For Deep Thinkers

[Jonathan_Gale]

well that's extremely debatable, but I guess we'll need to put a pin in it.

What is to debate? Immaculate conception?

 

[Christ4Ever]

Ahem.... here?

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.​

(Matthew 22:29-30 KJV)​

So... is it that there shall be what is tantamount to a free-for-all orgy? Or...

Or does gender not exist? (Hence no women... or men for that matter.)


Rhema
(who skipped the second grade )

Do you believe because you can that you have to?

If I could have, I'd have stayed in the 2nd grade! I loved my 2nd grade teacher, and still remember her to this day! Mrs. Thompson! It has been over 60 years since then, but some educators stick with you! Maybe, it had something to do with her tying a sleeping young man's sneaker together, and then rapping his knuckles with a ruler! I do believe he never slept in her class again!!!

Oh, did you read Lentz's response to mine? (#33)

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

What is to debate? Immaculate conception?

I quoted the exact text that I believe to be debatable.... don't you actually read the quoted sections ????

Then again, perhaps I should clarify...

he was also conceived by Mary and Joseph through two particular messianic bloodlines

In both passages, only the blood line of Joseph is given. Period. They disagree, but the Greek text in both Matthew and Luke clearly states that the lineage of Joseph is listed. I think this is why Paul advised to avoid...

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.​

(Titus 3:9 KJV)​

It's a bit bizarre that the text also states that Mary conceived without the involvement of Joseph at all... and yet both texts give the genealogical lineage of Joseph. But we are way off OP here.

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Do you believe because you can that you have to?

My apologies, Nick, I don't understand the context for that question.

Oh, did you read Lentz's response to mine? (#33)

Yes.

I never heard of it before either. Just getting a rise out of poster.
Petty i know

I thought it was hilarious that his statement about there being no women in heaven turned out to be troll bait, when in fact, there is actual scripture that proves this to be right.



So which is it? Divine orgy? Or elimination of gender?

Rhema

 

[Christ4Ever]

My apologies, Nick, I don't understand the context for that question.


Yes.


I thought it was hilarious that his statement about there being no women in heaven turned out to be troll bait, when in fact, there is actual scripture that proves this to be right.



So which is it? Divine orgy? Or elimination of gender?

Rhema

Don't understand the context of the question?
And your either/or questions are....

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

Peter was speaking of Noah preaching before the flood.

Dear Lentz,

But the actual scripture says this....

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison,​

(1 Peter 3:18-19 NRSV)​

By the rules of grammar (both Greek and English) the 'he' who went and made proclamation was Christ.

Perhaps you went too slow?

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Don't understand the context of the question?
And your either/or questions are....

Even this lacks adequate context. Are you chiding me for presenting a false dilemma?

If so, you are always welcome to present a third alternative. Would that be having gonads but living in some elitist "higher plane" of spiritual eunuchism? Why bother putting on an incorruptible body with parts that have no use? So if there is gender, perhaps I ought to have used the term "free love" instead of orgy. ( But orgy was much better troll bait...)

So will God still have them male and female yet "be" as the angels? (That somewhat doesn't make sense.) Then again, we don't know how (or if ) angels enjoy the benefits of gender, except that we have no description of any angel having female body parts... or wings for that matter.

Do you believe because you can that you have to?

The above may have been a referent to my skipping second grade. So yes, there was a lack of context there.

It had nothing to do with their being neither male nor female in heaven. To be honest I'd never heard that before!

I'll admit that surprises me... that you've never heard of or considered the role of sex and gender in heaven.

Rhema

 

[Christ4Ever]

Even this lacks adequate context. Are you chiding me for presenting a false dilemma?

If so, you are always welcome to present a third alternative. Would that be having gonads but living in some elitist "higher plane" of spiritual eunuchism? Why bother putting on an incorruptible body with parts that have no use? So if there is gender, perhaps I ought to have used the term "free love" instead of orgy. ( But orgy was much better troll bait...)

So will God still have them male and female yet "be" as the angels? (That somewhat doesn't make sense.) Then again, we don't know how (or if ) angels enjoy the benefits of gender, except that we have no description of any angel having female body parts... or wings for that matter.


The above may have been a referent to my skipping second grade. So yes, there was a lack of context there.


I'll admit that surprises me... that you've never heard of or considered the role of sex and gender in heaven.

Rhema

I'll work my way from bottom to top and in that way some of the other questions may possibly get answered as well.
Why would I consider the role of sex and gender in heaven? If it's not to my liking, would I reconsider my desire to being there? I trust that God knows what He is doing.

