DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: Kerry Date: November 20, 2015, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Deborah link=topic=384.msg3296#msg3296
date=1448041324]
Why did you ask me to 'account for' this verse then?[/quote]We
don't seem to be on the same page here. The OP started off
with an apparent contradiction between Leviticus 26:28-29 and
Ezekiel 18:19-20. The question is whether God punishes innocent
children for the sins of their parents. Your description was
not wrong; indeed I would say it's true enough; but it isn't
what I was talking about. You seem to have picked up on one
point and missed the drift of the opening post. I thought I
asked hard questions and wanted to know what people thought.
[quote]What should we believe here? If all children go to
Heaven when they die, is it really possible that God would send
children to this earth only to have them suffer because of the
sins of their parents? Would God punish the children in order
to make the parents suffer? I don't believe that. I can't
believe God would send children to the earth knowing their fate
would be that their parents eat them, just to make a point of
punishing the parents. Taking them off to Heaven after the
beasts kill them or their parents eat them still doesn't explain
anything. [/quote]
[quote]I don't claim to understand why God would choose to
chastise Israel in this way and not in another way. He doesn't
tell us, except that it is His 'last resort'.
I don't think that individual guilt or innocence comes into it.
The nation as a whole has broken the covenant, therefore the
nation as a whole suffers. The children are part of the nation,
they are included in the covenant by virtue of being born to
Israelite parents. War is a blunt instrument, it makes no
distinction between the deserving and the undeserving. The
inevitable question is: why does God use that method of
punishment? But I don't know the answer to that
question.[/quote]I am not saying you're completely right or
wrong here -- I think you're partly right; but this view
contradicts what Ezekiel says, that God does not punish the
children for the sins of their parents.
As for being born into Israel, the Jews say the souls of all
Israel too the vow at Sinai and that included the souls not yet
in bodies.
Deuteronomy 29:14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant
and this oath;
15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the
Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this
day:
[quote]He tells us that in some cases He does (e.g. Exodus
20:5). (This is at the level of the community again, not
individuals) We may not like the idea, but that is what He says.
It's much easier to get people to kill and destroy than to get
them: to do good...
[/quote]Take Exodus 20:5. How does that match up with Ezekiel
18:19?
Then we also see that this bears on the question of infant
circumcision and baptism, and some people object to that.
Does God do something good for babies who are baptized the way
He did for babies who were circumcised? Why, if the prophet
Ezekiel was right? I say yes. You seem ready to say he was
wrong. I say people are born where they ought to be, that
people have made some decisions about their future lives even
before they're born. I also say that babies who were eaten by
their parents were guilty themselves of something even before
they were born. I do not think God punishes people
collectively. I do not believe we should attribute any
injustice anywhere in the world to God. People in Israel
seemed to believe this and had a saying about it; but Ezekiel
said they were mistaken.
Ezekiel 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning
the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge?
#Post#: 3307--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: Kerry Date: November 22, 2015, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Other passages worth considering are:
Malachi 1:2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say,
Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith
the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage
waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
Romans 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I
come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by
one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any
good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?
God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion.
First we should realize that "hate" doesn't mean animosity or
harboring evil intentions. Here it means "avoid." When I
study of the story of the story of Rebecca and Isaac and their
sons Esau and Jacob, I see the Love of God for Esau and his
offspring. I see Rebecca and Jacob taking action so that Esau
and his offspring could be restored to the family of God. The
worst thing to think is that God was unfair or unjust in
treating the two sons differently. God is consistent. He
knows when how to bring about circumstances which encourage
repentance so He can extend Mercy. We should not believe that
just because we can't see God extending His Mercy to some people
now that He doesn't care about them.
Nor does this mean some people are born with God knowing they
are damned eternally the way some people teach. God is not
willing that any should perish; and we ought not think
"election" means that God created anyone knowing it was
impossible for him to be saved. This would make God unjust,
attributing unrighteousness and favoritism to God.
Perhaps this story about Esau and Jacob is worth discussing in
more detail. It begins further back in Genesis, in Eden. Some
things can be understood. We can say that God will have Mercy
on whom He will have Mercy" and realize sometimes it's beyond
our understanding; but when we study when He decides to extend
Mercy and on whom, we can come to understand some things. Then
we realize God is not being whimsical; and His actions are not
random. He is consistent and willing that all come to
salvation. The actions of Rebecca and Jacob are reversing some
of the negative things brought about by the Fall from Eden. I
will not hide it from you: the Jews say Rebecca was Eve
reincarnated and Jacob was Adam. I believe they also say Cain
was reincarnated as Esau. Note that Cain was the firstborn and
so was Esau. Note too "Edom" and "Adam" are the same word in
Hebrew with Esau exhibiting the "fallen" and "more beastly"
aspect of the Adamic race.
