Nope, it was only taught that Johny the dunker was the only one born with spirit from birth. JC had to wait for him to sing "Let's a'go down to da reeva".
B) I believe He did not have the spirit on Himself (like John did) at birth;
C) I believe That He was flesh and blood, like you and I;
D) What was the question??
quote:
Can someone comment on how JC was created a perfect man but god witheld spirit from him? Wouldn't that qualify as being imperfect if man's original state involved having spirit? How could he then be the second adam if he did not have equal to adam???
I'll give it a stab, from my humble perspective.
JC (Yeshua) was the only human being (other than Adam) to have God as a literal Father, unlike you or I.
I still believe in the *perfect blood* that coursed through the veins of Jesus (from day *whatever* of his conception/birth), and that makes all the difference in the world to me.
Adam was *born* with spirit, and lost it, but he was born with uncontaminated blood as well. Jesus was the only one (as far as I know) who was born with uncontaminated blood as well, so that certainly qualifies Him as the 2nd Adam.
Adam's disobedience lost him the spirit. Jesus' obedience gained Him that spirit. Both had God as a literal Father, and both had the *sinless* blood running through their veins.
Perfect man was what God created, yet perfect man, was not all it was cracked up to be. Does that make God a loser for creating a *perfect imperfection*? NO.
Free will enters into the picture, and both Adam, and Jesus had it. One chose wisely, and one chose poorly. It really is as simple as that.
Check your premises -- they need a *looking over*. :)-->
Sin in the blood is an interesting stand, for Christians especially, IMO. I don't know if you realise what you are saying, but....you are saying that behavior is genetic. Which to some degree I would agree.
But then take a look at one behavior many Christians have a problem with, homosexuality. The gays folks and many others say it is genetic, Christians and still others cry pervertive choice! WOW! But sin is genetic. hmmmmm
What other behavior is genetic. What would yall be willing to accept? If it were a matter of someone being more likely to sin then JC wouldn't need perfect blood. Like alchoholism, they say you have a 50/50 chance that you will or woll not be an alchoholic if your parent was. Predisposed is what I think they call it. Well if that is the case why couuldn't JC have had imperfect blood and just chose the proper percentage of his behaviour. Plus if his blood was perfect then it doesn't seem like he would really be "tempted in all things lke as we are" because he didn't have sin in his blood and therefore wouldn't be predisposed to certain behavior like we are. He would be born far less likely to sin...far less tempted. That is all of course if sin is genetic. Idon't know what else you could mean by sin being in the blood.
JC having perfect blood assumes that the man is the determining factor for blood. In this case the literally non-male God, but anyway. Blood is determined by both parents. That would mean that either Mary had perfect blood somehow or that she wasn't really his mother at all. God would had have to completely create him not just the sperm as twits teach.
"Sin in the blood is an interesting stand ... you are saying that behavior is genetic ... homosexuality ... say it is genetic ... sin is genetic ... Like alchoholism ... Predisposed ... Idon't know what else you could mean by sin being in the blood."
Call me a 'Weirwill-ite' if you wish, but I do think that we each do have some genetic pre-disposition towards different types of sin-full behavior.
Homosexuality, alcoholics [alcoholism by the way, makes it a religion], even some studys are tracing rapists and other things in prison populations to their genetics.
If there exists a 'cloud' of demons each specializing in a particular behavior, and for each of them, some people are easily influenced [due to their genetic-pre-disposition] while others simply are not. Also as Weirwille taught, that once a demon has entered and has influenced the way of which you function, he could leave and better spend it's time making over someone else. Once someone is in the habit of sin [which ever sin you wish], then the actual demon does not need to stay there, but rather go on to the next customer.
The 'Screw-tape letters' is a great illistration of this.
This also comes into consideration when we look at the idea of sin following a family for 7 generations. Does that mean that each successive generation does not have the free-will to chose to follow God? Obviously not. Rather that once a genetic-pre-disposition is firmly entrenched in a family it takes generations for that gene to be watered down, or bred away. Obviously each person still has free-will, and could choose to worship, but they simply may not due to their beign 'drawn' towards such behavior.
