible to identify WHO wrote those ancient accounts? There is no certainty for the Pentateuch, for that matter.
Yeah, those Aztec and Nigerian descendants....

And one more I'm waiting for Athos to answer concerning the destruction of the Canaanites which is not in that small section of Genesis he discounts. That would make three unanswered questions.

See why I say you don't like to answer questions???

Your untrustworthy-ness is why your attempt to exchange questions is not done. You should know that by now since you have been told so many times. As I already related to you here, when I did trust you and went ahead, you never held up your part of the bargain.

I'm sure you will continue to claim the opposite, but we both know the truth.

You can't silence your conscience.

Your untrustworthy-ness is why your attempt to exchange questions is not done. You should know that by now since you have been told so many times. As I already related to you here, when I did trust you and went ahead, you never held up your part of the bargain.

I'm sure you will continue to claim the opposite, but we both know the truth.

You can't silence your conscience.Oh well. More non-answers and platitudes. I have just identified three questions you have not answered with no luck. I've never met anyone more reluctant to tackle the difficult issues, and you cannot identify a single question you have ever asked me that went unanswered. But as you said, go in peace.

I am grateful that at least you have stopped your internet shouting.

I've never met anyone more reluctant to tackle the difficult issues,

In that case, you will find one by looking in a mirror.


and you cannot identify a single question you have ever asked me that went unanswered.

You know it and I know it. That's enough.


I am grateful that at least you have stopped your internet shouting.

No need to since you got yourself a hearing aid.

You know it and I know it. That's enough.Well...you imagine it. The fact that you cannot identify it speaks volumes.

I can, however, identify the three you have not answered.

1. Since you say you accept the Bible past Genesis 10 or so, how do you explain God's order to destroy the Canaanites when you claim it is a contradiction of the teachings of Christ?
2. What is your view of the words of Christ? "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." A reply more substantial than, "Are you sure he said that? Read that yourself in context and think about it," would be nice.
3. I asked why, if aionios in reference to hell means temporary, then why doesn't it mean temporary for heaven. And in reference to your views on aionios, I will say again, as I have before, that virtually no one, outside of Robert Young, agrees with your view. EVERY other major translation renders it as "eternal".

I can, however, identify the three you have not answered.

I have answered 2 of the 3. You just don't like the answers - "not liking" is not the same as "not answering".


1. Since you say you accept the Bible past Genesis 10 or so,

I NEVER said that about the Bible. You really have a problem with things I did say or did not say. It's either your lack of reading comprehension or you're lying.

I accept the entire Bible but not the way you do. I acknowledge the literal, the historical, the moral and the allegorical sense of the Bible. You are stuck on the literal which deprives you from any deeper understanding of the Good Book.


how do you explain God's order to destroy the Canaanites when you claim it is a contradiction of the teachings of Christ?

It's so strikingly a contradiction of the message of the Bible that I'm surprised you even ask it after the discussion we've been having.

First, do you seriously believe that God ordered the genocide of an entire people? Don't you think it highly more likely to see this story of Israel's entrance into the "Promised Land" as a tribute to their tribal God? A God that they praise for their victory. The true God does not slaughter his own creation.

Second, the Canaanites weren't actually wiped out as the story would have it - further proof of the story being an allegory. DNA extraction indicates that the Israelites were themselves Canaanites, and retain such DNA to the present day.


2. What is your view of the words of Christ? "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." A reply more substantial than, "Are you sure he said that? Read that yourself in context and think about it," would be nice.

My reply was the best one for you. Apparently, you didn't follow my advice. If you had, you would have discovered that nowhere in that passage does Jesus refer to his killing anyone or anything.


3. I asked why, if aionios in reference to hell means temporary, then why doesn't it mean temporary for heaven.

I have answered this at length, as you are well aware. I do not intend to go through it again. You can easily find it yourself.


EVERY other major translation renders it as "eternal".

That is because "every other translation" follows Jerome's Vulgate.

The early Greek speakers never felt the need to explain Greek words such as "aion" and "aionion." In Greek, an aion (in English, usually spelled "eon") is an indefinite period of time, usually of long duration. When it was translated into the Latin Vulgate, "aion" became "aeternam" which means "eternal." These translation errors were the basis for much of what was written about Eternal Hell.

I sincerely hope you don't go around telling people about the killing monster you claim Jesus to be. It begs the question why you find it so necessary to see Jesus in that murderous light.

1. Since you say you accept the Bible past Genesis 10 or so,


I NEVER said that about the Bible
This was your statement. "I clearly did NOT "do away" with "most of the OT". I interpreted a tiny section of the OT (Genesis) as most major denominations do." I took that to mean you accept the Bible outside of the beginning of Genesis, but you want to throw out all of Genesis so that's fine, The destruction of the Canaanites is till outside of Genesis. Do you accept that?


I have answered 2 of the 3.Fraid not.


It's so strikingly a contradiction of the message of the Bible that I'm surprised you even ask it after the discussion we've been having.

First, do you seriously believe that God ordered the genocide of an entire people? Don't you think it highly more likely to see this story of Israel's entrance into the "Promised Land" as a tribute to their tribal God? A God that they praise for their victory. The true God does not slaughter his own creation.

Second, the Canaanites weren't actually wiped out as the story would have it - further proof of the story being an allegory. DNA extraction indicates that the Israelites were themselves Canaanites, and retain such DNA to the present day.Long story made short, the Bible account, for you, is not accurate. So another aspect of the OT that you don't accept.


My reply was the best one for you. Apparently, you didn't follow my advice. If you had, you would have discovered that nowhere in that passage does Jesus refer to his killing anyone or anything.Another non-answer. I never suggested Jesus said He would kill someone in that passage. He said they would die in their sins. I asked you what you thought of that. As usual, you do not answer.


I have answered this at length, as you are well aware. I do not intend to go through it again. You can easily find it yourself.Another non-answer. You have never answered that.


That is because "every other translation" follows Jerome's Vulgate.

The early Greek speakers never felt the need to explain Greek words such as "aion" and "aionion." In Greek, an aion (in English, usually spelled "eon") is an indefinite period of time, usually of long duration. When it was translated into the Latin Vulgate, "aion" became "aeternam" which means "eternal." These translation errors were the basis for much of what was written about Eternal Hell.

I sincerely hope you don't go around telling people about the killing monster you claim Jesus to be. It begs the question why you find it so necessary to see Jesus in that murderous light.Your final paragraph is a flat out lie. I have never said that. If I had, you would have thrown up the quote.

As to the rest, it's a nice theory. But even if I accepted that, you would still render heaven temporary. It's unavoidable. At any rate, perhaps the thousands of highly educated individuals who translated the several dozen translations that disagree with your idea would love to hear from you about that.

This is pointless. It's like nearly every other discussion on this site. No one ever persuades anyone else to change his/her mind. I have asked you three questions and you have declined to answer them. You claim I have avoided answering some mystery question evidently unknown to either one of us. You don't like the God of the OT. I don't think He cares if you approve or not. So that's, it seems to me, where it stands.

As to the rest, it's a nice theory. But even if I accepted that, you would still render heaven temporary. It's unavoidable. At any rate, perhaps the thousands of highly educated individuals who translated the several dozen translations that disagree with your idea would love to hear from you about that.
Here's something to ponder:

I Can’t Wait to Get out of Heaven

When talking about God’s ultimate destination for us, we’ve grown sloppy in our language, nearsighted in our gaze, and un-Easter in our hope. We act and speak as if dying and going to heaven is what the faith is all about. It is most emphatically not.

Sit through many Christian funerals, and you’ll hear the word “heaven” bouncing around from pulpit to pew to piano. Uncle Gary is now “in heaven,” the preacher will proclaim. “Grandma Jones is in her heavenly resting place,” a family member will say. When the music starts, the choir will sing that we are but strangers here; heaven is our home. Heaven, heaven, and more heaven.
* * * * *
From the beginning, God made earth as humanity’s home. Evil has corrupted it, to be sure, so that “the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth” while it awaits the return of Christ, when it will be “set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21-22 (https://www.esv.org/Rom.%208%3A21-22/)). The whole creation is waiting, not for the children of God to go to heaven, but for Christ to return and make creation free of corruption. Then it will be, once more, the dwelling place of God’s sons and daughters.