#Post#: 3402--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: Kerry Date: December 3, 2015, 12:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Then we have this too about the firstborn of the Egyptians:
Exodus 11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight
will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the
first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto
the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and
all the firstborn of beasts.
6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of
Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any
more.
12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all
the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of
Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive
that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants,
and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for
there was not a house where there was not one dead.
This makes some sense to me; but then I believe in
reincarnation. Notice that even the firstborn of the beasts
died. Compare that to what God says of the animals later:
Jonah 4:10 Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd,
for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow;
which came up in a night, and perished in a night:
11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are
more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between
their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?
But in the book of Jonah we see the cattle fasting and wearing
sackcloth!
3:5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a
fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to
the least of them.
6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his
throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with
sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through
Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let
neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them
not feed, nor drink water:
8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry
mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil
way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from
his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil
way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he
would do unto them; and he did it not.
#Post#: 3403--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: Kerry Date: December 3, 2015, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought of two more problematic texts. The first has a
reference to the "Edomites" again; but the reference to children
concerns the children of Babylon.
Psalm 137:7 Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of
Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation
thereof.
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he
be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones
against the stones.
The other is found in the message to the angel of Thyatira:
Revelation 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against
thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth
herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to
commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she
repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit
adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of
their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches
shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts:
and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Literal or figurative? The interesting connection here is that
Jesus was possibly a "child" of Jezebel. We read that Ahab's
seventy sons were killed (2 Kings 10); but it seems at least one
daughter survived and married into the Messianic line.
2 Kings 8:16 And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king
of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son
of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign.
17 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and
he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.
18 And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the
house of Ahab: for the daughter of Ahab was his wife: and he did
evil in the sight of the Lord.
#Post#: 3409--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: Kerry Date: December 4, 2015, 11:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Did God love Cain? Did Cain love God? I say God did love
Cain, a great deal in fact; and Cain wanted God to love him but
had discipline problems. But let's go back a bit to look for
clues about who or what Cain was.
Genesis 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there
he put the man whom he had formed.
Why take dust from outside of Eden to make the man with and then
place him in Eden? Here is a clue about the role the man was
to play. I believe there were other human beings living on the
earth then. They had some problems however which made it
impossible for them to relate properly with God.
First, their physical bodies had been altered. This could be
compared to a broken wire on an electrical device. The device
won't work right without that connection to the source of
electricity.
Secondly, the spiritual hierarchy of planet earth had fallen and
did not want the fallen human species to become spiritually
aware. These fallen ones, called gods by some, appear in pagan
stories and I've no reason to doubt their existence.
For the new human species to be able to redeem the fallen one,
they needed to be compatible. The "redeemer" in the Bible is
shown as "next of kin." And we area also told:
Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to
dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the
times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Blood is "dam" in Hebrew; and if you add the aleph "a" which
also means air, spirit, breath, you derive "adam."
Adam was therefore formed out of the same dust or earth (adamah)
that the fallen humans were and was compatible. The
difference was that the adamic offspring had a spiritual
connection. The plan then was for the spirits of the fallen
race to be able to incarnate in the newly made adamic line and
not be forced to be born in the defective fallen line. I
believe then that Cain was the first such soul born into the
adamic line.
There would be the original 144,000 souls which came to the
earth on this mission born into the adamic line; and then there
would be souls from the prior fallen race. The goal from the
first was to "replace" or "supplant" the ancient gods -- which
were the legitimate spiritual authority for the earth. By one
means or another, these fallen gods had to relinquish their
authority or be tricked into giving it up.
The oldest sons in the Bible denote spiritual authority since
the oldest sons held the position of priest. We will see this
same principle again with Esau and with Pharaoh. Thus Cain
represents the ancient and legitimate spiritual authority or
line which is to be brought back into line so mankind can relate
to Heaven. And Eve says of Cain:
Genesis 4:4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and
bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of
sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Abel can be said to be associated with the color white, the
color of wool; and Cain with red. Abel is shown as connected
with sheep or the Lamb -- while Cain is struggling with the
"ground" on which there was a curse. In a way, these two also
represent the "animal soul" and the "vegetative soul."