I can certainly see behaviors that are in my father, that are still strong in me, and again they are strong in my son. The best precaution in my mind is to acknowledge the pre-disposition as something that exists, so that it can be dealt with, in my life.
if the bible is true, then how can a natural man attain better understanding than all the prophets combined without god's spirit? Is the spirit of god overrated??? they teach that god cannot communicate directly to your mind so how pray tell did christ gain this ultimate understanding? Phenomena?
Good questions with not a whole lot of answers according to way theology. Now you know why the trinity thing makes more sense than at first glance. :D-->
JC being God would solve some of these issues. Like I pointed out with Mary as his mother, there couldn't be perfect blood. But then he wouldn't need it to be sinless and tempted in all things like uss. He would just need to make the right choices. That goes for all of us I supose. Although, that would make it hard for JC as God to be tempted at all, seeing as you can't tempt the Lord your God. It is all a little muddy.
Galen,
Wouldn't it be easier to think that instead of demons that the combination of both nuture and nature help determined whether or not a person fell into their predisposition? I don't hear of too many rapests tlaking of their perfect upbringing and how their parents loved and supported them all the time. It seems more common and readily ovservable that one's upbringing combined with genetic predisposition are the cause of terrible behaviors. Demons are kind of hard to document.
I agree with DMiller's answer--well, most of it anyway. I think he is correct in stating that Jesus, as the second man born from God and not another man, had the choice to obey, where Adam chose not to. That makes him the second Adam.
But the Way's teaching that God cannot communicate with a natural man is not biblical. God communicated with Adam and Eve right *after* they sinned and supposedly lost the spirit. He also had several conversations with Cain before and after he killed Abel. Now we have a doctrinal trainwreck of sorts because TWI teaches that Cain was the first man born of the seed of the serpent. But when God sent Cain into exile, Cain grieved most for the fact that he would lose his relationship with God (Genesis 4:14). And when you consider all the people to whom God communicated by dreams, it becomes clear the VP's assertion that God can't talk to a "five senses man" is invalid.
(And there is not one word in Genesis that indicates that Adam and Eve had spirit upon them. It's a theological construct designed to explain the fact that God told Adam he would die the day he ate of the tree of the KOGAE and then Adam did so and lived over 900 years. If you want to try to clear that up and have a perfect Bible, you have to add something to Adam and Eve that died when they sinned. )
But the whole battle of the senses rap that VP laid down when teaching Genesis is utter nonsense. God formed, made, and created man, so if the Almighty wants to tell you something He will do so, no matter who you are. So God certainly could have communicated a great deal to his Son Jesus even before he put spirit upon him. The major difference in the pre-baptismal Jesus and the post-baptismal Jesus is not what he could learn, but what he could do. Biblically speaking, there's no indication that Jesus had any supernatural power before he was baptized in holy spirit. No healings, no miracles. But he could have been well prepared for that phase of his life by what he had learned, both from the Scriptures and from his Father.
Wouldn't it be easier to think that instead of demons that the combination of both nuture and nature help determined whether or not a person fell into their predisposition? I don't hear of too many rapests tlaking of their perfect upbringing and how their parents loved and supported them all the time. It seems more common and readily ovservable that one's upbringing combined with genetic predisposition are the cause of terrible behaviors. Demons are kind of hard to document."
It never occured to me that demons would have anything to do with your predisposition.
Cold you possibly explain how demons would have something to do with forming or changing someone's pre-disposition?
I would think that 'pre' would mean something somewhere before the demon ever came into your life. Prehaps your genetics or how you were raised, or what nuturing you recieved? but if you insist that it must be otherwise, hmm. I still dont think so.
" ... So God certainly could have communicated a great deal to his Son Jesus even before he put spirit upon him. The major difference in the pre-baptismal Jesus and the post-baptismal Jesus is not what he could learn, but what he could do. Biblically speaking, there's no indication that Jesus had any supernatural power before he was baptized in holy spirit. No healings, no miracles. But he could have been well prepared for that phase of his life by what he had learned, both from the Scriptures and from his Father."
I could see that.
Also I always wondered, if there wern't angels within the community as he grew up, and if his local synagogue wasn't populated with a number of them, in human form, just to help ensure that he got a full back-ground in all of the Torah.
It seems to me that since so much of what Judeans teach is from their oral-traditions, or what they consider the other 'half' of their 'teachings' [half being the written, half being the oral]. That His Father would need to ensure that the oral stuff Jesus was told, was correct.
