Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[Preacher ✝]

The Wisdom of Bl. Fulton Sheen

Day 198 - Before the sin, Satan assures us that it is of no consequence; after the sin, he persuades us that it is unforgivable.

 

[G.G. A-Log]

Too often people focus on the Pharisees and neglect how truly awful the Sadducees were. Historically, the Sadducees were the nationalistic royalists who rejected the oral traditions of the Pharisees and kept strictly to the text to justify their own earthly desires. They were the ones who owned and maintained the temple; They were the ones who changed money in the temple; They were the ones to deny totally the physical resurrection. They only sought to reestablish the Jewish kingdom and enjoy the riches of the world.

It’s notable that the Pharisees, for all of their faults, were only ever called hypocrites. All that they said to do was right, but they never lived up to it. Many Pharisees became Christians, St. Paul kept the Torah perfectly! Even the Samaritans, a group of outcast and destitute heretical Jews that practiced a type of Gnosticism, have the Samaritan woman, the Leper, the Good Samaritan, and the many converts. Yet there is not one example given of a good Sadducee.

 

[marlimar]

. Yet there is not one example given of a good Sadducee.

The presumption is that Annas, Caiaphas and Judas Iscariot were all Sadducees or sympathetic to them in a Hasan > Hamas sort of sympathy doesn't help their image. When Herod looks good in comparison to your group, you aren't winning. I guess some folks are myopic, or sad-u-see to deny hope.

 

[Mad_Dog]

Historically, the Sadducees were the nationalistic royalists who rejected the oral traditions of the Pharisees and kept strictly to the text to justify their own earthly desires.

The original proponents of Sola Scriptura

 

[Derrick]

Jewish law needed two women to equal one man's testimony.

It's not part of Torah but what I was referencing came from Josephus and seems to be a first century restriction on women's testimonies.

Spoiler: Josephus, "Antiquity of Jews"

But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex Nor let servants be admitted to give testimony, on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. But if any one be believed to have borne false witness, let him, when he is convicted, suffer all the very same punishments which he against whom he bore witness was to have suffered.

That's why, for his time at least, Jesus may have been considered a little "forward thinking" for his association with women.

You have white atheists living in your neighborhood, the fact you haven't met them (and probably never will) is solely your decision. The "go" part of "go make disciples" starts at your front door, you may not have thought much about that.

Good point. It's a very important thing to evangelize but it is often something we neglect out of fear of embarrassment or "sounding pushy" (certainly it's something I struggled with before).

There this one story I was aware of you may be interested in.

There was an American missionary in North Korea named Kenneth Bae. He was arrested and sentenced to hard labor for his missionary activities. As he was in prison he kept an upbeat attitude and even became friendly with one of the guards. As they talked one of them asked him, "if your God is real why are you here?"

And he said, "If I wasn't here in this labor camp, how would you ever hear about him?"

And the guard said, "you're right, I've never heard anything like this in my entire life".

Jesus told us, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."- John 14:6. If Christ is the only way to salvation then we definitely have a requirement to teach people about him. If Bae did not talk to that North Korean labor guard he may have missed his one chance to potentially learn about Christ. Although we may live in the 1st world where there are churches everywhere our individual neighbors may not have had anyone talk to them about him, or they may have questions about him you could answer.

 

[marlimar]

Although we may live in the 1st world where there are churches everywhere our individual neighbors may not have had anyone talk to them about him, or they may have questions about him you could answer.

I've done missionary work in China and the police make it a hassle on top of the travel, etc. while it's a feel-good moment to actually travel the world and talk about the hope that is found in Christ, you are still an outsider, and you always will be one. The drug addict bum on the corner near you probably shares most of your philosophy about helping and love and caring for people, they are still homeless, there is still work to be done with them. This is to say that we have a whole lot of work to do helping and cleaning up our local areas before we go balls deep in the third world. Arabs have been fighting over Palestine forever, we've come no closer to settling that through intervening, it's a grim world we live in, at least we know that all victories belong to Christ.