If the renewed earth is where our Father wants us to be, who does he want us to be? He certainly doesn’t want us to be angels or spirits or disembodied ghosts. He wants us to bear the bodily image of his Son, the resurrected Messiah. But we can’t really do that if we are still in paradise, with Christ, in heaven, while our bodies are decomposing in the grave. So, when Jesus returns, he will raise and glorify our bodies. No matter what’s happened to them—buried, burned, cast into the sea, dismembered, it matters not—he who spoke all creation into being with his word, will speak our bodies back into being by that same word.

Then, the where will match the who: we will be embodied, perfected, glorified people standing on a renewed, perfected, holy earth. There we will go about the task of being fully human, as God intended. The Lord’s story will have come full circle, from creation to recreation: from Genesis, where one man and one woman were living and working and worshiping in Eden, to Revelation, where a resurrected humanity is living and working and worshiping all over God’s green and glorified earth.

from this essay --
https://www.1517.org/articles/i-cant-wait-to-get-out-of-heaven

An interesting post, WG. And you (or the author, at least) used a proof text, which is commendable. But I do believe you left out the most important element, which is the corruption, not just of creation, but of man. Jesus did not die in order to redeem creation. Jesus died to purchase redemption for sinners. Lk. 5:32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” John 3:36. "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

The author of the piece understood that. "What happens when believers in Christ die? They go to a place called Paradise (Luke 23:43 (https://www.esv.org/Luke%2023%3A43/)). They are with Christ (Phil. 1:23 (https://www.esv.org/Phil.%201%3A23/)). Or, if you prefer, they go to heaven."

An interesting post, WG. And you (or the author, at least) used a proof text, which is commendable. But I do believe you left out the most important element, which is the corruption, not just of creation, but of man.
That's why I posted the link, so that you could read the entire blog article and see that Chad did include that. I posted as much as I could to hopefully whet your interest but not hog AMHD space.

And Chad doesn't believe heaven is the final stop. That final stop will be on earth, our paradise with Christ.

"Heaven is great, don’t get me wrong. But the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting, living in the new earth as fully bodied humans, reflecting the glory of the fully bodied Messiah—that’s the goal. That’s the destination. That is our final home.

Home, for the Christian, is not the hotel room of heaven but the new earth of the resurrection."

I agree with that. It's a good point that can be read about in Rev. 21.

I took that to mean you accept the Bible outside of the beginning of Genesis,

You took it wrong - as I clearly explained in the previous reply to you.


but you want to throw out all of Genesis so that's fine, The destruction of the Canaanites is till outside of Genesis. Do you accept that?

*sigh* It never ends with you, does it? READ WHAT I WRITE. I accept the story being outside Genesis. So what?


Long story made short, the Bible account, for you, is not accurate. So another aspect of the OT that you don't accept.

BIG *SIGH* - "Susse Jesu, Bleiben Sie Mir". Read, read, read my previous post.


Another non-answer. I never suggested Jesus said He would kill someone in that passage. He said they would die in their sins. I asked you what you thought of that. As usual, you do not answer.

You implied it. It was referring to the topic of Jesus/God killing people sometime in wholesale lots. I told you what I thought of it. I can't be blamed if you can't read plain language.


Your final paragraph is a flat out lie. I have never said that. If I had, you would have thrown up the quote.

Your understanding is worse than even I thought. Let me explain - the meaning of words (yours, specifically) is easily construed by the message delivered (in this case, that Jesus/God are killers) and then recast to show the deeper meaning. Do you deny that Jesus/God is responsible for killing the Canaanites, Noah's neighbors, etc., etc.?

As for throwing up a quote, that's another serious problem you have. Unless it's in the Bible, you don't believe it. You're not in the Bible. Do you believe in your own existence? Rhetorical, no reply necessary.


As to the rest, it's a nice theory. But even if I accepted that, you would still render heaven temporary.

Not so. The problem here is you simply don't understand the use of language.


At any rate, perhaps the thousands of highly educated individuals who translated the several dozen translations that disagree with your idea would love to hear from you about that.

Another (!) miss on your part. Your "dozens" translated from the same translation - Jerome's Vulgate. How difficult is that to understand?


This is pointless. It's like nearly every other discussion on this site. No one ever persuades anyone else to change his/her mind. I have asked you three questions and you have declined to answer them

Here is why discussion with you is pointless. You simply refuse to accept any answer that doesn't appeal to you. You call it a "non-answer". You make conversation/discussion impossible.


You don't like the God of the OT. I don't think He cares if you approve or not.

Now you speak for God. Of course, that's what you've been doing all along. You just don't realize it.

You implied it.Nope. First you said I "claimed" it was true. "I sincerely hope you don't go around telling people about the killing monster you claim Jesus to be. It begs the question why you find it so necessary to see Jesus in that murderous light." When I called you on that one, then you want to retreat and claim I "implied" it. I suppose you will next claim you had a dream where I wrote it. Is there no end to it? Have you no shame?


It was referring to the topic of Jesus/God killing people sometime in wholesale lots. I told you what I thought of it.Another nope. You never did.


Your understanding is worse than even I thought. Let me explain - the meaning of words (yours, specifically) is easily construed by the message delivered (in this case, that Jesus/God are killers)Learn to read.


As for throwing up a quote, that's another serious problem you have. Unless it's in the Bible, you don't believe it.I've never said that.


You're not in the Bible. Do you believe in your own existence? Rhetorical, no reply necessary.And since I never said it, then this is simply ridiculous.


Not so. The problem here is you simply don't understand the use of language.So you still fear answering. I'll ask once again. If aionios means, as you have said, something less than eternal when it describes hell, then it would also mean less than eternal when applied to heaven. Correct?


Now you speak for God. Of course, that's what you've been doing all along. You just don't realize it.Complete absurdity.

Rather frequently it is much better to simply admit you don't have answers. At least you would retain some honor in that.

That is because "every other translation" follows Jerome's Vulgate.


Not since Erasmus. In fact I only know of one non-Catholic translation that followed the Vulgate, except I can never remember whether it was Tyndale or Wyclif.

Following the publication of Erasmus' Greek New Testament in 1516, future translations, at least Protestant ones, used a Greek text and rejected the Vulgate.

-Regards,
Sir Nitpick

-Regards,
Sir NitpickNice touch of humor. It made me laugh out loud.

Thanks. Sir Reginald Cornelius Cadwaller Nitpick IV is my alter ego.

Why didn't he already know? Why didn't his father call him from the field


Notice three things concerning this son. Number one; The discovery he hated to make:
Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near  the house (look at what he heard) he heard celebration, it was celebration time- okay come on...and as he comes in from the field he hears the music and dancing. He would know that something special was going on -and on hearing the celebration he initiates an investigation. Verse 26: he calls one of the servants and he asks him specifically, what was going on? It's interesting that he doesn't go into his house...I mean why doesn't he just go in and find out? After all you're the son, maybe he was dirty and he didn't want to go in. We're not told but it surely is of significance that he decides that he isn't going in. Maybe he didn't like parties, maybe he had an inkling of what was taking place and he didn't like it and didn't want to discover it first hand. Nevertheless he conducts an investigation by asking the Servant.

At least one scholar calls it the Parable of the Older Brother because he thinks that's the main focus of the story.
It certainly looks that way, regarding the Pharisees. 
Luke 15 is three stories of lostness. a lost coin, a lost sheep and actually two sons who were lost, and the Context (is set in verse 1-2 of the chapter. in between listening sinners and muttering Pharisees) of which Jesus tells these stories is clearly this, at the end of Chapter 14 Jesus has just said he who has ears to hear let him hear. 'and then we're immediately told who has ears to hear because it was the tax collectors and the sinners who were all gathering around to hear him. So Jesus says okay if you want to listen, listen and  here they are listening. The people we might least  expect to listen, were listening. The sinners, the irreligious, the unchurched, the outsiders, the bad guys. And the people we might most expect to listen, the religious leaders, the folks who were in their regular  activities faithful in their duties observable in their ceremonies, they weren't listening. In fact we are told they were muttering and they weren't just muttering anything they were saying under their breath to one another this man welcomes sinners and eats with them. Jesus was forcing them to acknowledge that there was great Joy over the discovery of the lost coin- there was great joy over the lost sheep, therefore there would be the same kind of Joy over the rediscovery of the lost Son. However the Pharisees were grudging in their appreciation. and the grudging nature of their reaction is represented in these final six or so verses. Where we see the response of the older Son.


And WG, as for your friend's question about deathbed conversions, I think ClassyT could answer that one as well as I can: Grace.

Don't get me started. 