"Truth is truth even when someone in twi proclaims it."
Yes sir. :)--> Truth is always truth (just as error is always error), regardless of who is doing the speaking. I don't know if I would call it *the moral of the story*, but if that works, so be it.
I was saying that it seems more likely that the combination of nurture and nature would be sufficient in causing one to act on a negative behavior one is predisposed for. My view is that demons have nothing to do with it at all, pre or post. Especially seeing how demon are not exactly noticeable.
I would think that if we were predisposed to sin (a concept I don't agree with) that you wouldn't need demons to tempt you. Just the normal day to day experiences would present enough opportunities that one would sin according to their predisposition farely regularly just from a purely statistical probability view point. Thats all.
"I was saying that it seems more likely that the combination of nurture and nature would be sufficient in causing one to act on a negative behavior one is predisposed for. My view is that demons have nothing to do with it at all, pre or post. Especially seeing how demon are not exactly noticeable."
The idea that 'something' [the combination of: nurture, nature, and genetics] would be sufficient in causing one to have a pre-disposition, and to possibly act out on it, or to someday be possessed by the appropriate demon. Kind of sums up what I learned from the PFAL series, as being VPW's teaching.
I think a person could easily take that with or without the demon part, and still make it work for many individuals.
"I would think that if we were predisposed to sin (a concept I don't agree with) that you wouldn't need demons to tempt you."
I don’t think that demons are needed, obviously we screw-up many things all on our own without assistance everyday.
Not to mention how many try to do good, get together with others to do good, but yet once 'group-think' is formed they together go off and do something truly horrible.
The Spanish Inquisition being a wonderful example. Very dedicated priests, fiercely religious and not doubting in their faith; but 400 years of rapes, tortures, murders, kind of sounds bad. Even though I am sure they meant well.
The thing that really strikes me here is; scholars have lived and died, generations have passed and it seems we still have not developed a collective cohesive position on some basic points.
Why the difficulty? Is man a 3 part being or not? You cannot "prove" it by way pneumatology.
Des anyone here give any credence to the documentary hypothesis and would/can that clarify some of these issues?
I don't buy the one year ministry of Jesus Christ and do suspect he had three and a half years. I have the tapes "Harmony of the Gospels but doubt it was done in one year. I believe the record of all four gospels crosses the traditional view of three and a half years.
I fail to see how the length of his ministry as relevant to "all things that pertain unto life and godliness". It doesn't say, so who cares?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know all the "lamb of the first year" stuff. Go ahead and squeeze it if you want, but you're presuming to make a biggie out of something the scriptures are otherwise silent on...
Predisposed to sin...pure blood...the second Adam...perfect man...with or without spirit...
Some interesting thoughts. Seems to me that anybody with freedom of will can choose to sin or not to sin. Genetic predisposition? They are only just beginning to understand this field. Who knows for sure...If we humans, after generations and generations of breeding...have thrown together billions of combinations of "sinful genes" that have engulfed every one of us into some sort of predisposed social disorder, no wonder God needed one guy to save us all. Sorta like being born with cement feet and wondering why you didn't make the track team. Being "born in sin" certainly raises some interesting questions as it relates to the field of genetics.
The scriptures are also silent on the topic of whether or not Jesus had a bride.
Being the eldest son of a family, and 30 years old. It certainly would have seemed 'odd' had he not been married ten years previously. And children ...
By the standards set forth for judging or determining the Sanhedron and later the same exact standards are set for determining leadership roles within the body of Christ.
At least 30 years old, a husband, and a father; then look at the children to see how they are doing and how they are being raised. The idea of 30 years old, and a husband, and a father are all just to get your name in the bucket per say. The only real thing that is described that requires focus is when it comes to examining the children.
Since we know that Paul had to meet this standard, and that his guidance is tht we should continue to use that guidance for selecting leaders of the church. It would seem to make sense that Jesus [one generation earlier] certainly would have done the same.