Say what we might about Cain, we find him contrite after killing
Abel; and God extends mercy; and then Seth is born. We should
never believe God plays favorites. Rather we should believe
that the offspring of Seth, the souls of the original 144,000
and the souls of others added into the original, had the
salvation of the offspring of Cain as their goal.
None of this will make much since if we believe every spirit has
but one lifetime in a human body; but then again, neither will
this verse make much sense.
Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the
foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world
hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Can we believe Jesus was suffering in Heaven watching events on
the earth and doing nothing himself about them except watching
and suffering? Can we believe he did this for about four
thousand years while the adamic line stumbled along? Or
should we believe he was doing anything and everything he could
to help in those four thousand years, perhaps at times from
Heaven and perhaps at other times by incarnating on the earth
itself?
For my money, Jesus incarnated as Abel and did indeed begin his
suffering almost at once. Yet this murder of Abel by Cain
meant Cain had violated the law of free will. Some laws are
inviolable; and the law of free will is. This murder meant
Cain gave up his right as the first born, his right to be priest
within the adamic line. His karma was also that he "owed"
Abel. Edgar Cayce was of the opinion that Jesus had incarnated
as Seth. Perhaps that's right too. I can't say I know for
sure. Perhaps he was both Abel and Seth for all I know.
The critical point about Cain however is that he was a "gift"
from the LORD according to Eve. I believe it since for me it
is the "first adoption" into Israel -- the first grafting on of
a Gentile onto the Tree of Life. This was done by having him
incarnate as the son of Adam and Eve. Eve appears grateful
that God's plan hadn't been completely wrecked. Having a son
like Cain would be difficult of course; but if things worked out
right in the end, it would be worth it. "In all things give
thanks."
I am sure many will disagree with me; but I ask them for their
interpretation of why Eve considered Cain a "gift" from God.
Why give this name to the murderous son and not to the peaceful
one?
#Post#: 3411--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: Kerry Date: December 5, 2015, 1:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Different people hold different opinions; but I follow those who
say Esau was Cain reincarnated while Rebekkah was Eve and Jacob
Adam. Thus it makes some sense to say God avoided or "hated"
Esau since Cain had been avoiding God in his own way while
wanting God's approval at the same time.
Cain is depicted as "red" and "hairy." The "red" is "'admoniy"
which surely reminds anyone reading it in Hebrew of "adam."
Genesis 25:25 And the first came out red ['admoniy], all
over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.
Then we read about the "red pottage".
Gen 25:30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with
that same [ 'adom]red ['adom] pottage; for I am faint:
therefore was his name called Edom [ 'Edom].
Remember the original had no vowels. It's the same word all
three times, the same word translated as "Adam" earlier in
Genesis. Esau is the "lower half" or "animal half" of Adam --
the more beastly type, the type that is red like the red earth,
and the type that hunts other animals. Jacob is the "higher
half" or more "spiritual half" of Adam. You may think it odd
that I believe Adam reincarnated as Jacob while Esau his brother
bore the name of Adam more or less, and I think so too; but can
we divide the human race and have it make sense?
Notice now that in Eden, Eve is deceived by the serpent nature.
Not so here. Rebekkah knows how sly Esau can be. His serpent
nature doesn't deceive her. She is now given the chance to mend
her karma and to repair much of the damage done to all the human
race. She is now as clever as the serpent and able to deceive
just as he knows, following the maxim given later by Jesus to be
as wise as the serpent and as gentle as the dove. Isaac can
still be fooled by appearances; but Rebekkah is not.
This may be in large part because she inherited some of the same
slyness that her brother Laban had. The difference was that
she put her slyness to good use while Laban put his to bad.
Jacob inherited his trait from his mother; and since the "fallen
Eve" nature had been corrected in part by Rebekkah, it is said
that Jacob was a "complete man" in a way that even Abraham had
not. (Study the parallels between this and Jesus who was
born to Mary.)
Esau for his part shows some similarities to Cain. Again he
expresses remorse and says he wants to be on good terms with
Jacob when Jacob is returning to the Land of Promise; but Jacob
doesn't really feel safe and doesn't keep his promise to meet
Esau again. Esau, like Cain, had some good intentions, but
lacked the discipline. Did Jacob ever return to meet Esau?
Yes, he did but not in that lifetime. It remained for that to
be fulfilled in a later generation. God's benevolence
towards Edom is shown in more than one place.
Deuteronomy 2:5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of
their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have
given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.