Hope you guys are enjoying yourselves

Pardon, I haven't read all the posts.


I don't personally believe the younger son actually thought he was no longer "worthy". The younger son was just starving
Let me ask a question; When did the boy get the robe and the ring and the sandals and the whole gear? In the pigsty?  No. -In a pigsty he came to his senses, on the road he said I have sinned and in the house he received his wardrobe. Beware of a Gospel which offers robes in a pigsty.



It's not as if knowing about the party that mattered, the party should be expected in any case
He completely missed or ignored all that he might have enjoyed of his Fathers provision.
Look at the lovely way his Father speaks; my Son, you are always with me and everything I have is yours. But we 'had to celebrate' because this 'Brother of yours' (Not this Son of mine) but this brother of yours. (He's not going to let him get away with this talk), Referring to his brother as "his Fathers Son". This brother of yours was dead and is alive again, and he was lost and he was found. You see that the proud and the self righteous always feel that they're not treated as well as they deserve. When you or I are proud and full of ourselves we think that it ought to be better than it really is. The Son looked at the events as they transpired and he saw them in terms of rewards and he missed the point of love and of grace. In his warped thinking this was the way his mind worked. My brother splits with his portion of the inheritance. He fails to mention the fact that 2/3's comes to him and he's got rights to it right now, he's got run of the whole show but he doesn't mention that. His Brother split with a 3rd of the inheritance, he completely bums out in a far country, he dissipates his life he squanders his resources he ends up in a pigsty and then he comes back and what happens to him, the Father "rewards him. and so he says this is ridiculous if you want to talk rewards I should  be getting the rewards! I slaved in your house. I obeyed you all the time- he disobeyed you, he left and you reward him!!! That's not right...and that's not right. But it wasn't a reward. It was a must. It wasn't a reward for coming home. God doesn't reward us for becoming Christians. Do me a favor says God, and trust Jesus and I'll give you a lot of things because I'm really pleased. No, no he said; you need my Son, believe my Son and when you trust my Son lets party.  let's celebrate. this wasn't a reward. Notice verse 32 we 'had to celebrate' and be glad. We didn't have any option. This wasn't press button B this is the overflow of our lives. Your brother was dead now he is alive he was lost and was found. The Necessity of the celebration is revealed in the fact that God and heaven are concerned with it, when somebody is saved God and heaven rejoice together. 

This is one of my fav Parables.

I've been writing all day about this.
Just one more

(Shut it Athos ;-))

Older Son: This character reminds us that religious behavior, if unaccompanied by a renewed heart and mind, is utterly bankrupt.

The Older Brother didn't have any sympathy within himself. He fails to express it. 

Who's the most Lost in this Story?
There is no 'Most lost' in this story. There are no degrees of Lost, there's just Lost...it is all lost. And the Pharisees (like us) 13:44 didn't want to hear that. We want to live with the notion that there are degrees of lost.  And we have a message for the really lost ones, unlike us. When we can't express sympathy for those who have been found, we reveal the predicament of our own hearts. and in his response to the Father he makes it obvious that although he views himself as the Model Son, I've been slaving for you, I never disobeyed your orders I've always done everything right...He never understood what it was to be a Son. He never understood the heart of his father because he lived as a Son like a slave. Notice what he says, all these years I've been slaving for you and I've never disobeyed your orders.  just like the individualist;  I have always gone to church I have always kept the ten commandments. I am a good person, and yet you make a fuss about all these people getting saved...why don't you make a fuss about me! The spirit of the Pharisees creeps out in the heart of this man.  They adhered to the rules but they were inwardly estranged from God. So the Son boasts about himself; I slaved for you, I never disobeyed your orders, and then he blames his dad; you never gave me even a young goat. He's ticked about the fattened calf, maybe he had a plan for a party he was going to have with the calf, and now it's gone,, kaput. People are eating it in a party that he refuses not to attend. so he lays a guilt trip on his Father as if he could. He got a fattened calf and I never even got a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.  Incidentally in the first part of the story the prodigal's friends were no help to him at all. Guess what, this guys' friends were no help to him at all either. Birds of a feather flock together. All the religious Joes and the Holy Willy's and the erudite Pharisees hang tough with one another planning their own parties and can't celebrate when a genuine work of grace takes place. Notice how he expresses his relationship with his brother, no relationship at all. "but when this Son of Yours."  He didn't say when my Brother came back. when this Son of yours who squandered your property, and then he begins to dress up the story, with prostitutes, where did he get that from? Who ever said that? Pharisees often complain loudest of the sins that they themselves would most like to commit 18:12The Older Son in the backyard of the father, had a heart that longed after that which his brother experienced, he had a nasty mind who was full of himself. He blamed everyone else. His years of obedience were grim duty and his long standing secret alienation from his father becomes perfectly obvious. 

7 Pages WOW! I missed em all...thank God.
Im Sure 6 of the 7 are Athos's and jlisenbe going at it...fun fun

Finally read the Posts on this thread.
Like Athos, not enjoying much of my Babble- I Don't think I enjoy the two of you always going at it anymore. It is a never ending thing with the two of you.

Dad told me to tell the both of you to knock it off!



There we will go about the task of being fully human, as God intended. The Lord’s story will have come full circle, from creation to recreation: from Genesis, where one man and one woman were living and working and worshiping in Eden, to Revelation, where a resurrected humanity is living and working and worshiping all over God’s green and glorified earth.

I understand it as God Creating something New. An entirely New Creation. Something we have no comprehension.
Jesus might be the Only thing left of Humanity. We will be in the house of the Lord giving Praise to God, Always.
I know, to most that might sounds Boring, But I felt it once and it is anything but. I don't think there will be any
work to do? we are in the Rest period. :-)

It is interesting to me that, of the two sons, only the rebel ended up in the good graces of his father. It reminds me of the parable where two sons were told to go work in the fields. One initially refused, but then thought better of it and went. The other initially agreed, but then never went. Jesus said prostitutes and tax collectors were entering the Kingdom, but the pharisees and sadducees, despite their confidence to the contrary, were not.

Verse 26: he calls one of the servants and he asks him specifically, what was going on? It's interesting that he doesn't go into his house...I mean why doesn't he just go in and find out? After all you're the son, maybe he was dirty and he didn't want to go in. We're not told but it surely is of significance that he decides that he isn't going in.

Based on the context, I assume he's still a ways away from the house.

Based on the context, I assume he's still a ways away from the house. When he came near  the house (look at what he heard) he heard celebration, it was celebration time- okay come on...and as he comes in from the field he hears the music and dancing. He would know that something special was going on -and on hearing the celebration he initiates an investigation...he wouldn't go into the party! 

The older brother was a Pharisee. The Pharisees knew Jesus was talking about them...the older brother was a good son...same as the Pharisees.

The older brother was a Pharisee. Or anyone else trusting in his own goodness with no real heart for the father.


the older brother was a good sonHe was a "good son" in appearance only.

The older brother was a good son. He was there, he did what he was told...he was a good son. The older brother failed to see that sin is not simply acts of wickedness and disobedience but sin is a heart of rebellion against the Father. The Prodigal Son came home, willing to become a slave in his Fathers house while his older brother was living as a slave in his fathers house. They both were in need of grace.

"...he was a good son...sin is a heart of rebellion against the Father."

Those two statements concerning the older son cannot both be true. The older son cared nothing for his father's will. He seemed to be working largely for his own benefit.

I think this parable (more of an allegory?) is very similar to the one Jesus told where the father told his two sons to go work in the field. One refused, but later rethought it and did his father's will. The other agreed, but he never went. The second one here would be the older son.

We could go through this. You could put two columns down, and we could write in them. On the prodigal’s side, he is a son by grace; on the older brother’s side, he is a son by law. On the prodigal’s side, he’s done nothing to merit God’s kindness; on the older brother’s side, he’s done everything to earn it. On the prodigal’s side, this is salvation by the sheer mercy of God; on the older brother’s side, this is an attempt at salvation by obedience and the keeping of the commandments.

This isn’t to say that son number two wasn’t at least outwardly a good, steady, faithful son. Jesus is not here saying that the Pharisees were all rotten. Oh, sure, they had hypocrisy that was part of their existence, but they weren’t the sort of archetypal hypocrite on two legs. These people had given their lives to religion. These people were concerned to know God. These people stayed up late in the night reading the Torah, searching it out, telling others how they can also live by these obligations. So it’s not that this older brother represents some kind of pathetic creature. No, we should think of him exactly as he’s described: as a good, steady, faithful son

God desires a restored relationship with everyone—not because of what we’ve done, but on the basis of His great kindness in Christ.