 

[yfes]

Just wanted to thank everyone in this thread. I get a lot of good out of reading everyone's thoughts and opinions as I try to better myself as a Christian.

 

[Derrick]

I've done missionary work in China and the police make it a hassle on top of the travel

Truly? That's very cool! Do you speak Mandarin/Cantonese (you're a real gangster if you speak both).

I keep hearing in the Christian publications that East Asia (and particularly China) is where the next big revival is going to take place, Christian missionaries are lying the groundwork under the nose of the party and soon big changes are coming, is that your opinion on the matter? I guess the thought is, theres a billion people in China, if you can win 1% you've got 10 million souls saved.

This is to say that we have a whole lot of work to do helping and cleaning up our local areas before we go balls deep in the third world.

It seems to me, rather it's Islam or Christianity, you'll find rates of Religiosity higher in the third world where people are "living rough" than in developed nations. There are no Atheists in Yemen (a Muslim country) and very few in Zambia (a Christian country) but you'd find plenty in Sweden and Japan. My best guess is, just as a matter of human nature, the worse your living, the less likely you are to have a guaranteed meal tomorrow, the more likely you are to call on/rely on a higher power. If you're trying to survive off half a dollar a day in some slum you're going to start calling out to some higher power for help. If you live in a developed nation with a high standard of living where you're needs are being met you're less likely to see God as a necessity.

 

[the big new poster]

"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both [Jews and Gentiles] one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility".- Ephesians 2:13

But Galatians 3 :28 provides the context or what it means to be made "one" , it means that we're both Christians and both going to be saved through christ. It doesn't mean that Jews and gentiles are literally the same thing any more than males and females are literally the same thing yet Galatians 3:28 says males and females are both one as well.

You haven't addressed this argument at all :

what does "equal in Jesus" or " one in Jesus" mean ? Is Paul saying that it is forbidden for a Christian to treat men and women differently in any respect ? No.
So if being "one in Jesus" does not prohibit a Christian from treating men and women differently in certain respects , then being "one in Jesus" also does not prohibit a Christian from treating different nations/ethnic groups/races differently in certain respects.

so neither galatians 3:28 or ephesians 2:13 provide evidence that it is forbidden in Christianity to treat nations/ethnic groups differently in any respect, unless you want to claim that those verses forbid treating menand women differently in any respect, which is clearly absurd.

I'm reminded me of the words of an Atheist of all people, Bart Ehrman, who once commented, "You know, you can forcefully reconcile any belief you want with the Bible if you try hard enough,"

the reason why atheist criticism of the bible springs to your mind so easily is probably because your worldview has been shaped by the atheistic philosophy of liberalism.

If you're at a point where your Racism is so ingrained in your that I can show you Bible verses where "you are all one in Christ," and you can still say, "My race good we look after ourselves" I couldn't imagine anything changing your mind at that point

This criticism is actually much more true of you since you're the one who isn't looking at the verses about oneness in context and using logical reasoning to infer what specifically is meant by oneness, instead you're just jumping to your favoured conclusions informed by modern , liberal universally anti-ethnocentric, conclusions, which early Christian scholars did not understand the bible to be calling for. Early Christian scholars actually interpreted the teaching of Christianity to be calling for ethnocentrism. I'm aware of no Christian scholars or popes or bishops or the like before either the 19th or the 20th century claiming that Christianity forbids caring for your own nation/ethnicity first before others.

(Acts 10-11)

Yes, sure eat together, don't call each other unclean, and God accepts from all nations and has granted reptentance that leads to life to all nations . But these chapters don't say or imply that it's forbidden to look after your own people before looking after others , which is what Jesus endorses in Matthew 15-21-28.

"Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,".-Ephesians 2:19

What specifically does it mean that you are no longer foreigners? Does that mean that Christians are no longer Jews, Greeks, Romans, Armenians etc., such that it is incorrect for Christians to say that they are a Jew or Greek or Roman etc. because they are all the same nation in every sense ? Probably not since that's not what Christians did. Paul himself still called himself an israelite from the tribe of Benjamin.
So what does it mean that you're no longer foreigners but fellow citizens? The broader context tells us.
"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit."
so what it means by no longer being foreigners is that he has ended the wall of hostility between christian nations , setting aside jewish law about circumcision (Ephesians 2:11) and giving access to God for all people. In that sense we are all the same nation, which again repeats the lesson from Galatians 3:28 , which also points out that Christians are all the same in a certain sense, with regard to be saved.
This again does mean that it's forbidden to look after your own people before looking after others , since doing this is not being hostile to other nations, nor violates that all nations can be saved, nor has anything to do with circumcision

"Your household" is not anyone who looks similar to you, or some random man of the same race as you in Timbuktu. Your household are people who live in your house.

no the word for household also means relatives, people related by blood. https://biblehub.com/greek/3609.htm
your ethnic group are your extended family. Nation comes from the verb for birth and means people of a shared birth, and means the same thing as ethnos. This is how early Christian scholars like Church fathers and Aquinas understood it.

However even if you were correct, that is still besides the point. You insinuated the argument that because 1st John 4:20 commands you to love all Christians, this means that it is forbidden for you treat some Christians differently than others , but 1 Timothy 5:8 shows this is not true because even if it is only talking about people living inside your house , it's still saying that you have different obligations to your household than from other christians and so treating your household differently from other Christians is justified
So 1 Timothy 5:8 still refutes your point about loving all christians meaning that you have to treat all Christians the same, even if oikeiwn did not include blood relations.

If you think Jesus, who had a Canaanite as a disciple btw (Mark 3:18, Matthew 10:4), that not only would he exclude other ethnicity from eating with him

I do not claim this

The women asked Jesus if she could eat with him and maybe do something about her demon possessed kid. When he didn't respond they prodded him a bit, she said she'd literally eat crumbs off his table.

"They prodded him a bit" ? Is that all? hahaha. Doesn't it tell you something? The fact that you have to omit paraphrasing what Jesus said in the whole verse in order to make your point? Would you need to do that if the actual gospel verses and Jesus' words supported you?
Don't you feel like you're doing something wrong intentionally omitting in order to mislead like this?

Let's go through the verses line by line to show how clearly the verses support ethnocentrism


-24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Jesus the man says that his duty is to help his people , his nation
-25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
The canaanite woman asks him for help anyway
>26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
Jesus the man says that the reason why his duty is to help his nation, is the same reason why a father has a duty to feed his children rather than those who are not his children, such as a dog
>27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
the woman agrees with Jesus's reasoning and extends his reasoning, explaining that even though it is right and proper that a man feed his children , it's ok for non-family members like the dog to eat the left overs.
>28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Jesus agrees with the woman affirms that the woman's extension of Jesus's reasoning is a statement of "great faith",i.e. agrees with his teaching.

So Jesus is affirming what the Canaanite woman said : that the reason why Jesus, a jew, should help the jews first before giving charity to foreigners is the same reason why a father should make sure his children are fed first before feeding non-family members like the dog.
And since all men have a duty to make sure their children are fed first, so too do all men have a duty to look after their own people/nation/race/ethnicity before looking after foreigners.

so matthew 15:22-28 clearly teaches that christians should be ethnocentric and look after their own people first before looking after foreigners.
so matthew 15:22-28 clearly teaches that christians should be ethnocentric and look after their own people first before looking after foreigners.

"Or, "That's good, back of the table, lady!""
Ironic you say this, because that's what the Canaanite woman said basically that it's fine as long as she eats the leftovers after his children have eaten, and then Jesus affirmed her words.
You really aren't understanding the verses.

"John 4:9"
Yes, Jesus the first person Jesus stated that He was the messiah to was a Samaritan woman. This was after he had already been performing miracles, healing people and fulfilled part of the prophecy.
And? How does this prove that it is prohibited to look after your people first before foreigners? It doesn't.