And spiritually God returned to Esau when Jacob did -- when
Israel came out of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose
up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he
came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a
fiery law for them.
Laban was reincarnated as Balaam, and again we see him as gifted
spiritually and again devoted to obstructing Israel returning to
the Land of Promise. How was Laban defeated? Ah, when Israel
was about to return to the Land of Promise, they also had the
"strength" of Laban since much of Israel was his descendants
through Leah and Rachel.
#Post#: 3414--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: bradley Date: December 5, 2015, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Although I can see the similarities, how do you account for the
passage in Hebrews?
#Post#: 3415--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: Kerry Date: December 5, 2015, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=384.msg3414#msg3414
date=1449333295]
Although I can see the similarities, how do you account for the
passage in Hebrews?
[/quote]There is a short answer and a long, a very long answer.
The short answer is that each of us will die (as a general rule
with a few exceptions) and the body will return to the earth
from which it was formed.
Note that the text does not say "appointed to man once to live."
That I would read as a denial of reincarnation. Nor do I read
"once to die" as a reference to physical death. I read it as a
reference to the death of the soul. The soul that sins will
die. No exceptions. The soul that has sinned must die.
Jesus did not come to the earth to suffer and die to prevent our
physical bodies from dying. He came so that our souls could be
resurrected and made immortal when they are ready to face the
Last Judgment. And at time, when the soul so perfected is
raised, it has a corresponding body. Perhaps a key to verse 27
lies in the "so" and what follows in verse 28.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this
the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto
them that look for him shall he appear the second time without
sin unto salvation.
We all know how physical bodies die. I don't think that's what
we're being told. Rather we are being told about how the soul
can and will die. (Both body and soul can be destroyed in the
afterlife.) The soul does not usually die after the death of
the physical body but faces a preliminary judgment (not its
final judgment) and then goes either to gehinnom or paradise.
Some souls can wander if they are not under the protection of
Heaven. The souls of such spirits can and do expire in the
afterlife. Thus rebellious spirits are not perfecting their
souls. Spirits who are not in contact with their souls after
meeting a violent death may also allow their souls to wander --
as in ghosts. Such souls tend to lose their form over time and
become globelike with some light but grow dimmer and dimmer over
time until they expire. Then there's "sleep" too. But most
souls are under the protection of Heaven now and face a
preliminary judgment after the death of the body. This
judgment is not what the passage is discussing.
This is discussing the "Last Judgment" of the soul which has
been perfected. When Jesus appears this soul "the second
time," it sees Jesus "as he is" and is raised in the
resurrection. Time ceases to limit it. It has passed from time
into eternity; and it is also incapable of sin. But make no
mistake of it, the soul must first die since no matter what
Jesus has done, is doing, or will do, it is guilty of sin and
falls short. Thus it dies and pays the price for its flaws.
It is then raised again without any flaws and without its
history. It is virginal since it is not the same soul.
It is rare, but it can happen that the soul of the saint is
"resurrected" in the Dark Night of the Soul before the physical
body dies. The soul dies and is raised in the resurrection
before the physical body dies. It's rare but it can and does
happen from time to time. Paul took care to tell people it
hadn't happened to him.
Philippians 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the
resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already
perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for
which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Nor did he attain during that life. Of all the Apostles only
John attained. Thus the other Apostles continued to incarnate
but John did not.
It is sometimes the case that when a living saint attains the
resurrection before the physical body dies, his physical body
may bear the marks of the crucifixion. Having the stigmata is
not a necessary sign; and I also believe there are some faked
cases; but if the person has led a saintly life and continues
to, I think it safe to say he has "died" when Jesus appeared to
him, and his soul has been resurrected. St. Francis comes to
mind as well as Padre Pio.
It is more complicated however. That is shown by this passage
which seldom gets much scrutiny.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the
death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it
is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without
blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people
according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats,
with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the
book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath
enjoined unto you.
Who or what died under the first testament? Why animals, of
course. The "covenant" with Noah was also made with the
animals.
Genesis 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which
I make between me and you and every living creature that is with
you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of
a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the
earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you
and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no
more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it,
that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and
every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Like can "atone" for like. Animals are like people in one way,
and in the way they are like us their blood could atone for
human sins -- mostly by removing the effects of sin in body and
soul -- the purification of the flesh. This made it easier for
Israel to address their spiritual problems. Those were the real
problem of course. When the spirit of a man is sinful, its
soul isn't apt to progress much; and even if it did, the soul
would be like a woman trying to be faithful to a husband who
was constantly cheating on her. Thus animal sacrifices dealt
with what was "below" while Israel was told to struggle with
their spiritual flaws, a struggle in Heaven. The "fallen
Gentiles" were not told to do this. Israel did make progress
before Jesus came by defeating some of the fallen spiritual
hierarchy. They prepared the way for him. When it was possible
for Jesus to come and solve the problem completely, he did.