The older brother's heart was as corrupt as the younger brother's had been, but he was able to conceal it until the end.

I think the pharisees were indeed all rotten. They had no real interest in God. If they had, they would have accepted God when He showed up as Jesus.

It's all good, Walter. I do appreciate your earnestness for God. It's my prayer that we will both advance in our love for Christ.

he was able to conceal it until the end. Not so much conceal. He misunderstood.
The older brother's heart was as corrupt as the younger brother's had been, but he was able to conceal it until the end. He had a heart of rebellion against his father—expressed differently from the rebellious heart of his younger brother, but nevertheless he was in the same predicament. And he was in need of the same mercy. And what he deserved, he should not be asking for. And what God was willing to give, there was no basis for him to receive.


I think the Pharisees were indeed all rotten. They had no real interest in God. If they had, they would have accepted God when He showed up as Jesus. When the Bible says that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God,” that does not eradicate the degrees of difference that exist amongst men and women. Right? Not all of us have committed murder. We have all sinned. Not all of us have violated every command in the way another has. Not all of us have lived consumed with pride, or consumed with something, in the way that someone else may have done. So that there is a distinction—not a distinction in terms of whether a man is a sinner or not a sinner, but all are sinners, but the sense of sin and the expression of sin works itself out in different ways and in different people’s lives.

So there is vast difference between these two brothers. But it is a relative difference. Right? One of them definitely lived better. You can’t argue that. He lived better! He stayed home, he shined his shoes, he went to work, he did his business. He was present when he said he would be present. His life, from one perspective, was a better and a more constructive life than his brother’s, who made a hash of it. But the difference is relative, because they were both equally sinners, both equally in need of mercy. And it was this fact that the elder brother couldn’t understand—because he represents the Pharisees

It’s grace. It’s grace. And the danger of certain chunks of American evangelical fundamentalism is that it has actually never understood grace. And in the absence of grace, it has lived with lists, and it has lived with obligations, and it has lived with shibboleths, and it has lived with accretions, and it has lived with rules, and it says to people, “If you will do this, and if you will meet that, and if you will come there, and if you will fulfill this, then there’s a chance, you know.” Which is nothing at all about the way that the father grabs the boy up the street, is it? It’s all grace. He deserves a hiding; he gets a hug. He deserves to stay down in that mess; he’s given a new bedroom. He deserves to walk the streets in his sorry outfit and with the stinky smell of the pigs on him, and he’s given a bath, and he’s given all of the radiance of his father’s welcome. It’s a wonderful story. And you would think that anybody would want to go to this party, especially his brother. But he refused to go in.
I think the Pharisees were indeed all rotten. They had no real interest in God. If they had, they would have accepted God when He showed up as Jesus. Well, why was that? Well, because the very necessity of it all he couldn’t understand or he refused to accept. He resented the irresponsibility and rebellion of his younger brother. After all, he was the picture of loyalty, and responsibility, and faithfulness, and obedience. The elder brother saw himself as spiritually sound, if you like, and healthy. Therefore, he couldn’t grasp the reason for which the father so joyfully welcomes the prodigal home, because he couldn’t see that he was as much in need of grace as this useless brother of his.

It’s a wonderful story. And you would think that anybody would want to go to this party, especially his brother. But he refused to go in. Well, why was that? Well, because the very necessity of it all he couldn’t understand or he refused to accept. He resented the irresponsibility and rebellion of his younger brother. After all, he was the picture of loyalty, and responsibility, and faithfulness, and obedience. The elder brother saw himself as spiritually sound, if you like, and healthy. Therefore, he couldn’t grasp the reason for which the father so joyfully welcomes the prodigal home, because he couldn’t see that he was as much in need of grace as this useless brother of his.
Years ago, a good friend asked me, "I've been a Christian all my life, have attended church regularly, have put my tithe into the offering plate, have made many a casserole for church suppers and picnics, and have raised two childen who pray, praise, and give thanks to the Lord. So I'm supposed to be happy and even excited when I hear about a person who never made a kind or generous effort in his life has, on his death bed, accepted Jesus as his Savior?"

So I'm supposed to be happy and even excited when I hear about a person who...accepted Jesus as his Savior?"God said; you need my Son, believe my Son and when you trust my Son lets party. Let's celebrate. Notice verse 32- we 'had to celebrate' and be glad. We didn't have any option. This wasn't press button B this is the overflow of our lives. Your brother was dead now he is alive he was lost and was found. The Necessity of the celebration is revealed in the fact that God and heaven are concerned with it, when somebody is saved God and heaven rejoice together.

The Necessity of the celebration is revealed in the fact that God and heaven are concerned with it, when somebody is saved God and heaven rejoice together.
As my friend would then ask, "And that celebration of the son who disappeared and finally returned negates my lifelong devotion that has no disruption?"

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

In what way would her lifelong devotion be "negated"?

In what way would her lifelong devotion be "negated"?
I asked her that. "Because I have been faithful all my life. Why should he, who confessed Jesus as Lord the last hour of his life, get the same reward that I will? It's not fair!"

Who said he would get the same reward?

Who said he would get the same reward?
Heaven is the reward.

14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

I asked her that. "Because I have been faithful all my life. Why should he, who confessed Jesus as Lord the last hour of his life, get the same reward that I will? It's not fair!"
Your friend is looking at them in terms of rewards and he missed the point of love and of grace.
You want to live like a slave or do you want to become a slave for Christ Jesus?

Your friend is looking at them in terms of rewards and he missed the point of love and of grace.
He was a she.

So how would you have responded to her?

Your friend is looking at it in terms of rewards and she missed the point of love and of grace...she might miss out.
Better?

Your "friend" says it's not fair...and it's not fair. It's grace.
Sounds as if your friend is standing in the same shoes as the Prodigal's older brother?


"I've been a Christian all my life, have attended church regularly, have put my tithe into the offering plate, have made many a casserole for church suppers and picnics, and have raised two childen who pray, praise, and give thanks to the Lord. What is she expecting?

Notice what she says, all these years I've been slaving for you and I've never disobeyed your orders. just like the individualist; I have always gone to church I have always kept the ten commandments. I am a good person, and yet you make a fuss about all these people getting saved...why don't you make a fuss about me! The spirit of the Pharisees creeps out in the heart of this woman. They adhered to the rules but they were inwardly estranged from God.

Your friend is looking at them in terms of rewards and she missed the point of love and of grace.
Better?
And she would have responded to you by saying heaven is our reward for faithfulness. Otherwise, she would have had all sorts of wicked fun during her life and then, on her deadbed, confessed Christ as Savior.

Heaven is not a reward for OUR faithfulness. Heaven is a reward for those saved by grace through faith. The faithfulness we count on is the faithfulness of Jesus to fulfill His word, and thank God eternally for that.

I don't know that your friend ever really knew Jesus. If she did, she would have been overjoyed to have Him as her reward even now, and thrilled to have a sinner saved.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds.

Notice what she says, all these years I've been slaving for you and I've never disobeyed your orders. just like the individualist; I have always gone to church I have always kept the ten commandments. I am a good person, and yet you make a fuss about all these people getting saved...why don't you make a fuss about me! The spirit of the Pharisees creeps out in the heart of this woman. They adhered to the rules but they were inwardly estranged from God.

It’s grace. It’s grace. And the danger is she never understood grace. And in the absence of grace, she has lived with lists, and...

All the religious Joes and the Holy Willy's and the erudite Pharisees hang tough with one another planning their own parties and can't celebrate when a genuine work of grace takes place.

Heaven is not a reward for OUR faithfulness. Heaven is a reward for those saved by grace through faith. The faithfulness we count on is the faithfulness of Jesus to fulfill His word, and thank God eternally for that.
Praise God! What else can be said.

I don't know that your friend ever really knew Jesus. If she did, she would have been overjoyed to have Him as her reward even now, and thrilled to have a sinner saved.
Knowing Jesus is a learning process. That's why we go to church, read and study the Bible, pray without ceasing. I know she did all of those things. I pray she came to an understanding before she died.

Thank you, waltero, for Post #157. It's your most comprehensive and clearest post to date! And I love the last paragraph.

Knowing Jesus is a learning process.
Usually having to learn the Hard way. A person will never really "know" Jesus until they come to the end of self.

