Comments
1 - 15 of 15 Comments Last updated Apr 6, 2012

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 24, 2012
 
THE BLESSING OF THE FIRSTBORN

The Blessing of the Firstborn was not absolutely to be of the firstborn. And the Blessing of the Firstborn was not for the firstborn himself but for the simblings, who would remain or for those who would come.

The blessing of the Firstborn was already a common practice among Pagan Canaanites even long before Abraham arrived in Canaan. They would sacrifice the firstborn so that the future progeny would be blessed with life and strength.

But among the Hebrews, the borrowing of such a practice would be different. The firstborn would carry the blessing but he would have to be redeemed as an individual.

Then, Ishmael was born, but Divinely, Isaac was assigned to be the firstborn of Abraham. And, ceremonially, he was the one to be the redeermer of Mankind, as his sacrifice was but a symbolical attempt.

To Isaac were born two boys. Esau was born first, but Jacob was the one Divinely assigned to be the firstborn, although Isaac wish it had been Esau.

To Jacob were born 13 children. The one born first was Ruben, but, as it were Divinely predetermined, he lost the blessing of the Firstborn for having violated Bilhah, one of his father's wives.

Next in line stood Simeon and Levi, but because of their flared temper and shame they caused to Jacob in Sherchem, they also lost their chance. Therefore, Divinely oriented, so to speak, the blessing of the Firstborn went to Judah.

Humanly, Jacob had planned all along to grant Joseph with the blessing. Since he was a Prophet and knew that Judah had to be the one, he created a second Blessing of the Firstborn and granted Ephraim, the younger son of Joseph's with it. That was a prophetic move to predict the split of the Tribes, when Ephraim would take the Blessing of the Firstborn as Messiah ben Joseph. Judah would stay with the Blessing of the Fristborn as Messiah ben David.

Now, we have two Blessings of the Firstborn. One over Judah and the other over Ephraim. Actually, Israel itself, before the split of the Tribes, was the Firstborn of god. Hence, when it was still in Egypt, God, through Moses, said, Israel is My firstborn son; so let My son go, that he may serve Me.(Exodus 4:22,23) Technically Judah had become, so to speak, the secondborn, as Isaiah called him that child born of the virgin Israel.(Isa. 7:14,15, 22; 8:8)

It happens that Judah had rejected God's Covenant according to Isaiah 8:6,7, and Divine judgment had been decreed to remove him from existence, but because of God's promise to David that Judah would be spared to remain as a lamp in Jerusalem forever according to I Kings 11:36, Israel, the firstborn had to redeem Judah by being sacrificed as a people to save another.(Isa. 9:8) Those of Judah were the "many" alluded to in Isaiah 53:12 whom Israel had to redeem with his death.

It was then that the Lord provided the Assyrians to remove Israel from the map of the world, according to Psalm 78:67-70. With the removal of the Firstborn of God, Israel, Judah had to automatically, so to speak, become the Firstborn for the world, but under the original classification of Isaac: Only symbolically, as Jesus understood when he declared to the Samaritan woman, that salvation was from the Jews.(John 4:22)

Judah had become the Firstborn of God, whose blessing would bless the world with life. Jesus' word to the Samaritan woman had been finally understood that salvation had been all along from the Jews.

Ben
PIE

Branchland, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 25, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
Those of Judah were the "many" alluded to in Isaiah 53:12 whom Israel had to redeem with his death.
No, you are wrong. You can't just decide on your own whim that "many"[plural] is talking about Judah and the word he[singular] refers to an entire tribe/ 10 tribes of Israel Every time the word "he" is used in Isaiah 53 it refers to a single individual and not a tribe or 10 tribes. It was an individual that had done no violence; nor was there any deceit in his mouth{singular}. You cannot equate those phrases with all of Israel. When did Israel not open his mouth? Just exactly how did an entire tribe/tribes give "his soul"{singular} an offering for sin? Israel didn't die. Israel didn't die for Judah or anyone else in the world. Israel was dispersed among all nations. You can't disregard the singular use of "he" and "him"; nor should you turn Judah into a plural "many" if you're going to refer to Israel in a singular fashion{you're going directly against what is being said; you're reading something in there that doesn't exist}.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 27, 2012
 