Many of the pagan gods ceased to exist as spiritual beings
without physical bodies as a result of what Jesus did. They
fell even more than they already had and entered human bodies.
Some are still around but restrained "in the prison" of human
bodies. Is that not fair? They deceived humans and abused
them, and their karma was to become humans.
A great many souls that had been incarnating over and again and
becoming progressively worse also got wiped out at the end of
that age. There is a type of judgment at the end of every
age. Abraham was told about how the Amorites would increase
their iniquity before they got dealt with. So when Jesus and
Paul were discussing the end of the age, it was pressing indeed.
Souls could be and were destroyed then. The spirits to whom
they belonged would lose those souls and have to start over with
new souls. If one is "not in the ark" of safety at the end
of the age, it is destroyed. Spirits live on, but their souls
can be destroyed. I would say that following the Resurrection
of Jesus, there was indeed a period of "great tribulation" such
as had never been seen before. A great deal of wickedness was
either restrained or destroyed.
A spirit which has the goal of having a soul and perfecting it
faces problems. If the soul is too rebellious, the spirit can
grow angry and even satanic. The spirit in such cases hates
humans then. It no longer wants to perfect its soul but wishes
to destroy. Such spirits could not possibly as a spiritual
covering for humans; but if Christ acts as next of kin and as
the spiritual covering for them, these souls can make progress.
When they progress, then the spirits can look and see that
it's not a hopeless case. The spirits, some of them, can be
enticed back into loving their souls and again wishing for them
to find perfection. Without what Jesus did, this is not
possible since the fallen spirits hate the fallen humans; and
the fallen humans are stumbling in the dark. The goal is to
have every spirit's soul perfected. When that is accomplished,
the spiritual errors of the spirit can be reconciled -- and even
the "fallen gods" can be restored to their proper place.
Micah 4:5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his
god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever
and ever.
That is a remarkable passage, usually overlooked; but the
Gentiles had their own gods which fell and became worthless
idols craving humans to worship them as individual gods. They
were like an angel who would want a human to sacrifice animals
to him. A "god" should not be worshiped on his own, even if
not fallen. A god who is not fallen has the Light of God --
and that is what should be worshiped.
Pharaoh was a fallen god, and worshiped as a god by his people.
And Moses was told he would act as a god to Pharaoh. Again
we see the fallen gods being dealt with; and the firstborn males
in each household were also culpable. Egypt was going in a
wrong direction, a very wrong direction, under the influence of
a Pharaoh who wanted to be worshiped as a god and under the
influence of the black magicians Jannes and Jambres. We
should not believe God punished innocent children when the
firstborn males of Egypt were killed.
More remains to be said of Egypt and the Exodus; but I'm running
out of time.
The short answer to your question however is "once to die" not
"once to live." Some souls die and are raised in the
resurrection of the godly; but other souls die and are not
raised thus. Either way, the soul that sins dies.
#Post#: 3416--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: bradley Date: December 6, 2015, 12:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Some interesting thoughts Kerry! You seem to have looked into
this very deeply. Now me, I think as you said that one death
of the physical then a temporary judgement as to where the soul
resides prior to the final judgement. I see it as clear to me
that John the Baptist was Elijah, or rather the spirit of Elijah
returned, even Jesus eluded to it saying that most could not
accept it. Yet I think it rare that soul's are rebodied, and
the number of times its done may be less than you surmise, but
this is my simple faith and my often faulty logic combined to
arrive at this conclusion. May our faith always draw us closer
to Christ!
#Post#: 3418--------------------------------------------------
Re: Problems about how the Bible treats children
By: Kerry Date: December 6, 2015, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=384.msg3416#msg3416
date=1449382029]
Some interesting thoughts Kerry! You seem to have looked into
this very deeply. Now me, I think as you said that one death
of the physical then a temporary judgement as to where the soul
resides prior to the final judgement. I see it as clear to me
that John the Baptist was Elijah, or rather the spirit of Elijah
returned, even Jesus eluded to it saying that most could not
accept it. Yet I think it rare that soul's are rebodied, and
the number of times its done may be less than you surmise, but
this is my simple faith and my often faulty logic combined to
arrive at this conclusion. May our faith always draw us closer
to Christ!