Knowing Jesus is a learning process.That's a very true statement. We must come to learn that HE is the reward, and we can know Him now and have great joy and peace even now. The faithfulness, greatness, glory, and life-changing power of Christ seems to me to be the message the church needs to preach endlessly.

Somebody once said: "I have covenanted with my Lord that He should not send visions or dreams or even angels! I am content with this gift of the Scriptures, which teaches and supplies all that is necessary, both for this life and that which is to come."
God may not send you a friend; he may not raise up a deliverer; but if he shall only give you to believe his Word, that shall be enough for you.

Earlier Post.
I believe we are witnesses, and we witness to the truth of Scripture. truth revealed in Scripture alone. God’s Word is sufficient and has the highest authority for all of life. Not the Bible and our own little fundamentalist predilections that we like to stick in there. Not the Bible and our own little legalistic tags. Not the Bible and anything at all. Just the Bible. The Bible tells us what the Bible means...not an infusion of God’s enabling power so that we may then work our own way towards a final redemptive conclusion, but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; a forensic thing, so that it is all outside of me. All of my salvation is outside of me in the ultimate sense (grace).
No comprende?

God's word is fixed in the Heavens, and his faithfulness extends generation after generation. The promises of God are without recall. I am afeared for those who do not believe the Bible is the spoken Word of God. Afeared that you are missing the whole enchilada!

Somebody once said: "I have covenanted with my Lord that He should not send visions or dreams or even angels! I am content with this gift of the Scriptures, which teaches and supplies all that is necessary, both for this life and that which is to come."
God may not send you a friend; he may not raise up a deliverer; but if he shall only give you to believe his Word, that shall be enough for you.I'll take those dreams, visions, and angels, but I do like your point. The last sentence is especially good. His word is wonderful, powerful, and points us always to Jesus.

I'll take those dreams, visions, and angels
That's what Joseph Smith said. DOH!

That's what Joseph Smith said. DOH!
My claim to fame: I grew up near Palmyra, NY, the birthplace of the LDS movement, where Joseph had those dreams, visions, and saw those angels. I have walked through the sacred grove and climbed the hill Cumorah (but I didn't dig up any golden plates).


All of my salvation is outside of me in the ultimate sense (grace).
There is nothing we can do to earn salvation. It is God's gift to us. Our response is to love Him and each other.

Could the older brother earn the father's love by his faithfulness to duty? -- or was he confident he had, thus his disappointment and even anger.

Our response is to love Him and each other.
The Love that comes from "outside of me". True, in-deed (pun intended).
Ain't got nutting to do with "My Love"...my love, oh my love, does it better (Not)

I don’t think JS saw visions or had dreams. He claimed to have seen an angel. Highly suspicious story.

It is true we cannot earn salvation, but it does require us to repent and believe.

Not sure, I think he seen a vision of an Angel in a dream he had. Why subject yourself to dreams and visions? Sure they are nice, but a person can get into all kinds of Trouble putting their faith in such beliefs.

I don’t think JS saw visions or had dreams. He claimed to have seen an angel. Highly suspicious story.
"In early Church records, there are references to several dreams attributed to Joseph Smith Jr.1 (https://read.deseretbook.com/media/150753/read/Text/9780875790411-8.xhtml#footnote-106) They were recorded by Joseph himself, his clerks, or others who interacted with him. For the most part, Joseph’s dreams include no explanation, by either him or the recorder, concerning their purpose or interpretation. Yet, we know that Joseph viewed dreams as a legitimate channel of revelation, as evidenced in the fact that he recorded his dreams and used them in his public sermons."
https://www.ldsliving.com/Joseph-Smith-s-Last-Dreams-Other-Prophetic-Dreams-from-His-Life/s/91424

"The Prophet Joseph Smith had his first vision at the age of fourteen while praying in a grove of trees in western New York (see First Vision (https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/First_Vision)). The appearance of the Lord to him, like that to Saul of Tarsus, was attended by a shining light from heaven (Acts 9:3 (http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/9.3?lang=eng#2)). The Lord spoke face-to-face with Joseph and called him to service. This was the first of a series of visions Joseph Smith received...."@
https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Visions_of_Joseph_Smith

It is true we cannot earn salvation, but it does require us to repent and believe.
We can't even believe on our own. We can only say no.

Read the prophecy of Joel in Acts 2. They are promised.

Not sure, I think he seen a vision of an Angel in a dream he had.
The Angel Moroni showed him where to find the golden plates that were buried on the hill Cumorah!

"Smith said that on the night of September 21, 1823, Moroni appeared to him and told him about the golden plates that were buried in a stone box a few miles from Smith's home. Smith said that the same angel visited him various times over the course of the next six years; Smith also said that the angel visited him to retrieve the golden plates after Smith had finished translating a portion of the writing on the plates into the Book of Mormon." (Wikipedia)

The Book of Mormon is based on the golden plates and not on dreams and visions. It has proven to be historically unreliable in the extreme.


WG you must repent and believe. It’s throughout the Bible.

The Book of Mormon is based on the golden plates and not on dreams and visions. It has proven to be historically unreliable in the extreme.
Ah, you're an LDS historian!

WG you must repent and believe. It’s throughout the Bible.
The Apostles Creed, Luther's explanation of the Third Article (why does the Holy Spirit exist):
"I believe thatI believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers. On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ. I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers. On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ."

WG you must repent and believe.Are you able to believe your Sins have been forgiven?

I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him

Are you able to believe your Sins have been forgiven?
If I've confessed my sins and am told they have been forgiven, yes.

told they have been forgiven
Not sure I understand what you mean by this?

Confess my sins (at the Cross), I will know for certain they have been forgiven,

Not sure I understand what you mean by this?

Confess my sins (at the Cross), I will know for certain they have been forgiven,
What Cross? One in your bedroom? Who says you're forgiven?

Luke 23:12; Romans 8:7, "The mind of the flesh is enmity against God." James 4:4 , "The friendship of the world is enmity with God" (because "the world" is preferred to God); in Ephesians 2:15,16 , Christ is said to have "abolished in his flesh the enmity," by His cross to have "slain the enmity," that is, the opposition between Jew and Gentile, creating in Himself "one new man, (so) making peace."
You are clearly of this world, enjoy while it last.

You are clearly of this world, enjoy while it last.
Sooooo, anyone who challenges you and tries to make you think clearly is "of this world". You really disappoint me, waltero. We were doing so well!

Ah, you're an LDS historian!I have studied the Mormons. Been a few years, but I've read considerably on them.

You quote Luther. I quote the Bible.

Mark 1:15 ESV And saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Acts 2:38 ESV And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 2:8 ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Romans 10:9 ESV Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Mark 16:16 ESV Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Matthew 4:17 ESV From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Ah, so many proof passages! As you so deftly proved my case:

Ephesians 2:8 ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.

Acts 2:38 ESV And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I.e. faith

Yeah, I learned how to cherry pick too years ago when I was a fundamentalist, a literalist. Then I grew up, thanks be to God!

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I.e. faith.Which came first?

Perhaps your problem is you have never repented other than some game that was played at your infant baptism. Possible?

Which came first?
The gift of the Holy Spirit is faith. It's a gift of God, not from our own efforts. If you'd read the Bible, especially the NT, as a whole, you'd find that out.

Perhaps your problem is you have never repented other than some game that was played at your infant baptism. Possible?
I won't even dignify that with a (Christian) retort. Btw, I'll probably get to heaven before you will. Look me up and I'll introduce you around.

Sooooo, anyone who challenges you and tries to make you think clearly is "of this world"
When Somebody doesn't believe the Bible is true, somebody who want's Hand in this world- defiantly of the World, clear as Night is to Day. Your in Danger WG, DANGER!!! Seek the Kingdom of God "first". Don't let this world steal your heart.
Love your HBTQ friends; maybe you shouldn't run with them? Why do you think they're looking for a voice?

Where're all in trouble if we don't get off this site and get to work.

When Somebody doesn't believe the Bible is true, somebody who want's Hand in this world- defiantly of the World, clear as Night is to Day. Your in Danger WG, DANGER!!! Seek the Kingdom of God "first". Don't let this world steal your heart.
Be very careful, waltero. Matthew 7:1 (NIV) -- "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

Nothing in this world interests me. I'm old and nearly dead and look forward to heaven.

If you'd read the Bible, especially the NT, as a whole, you'd find that out.Just another of those unsupported, desperate responses. I've read the NT many dozens of times. There is very little support for the idea that faith comes from the Holy Spirit of God. I would not object to that idea, by the way. I just don't think it's NT.