Recommended Posts
learning
I always thought it was taught that Jesus had spirit from birth. I could look it up but that seems to hard at midnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Nope, it was only taught that Johny the dunker was the only one born with spirit from birth. JC had to wait for him to sing "Let's a'go down to da reeva".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
A) I believe that Jesus had a one year ministry;
B) I believe He did not have the spirit on Himself (like John did) at birth;
C) I believe That He was flesh and blood, like you and I;
D) What was the question??
I'll give it a stab, from my humble perspective.
JC (Yeshua) was the only human being (other than Adam) to have God as a literal Father, unlike you or I.
I still believe in the *perfect blood* that coursed through the veins of Jesus (from day *whatever* of his conception/birth), and that makes all the difference in the world to me.
Adam was *born* with spirit, and lost it, but he was born with uncontaminated blood as well. Jesus was the only one (as far as I know) who was born with uncontaminated blood as well, so that certainly qualifies Him as the 2nd Adam.
Adam's disobedience lost him the spirit. Jesus' obedience gained Him that spirit. Both had God as a literal Father, and both had the *sinless* blood running through their veins.
Perfect man was what God created, yet perfect man, was not all it was cracked up to be. Does that make God a loser for creating a *perfect imperfection*? NO.
Free will enters into the picture, and both Adam, and Jesus had it. One chose wisely, and one chose poorly. It really is as simple as that.
Check your premises -- they need a *looking over*.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Dmiller,
I take it the moral of this story then is:
"Truth is truth even when someone in twi proclaims it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Sin in the blood is an interesting stand, for Christians especially, IMO. I don't know if you realise what you are saying, but....you are saying that behavior is genetic. Which to some degree I would agree.
But then take a look at one behavior many Christians have a problem with, homosexuality. The gays folks and many others say it is genetic, Christians and still others cry pervertive choice! WOW! But sin is genetic. hmmmmm
What other behavior is genetic. What would yall be willing to accept? If it were a matter of someone being more likely to sin then JC wouldn't need perfect blood. Like alchoholism, they say you have a 50/50 chance that you will or woll not be an alchoholic if your parent was. Predisposed is what I think they call it. Well if that is the case why couuldn't JC have had imperfect blood and just chose the proper percentage of his behaviour. Plus if his blood was perfect then it doesn't seem like he would really be "tempted in all things lke as we are" because he didn't have sin in his blood and therefore wouldn't be predisposed to certain behavior like we are. He would be born far less likely to sin...far less tempted. That is all of course if sin is genetic. Idon't know what else you could mean by sin being in the blood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
And another thing...
JC having perfect blood assumes that the man is the determining factor for blood. In this case the literally non-male God, but anyway. Blood is determined by both parents. That would mean that either Mary had perfect blood somehow or that she wasn't really his mother at all. God would had have to completely create him not just the sperm as twits teach.
Which is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
lindyhopper:
"Sin in the blood is an interesting stand ... you are saying that behavior is genetic ... homosexuality ... say it is genetic ... sin is genetic ... Like alchoholism ... Predisposed ... Idon't know what else you could mean by sin being in the blood."
Call me a 'Weirwill-ite' if you wish, but I do think that we each do have some genetic pre-disposition towards different types of sin-full behavior.
Homosexuality, alcoholics [alcoholism by the way, makes it a religion], even some studys are tracing rapists and other things in prison populations to their genetics.
If there exists a 'cloud' of demons each specializing in a particular behavior, and for each of them, some people are easily influenced [due to their genetic-pre-disposition] while others simply are not. Also as Weirwille taught, that once a demon has entered and has influenced the way of which you function, he could leave and better spend it's time making over someone else. Once someone is in the habit of sin [which ever sin you wish], then the actual demon does not need to stay there, but rather go on to the next customer.
The 'Screw-tape letters' is a great illistration of this.
This also comes into consideration when we look at the idea of sin following a family for 7 generations. Does that mean that each successive generation does not have the free-will to chose to follow God? Obviously not. Rather that once a genetic-pre-disposition is firmly entrenched in a family it takes generations for that gene to be watered down, or bred away. Obviously each person still has free-will, and could choose to worship, but they simply may not due to their beign 'drawn' towards such behavior.