I saw the grade reference as being directed to me, and somehow lacking the necessary education to explain myself in a fashion that you could understand.

Questions, questions, questions. Something tells me you're not big for surprises.
We'll all know soon enough!

I would not chide you for a false dilemma in this case, but rather the relevancy when it became known that the original intent of the comment was only to "get a rise out of a poster". I'm not the type of person that needs to have every question answered in order to be satisfied and thereby have my joy in the Lord affirmed. Now if it were a man or a woman presenting it...that is something else entirely and the reason for my original response to Lentz!!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

I saw the grade reference as being directed to me, and somehow lacking the necessary education to explain myself in a fashion that you could understand.

Hmmm... that puzzles me, in that it was an off hand humorous self-deprecating remark about, well, me not you. As in "maybe that's what's wrong with me..."

( I even used an emoji !! )

Why would I consider the role of sex and gender in heaven?

The topic usually comes up when Matthew 22 is considered.

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.​

(Matthew 22:30 KJV)​

In all your life that has never happened?

If it's not to my liking, would I reconsider my desire to being there?

Perhaps you could put in an engineering change request notice.

Questions, questions, questions. Something tells me you're not big for surprises.
We'll all know soon enough!

Many will not like what they find out.

I would not chide you for a false dilemma in this case, but rather the relevancy when it became known that the original intent of the comment was only to "get a rise out of a poster".

My post to you was before I saw #33... I still think it hilarious that Lentz meant it to be troll bait when he was (quite likely) absolutely right.

I'm not the type of person that needs to have every question answered in order to be satisfied and thereby have my joy in the Lord affirmed.

You may be taking my posts here a bit too serious. I saw your reply to @lentz 's initial post, and when you had said you hadn't even considered such a thing, I thought it beneficial to point out Jesus' teaching in Matthew 22.

And I'm a bit puzzled why you seem to be adroitly avoiding the important questions and taking solace in ignorance. Please don't impute malice to my posts.

Now if it were a man or a woman presenting it.

Wait what??

What other than a man or a woman could possibly be "presenting it"?

So which is it? So which do you believe it to be? Divine orgy? Or elimination of gender?

Rhema

Yep... ( C ) I refuse to answer on the grounds that .....

 

[Christ4Ever]

Hmmm... that puzzles me, in that it was an off hand humorous self-deprecating remark about, well, me not you. As in "maybe that's what's wrong with me..."

( I even used an emoji !! )


The topic usually comes up when Matthew 22 is considered.

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.​

(Matthew 22:30 KJV)​

In all your life that has never happened?


Perhaps you could put in an engineering change request notice.


Many will not like what they find out.


My post to you was before I saw #33... I still think it hilarious that Lentz meant it to be troll bait when he was (quite likely) absolutely right.


You may be taking my posts here a bit too serious. I saw your reply to @lentz 's initial post, and when you had said you hadn't even considered such a thing, I thought it beneficial to point out Jesus' teaching in Matthew 22.

And I'm a bit puzzled why you seem to be adroitly avoiding the important questions and taking solace in ignorance. Please don't impute malice to my posts.


Wait what??

What other than a man or a woman could possibly be "presenting it"?

So which is it? So which do you believe it to be? Divine orgy? Or elimination of gender?

Rhema

Yep... ( C ) I refuse to answer on the grounds that .....

Dear Rhema,
Sometimes I do believe, we are just naturally abrasive to each other!
I also believe that our funny bone, is located in different places for us as well. That's why I try to use the emoji's as well. Though mostly my words are sufficient for most folks.

Some people just don't like surprises. Me, I have no problem with it. Put a present in front of me, and I'm fine with not opening it. I might even use the present to hold my coffee and forget that it actually contains something that is supposed to be opened by me! As long as it doesn't start to stink that is! That would be a real bummer!

Something tells me that your kind of like my son, who would hold the present for a sec. maybe turn it around but would know without opening it, what's inside in less than a minute!

Oh, I've wondered about that exchange in Matthew 22, but not about the answer! My curiosity is about Jesus' reaction to those who questioned Him about marriage after death. I almost want to believe He had this full-on smile on His face as He answered them! Almost to the point of laughing! Kind of like I have now, in contemplating why you are so interested in what we will be in Heaven "Divine orgy? or "Elimination of gender?" and have the need to repeat the asking of it to me again and again. It's as if you didn't already believe I thought that you already know/have the answer, and then calling my disinterest "ignorance". lol No emoji this time!