I won't even dignify that with a (Christian) retort.That was your own testimony months ago. Is it not correct that your church allowed some adults to stand in for your repentance when you were infant baptized?

I just don't think it's NT.
I'm sorry to hear that.

That was your own testimony months ago. Is it not correct that your church allowed some adults to stand in for your repentance when you were infant baptized?
And then there was confirmation and regular church/Sunday School/Bible class attendance and regular partaking of Holy Communion and getting married in church by a pastor father. Marks of faith.

Be very careful, waltero. Matthew 7:1 (NIV) -- "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Do you not understand? Your a voice for the LGBTQ (World). Your promoting Sin! (No, I'm loving the sinner) yes, that is true, it's all you! The love we have for Jesus, we do not share that love with others. The love we share with others is a new love, drawn from Christ Jesus, himself. Maybe you could try and understand?

Do you not understand? Your a voice for the LGBTQ (World). Your promoting Sin!
Sin is judging before you know whereof you speak.

LGBT+ people had no say in how they were created and how they emerged from their mother's womb -- just like those lefthanders or babies with two different color eyes or conjoined twins.

LGBT+ people had no say in how they were created and how they emerged from their mother's womb -- just like those lefthanders or babies with two different color eyes or conjoined twins.
Are they any worse of than the rest of us? You going to understand them as being in a different light? Maybe the World can accept them. Who knows, if the "World" can come to an understanding- God might as well?


Sin is judging before you know whereof you speak
It might just be, I know whereof I speak? I have trouble figuring out why your speaking...speaking in support of a world view. Your off focus. Might I suggest fasting and prayer? I'll fast and pray along side you. I can never fast for myself, easier for me to fast with others.

Are they any worse of than the rest of us? God might as well?
They are just like you and me. God loves all of us.

It might just be, I know whereof I speak? I have trouble figuring out why your speaking...speaking in support of a world view. Your off focus.
You're (you are), not your (possessive pronoun).

It's not a world view. The focus is love and acceptance of people who had no choice in how they developed as fetuses.

It's not a world view. The focus is love and acceptance of people who had no choice in how they developed as fetuses. I understand they need love too. But it is not your love that they are in need of.

Of what Value is that?
Christian value.

people who had no choice in how they developed as fetuses.In your natural state, you seek the love of the World.
The focus is love and acceptance In the so called real world?
Christian value. I don't see it...I see world values.

We could accept them for who they are and for who they are not. You are accepting them into your life, by agreeing with them, approving of them, waiving your own rights, or downplaying their impact upon you.

In your natural state, you seek the love of the World. In the so called real world? I don't see it...I see world values.
Then open your eyes.

Then open your eyes.
Might be better to open ones ears first.

We could accept them for who they are and for who they are not. You are accepting them into your life, by agreeing with them, approving of them, waiving your own rights, while downplaying their impact upon you.

Might be better to open ones ears first.

We could accept them for who they are and for who they are not. You are accepting them into your life, by agreeing with them, approving of them, waiving your own rights, while downplaying their impact upon you.
I'd still "approve of you" if you were lefthanded or had one blue eye and one brown eye. They were never asked if they wanted to be born gay or transgender. What specifically don't you like about them?

What specifically don't you like about them?
I love them. Just as I love my brother, and my niece, who is now my nephew. They are chasing this world, and for you to chase after them? Born again; a new life, is not of this world, and those of us who have been "born again", should not chase after the things of this world.
I'd still "approve of you"Funny, you approve of everything but the Bible.

Read a science journal and BELIEVE! Science is rewritten every so, so. Read the Bible - this must be askew!
Just STOP!

I love them. Just as I love my brother, and my niece who is now my nephew. They are chasing this world, and for you to chase after them? Born again, is not of this world and should not chase after the things of this world.
And they have thrown out their Bibles for a wild life of excesses???

Funny, you approve of everything but the Bible.
Oh, I appove of the REAL Bible -- just not your version of it.

The focus is love and acceptance of people who had no choice in how they developed as fetuses. We could accept them for who they are and for who they are not. You are accepting them into your life, by agreeing with them, approving of them, waiving your own rights, while downplaying their impact upon you.
They are just like you and me. God loves all of us. If you don't know the difference?
Oh, I appove of the REAL Bible Oh, no you don't. You have stated many times that the Bible has been corrupted and the manuscripts can't be trusted.
just not your version of it.
There's only one Bible.

Ah, no you don't. You have stated many times that the Bible has been corrupted and the manuscripts can't be trusted.
I never said that with the meaning that the Bible can't be trusted. That's the conclusion YOU made, not what I said. Now, tell me what I REALLY said.

There's only one Bible.
"Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" 2 Peter 1:21 -- and they wrote the Bible in English.

The focus is love and acceptance of people who had no choice. We could accept them for who they are and for who they are not. You are accepting them into your life, by agreeing with them, approving of them, waiving your own rights, while downplaying their impact upon you.
They are just like you and me. God loves all of us. If you don't know the difference?
Oh, I appove of the REAL Bible Oh, no you don't! You have stated many times that the Bible has been corrupted and the manuscripts can't be trusted.
just not your version of it.
There's only one Bible.
I never said that with the meaning that the Bible can't be trusted. Now, tell me what I REALLY said. You are asking me to search through many of your posts. I would if I thought it would do any good. I know what you said, and so does everybody on this site.

Found one:
Faith means believing God’s Word.
No, it doesn't. Try again. I could follow up, with many, many more such posts, but I think this says it all.

You are accepting them into your life, by agreeing with them....
Agreeing with them??? Agreeing about what??? Mother Nature messed up during the pregnancies. It could have happened to you just as easily. After the Fall, no longer is humankind only binary.

Faith means believing God’s Word.
C'mon! My faith is in Jesus Christ, my Savior, not in a book.

I can only laugh. Sure WG, You are Correct in allowing yourself to love others as they would love you. Run with that until your dying day and see where it gets you.
not in a book.
You have no Christ, without the Bible.

I can only laugh. Sure WG, You are Correct in allowing yourself to love others as they would love you.
I love others even if they DON'T love me. Remember the Latin words for love: eros (erotic or self love), philos (brotherly love), and agape (selfless love). Jesus urged us to practice agape.

You have no Christ, without the Bible.
Therefore, you're saying I have to believe in (have faith in) that book, even every mistranslation? I have to be a literalist in order to be saved?

I love others even if they DON'T love me. I know you do. You are a loving caring person, I can see that (with my ears).
My faith is in Jesus Christ, my Savior, not in a book.

No such Christ, without the Bible.
When the Pharisees told Jesus to silence His followers for proclaiming Him the King of glory, Jesus said, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out”

Do you understand why the stones cried out?

How are you going to trust God's word, without the Word?

Do you understand why the stones cried out?
They cried out because the Pharisees would try to silence Jesus' followers. (That's a personification of stones, btw, a poetic way of telling the Pharisees to shut up.)

It is not acceptable to believe only the parts of the Bible that agree with you.

It is not acceptable to believe only the parts of the Bible that agree with you.
That's not what I'm doing. You're not paying attention, to me OR to Athos.

When the Pharisees told Jesus to silence His followers for proclaiming Him the King of glory, Jesus said, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out” It has to do with God's Word, prophesied in Isaiah 62:11. Had to be fulfilled,- being the Word of God, that it is. The impossible will happen rather than the Messianic kingdom fail of recognition.

I believe the Stones did cry out! WORD.


That's not what I'm doing. You're not paying attention, to me OR to Athos
I member in the past, you mentioning that you didn't believe the book of Revelations should have been included?
You had your doubts about other books as well, heck you have your doubts about the entire book...YABBA-DABBA-DING, DONG!

I believe the Stones did cry out! WORD.
And the hills clapped their hands....

They cried out because the Pharisees would try to silence Jesus' followers. (That's a personification of stones, btw, a poetic way of telling the Pharisees to shut up.)
Now why would Jesus have to tell them to shut it? He had no need, if they had silenced the crowd, rest assured the stones would cry out. Oh, ye of little faith. Logic is gonna getcha!


You are accepting them into your life, by agreeing with them??? Agreeing about what???
Come on WG, you can do better than that! Uh err, agreeing with them on eating Ice cream for Breakfast.
LGBT stand in agreement (Gay lives Matter) with the World...you should not stand in agreement with the World!
Lives don't Matter!!! Only one "life" that matters...