"Yes, sending those "other people" to stay in seperate neighborhoods, or attend seperate schools, or seperate waterfountains is hatred."
Simply looking after your own people before looking after other nations/ethnic groups doesn't necessarily involve any of those things so holding that Christianity teaches to look after your own people first doesn't commit me to defending those particular things.

However your claim that those things are hatred necessarily true at all, any more than it is hatred to sometimes have different spaces for males and females. The reason sometimes having different spaces for males and females isn't hatred is because it's not done out of hatred but in order to preserve harmony . Christianity in general recognises that the rulers are allowed to make laws and institute policies while ruling a country in order to bring about harmony for the public good.

https://sspx.org/en/immigration-principles-rights-and-practices-32920

"No people who look vaguely similar to you are not your "family"."
Not simply by virtue of looking vaguely similar, but people who I share recent common ancestors with i.e. my ethnic group , my nation (which comes from the word natio meaning birth i.e. people of shared birth) are my extended family. and this is how pre 19th century christian scholars saw one's nation.

I implore you, if you truely believe the Bible is the word of God, and that Jesus died for your sins, and aren't just trying to find a Religion that accepts your liberalism please turn away from denying the plain meaning of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 15:21-28 and back towards authentic Christianity.

 

[Derrick]

so neither galatians 3:28 or ephesians 2:13 provide evidence that it is forbidden in Christianity to treat nations/ethnic groups differently in any respect,

Ephesians 2, it's a bit long so I highlighted the relevant parts.

Spoiler: Long Bible Passage

"
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone".

You [Gentiles] were once foreigners to God's People [Jews], now you are one, fellow citizens. Please note the "excluded citizenship in Israel" (an Earthly nation) and "no longer foreigners and strangers".

Religion that accepts your liberalism

That other guy said something similar about "leftism" and "progressiveness" and I know you've mentioned "liberal a few times" so I feel it bears repeating.

The Bible was written 2,000+ years ago it doesn't not fit comfortably into the left-right paradigm of the last few centuries. On some issues the Bible is very right wing, Divorce, Remarriage, Homosexuality, Abortion. On others it is left wing, Taking care of the Environment, looking after poor people, helping immigrants. Trying to apply modern political labeling to the Bible is a fruitless endeavor. It reminds me of this meme.

Spoiler: Political Meme

I admit it's defiantly a bit distasteful but you get the idea. We shouldn't be applying "liberal"/"conservative" to texts foreign to our modern paradigm.

Paul himself still called himself an israelite from the tribe of Benjamin.

"But Paul said to the officers: 'They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens'".- Acts 16:37
"As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, 'Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?'”- Acts 22:25

It's a bit beside the point but Paul was pulling the "I'm a Roman" card with the nearly the same ferver he pulled the "I'm an Israelite" card.

What specifically does it mean that you are no longer foreigners? Does that mean that Christians are no longer Jews, Greeks, Romans, Armenians etc.,

Yes. See Ephesians 2:12. Paul is talking directly about citizenship in Israel.

it means that we're both Christians and both going to be saved through christ. It doesn't mean that Jews and gentiles are literally the same thing any more than males and females are literally the same thing yet Galatians 3:28 says males and females are both one as well.

You haven't addressed this argument at all :

You're right, I haven't. And I apologize if I was deliberately ignoring your argument, it's just thats whole a can of worms I felt it be best I didn't open or we'd be going down a side rabbit whole that would distract from our main conversation.

To answer your question. Yes, per that verse we are all equal. However, before you jump down my throat the Bible gives us some caveats with that to show that while we are equal we have different roles. For example, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak".- 1st Corinthians 14:34, implies that while we are equal it is best if the man stick to the preaching.

your ethnic group are your extended family.

In what regard? How am I, a White person on the west coast, "related by blood" to some random White person on the East Coast I've never met before by, simply because I share the same skin tone. You're extrapolating that past the plain reading of the text.