[/quote]You may find my take on John the Baptist interesting.
Why did Jesus say he was the greatest prophet born to woman?
I think John the Baptist is unique in world history as the only
person to incarnate again on the earth after Ascending to
Heaven. As a rule, it's not permitted. If a soul has been
perfected, why risk endangering it again in this corrupt world?
John the Baptist, though perfected in the lifetime of Elijah
and properly called the greatest prophet born of woman, faced
such horrid circumstances and fell into doubt and skepticism.
That tells you how treacherous this world can be. How could
such a great prophet see the Dove descending and know Jesus was
Messiah and announce it only to fall into doubt later when cast
into prison? It goes to show what Peter said is right:
1 Peter 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall
the ungodly and the sinner appear?
All's well that ends well though, and we see him showing up
again as Elijah at the Transfiguration. But it shows how
dangerous this world can be -- even for the most advanced souls.
I know of no other person who has done this.
There is a list of about eight people who Ascended to Heaven in
the Jewish tradition; but the Jews would deny, of course, that
John the Baptist was Elijah. They do not teach an Ascended
person reincarnates.
I have a few mental ties on the mental plane with other
religions too; and I suspected years ago that the Dalai Lama
would not reincarnate again. How Buddhism and Christianity
mesh is hard to explain; but they're not competing religions.
Anyway I wasn't too surprised when he said he might not
incarnate again. There is a point on the path where the person
is given a choice. He can Ascend and continue to work through
followers the way Jesus did. He can also Ascend without any
followers; and then he can defer his Ascension. People may
think me nuts; but I'll confess it. I know this is not my last
lifetime. Jesus gave me the choice. It could have been; but I
had a little karma to patch up -- and if I did it, it would help
Jesus. When Jesus gave me that choice, I said I chose to keep
incarnating as long as he wanted me to. I am a little like
the servant who says, "I love my master, my wife, and my
children; I will not go out free." But I am still hoping the
next lifetime is the last.
People may really think me nuts if I say this, but I will
anyway. I can remember both Peter and Mark. Peter converted
me. I tend to get upset emotionally if people attack him or
the Church he founded. I try not to let that emotional upset
show when people do it; but it's more than an intellectual
thing for me. I feel as if someone has attacked a friend I
have now in this life. It's personal.
I don't really remember much of that life; the most vivid memory
is when Mark asked Peter if he let the story in about how Peter
betrayed Jesus. He meant would it look good -- maybe he should
let it out? Peter roared it was true and let it in. He
didn't care if it made him look bad. The moral lesson was a
wonderful one. If he could do such a thing and have the damage
repaired, others should have hope that their shortcomings could
also be forgiven.
So I am also in great debt to him in a way. And I am convinced
too that Pope Francis is Peter. That's what I have been taught,
and what I see; and it's also what St. Malachy's prophecy says.
Malachy did not say, by the way, that this would be "the last
Pope." What it says is:
In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will
sit [i.e., as bishop].
Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many
tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of
seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful
judge will judge his people. The End.
I guess you can guess how I read this then:
John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the
world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
Only John "left" this world by Ascending. The others
reincarnated and stayed in the world at least for a while.
Peter is still here. I may have a unique interpretation on
this too -- and it may be true in more than one way.
Matthew 19:30 But many that are first shall be last; and the
last shall be first.
Time will tell if this prophecy comes true; but notice it says
Peter the Roman will pasture his sheep. It does not say
anything about this being the last Bishop of Rome.
I don't expect people to believe all this just because I write
it; but this prophecy about the destruction of Rome connects
with Esau and the Edomites in my mind. Esau was "red." The
Edomites are the "pink race" -- frequently called the "white
man" but they're really pink or red since you can see the blood
in them through their skin. Some Jews will be frank enough to
admit that the "white race" are Edomites with the center of
their spiritual power now at Rome.
The history of the Edomites as the perpetual foes of Israel is
fascinating even if you don't believe the white race are
Edomites. I hope to go through the Bible to show that history
and the continuing conflict. We tend to know more about the
continuing conflict between Ishmael and Isaac; but in a way the
one between Esau and Jacob may be worse. We can say what we
want about how the Arab Muslims treat Jews today; but that's a
recent thing. The history shows the "white man" has done far
worse things to the Jews.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page