I can certainly see behaviors that are in my father, that are still strong in me, and again they are strong in my son. The best precaution in my mind is to acknowledge the pre-disposition as something that exists, so that it can be dealt with, in my life.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horse Called War
if the bible is true, then how can a natural man attain better understanding than all the prophets combined without god's spirit? Is the spirit of god overrated??? they teach that god cannot communicate directly to your mind so how pray tell did christ gain this ultimate understanding? Phenomena?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
horse
Good questions with not a whole lot of answers according to way theology. Now you know why the trinity thing makes more sense than at first glance.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I hear ya, Ex10
JC being God would solve some of these issues. Like I pointed out with Mary as his mother, there couldn't be perfect blood. But then he wouldn't need it to be sinless and tempted in all things like uss. He would just need to make the right choices. That goes for all of us I supose. Although, that would make it hard for JC as God to be tempted at all, seeing as you can't tempt the Lord your God. It is all a little muddy.
Galen,
Wouldn't it be easier to think that instead of demons that the combination of both nuture and nature help determined whether or not a person fell into their predisposition? I don't hear of too many rapests tlaking of their perfect upbringing and how their parents loved and supported them all the time. It seems more common and readily ovservable that one's upbringing combined with genetic predisposition are the cause of terrible behaviors. Demons are kind of hard to document.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I agree with DMiller's answer--well, most of it anyway. I think he is correct in stating that Jesus, as the second man born from God and not another man, had the choice to obey, where Adam chose not to. That makes him the second Adam.
But the Way's teaching that God cannot communicate with a natural man is not biblical. God communicated with Adam and Eve right *after* they sinned and supposedly lost the spirit. He also had several conversations with Cain before and after he killed Abel. Now we have a doctrinal trainwreck of sorts because TWI teaches that Cain was the first man born of the seed of the serpent. But when God sent Cain into exile, Cain grieved most for the fact that he would lose his relationship with God (Genesis 4:14). And when you consider all the people to whom God communicated by dreams, it becomes clear the VP's assertion that God can't talk to a "five senses man" is invalid.
(And there is not one word in Genesis that indicates that Adam and Eve had spirit upon them. It's a theological construct designed to explain the fact that God told Adam he would die the day he ate of the tree of the KOGAE and then Adam did so and lived over 900 years. If you want to try to clear that up and have a perfect Bible, you have to add something to Adam and Eve that died when they sinned. )
But the whole battle of the senses rap that VP laid down when teaching Genesis is utter nonsense. God formed, made, and created man, so if the Almighty wants to tell you something He will do so, no matter who you are. So God certainly could have communicated a great deal to his Son Jesus even before he put spirit upon him. The major difference in the pre-baptismal Jesus and the post-baptismal Jesus is not what he could learn, but what he could do. Biblically speaking, there's no indication that Jesus had any supernatural power before he was baptized in holy spirit. No healings, no miracles. But he could have been well prepared for that phase of his life by what he had learned, both from the Scriptures and from his Father.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
lindyhopper:
"Galen,
Wouldn't it be easier to think that instead of demons that the combination of both nuture and nature help determined whether or not a person fell into their predisposition? I don't hear of too many rapests tlaking of their perfect upbringing and how their parents loved and supported them all the time. It seems more common and readily ovservable that one's upbringing combined with genetic predisposition are the cause of terrible behaviors. Demons are kind of hard to document."
It never occured to me that demons would have anything to do with your predisposition.
Cold you possibly explain how demons would have something to do with forming or changing someone's pre-disposition?
I would think that 'pre' would mean something somewhere before the demon ever came into your life. Prehaps your genetics or how you were raised, or what nuturing you recieved? but if you insist that it must be otherwise, hmm. I still dont think so.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Jbarrax:
" ... So God certainly could have communicated a great deal to his Son Jesus even before he put spirit upon him. The major difference in the pre-baptismal Jesus and the post-baptismal Jesus is not what he could learn, but what he could do. Biblically speaking, there's no indication that Jesus had any supernatural power before he was baptized in holy spirit. No healings, no miracles. But he could have been well prepared for that phase of his life by what he had learned, both from the Scriptures and from his Father."
I could see that.
Also I always wondered, if there wern't angels within the community as he grew up, and if his local synagogue wasn't populated with a number of them, in human form, just to help ensure that he got a full back-ground in all of the Torah.
It seems to me that since so much of what Judeans teach is from their oral-traditions, or what they consider the other 'half' of their 'teachings' [half being the written, half being the oral]. That His Father would need to ensure that the oral stuff Jesus was told, was correct.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yes sir.