PIE wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are wrong. You can't just decide on your own whim that "many"[plural] is talking about Judah and the word he[singular] refers to an entire tribe/ 10 tribes of Israel Every time the word "he" is used in Isaiah 53 it refers to a single individual and not a tribe or 10 tribes. It was an individual that had done no violence; nor was there any deceit in his mouth{singular}. You cannot equate those phrases with all of Israel. When did Israel not open his mouth? Just exactly how did an entire tribe/tribes give "his soul"{singular} an offering for sin? Israel didn't die. Israel didn't die for Judah or anyone else in the world. Israel was dispersed among all nations. You can't disregard the singular use of "he" and "him"; nor should you turn Judah into a plural "many" if you're going to refer to Israel in a singular fashion{you're going directly against what is being said; you're reading something in there that doesn't exist}.
--------

MESSIAH BEN JOSEPH VERSUS MESSIAH BEN DAVID

The whole chapter 53 of Isaiah is about the dramatic epic of two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. The drama that culminated in the "death" of Messiah ben Joseph for the sins of Messiah ben David. Properly speaking, Messiah ben Joseph is Ephraim or Israel, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom. And Messiah ben David is Judah, the Southern Kingdom.

The sins of Judah had filled the Divine cup when Ahaz, king of Judah replaced God's Covenant with the one made with Senacherib, king of Assyria. Hence, God's judgment had arrived for the removal of Judah but, according to I Kings 11:36, God had promised David that Judah, whose Tribe he had come from, would stay as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. Therefore, according to Isaiah 9:8, the final judgment that was supposed to come upon Judah fell upon Israel instead, and Messiah ben Joseph had to redeem Judah, or Messiah ben David by being the scapegoat predicted through the History of the united Israel.

Isaiah says in 53:9 that the Suffering Servant was without guile, and sinless. That's exactly what Israel was: Pure of the sins he died for, since they were the sins of Judah and not his. Messiah ben Joseph therefore, did not die for his sins but for the sins of Messiah ben David. Therefore, Israel was removed because of the sins of another. He was pierced so to speak, by the sins of Judah.

The sacrifice of Israel or Messiah ben Joseph meant the salvation of Judah or Messiah ben David. That's why Zechariah in 12:10 says that they (Judah) shall look upon him (Israel) whom they (Judah) had pierced with their sins, and mourn for him (Israel) as the one who mourns for his firstborn.

Now, let me explain by way of an analogy how Israel, or Messiah ben Joseph, who was the Suffering Servant died innocent of the sins of Judah or Messiah ben David: "A" and "B". "A" has committed a crime punishable with death, and "B", by mistake was condemned for that crime. It doesn't matter how evil is "B" in his life or how bad are his sins. The point is that he was condemned to die for the crime of "A". Therefore "B" was killed innocent and pure of the crimes and sins of "A". "A" got saved by the death of "B". So, "B" was the Suffering Servant that brought salvation to "A". Now matching the analogy to reality, "A" was Judah that pierced "B" with his crimes and sins.

Now, with the removal of Messiah ben Joseph, according to Psalm 78:67-69, Messiah be David occupied the place of Messiah ben Joseph, but as the Triumphant Servant with reference to the rest of Mankind, because of God's promise to Noah that humanity would never be destroyed again in an universal manner.(Gen. 8:21; Jer. 31:35-37)
Ben
PIE