Now why would Jesus have to tell them to shut it? He had no need, if they had silenced the crowd, rest assured the stones would cry out. Oh, ye of little faith. Logic is gonna getcha!
You totally missed the meaning of that verse.

I member in the past, you mentioning that you didn't believe the book of Revelations should have been included. You had your doubts about other books as well, heck you have your doubts about the entire book..
It's Revelation, not Revelations.

Not just me. "The story of the New Testament canon is a fascinating one, with many twists and turns. There are books that were accepted very quickly, almost from the start (e.g., the four gospels), and there are other books that struggled to find a home (e.g., 2 Peter). And then there is the book of Revelation. Few today would contest the claim that the book of Revelation stands as one of the most controversial, complicated, and esoteric books in the New Testament canon."
https://www.michaeljkruger.com/the-book-of-revelation-how-difficult-was-its-journey-into-the-canon/


You stand in agreement with the World!
Not at all, my friend, not at all.

You totally missed the meaning of that verse.
Prophesy will be fulfilled, If Jesus said the Rocks would cry out- the rocks cried out. You can believe on the Word of God.
Yup, it was Jesus telling the Pharisees to shut it...rigggghht! If the people didn't cry out then the stones would, cry out. God said it, you should believe it.


Not at all, my friend, not at all.
Prove it ;-p You seem to prove otherwise?


Therefore, you're saying I have to believe in (have faith in) that book, even every mistranslation? I have to be a literalist in order to be saved? I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts...have to have God write it on your Heart. Having your friend write it on your heart won't do. You show such distain for the Bible- "that book". What's your hang up? It's not like we're talking about the Book of Mormon, although, according to you, we very well could be! The Word of God (Bible) endures forever!!! Believe it. Nobody who has Jesus in their heart is going to refute the Bible. (I'm not refuting that book, I love that book, the Bible is just a book, so why should I believe in it!)

Prove it ;-p You seem to prove otherwise?
I have to prove it to you? Sorry, no. Nothing I can say to you will "prove" anything about my devotion to God. (And my understanding of that is to love others and help them whenever I can.) You made up your mind long ago because I don't parrot the fundie preaching points.

I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts...
God has written His love on my heart. Sorry you're still hung up with the law.

That was a quote out of "that book", that you love so much. It is talking about Christians. The fruit of the spirit is love. We are to love God with all our heart (we all fail) If we truly love God we will truly love his Law, and if we truly love God's Law, we will truly love God. Hearts of stone vs hearts of flesh.

Iwill put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.
Sorry you're still hung up with the lawHearts of stone vs hearts of flesh. The ten commandments are relevant today as they ever were. God doesn't actually use the term "relationship, "in that book" He doesn't tell us to have a relationship with him, God tells us to love him. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. We see in "that book" that we show love for God by obeying his commands. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Sorry your throwing back "that book" without absorbing it.

Hearts of stone vs hearts of flesh. The ten commandments are relevant today as they ever were.

Sorry your throwing back "that book" without absorbing it.
For Christians, the Law is a guide for their lives, not the way to salvation. We aren't saved because we keep the Law.

You're, not your. And I haven't thrown back anything.

Walter, you've made many good points and I generally agree with you, but you missed it when you seemed to say that we are not to have a relationship with God. That is established in many places in the NT. In John 17:3, for instance, Jesus prayed, "3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Or in Rev. 3:20 where Jesus promised, "If any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in and sup with him and he with me." There is also John 14 where Jesus said, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." Those are words of relationship.


For Christians, the Law is a guide for their lives, not the way to salvation. We aren't saved because we keep the Law.That's a true statement, but you left it short. It is true that we are not saved by keeping the law, which is to say "by works", but we are saved to bear fruit, and one of those is to keep God's holy laws of moral conduct.

but you missed it when you seemed to say that we are not to have a relationship with God.
A relationship with Jesus, we are called to Love GOD the Father. I didn't go into it as much as would have liked. I will try to explain, later.

We must see GOD the Father for who he is, in relation to his Son (<--any insight?).

It can become confusing. Jesus said that we pray to the Father, but then said in Rev. 3:20 we would dine with Him. I'm still trying to get more clarity on that.

A relationship with Jesus, we are called to Love GOD the Father. I didn't go into it as much as would have liked. I will try to explain, later.

We must see GOD the Father for who he is, in relation to his Son (<--any insight?).
Are you a Trinitarian? Three Persons in one God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Are you a Trinitarian? One God in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
WG, I get that. But what you might not understand, Jesus is the Son of GOD, 100% Man!
You need to understand something. I know this is not easily explained. If you run across somebody who says Jesus is the Son of GOD, what is your automatic response?- Jesus is GOD- Yes? Why do you feel you need to interject that? If a Johovah witness tells you Jesus is not GOD but he is the Son of God, are they lying?


A relationship with Jesus, we are called to Love GOD the Father. I didn't go into it as much as would have liked. I will try to explain, later.

We must see GOD the Father for who he is, in relation to his Son (<--any insight?).
Re-post, so I don't forget. (note to self- King David loved God's Law, meditated on it day and night...David was a man after God’s own heart).

Three Persons in one God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.Yes. Three distinct persons, so you can speak to one and yet not to the other two. The classic illustration of this is the baptism of Jesus. Jesus is baptized, not the Holy Spirit or the Father. The Holy Spirit (not the Father or Jesus) descends upon Jesus as a dove. The Father (not Jesus or the Holy Spirit) speaks from heaven, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." The distinction between Father and Son is especially clear in the quote at the end.

It is very plain in a number of passages.

WG, I get that. But what you might not understand, Jesus is the Son of GOD, 100% Man!
No, not only 100% man. For human understanding, He was 100% man AND 100% God when he was here on earth. (He was fully and completely both God and Man. Yeah, I know -- difficult concept.) "Jesus claimed the divine name (John 8:58 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%208.58)) and did things that only God can do (Mark 2:1–12 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%202.1%E2%80%9312); Luke 7:48–50 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%207.48%E2%80%9350)). But Jesus also displayed the weaknesses and vulnerabilities common to humanity (Luke 19:41 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%2019.41); John 19:28 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2019.28))."
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-God-man.html

Once Jesus the Christ returned to heaven, he was and is 100% God.

You need to understand something. I know this is not easily explained. If you run across somebody who says Jesus is the Son of GOD, what is your automatic response?- Jesus is GOD- Yes? Why do you feel you need to interject that? If a Johovah witness tells you Jesus is not GOD but he is the Son of God, are they lying?

Re-post, so I don't forget.
I have nothing to do with JWs. If that's what they believe, they aren't fully informed.

You're taking away from The 'Man' Jesus. You should see the separation, as well as the unity. They are in complete agreement with each other. Jesus Is 100% man. The Fact that he is 100% GOD doesn't take away from the fact that he's 100% man!
This is a hard subject to comprehend. If you don't understand this, then you're missing out. How is a person even able to go forward with the above topic if you're not willing to understand. I'm not saying you're doomed for everlasting punishment. I'm simply saying that there are those who eat meat and others who are still drinking Milk...not that that is a bad thing. If you have your mind set, I will not talk about it any longer.

No, not only 100% man. For human understanding, He was 100% man AND 100% God when he was here on earth. (He was fully and completely both God and Man. Yeah, I know -- difficult concept.) "Jesus claimed the divine name (John 8:58 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%208.58)) and did things that only God can do (Mark 2:1–12 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%202.1%E2%80%9312); Luke 7:48–50 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%207.48%E2%80%9350)).So far so good.


But Jesus also displayed the weaknesses and vulnerabilities common to humanity True in the sense that He could become tired, hungry, etc. But not true if you are referring to sin. BTW, I don't think you are.


Once Jesus the Christ returned to heaven, he was and is 100% God.Do you mean God ONLY and no longer man?

Your* taking away from The 'Man' Jesus. You should see the separation, as well as the unity. They are in complete agreement with each other. Jesus Is 100% man. The Fact that he is 100% GOD doesn't take away from the fact that he's 100% man!
*You're, not your.

I'm not taking away anything. You are! Read what jlisenbe said in post #226.


Do you mean God ONLY and no longer man?
I thought of that as I posted. You're right. Jesus is still 100% God and 100% man.

Like He, as a man, said to the thief on the cross, "Today you'll be with me in Paradise."

