|
|
Post by jimmie on Aug 10, 2020 5:48:27 GMT -8
Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.
I thought popes were supposed to be celibate.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Aug 4, 2020 6:13:30 GMT -8
1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
Hebrews 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Aug 4, 2020 6:01:37 GMT -8
Leviticus 23:It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.
Numbers 19:19 And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.
Deuteronomy 16:6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Aug 4, 2020 5:14:55 GMT -8
garret,
The following scripture came to mine as I read your post:
Romans 7:18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Your wife seems to be in good company as she faces the same struggle as the writer of Romans.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jul 17, 2020 8:27:45 GMT -8
On June 25 my youngest daughter (18) was killed in an accident. Only July 9th my son was involved in an accident in which the driver of the other vehicle was killed.
Job 5: 7 Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward. 8 I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause: 9 Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number: 10 Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields: 11 To set up on high those that be low; that those which mourn may be exalted to safety.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jul 17, 2020 8:22:56 GMT -8
Leadership. We hear a lot about it. There is a multitude of books and seminars on how to be a good leader. But it can be allusive. During the War of Northern Aggression, a Confederate officer led a Calvary charge against the Northern troops in Missouri in order to get out of a closing trap. He killed several union troops and made it through their line, only to be shoot in the back by the Northern troops. He was the lone Confederate killed in the engagement. It turns out not a single Confederate trooper followed the officer in the charge and they all surrendered after their leader was killed. Leadership rises or falls on follow-ship. Good followers can often make a bad leader successful. Good leaders never make bad followers successful. A good leader may be able to motivate a bad follower to become a good follower, thus allowing the follower to become successful.
At work, I am in a position that most would say is a position of “leadership”. I have 125 employees. I also have a boss who answers to a boss that answers to a governing body. All of which have the authority to override my decisions or “vows”. Not unlike the authority an husband or father has over his wife and daughters. This does not make me a mindless cog in the organization that needs the guidance and protection of my boss, nor are wives and daughters mindless little females needing the guidance and protection of a man.
My job is to make my boss a success. Most of the time, I know what my boss want’s/needs from me before he does. Occasionally he wants something that I didn’t foresee, don’t understand and don’t like. Most of the time I can influence him to my way of thinking. But not always. That does not change my job to make my boss a success and carry out his wishes over mine. Only once have I ever told my boss I would not do what he wanted. I had a boss ask me to falsify some reports. I told him absolutely not. I would expect a wife or daughter to do likewise. That is what Abigail (my father’s joy) done regarding her husband, Nabal (fool).
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 19, 2020 6:35:41 GMT -8
(I am neither a Levite nor a King, for instance, nor is there a Temple standing) Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. 1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 12, 2020 14:05:36 GMT -8
Ever heard of the Coral Castle? Built and relocated by one man. If I remember correctly the largest stone was 20 tons. I think a few thousand Romans with the right motivation could break up the foundation. Gold may have been a motivation as you say. But their real intent was to erase anything Jewish. This was the worst Roman victory ever and they were out for total revenge. Anyway while researching the Gihon Spring because of its' unique flow pattern, I ran across this article beginningandend.com/secret-of-the-lost-temple-the-real-location-of-solomons-temple-revealed/ it seems to contain most of the reasons for me believing that The Gihon Spring is the location of the temple. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Jun 12, 2020 13:20:21 GMT -8
As to having a sanctuary and a place to sit, besides the Dome of the Rock there is also the Al Aqsa Mosque which sits on the Temple Mount within the precincts of the Temple complex. So again, a distinct possibility that Yeshua could return, fulfilling prophecy before the 3rd Temple is rebuilt. Not saying I absolutely believe this. But it is an interesting theory. Dan C [/font][/quote] What is called the Temple Mount today is actually Fort Antonio Mount. According to Jesus the temple would be totally destroyed. There are still stones upon one another in the whaling wall. Luke 21: 5And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. The temple site is the Gihon Spring. There is no structure left there. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 8, 2020 10:53:52 GMT -8
Leviticus 19:19 (ESV) “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material. I knew we’d get here sooner or later. This is a tough one to get our heads around. I’ve read many different things explaining this, all seemingly leaning to a justification of the writers opinions. So I’ll give you what I think, then as always others can comment.
First off, we all can (hopefully) see the problems inherent in todays genetic engineering using DNA- sometimes even human DNA. But when looking at this passage we must keep it at the most basic level of understanding, that of the ancient Hebrews. Now mixing seeds in a field and mixing threads in a garment at the time I can understand. But not letting cattle breed with a different kind is a bit harder. First, what is meant by cattle?