Huntington, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 27, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
MESSIAH BEN JOSEPH VERSUS MESSIAH BEN DAVID
The whole chapter 53 of Isaiah is about the dramatic epic of two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. The drama that culminated in the "death" of Messiah ben Joseph for the sins of Messiah ben David. Properly speaking, Messiah ben Joseph is Ephraim or Israel, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom. And Messiah ben David is Judah, the Southern Kingdom.
The sins of Judah had filled the Divine cup when Ahaz, king of Judah replaced God's Covenant with the one made with Senacherib, king of Assyria. Hence, God's judgment had arrived for the removal of Judah but, according to I Kings 11:36, God had promised David that Judah, whose Tribe he had come from, would stay as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. Therefore, according to Isaiah 9:8, the final judgment that was supposed to come upon Judah fell upon Israel instead, and Messiah ben Joseph had to redeem Judah, or Messiah ben David by being the scapegoat predicted through the History of the united Israel.
Isaiah says in 53:9 that the Suffering Servant was without guile, and sinless. That's exactly what Israel was: Pure of the sins he died for, since they were the sins of Judah and not his. Messiah ben Joseph therefore, did not die for his sins but for the sins of Messiah ben David. Therefore, Israel was removed because of the sins of another. He was pierced so to speak, by the sins of Judah.
The sacrifice of Israel or Messiah ben Joseph meant the salvation of Judah or Messiah ben David. That's why Zechariah in 12:10 says that they (Judah) shall look upon him (Israel) whom they (Judah) had pierced with their sins, and mourn for him (Israel) as the one who mourns for his firstborn.
Now, let me explain by way of an analogy how Israel, or Messiah ben Joseph, who was the Suffering Servant died innocent of the sins of Judah or Messiah ben David: "A" and "B". "A" has committed a crime punishable with death, and "B", by mistake was condemned for that crime. It doesn't matter how evil is "B" in his life or how bad are his sins. The point is that he was condemned to die for the crime of "A". Therefore "B" was killed innocent and pure of the crimes and sins of "A". "A" got saved by the death of "B". So, "B" was the Suffering Servant that brought salvation to "A". Now matching the analogy to reality, "A" was Judah that pierced "B" with his crimes and sins.
Now, with the removal of Messiah ben Joseph, according to Psalm 78:67-69, Messiah be David occupied the place of Messiah ben Joseph, but as the Triumphant Servant with reference to the rest of Mankind, because of God's promise to Noah that humanity would never be destroyed again in an universal manner.(Gen. 8:21; Jer. 31:35-37)
Ben
If it's not metaphorical, it's allegorical; if it's not either of those two, it's analogous. Why is it that you have such a problem with a literal meaning of anything that is written in the Bible? The only "next step" you have in the wrong direction of interpretation is to disagree with all of it entirely. Not only that, if Isaiah 53 is about two messiah's, how can one be spoken of in the singular and the other spoken of in the plural? That makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, Israel as a nation or as an individual has not been sinless{but you've probably considered "...for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;..." to be anything but literal since it literally concerns all of mankind. It is truly amazing that you can't see how Isaiah 53 correlates with every aspect of whom the NT points to and is written about. It's as if it is right before your eyes to see and you seem to be completely blind.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 29, 2012
 
PIE wrote:
<quoted text>If it's not metaphorical, it's allegorical; if it's not either of those two, it's analogous. Why is it that you have such a problem with a literal meaning of anything that is written in the Bible? The only "next step" you have in the wrong direction of interpretation is to disagree with all of it entirely. Not only that, if Isaiah 53 is about two messiah's, how can one be spoken of in the singular and the other spoken of in the plural? That makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, Israel as a nation or as an individual has not been sinless{but you've probably considered "...for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;..." to be anything but literal since it literally concerns all of mankind. It is truly amazing that you can't see how Isaiah 53 correlates with every aspect of whom the NT points to and is written about. It's as if it is right before your eyes to see and you seem to be completely blind.
---------

What you are telling me is that you did not understand the thread.
And for being literal with the Scliptures is to prevent the danger of making of God an anthropomorphic god no different from the Olympian Pantheon of Greek gods. It is also to read the Scriptures on the basis of Christian pre-conceived notions.
Ben
PIE