You're taking away from The 'Man' Jesus. You should see the separation, as well as the unity. They are in complete agreement with each other. Jesus Is 100% man. The Fact that he is 100% GOD doesn't take away from the fact that he's 100% man!
This is a hard subject to comprehend. If you don't understand this, then you're missing out. How is a person even able to go forward with the above topic if you're not willing to understand. I'm not saying you're doomed for everlasting punishment. I'm simply saying that there are those who eat meat and others who are still drinking Milk...not that that is a bad thing. If you have your mind set, I will not talk about it any longer.


No, not only 100% man
Jesus is still 100% man. Which is it?
Are you trying to tell me that Jesus wasn't "Born" 100% man? Do you know Why they report the lineage of Joseph (Jesus earthly Father)?

You're, not your.
Thank you. I was correcting it at the time you posted.

You're taking away from The 'Man' Jesus.
No, I'm not! I said He is 100% God and 100% man.

No, not only 100% man.
I said He is 100% God and 100% man.

So you don't see him as Man, but a GODMAN? If somebody tells you Jesus is not GOD but he is the Son of God, are they lying?

Do you know Why they report the lineage of Joseph (Jesus earthly Father)?
I'm good with what ever you think.

We must see GOD the Father for who he is, in relation to his Son...Jesus became Sin.

So you don't see him as Man, but a GODMAN?
Noooooo!!! God AND man.

If somebody tells you Jesus is not GOD but he is the Son of God, are they lying?
He doesn't know and understand the whole story.

Do you know Why they report the lineage of Joseph (Jesus earthly Father)?
I'm good with what ever you think.
That lineage goes all the way back to Adam (in Luke) and Abraham (in Matthew). Jesus is presented as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant of King David.

Noooooo!!! God AND man.Can a person come to know Jesus, as King and savior of the World, 'the Man'? Knowing GOD, while not understanding the Trinity?
If somebody tells you Jesus is not GOD but he is the Son of God, are they lying? Simple yes or no question? You feel the need to have them understand the Trinity, same as you 'might' understand it (why can't you let it go)? Yes, Jesus is the Son of GOD, the one and only Son of GOD...now let me tell you about GOD...
That lineage goes all the way back to Adam (in Luke) and Abraham (in Matthew). Jesus is presented as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant of King David.Sure, that would explain Mary's lineage, but they included Joseph's lineage also?

Can a person come to know Jesus, as King and savior of the World, 'the Man'? Knowing GOD, while not understanding the Trinity?
Of course!

Simple yes or no question? You feel the need to have them understand the Trinity, same as you 'might' understand it (why can't you let it go)?.
All they need to understand is that God loves them and forgives them because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Sure, that would explain Mary's lineage, but they included Joseph's lineage also?
Joseph wasn't part of the deal in getting Mary pregnant. Luke says Joseph's lineage, like Mary's, includes King David.

Joseph wasn't part of the deal.Then why do you think they took the trouble of laying it all out before us?
All they need to understand is that God loves them and forgives them because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.True, I like that.

Then why do you think they took the trouble of laying it all out before us.
You would have to understand how the Jews laid out a person's genealogy, and thus why Joseph's line was included in Luke's account. Luke, a doctor, connects Jesus’ humanity all the way back to the first man, Adam.

You would have to understand how the Jews laid out a person's genealogy, and thus why Joseph's line was included in Luke's account.
Is this your Answer? Could it be, that Joseph was Jesus Father???

Is this your Answer?
Do you want more?

What's YOUR answer?

Could it be, that Joseph was Jesus Father???

Could it be, that Joseph was Jesus Father???
Nope. God was Jesus' father. Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant with Jesus.

Could it be, that Joseph was Jesus Father???
Nope. Sorry, you are in error (Has to do with adoption- you don't want to understand). No use in trying to explain it to you. As they say, "you can't teach an old Lady knew tricks.

Why do you think King David Was a man after God's own heart, why did he love God's Law with such zeal and admiration? Since heaven and earth continue to exist, the law remains unchanged and will continue to be in effect.
We are to have a relationship With Jesus, we are to Love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength/
It's as if we can't have a relationship with GOD, our relationship is with Jesus. Yes, I get that...Jesus is GOD ;-)

Sorry, you are in error (Has to do with adoption- you don't want to understand).
Joseph was not Jesus' natural father. Yes, Joseph "adopted" Jesus and was His earthly father.


Why do you think King David Was a man after God's own heart, why did he love God's Law with such zeal and admiration? Since heaven and earth continue to exist, the law remains unchanged and will continue to be in effect.
We are to have a relationship With Jesus, we are to Love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength/
It's as if we can't have a relationship with GOD, our relationship is with Jesus. Yes, I get that...Jesus is GOD ;-)
I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

Look at adoption in the eyes of a Jewish family. UNDERSTANDING OUR ADOPTION. The importance of adoption “The notion that we are children of God, His own sons and daughters… is the mainspring of Christian living… Our sonship to God is the apex of Creation and the goal of redemption.”

We are to have a relationship With Jesus, we are to Love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength/
It's as if we can't have a relationship with GOD, our relationship is with Jesus. Yes, I get that...Jesus is GOD ;-)



Simple yes or no question? You feel the need to have them understand the Trinity, same as you 'might' understand it (why can't you let it go)?.
All they need to understand is that God loves them and forgives them because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Then why do you even try to explain the Trinity (something you yourself can't understand- certainly can't explain it!).
Every time somebody tries to speak Jesus, the "Man", you continually interject- "Trinity, TRINITY, Hey guys, You can't forget the Trinity,- Jesus is not a man he is GOD!" You might want to think about this. When somebody tells you that Jesus is The Son of GOD, not God(all true...true to them), just let it go...that's understanding the Trinity (believing Jesus is "The man", the main man of God). Says something about why God had to bring Paul back home, many people would have become followers of Paul.

Sorry, you are in error (Has to do with adoption- you don't want to understand). No use in trying to explain it to you. As they say, "you can't teach an old Lady knew tricks.Not real sure where you're trying to go with this one, Walter. WG is entirely correct in her response.

30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Joseph's linage: that of King David...Not Adam.
Adopted Son...Joseph was a father none the less.



We are to have a relationship With Jesus, we are to Love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength/
It's as if we can't have a relationship with GOD, our relationship is with Jesus. Yes, I get that...Jesus is GOD ;-)

Then why do you even try to explain the Trinity (something you yourself can't understand- certainly can't explain it!).
Every time somebody tries to speak Jesus, the "Man", you continually interject- "Trinity, TRINITY, Hey guys, You can't forget the Trinity,- Jesus is not a man he is GOD!" You might want to think about this. When somebody tells you that Jesus is The Son of GOD, not God(all true...true to them), just let it go...that's understanding the Trinity (believing Jesus is "The man", the main man of God)

Adopted Son...Joseph was a father none the less.
Why is this such a huge concern for you?

Joseph was a father none the less.UNDERSTANDING OUR ADOPTION. The importance of adoption

Why is this such a huge concern for you?
That of King David...Not Adam.



Then why do you even try to explain the Trinity (something you yourself can't understand- certainly can't explain it!).
Every time somebody tries to speak Jesus, the "Man", you continually interject- "Trinity, TRINITY, Hey guys, You can't forget the Trinity,- Jesus is not a man he is GOD!" You might want to think about this. When somebody tells you that Jesus is The Son of GOD, not God(all true...true to them), just let it go...that's understanding the Trinity (believing Jesus is "The man", the main man of God)

Why is this such a huge concern for you? Jesus Is 100% man. Get it? You won't.

UNDERSTANDING OUR ADOPTION. The importance of adoption

That of King David...Not Adam.
As I said before, "Luke, a doctor, connects Jesus’ humanity all the way back to the first man, Adam."

The Genealogy of Jesus, Luke 3

23 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A23&ver=niv) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A24&ver=niv) the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A25&ver=niv) the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A26&ver=niv) the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josek, the son of Joda, 27 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A27&ver=niv) the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A28&ver=niv) the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A29&ver=niv) the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A30&ver=niv) the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A31&ver=niv) the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A32&ver=niv) the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[4] (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?ver=niv&q=luke+3#f4) the son of Nahshon, 33 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A33&ver=niv) the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[5] (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?ver=niv&q=luke+3#f5)the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A34&ver=niv) the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A35&ver=niv) the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A36&ver=niv) the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A37&ver=niv) the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38 (https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Luke+3%3A38&ver=niv) the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


Jesus Is 100% man. Get it? You won't.
Are you saying Jesus is not God, that he was Joseph's son?