"They prodded him a bit" ? Is that all? hahaha. Doesn't it tell you something? The fact that you have to omit paraphrasing what Jesus said in the whole verse in order to make your point? Would you need to do that if the actual gospel verses and Jesus' words supported you?

You're right, I abridged the story a bit to try and get you to the meaning. Jesus does not tell her to wait her turn, nor does he tell her I have to take care of "my people" first. He rewards her faith, she says "even the Dogs deserve a crumb" and rather than say "that's right, if we have leftovers we'll circle back around and.... blah blah blah" you get the idea. Instead he told her, "You had faith". She believed he'd come through and he did.

This was after he had already been performing miracles, healing people and fulfilled part of the prophecy.
And? How does this prove that it is prohibited to look after your people first before foreigners? It doesn't.

In Judaism Messianicship was a big deal. People preformed miracles before, they were called Prophets, remember Elijah calling down fire? But as Jesus noted, "'Truly I tell you,' he continued, 'no prophet is accepted in his hometown'". (Luke 4:24).

Jews in Jesus's day we're on alert for the coming Messiah, it even came up when they were questioning John the Baptist, "And this was John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him, “Who are you?” He did not refuse to confess, but openly declared, “I am not the Christ.”-John 4:19. As a matter of fact it was so important it was the thing, when they brought Jesus in to stand trial, they pressed him on, "Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?'"- Mark 14:60. When Jesus responded "I am" they convicted them. Messianicship was quite important, so to first reveal yourself not to your "own people" but to a ethnic group whom the Bible tells us relations were so bad with Jews never spoke to them really says something. But, then again Jesus called a Cananite to be his disciple so I don't think it's multi-ethnic approach should be a suprise to you.

the reason why atheist criticism of the bible springs to your mind so easily is probably because your worldview has been shaped by the atheistic philosophy of liberalism.

It springs to my mind because, the older I've gotten, the more true I realize that sentiment is. You have a million and one denomiations who believe many contradictory things that can't be true at the same time. How? Becuase truthfully if you want to believe something you can force it into the text or ignore texts that disagree.

You see this a lot with Homosexuals. They vague texts like 1st Corinthians 14:6 "Do everything in love." and extrapoloate that to say, "well, I love another man and that's love, therefor God condones what I'm doing!" And when you press them on it, show them Leviticus, Deudoronomy, Matthew, Romans, and Corinthians, they hand wave them away. Now you can hand wave away as many verses as you want under the guise of "allegory", "metaphor", "mistranlsation", or "interpolation". However the problem becomes the more verses you have to handwave away the further from truth you're probably getting. If you have to hand wave away Acts, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, it should be a clue you may be off track.

I'm not telling you these things because I hate you or think you're a terrible irredemable person. I'm telling you because, as a Christian commanded to you all, I feel this could be an issue that could cost salvation (1st John 4:20). And since Christ asks me to love everyone (including you, a stranger I've never met nor never will meet), I think it's important to bring this up to you.

 

[marlimar]

Do you speak Mandarin/Cantonese

Thankfully they are the same written down, I went with my parents in the 90s, Hong Kong was the only time Cantonese / Mandarin understanding was an issue for my Han Chinese dad, I know how to speak very little and what I do know, I'm told I pronounce incorrectly.

soon big changes are coming, is that your opinion on the matter?

My family asks for prayer for China specifically at church, the economy is only getting worse over there, and something big truly is brewing over there, my estimation is that the global money will move to other Asian countries and the CCP will crack down even harder since they know they are losing. The Falun Gong isn't even a theistic "religion" and those people are getting disappeared. What I remember from missionary work in the 90s was that dozens of people would gather in a barn, sitting on logs or just squatting as the one person that could read would talk about hope and that concept was so foreign to those people. I was there right after 1 child policy really got going and someone that looked like them talking about how hope isn't fruitless or in vain, God really does love you enough to provide what you need for his plan for your life.