I'm really not sure if you're just trying to bait me with this, or really don't believe me when I say I don't give it a second thought! Either way, believe me when I say I don't give it a second thought!
I guess that's the difference between scholar, and your average joe like me. You have to know to be happy, and I'm just as happy not knowing as I am knowing!

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

In both passages, only the blood line of Joseph is given. Period.

No, only one is, the other MUST be Mary’s:

“I, Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God … concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Rom. 1:1-3)

Jesus was born of both spirit and flesh, the flesh part only comes from Mary as she carried him to term, Joseph as the legal father had no contribution to it.

the lineage of Joseph is listed. I think this is why Paul advised to avoid...

Paul was instructing the church to avoid disputing over THEIR lineages., not the messiah’s! Without these two lineages, how is Jesus validated as the son of David, as noted above in Rom. 1:3?

 

[Rhema]

Sometimes I do believe, we are just naturally abrasive to each other!

Absolutely wonderful. That gives us something to work on !!

I also believe that our funny bone, is located in different places for us as well.

I grew up on British humor..., listening to ... "I'm sorry I'll read that again, again." out of Philadelphia. So my funny bone is probably located somewhere in Strathspey.

Put a present in front of me, and I'm fine with not opening it.

Seems rather disrespectful, but ... who am I to impute motive?

Something tells me that your kind of like my son, who would hold the present for a sec. maybe turn it around but would know without opening it, what's inside in less than a minute!

When a wee lad, I always knew what my Christmas presents were before they were opened. Drove my parents crazy not knowing that I had partially opened them, then hid them back again without any trace of disturbance. Then they started hiding them off site.

Kind of like I have now, in contemplating why you are so interested in what we will be in Heaven "Divine orgy? or "Elimination of gender?"

I'm not interested in the answer per se. I was curious about why you had said this...

To be honest I'd never heard that before!

Pardon my presumption if I had thought you meant, "never heard that there would be no women in heaven before."

It's as if you didn't already believe I thought that you already know/have the answer, and then calling my disinterest "ignorance". lol No emoji this time!

Why would you presume that? I don't have an answer. But I see you took my words as purposeful malice. That's ... troublesome. "Disinterest" is taking solace in not knowing (i.e. ignorance). But okay, I now now that you just don't care and don't wish to discuss things. I'll remember that.

I'm just as happy not knowing...

Yes, ignorance IS not knowing. That's the definition of ignorance... NOT knowing. I shall leave you to your happiness then.

Rhema

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings Rhema,

Not so within the works of Paul, who did indeed adopt a Greek perspective, but such was quite popular back then since the continuation of what you call "consciousness or inner being" after death became quite a concern for both Jew and Gentile (everybody wants to live forever). To them (and again forgive the shorthand)...
YOU = Soul + Body + Spirit.

can you please share places where the Apostle Paul is recorded to have promoted such Greek perspective?
Could it be that the 'problem' is the 'greek soul teaching ideology philoshophy [hic] has permeated general thinking since dot and that folks who go bleat instead of baa go along with and promote more bleeting stuff?

While your post was educational, you did not provide anything to back it with.
Genuine request.
[asked, as i never had that problem when reading the writings we have in (my) Bible]


Bless you ....><>

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

@Christ4Ever

Sometimes I do believe, we are just naturally abrasive to each other!

if so.... praise the Lord for He knows which parts work well together , even in apparent opposition, for the good of the Body.
Pivots and fulcrums and tendons and muscles and joints and bones with sinew, please waiter....


If i may continue....
@Rhema

it was an off hand humorous self-deprecating remark about, well, me not you. As in "maybe that's what's wrong with me..."

that explains a few things! Always wondered what the missing link was....

-----------------------------------
i thank God for His mercy to not only me but also my Brothers in Christ who sometime forget how precious they are...

-------------------------

thank you both, for allowing me to butt-in.


Bless you ....><>

 

[Rhema]

No, only one is, the other MUST be Mary’s:

To preach that, is to be a lying scribe, handing scripture deceitfully. You might not like it Mr. Gale, but BOTH passages give the bloodline of Joseph. THAT'S what the scripture text actually says. And I'd be happy to provide the Greek along with an interlinear translation. Okay, I'll take the time ( I love you that much <not sarcasm) .... So then let's look at what is written, (and first we should note that Both the Alexandrian tradition and the Textus Receptus say the exact same thing, though in a slightly different word order)...