Huntington, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 29, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
---------
What you are telling me is that you did not understand the thread.
And for being literal with the Scliptures is to prevent the danger of making of God an anthropomorphic god no different from the Olympian Pantheon of Greek gods. It is also to read the Scriptures on the basis of Christian pre-conceived notions.
Ben
No, I understand it perfectly. What I am telling you is Judah is not "they" and Israel is not "him". You are taking all of Isaiah 53 out of context if you label Judah as an entire tribe and Israel as an individual. Isaiah 53 is not about two messiahs or one messiah dying for another messiah. It is about ONE SINLESS MESSIAH dying for sinful mankind. No where within scripture does it say that Israel himself or Judah himself is to die for one of the other[or for that matter, anyone else]. Nor does it say anywhere within scripture that Israel himself or Judah himself was sinless. To apply what you are trying to apply to Isaiah 53 proves to me that you have not the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. Try reading something for what it actually says for once. You have an addictive habit of always seeing or looking for the allegorical or metaphorical. Plus, with your preconceived notion and objection concerning your supposed Paul's replacement theology, your thinking is constantly and consistently biased and slanted against Christianity when you choose to read the Tanakh and the New Testement. What I am telling you is that I understand very well your hatred of Christianity and it's Christ.
PIE

Huntington, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 29, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:

It was then that the Lord provided the Assyrians to remove Israel from the map of the world,
Now, come on Ben! You're cracking me up! You can't have it both ways! You stated on the tree of life and eternal life thread: "The Lord Himself does not get involved with the affairs of men."

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 4, 2012
 
PIE wrote:
<quoted text>No, I understand it perfectly. What I am telling you is Judah is not "they" and Israel is not "him". You are taking all of Isaiah 53 out of context if you label Judah as an entire tribe and Israel as an individual. Isaiah 53 is not about two messiahs or one messiah dying for another messiah. It is about ONE SINLESS MESSIAH dying for sinful mankind. No where within scripture does it say that Israel himself or Judah himself is to die for one of the other[or for that matter, anyone else]. Nor does it say anywhere within scripture that Israel himself or Judah himself was sinless. To apply what you are trying to apply to Isaiah 53 proves to me that you have not the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. Try reading something for what it actually says for once. You have an addictive habit of always seeing or looking for the allegorical or metaphorical. Plus, with your preconceived notion and objection concerning your supposed Paul's replacement theology, your thinking is constantly and consistently biased and slanted against Christianity when you choose to read the Tanakh and the New Testement. What I am telling you is that I understand very well your hatred of Christianity and it's Christ.
------

How sure are you that Israel is not him? Before you answer, read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My SON; let My SON go that HE may serve Me." Son is him; He is him. Are you still sure that Israel is not him? Before you claim to be sure about anything, read or change what is written, if you can.

Do you need an example of Judah as him too? Read Isaiah 7:14,15,22 and 8:8. Verse 14 says that the virgin shall bear a SON. Son is him. Verse 15 says that HE, which is him, the son of the virgin, shall live in curds and honey. Verse 22 says that curds and honey shall be the food of all who remain in the land. Who remained in the land when the Ten Tribes were taken away to Assyria? Judah, right? Right. Good! Now, read 8:8. Here Isaiah speaks of Judah as Immanuel. The Assyrians shall pass into Judah and spread its wings the full width of your land, Immanuel. He, Immanuel, which is him, is Judah. Isaiah indentifies HIM with Judah by name. Enough? I hope so. If not, you are free to return.

Regarding your question of where in the Bible was Israel supposed to die for Judah, read Isaiah 9:7. Perhaps verse 8 in the KJV. When Ahaz was king of Judah, he officially rejected God's Covenant and made one with Senakerib, king of Assyria, and adopted their baal gods. So much so, as to offer his firstborn in pagan burn sacrifice. That's when God doomed Judah to destruction, but because of God's promise to David that his Tribe would remain forever as a lamp in Jerusalem, according to I Kings 11:36, the judgment God had sent upon Judah, fell upon Israel. In other words, Israel had to be doomed to destruction to redeem Judah from his doom. That's when Israel was rejected and Judah confirmed
according to Psalm 78:67-69. Please, check the quotes to better understand what I am talking about. Thank you.
Ben

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 4, 2012
 
PIE wrote:
<quoted text>Now, come on Ben! You're cracking me up! You can't have it both ways! You stated on the tree of life and eternal life thread: "The Lord Himself does not get involved with the affairs of men."
--------