If you live in a developed nation with a high standard of living where you're needs are being met you're less likely to see God as a necessity.

Or you are just going along to get along and paying lip service to the white people that are giving out free food and clothes... it's not our responsibility to convict someone's heart, that's the Holy Spirit's job, we are just supposed to live the testimony of Jesus Christ and people should feel something different about us compared to the average person you would meet in this fallen world we wander around in.

she says "even the Dogs deserve a crumb"

This actually ties to Old Testament customs, where Gentiles would camp in a ring around the Israelite's main camp; Caleb, one of the two honest spies that scouted the promised land was a Gentile. Jews had accepted assimilation to a degree before Christ was born in flesh, there are interesting aspects to how the tribes of israel were divided in their camp sites and the land / responsibilities were assigned.

 

[Derrick]

This actually ties to Old Testament customs, where Gentiles would camp in a ring around the Israelite's main camp; Caleb, one of the two honest spies that scouted the promised land was a Gentile. Jews had accepted assimilation to a degree before Christ was born in flesh, there are interesting aspects to how the tribes of israel were divided in their camp sites and the land / responsibilities were assigned.

That's interesting I'll have to look into this more, can you cite me some scripture? I admit the Old Testament is sort of a theological blind spot for me compared to the new. For example when I was first coming to Christ the first time I was reading through the crucifixion and came to the part where Jesus said, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' I thought, "What? I thought Jesus was God and this was all part of the plan, why is he calling out to himself for forsaking himself?" I would have probably stopped exploring Christianity had somebody not shown me how Jesus was quoting the Psalm where at first things look bad but in the end the righteous win.

 

[G.G. A-Log]

Caleb, one of the two honest spies that scouted the promised land was a Gentile

As a fun aside; Caleb was not a Gentile. Many people, myself especially, really muddy the meaning of “Jew” and “Gentile” and “Israelite”. In fairness, it’s quickly understood what is intended when we say any of those terms.

Caleb was a Kenizite, a descendant of Esau, son of Abraham (Kenizites being Edomites). He would be considered an Abrahamite ultimately, and not a Gentile (Gentiles being all those born outside of the line of Abraham, for whom the promise was made that he’d be the father of many nations). He was not an Israelite. However, he did end up becoming a chief among the tribe of Judah.

For all intents and purposes, Caleb was a Jew, but also not fully a Jew, but also definitely not a Gentile.

Edit: Biblical lineage is really fascinating and really important. It’s because of those lineages that you can understand more of what’s going on in the Old Testament. It’s also really fun because you can learn some wild stuff, like how the Judeans during the time of King Onias I considered the Spartans to be Abrahamites, NOT Gentiles, or how Cypriots might technically be Jews or at the very least Abrahamites.

 

[Derrick]

and really important.

Especially when you consider the Messiah is supposed to come from the line of David (2nd Samuel 7:12)

"regarding his Son [Jesus], who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David"- Romans 1:3.

 

[marlimar]

can you site me some scripture

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%202&version=NIV

To illustrate, X = approximately 10,000 Jews, followed by the tribe in parenthesis, compass directions are north/south vertical (up/down) east/west horizontal (left/right):
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Dan)
X
X
X
X
(Asher)
X
X
X
X
X
(Naphtali)
XXXX(Ephraim)XXXx(Manasseh)XXXx(Benjamin)||(MOSES/AARON/Levites)||XXXXXXXx(Judah)XXXXXx(Issachar)XXXXXx(Zebulun)
X
X
X
X
x
(Reuben)
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Simeon)
X
X
X
X
x
(Gad)

What we have here would appear to be an Old Testament reference to the cross. Just like we can hand wave away parts of the bible we don't care to follow, we could ignore all these seemingly coincidences where the Old Testament repeatedly foreshadows everything in the New Testament.

Edit: couldn't get it to format, sucks to suck.

 

[G.G. A-Log]

Especially when you consider the Messiah is supposed to come from the line of David (2nd Samuel 7:12)

"regarding his Son [Jesus], who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David"- Romans 1:3.