(Luke 3:23-24 TR) και AND αυτος HIMSELF ην WAS ο (the) ιησους JESUS ωσει ABOUT ετων OF YEARS τριακοντα THIRTY αρχομενος BEGINNING ων BEING ως AS ενομιζετο IT WAS SUPPOSED υιος SON ιωσηφ OF JOSEPH του OF ηλι ELI του OF ματθατ MATTHAT του OF λευι LEVI του OF μελχι MELCHI του OF ιαννα JANNA του OF ιωσηφ JOSEPH.... and it goes all the way back to Adam of God.​

The only phrase that actually matters for this discussion is - ων ως ενομιζετο υιος ιωσηφ - (JESUS) ... BEING AS IT WAS SUPPOSED THE SON OF JOSEPH. The scripture in Luke literally states that Jesus was (supposedly) the Son of JOSEPH (of Eli, of Matthat... ect.)

Take a look at the King James itself...

(Luke 3:23-24 KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,​

There is no mention of Mary at all, and there is absolutely no linguistic "trick" to think "Mary the daughter of Joseph" is somehow hidden withing. Those words are NOT there. And it's a heinous thing to add in words to scripture, Jonathan. Do you understand just how evil it is to misrepresent scripture and present it as a lie?

We truly should NOT lie about what is written. ( I don't understand why people do this.)

Please, I beg you, just don't make stuff up.

Don't change the words.

Rhema
(Why must it be Mary's? It doesn't need to be. And it isn't. Don't perpetuate the lie.)

Oh, and Matthew?

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

(Matthew 1:16 KJV)​

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The only phrase that actually matters for this discussion is - ων ως ενομιζετο υιος ιωσηφ - (JESUS) ... BEING AS IT WAS SUPPOSED THE SON OF JOSEPH. The scripture in Luke literally states that Jesus was (supposedly) the Son of JOSEPH (of Eli, of Matthat... ect.)

Literally? Maybe. Biologically? Last time I checked, the Scripture, either in English or in Greek, suggests otherwise:

Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.(Matt. 1:20)

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

There is no mention of Mary at all, and there is absolutely no linguistic "trick" to think "Mary the daughter of Joseph" is somehow hidden withing. Those words are NOT there. And it's a heinous thing to add in words to scripture, Jonathan. Do you understand just how evil it is to misrepresent scripture and present it as a lie?

We truly should NOT lie about what is written. ( I don't understand why people do this.)

Please, I beg you, just don't make stuff up.

Don't change the words.

You're the liar who's making stuffs up and distorting the Scripture. Joseph didn't have two biological fathers and two lineages, nobody does. By insisting that he had two daddies you're undermining the Scripture's infallibility. You're denying Jesus's humanity that he was born according to the flesh, and that can only come from Mary, whether she was mentioned or not.

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings @Jonathan_Gale

You're the liar

please tone it down a bit to avoid official warning and/or other action being taken.

Disagreement and/or misunderstandings do happen, especially online.

Remember fruit... not other's, but your own.

Same goes for everyone.

a wee apology might go well? Mr Rhema is trying in his best ability, as one like yourself and myself, to convey that which he has come to understand. If something is written which stirs us, let us first give thanks to the Lord Who alone will make any other truth of the matter known to us, if that is the case.

While we might get to defending Scripture, from any position, we must remember it is only by grace we have received anything, and have nothing to boast, as if we did not receive it from Him Who has called us unto liberty.

Let us proceed in the peace that passes all understanding and run the race set before us, not knocking others down but, if needs be, helping them to their feet, as we would have done to and for us.

Jesus is the Lord


Bless you ....><>

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Greetings @Jonathan_Gale


please tone it down a bit to avoid official warning and/or other action being taken.

Disagreement and/or misunderstandings do happen, especially online.

Remember fruit... not other's, but your own.

Same goes for everyone.

a wee apology might go well? Mr Rhema is trying in his best ability, as one like yourself and myself, to convey that which he has come to understand. If something is written which stirs us, let us first give thanks to the Lord Who alone will make any other truth of the matter known to us, if that is the case.

While we might get to defending Scripture, from any position, we must remember it is only by grace we have received anything, and have nothing to boast, as if we did not receive it from Him Who has called us unto liberty.

Let us proceed in the peace that passes all understanding and run the race set before us, not knocking others down but, if needs be, helping them to their feet, as we would have done to and for us.

Jesus is the Lord


Bless you ....><>

Peace be with you, brother, and may the truth of God prevail. Amen.