There you go again! When the prophets would come out of a vision they were at, they would never explain that what they were about to convey to the people or to the king was in metaphorical terms. They would just report the result of their visions as they had been through them. I have been discussing History with you. It is in our nature to report everything to God. It does not mean at all that God is literally on the make of it. We are the ones who make history. Besides, Maimonides says in his "The Guide for the Perplexed" that material of prophetic vision is always given in similes, allegories and metaphorical terms. Besides, when we take prophetic material in literal terms, we only convey an anthropomorphic idea of our Spiritual God. Jesus himself said that God is Spirit.(John 4:24) Spirits don't have human emotions.
Ben
PIE

Saint Albans, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 4, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
------
How sure are you that Israel is not him? Before you answer, read Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My SON; let My SON go that HE may serve Me." Son is him; He is him. Are you still sure that Israel is not him? Before you claim to be sure about anything, read or change what is written, if you can.
Do you need an example of Judah as him too? Read Isaiah 7:14,15,22 and 8:8. Verse 14 says that the virgin shall bear a SON. Son is him. Verse 15 says that HE, which is him, the son of the virgin, shall live in curds and honey. Verse 22 says that curds and honey shall be the food of all who remain in the land. Who remained in the land when the Ten Tribes were taken away to Assyria? Judah, right? Right. Good! Now, read 8:8. Here Isaiah speaks of Judah as Immanuel. The Assyrians shall pass into Judah and spread its wings the full width of your land, Immanuel. He, Immanuel, which is him, is Judah. Isaiah indentifies HIM with Judah by name. Enough? I hope so. If not, you are free to return.
Regarding your question of where in the Bible was Israel supposed to die for Judah, read Isaiah 9:7. Perhaps verse 8 in the KJV. When Ahaz was king of Judah, he officially rejected God's Covenant and made one with Senakerib, king of Assyria, and adopted their baal gods. So much so, as to offer his firstborn in pagan burn sacrifice. That's when God doomed Judah to destruction, but because of God's promise to David that his Tribe would remain forever as a lamp in Jerusalem, according to I Kings 11:36, the judgment God had sent upon Judah, fell upon Israel. In other words, Israel had to be doomed to destruction to redeem Judah from his doom. That's when Israel was rejected and Judah confirmed
according to Psalm 78:67-69. Please, check the quotes to better understand what I am talking about. Thank you.
Ben
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah! So, what! He, it, they, them, her , she, who cares! Israel is the restored wife of God in ch. 54{Hosea 2 = the adulterous wife[Israel] returns unto God}. Israel's spoken of as a female individual{Yet, isn't it about ALL of ISRAEL?} I believe God's judgment upon Judah did occur through the Babylonian captivity[albeit a remnant of Judah remained], if I've studied correctly. Therefore, the house of Israel did did not suffer what the house of Judah did in this specific instance in history/time, did they? Israel didn't suffer judgment in Judah's stead on this one. The 10 tribes of the house of Israel were already dispersed by Assyria. Isaiah 53 is not about Israel as a nation; nor is it about Israel/Jacob as an individual. It is about an individual[and not a metaphorical one] though. It is about the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah and you can find reference to what is said in the NT.
PIE

Saint Albans, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 4, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
There you go again! When the prophets would come out of a vision they were at, they would never explain that what they were about to convey to the people or to the king was in metaphorical terms. They would just report the result of their visions as they had been through them. I have been discussing History with you. It is in our nature to report everything to God. It does not mean at all that God is literally on the make of it. We are the ones who make history. Besides, Maimonides says in his "The Guide for the Perplexed" that material of prophetic vision is always given in similes, allegories and metaphorical terms. Besides, when we take prophetic material in literal terms, we only convey an anthropomorphic idea of our Spiritual God. Jesus himself said that God is Spirit.(John 4:24) Spirits don't have human emotions.
Ben
No, you specifically said, "...the Lord provided the Assyrians to remove Israel... Logic says: if the Lord did not provide, He wasn't involved in man's affairs. If He provided, He was involved man's affairs. Now which is it ? Either He did or He didn't; You can't have it both ways! If He doesn't involve Himself in man's affairs, He didn't provide anyone or anything!