He is also the descendant of Jechoniah, to whom the Lord cursed, saying: “Write this man as a banished man, for none at all from his seed shall be raised to sit on the throne of David, or still as a ruler in Judah.” (Jer 22:30)

 

[marlimar]

Biblical lineage is really fascinating and really important. It’s because of those lineages that you can understand more of what’s going on in the Old Testament.

I have my own problems with Jacob and Esau, blindness really got to Isaac... God's plan I suppose, my favorite tinfoil theory is that the battle that Gideon led with the clay pots was actually the battle of Thermopylae depicted in the film 300. As far as Caleb not being a Gentile, the Esau lineage really throws me off because the Edomites were always battling the Israelites, so I assume Gentile because not part of the nation of Israel.

 

[G.G. A-Log]

I have my own problems with Jacob and Esau, blindness really got to Isaac... God's plan I suppose, my favorite tinfoil theory is that the battle that Gideon led with the clay pots was actually the battle of Thermopylae depicted in the film 300. As far as Caleb not being a Gentile, the Esau lineage really throws me off because the Edomites were always battling the Israelites, so I assume Gentile because not part of the nation of Israel.

Jacob and Esau follows the pattern of the younger being favored over the older; Or, rather, the older being negligent and careless of their duty and the younger remaining faithful. This started with Cain and Abel (Cain was the firstborn and fell totally to sin), and Esau is painted as being given to sinfulness and unfaithfulness (from the womb, he leapt for idolatry, and in fear of death, he sold his birthright to Jacob). It’s also got a reference to being clothed in “garments of skin”, which refers back to Adam and Eve, and the mantle of wool Jacob is wearing is the same mantle of Elijah. A LOT is going on in that bizarre scene.

As for Gideon, do you mean the actual battle or just that the movie took inspiration from it? 300 is a nice, simple, yet very divine number.

It’s not just Edomites, but a whole host of others; Remember, Abraham had a total of 8 sons himself (including Midian, father of the Midianites!), and all of them had many more sons that really fill in the other tribes.

As another aside; It’s also pretty clear that even the Tribes of Israel can fall out from the lineage. Famously, the Tribe of Dan for so thoroughly mingling in with Philistines (who ARE Gentiles, being descendants of Ham, son of Noah, and not of Abraham) and falling into sinfulness and idolatry that they are removed from the list of tribes by Revelations (along with the tribe of Ephraim, son of Joseph, who became the Samaritans. The tribe of Joseph is a headache, just know that it is a dual-tribe made up of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were elevated because of the loss of the tribe of Reuben). For this reason, the Tribe of Joseph is reinstated.

 

[marlimar]

Jacob and Esau follows the pattern of the younger being favored over the older

The whole predestination of the Lord saying the older shall serve the younger and Jacob grasping Esau's heel, how that affected which came out first leads into a whole Calvinist debacle culminating in Judas / Pilot 's role in our salvation, and their individual consequences... Judas can't unhang himself.

Jacob is wearing is the same mantle of Elijah. A LOT is going on in that bizarre scene.

My understanding is that it signifies a status or a right to communicate with God, the nuances of which I'm not sure. I'm glad I don't need an intercessor to speak to God; I thank Jesus and the Holy Spirit for doing that for me.

As for Gideon, do you mean the actual battle or just that the movie took inspiration from it? 300 is a nice, simple, yet very divine number.

The actual battle, as Gideon only had 300 to beat the Midianites... The movie is more Indian looking than Egyptian, but who knows what they actually wore.

the Tribes of Israel can fall out from the lineage

Er and Onan are my favorite examples of falling out of the lineage, the whole line of Judah is really something else... and to think that Christ is not only from the line of David, but is the Lion of Judah.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Wisdom of Bl. Fulton Sheen

Day 199 - Nothing is more destined to create deep-seated anxieties in people than the false assumption that life should be free from anxiety.