 

[Rhema]

Literally? Maybe. Biologically? Last time I checked, the Scripture, either in English or in Greek, suggests otherwise:

Please accept my apologies, Mr. Gale, it would seem that I had not adequately expressed myself when saying...

The only phrase that actually matters for this discussion is - ων ως ενομιζετο υιος ιωσηφ - (JESUS) ... BEING AS IT WAS SUPPOSED THE SON OF JOSEPH. The scripture in Luke literally states that Jesus was (supposedly) the Son of JOSEPH (of Eli, of Matthat... ect.)

Since it was poorly written, please allow me to rephrase if I may...


The only phrase that actually matters for this discussion is - υιος ιωσηφ του ηλι - (Jesus...) son of Joseph of Eli, ... as the genealogy continues, Luke traces Joseph's lineage... back to Nathan.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,​

(Luke 3:23 KJV)​

There is no mention of Mary, or any relation of Mary's at all. The scripture in Luke literally states that Joseph was the son of Heli (Eli).

As one looks at the account given in Matthew, though, one can also clearly see that it too traces the genealogy of Joseph, although through completely different people, back to Solomon.

​

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

(Matthew 1:16 KJV)​

And at this point, I'll just let the KJV speak for itself.

An honest person needs to realize that two different genealogies are given for JOSEPH, and to preach anything else is to handle scripture deceitfully.

Joseph didn't have two biological fathers and two lineages, nobody does.

Your above statement is technically a Straw Man fallacy. I never suggested that Joseph had two biological fathers, nor do I believe so. What I do believe is that Matthew has one account of the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke records a different account of the genealogy of Joseph. But BOTH are of Joseph. Neither is of Mary.

Now I have a friend who has been a brother in Christ for at least 30 years, and I found out last night that he never realized that there are two differing accounts for the genealogy of Joseph. Perhaps no one had ever shown this to you before, so I understand the emotional turmoil involved.

As for me, it doesn't really make a difference. Matthew has a couple of mistakes in his account, and there is at least one other place where the account of Matthew and Luke conflict, but that doesn't cause me to throw out the baby with the bath water (to use an expression). Jesus is still the Son of God, even if both genealogies are wrong.

The reason that I post about these FACTS is that we need to be honest with unbelievers that they exist. We should not change what is actually written. And to deny the truth, which can be easily seen by anyone, is the quickest way to lose any measure of trust that an unbeliever might have in the gospel.

In other words, we should not handle scripture deceitfully and become lying scribes.

By insisting that he had two daddies you're undermining the Scripture's infallibility.

Mr. Gale, I would strongly point out that Infallibility is NOT the same thing as Inerrancy. And perhaps we could have a discussion about what these two terms actually mean, but to point out the FACTS and the TRUTH of the two differing genealogies does NOT undermine scripture. Lying about it does.

Respectfully,
Rhema

@Br. Bear

please tone it down a bit to avoid official warning and/or other action being taken.

Truly Br. Bear my post was not well written, and hopefully the above helps to clarify my position. I have said before that I don't quite understand how Mr. Gale thinks, so I am quite willing to admit that my words may not have been adequate to explain things clearly.

Meaning - I think we're good. I was not offended by his reaction. Hopefully he is not offended at the truth.

 

[Rhema]

can you please share places where the Apostle Paul is recorded to have promoted such Greek perspective?
Could it be that the 'problem' is the 'greek soul teaching ideology philoshophy [hic] has permeated general thinking since dot and that folks who go bleat instead of baa go along with and promote more bleeting stuff?

While your post was educational, you did not provide anything to back it with.
Genuine request.

Interesting.

It is rare that I am taken aback by ... well, anything. And yet your post has done just that. I had never challenged, nor been challenged about Paul being a Hellenistic Jew. Such a view seems to be taken for granted in seminary, somewhat like a fish not being aware that it is in water.

With all genuine love, Br. Bear... bravo !! I cannot begin to describe the unique feelings of joy and wonderment that now flood through me to be able to say... I don't know.

(And I'm not being sarcastic... that's a genuine heartfelt description.)

The short answer is that I'll have to get back to you on this, but seeing a somewhat big empty in this part of my education will likely goad me into spending hours if not days over the next few months to ferret out a substantive answer to your question. In the meanwhile...

Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

?????????

Rhema
(And there's a lot of bleeting stuff out there brother.)

It doesn't particularly change the above formulas, though, since Paul does state spirit and soul and body.

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

(1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV)​