:)--> Truth is always truth (just as error is always error), regardless of who is doing the speaking. I don't know if I would call it *the moral of the story*, but if that works, so be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Lindy -- you're bringing up some really good points, and giving me a few things to think about. Your perspective is one I had not thought of.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Sorry Galen, we seem to have miscommunicated.
I was saying that it seems more likely that the combination of nurture and nature would be sufficient in causing one to act on a negative behavior one is predisposed for. My view is that demons have nothing to do with it at all, pre or post. Especially seeing how demon are not exactly noticeable.
I would think that if we were predisposed to sin (a concept I don't agree with) that you wouldn't need demons to tempt you. Just the normal day to day experiences would present enough opportunities that one would sin according to their predisposition farely regularly just from a purely statistical probability view point. Thats all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
and David
Thanks and your welcome and thank you too.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
lindyhopper:
"I was saying that it seems more likely that the combination of nurture and nature would be sufficient in causing one to act on a negative behavior one is predisposed for. My view is that demons have nothing to do with it at all, pre or post. Especially seeing how demon are not exactly noticeable."
The idea that 'something' [the combination of: nurture, nature, and genetics] would be sufficient in causing one to have a pre-disposition, and to possibly act out on it, or to someday be possessed by the appropriate demon. Kind of sums up what I learned from the PFAL series, as being VPW's teaching.
I think a person could easily take that with or without the demon part, and still make it work for many individuals.
"I would think that if we were predisposed to sin (a concept I don't agree with) that you wouldn't need demons to tempt you."
I don’t think that demons are needed, obviously we screw-up many things all on our own without assistance everyday.
Not to mention how many try to do good, get together with others to do good, but yet once 'group-think' is formed they together go off and do something truly horrible.
The Spanish Inquisition being a wonderful example. Very dedicated priests, fiercely religious and not doubting in their faith; but 400 years of rapes, tortures, murders, kind of sounds bad. Even though I am sure they meant well.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horse Called War
All good comments -
The thing that really strikes me here is; scholars have lived and died, generations have passed and it seems we still have not developed a collective cohesive position on some basic points.
Why the difficulty? Is man a 3 part being or not? You cannot "prove" it by way pneumatology.
Des anyone here give any credence to the documentary hypothesis and would/can that clarify some of these issues?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
I don't buy the one year ministry of Jesus Christ and do suspect he had three and a half years. I have the tapes "Harmony of the Gospels but doubt it was done in one year. I believe the record of all four gospels crosses the traditional view of three and a half years.
Just a thought. I am still studying it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I fail to see how the length of his ministry as relevant to "all things that pertain unto life and godliness". It doesn't say, so who cares?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know all the "lamb of the first year" stuff. Go ahead and squeeze it if you want, but you're presuming to make a biggie out of something the scriptures are otherwise silent on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Predisposed to sin...pure blood...the second Adam...perfect man...with or without spirit...
Some interesting thoughts. Seems to me that anybody with freedom of will can choose to sin or not to sin. Genetic predisposition? They are only just beginning to understand this field. Who knows for sure...If we humans, after generations and generations of breeding...have thrown together billions of combinations of "sinful genes" that have engulfed every one of us into some sort of predisposed social disorder, no wonder God needed one guy to save us all. Sorta like being born with cement feet and wondering why you didn't make the track team. Being "born in sin" certainly raises some interesting questions as it relates to the field of genetics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
The scriptures are also silent on the topic of whether or not Jesus had a bride.
Being the eldest son of a family, and 30 years old. It certainly would have seemed 'odd' had he not been married ten years previously. And children ...
By the standards set forth for judging or determining the Sanhedron and later the same exact standards are set for determining leadership roles within the body of Christ.
At least 30 years old, a husband, and a father; then look at the children to see how they are doing and how they are being raised. The idea of 30 years old, and a husband, and a father are all just to get your name in the bucket per say. The only real thing that is described that requires focus is when it comes to examining the children.
Since we know that Paul had to meet this standard, and that his guidance is tht we should continue to use that guidance for selecting leaders of the church. It would seem to make sense that Jesus [one generation earlier] certainly would have done the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.