989 בְּהֵמָה (behē·mā(h)): n.fem.(usually coll.); ≡ Str 929; TWOT 208a—1. LN 4.1–4.37 beast, animal, i.e., a class of living being (not flying, creeping, or swarming) that is not human (Ge 6:7; Ex 8:13); 2. LN 4.1–4.37 domestic animal, livestock, herds, cattle (Ge 47:18), cf. also 990; 3. LN 4.1–4.37 wild animal (Mic 5:7; Dt 28:26; Isa 18:6)2
I doubt it meant don’t let a milk cow mate with a beef bull. If you want the cow to give milk, she has to have a calf, and unless you need another milk cow it’s better to mate her with a meat type bull. But what about a horse and a donkey? That’s how we get mules, and mules seem to take the best characteristics of both parents and multiply them! Handy animals, mules.
But God said no mules, right? Well, all David’s sons had mules (2 Sam 13.29). So did David (1 Kings 1:38). And through the prophet Isaiah God commanded mules be brought to Jerusalem (Is 66:20). In fact, according to my Strong’s mules are mentioned 9 times, and none of the references were negative about the beasts themselves.
According to Easton’s, “It is not probable that the Hebrews bred mules, as this was strictly forbidden in the law ( Leviticus 19:19 ), although their use was not forbidden.” So maybe they had a few from natural occurrence, or bought them from traders. I’m not sure. But to me this still seems to be the most likely meaning- don’t mix two completely different types of livestock. And certainly that would include not mixing human DNA and say a pig- which I hear they've now tried!
You are correct that cattle can refer to live stock in general, below cattle refers to sheep: Gen 30:32 I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire. I choose this verse to show that because the remainder of the chapter details an ingenious breeding program by Jacob, in which strong white animals give rise to ring streaked and spotted animals. This breeding program does not seem to displease God even though one "kind" of animal give rise to a different "kind" of animal. Before Jacob separated the two "kinds", God didn't seem to be displeased by different 'kinds" being allowed to gender together. So I lean toward the "You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind." means mixing animals that produce infertile off springs because they can not reproduce after their kind. Yes that would include mules. The fact that David etal had mules does not make it right. No more than David, Solomon and others multiplying unto themselves wives was right. David also had Uriah killed that does not justify murder. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 29, 2020 6:39:25 GMT -8
I actually see very little difference between killing an animal for food or sacrifice. They appear to be the same thing biblically speaking.
Leviticus 7:15 And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.
Leviticus 22:29 And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the LORD, offer [it] at your own will. 30 On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I [am] the LORD.
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Every meal is a sacrifice of thanksgiving.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Apr 28, 2020 13:15:59 GMT -8
Leviticus 17: (ESV) 3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. 5 This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the Lord. 6 And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 7 So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they sleeper. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations. Sacrifices are only to be made at the Temple in Jerusalem. This applies today even though there is no Temple. Effectively blood sacrifices are halted until there is a Temple once more where it once stood. Apparently the Rabbis interpreted this only to apply to sacrifices. However it sounds as though it might apply to any animal killed for food. Discussion? This speaks of the tabernacle not the temple. We may not have a temple, but we do have a full scale model of the tabernacle located in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. So, I'll see you there the next time I want a hamburger. On a more serious note: Deuteronomy 12:21 If the place (tabernacle/temple) which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 19, 2020 5:41:28 GMT -8
How could you think that, when Christ told you to not think that way.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets."
What ever Jesus meant by fulfilling the law, the one thing it cannot possibly be is abolishing the law.
Sinning is how one comes under the law. i.e. a murderer it under the death penalty of the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 17, 2020 15:13:02 GMT -8
If I understand you correctly you are using Jew and Israel as interchangeable terms, since both the Jews and the other 11 tribes received the exact same law and there was no differences in their manor of worshiping of God. Thus no two house then nor now.
As for Esau trying to steal the blessing that most christians teach that Jacob stole in the first place, it is difficult to turn the concept around. but if you think about it, Esau was seeking something that was no longer available, thus he was coveting his brothers possession of the blessing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Mar 16, 2020 12:27:01 GMT -8
All of the tribes at the foot of Sinai were Jews. They were either Jewish by blood line or they were once Gentiles who converted to Judaism (a “mixed multitude” left with the Jews during the Exodus). But make no mistake, they were all Jews.
That concept goes back to Esau. He wanted the blessing of being the chosen peoples patriarch, so he tried to steal it.
These two statements are confusing to me. Please expound.
|
|