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 5, 2012
 
PIE wrote:
<quoted text>Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah! So, what! He, it, they, them, her , she, who cares! Israel is the restored wife of God in ch. 54{Hosea 2 = the adulterous wife[Israel] returns unto God}. Israel's spoken of as a female individual{Yet, isn't it about ALL of ISRAEL?} I believe God's judgment upon Judah did occur through the Babylonian captivity[albeit a remnant of Judah remained], if I've studied correctly. Therefore, the house of Israel did did not suffer what the house of Judah did in this specific instance in history/time, did they? Israel didn't suffer judgment in Judah's stead on this one. The 10 tribes of the house of Israel were already dispersed by Assyria. Isaiah 53 is not about Israel as a nation; nor is it about Israel/Jacob as an individual. It is about an individual[and not a metaphorical one] though. It is about the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah and you can find reference to what is said in the NT.
-------

You either did not read my post for this reply of yours or you did
not understand it. I can't repeat the post here. It would be a wasting of our time. I think I was clear enough.
Ben

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 5, 2012
 
PIE wrote:
<quoted text>No, you specifically said, "...the Lord provided the Assyrians to remove Israel... Logic says: if the Lord did not provide, He wasn't involved in man's affairs. If He provided, He was involved man's affairs. Now which is it ? Either He did or He didn't; You can't have it both ways! If He doesn't involve Himself in man's affairs, He didn't provide anyone or anything!
--------

You are right. Literally, God did not provide anyone or anything. He just provides the universe for the advance of our intellect. See
that I used the verb "provides" in the present. Why? Because God has never ceased providing the universe, according to His nature as the Creator. Astrophysic scientists have demonstrated that the universe expands. Only that they do not know how, or are being too cautious to declare that's the work of some Supernatural Being. Eintein was rather bold to say that it could be God at His work of creation. He cared less to be criticized by his colleagues as personal theist, which at his time it would be detrimental.
Ben
PIE

Saint Albans, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 6, 2012
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
You are right. Literally, God did not provide anyone or anything. He just provides the universe for the advance of our intellect. See
that I used the verb "provides" in the present. Why? Because God has never ceased providing the universe, according to His nature as the Creator. Astrophysic scientists have demonstrated that the universe expands. Only that they do not know how, or are being too cautious to declare that's the work of some Supernatural Being. Eintein was rather bold to say that it could be God at His work of creation. He cared less to be criticized by his colleagues as personal theist, which at his time it would be detrimental.
Ben
No, Ben. He did provide the Assyrians. You had a slip of the lip and said so yourself. That's twice now I've caught you saying something that shows God does get involved with the affairs of man and you still want to be "stiff-necked" and say that He doesn't. Don't be a flip-flopper concerning truth , Ben, you'll make yourself known as a double-minded man.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 6, 2012
 
PIE wrote:
<quoted text>No, Ben. He did provide the Assyrians. You had a slip of the lip and said so yourself. That's twice now I've caught you saying something that shows God does get involved with the affairs of man and you still want to be "stiff-necked" and say that He doesn't. Don't be a flip-flopper concerning truth , Ben, you'll make yourself known as a double-minded man.
--------

God provides everything, even the hair to cover your head. This is the pre-conceived notion of being human to attribute everything to God.

We must understand though, that when we speak in that tune we are doing it metaphorically. Otherwise, we will be in big trouble to explain that God is not like a man to act as a man.

When "He said" to grow and multiply, according to Genesis 1:28, He didn't only mean to make children and fill up the earth, but also to develop our intellect and be like Himself as knowledge is concerned.(Gal. 3:22)

I think I have told you even more than several times that I don't have to explain between parenthesis that what I have just said is metaphorical. I take for granted that you know the difference. Obviously, I am wrong.

The prophets never explained that their messages was given in a dream or vision, therefore, metaphorical. They would just convey them as if they had received them straight from God in a face-to-face dialogue.
Ben

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••