Do people exist today who are related to Jesus Christ?

So, you think you can read John's mind two millenia later? Nonsense.

And you presume to tell us what it is "literally impossible" for God to do? Blasphemy.

If God wants to make literal descendants of Adam from stones He can do it. Just because you can't understand the process doesn't make it impossible.

And, juvenile word games don't merit a response.

 

His lineage is traced to David via both Joseph and Mary, but that doesn't mean Mary's egg was used in conception any more than Joseph' sperm was.

I will refer you to this web page and an article written by Henry Morris, former president of the Institute for Creation Research. His explanation is much better than I could ever do.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=76

 

RayMarshall19 said:

And you presume to tell us what it is "literally impossible" for God to do? Blasphemy.

All right, you explain to us: Supposing God did literally turn a stone into a literal descendant of Abraham, how would you trace his lineage back to Abraham? Where would that stone fit into Abraham's family tree? Who would be his parents?

Would God also have to retroactively create an entire family tree for the stone? And if he did, then isn't it true that John the Baptist wouldn't have any stones to point at, because all concerned would already perceive them as pedigreed children of Abraham?

If God wants to make literal descendants of Adam from stones He can do it.

Except that, if they were originally stones, then by definition they wouldn't be literal descendants of Adam, unless one of Adam's children literally gave birth to stones.

Just because you can't understand the process doesn't make it impossible.

Just because you call my arguments "blasphemy" doesn't make it possible.

 

Previously you said it is "LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a rock turned into a man to be a descendant of Abraham". Now you refer to "turn(ing) a stone into a LITERAL DESCENDANT of Abraham". That's not the same argument. In addition, you frame the discussion with your own definition of "literal descendant" which you apparently believe would make it impossible for God to be successful.

But it doesn't matter because in either case God is not governed by YOUR limited, mortal ability to reason and understand.

The scripture did not say God would create “literal descendants” as YOU define them. It just says He would raise up children of Abraham. They may be “literal descendants” or something else altogether. I don’t know. But I do know that God, not you, has the right to decide the definition of “children of Abraham” and the process by which He would create them.

My dictionary gives this definition for blasphemy: "The act of claiming for oneself the attributes or rights of God."

Your arguments meet this definition. That is why what you wrote is blasphemy.

I'll say it again: Just because YOU can't understand it doesn't make it impossible. God's Word says it IS possible, and that's all I really NEED to know.

 

RayMarshall19 said:

Previously you said it is "LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a rock turned into a man to be a descendant of Abraham". Now you refer to "turn(ing) a stone into a LITERAL DESCENDANT of Abraham". That's not the same argument.

It is literally impossible for a rock to become a literal descendant of Abraham, hence it is, in fact, the same argument.

In addition, you frame the discussion with your own definition of "literal descendant" which you apparently believe would make it impossible for God to be successful.

literal: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

descendant: proceeding from an ancestor or source

A literal descendant of Abraham would therefore be one who has Abraham as an ancestor.

That's not my "own definition," that is according to the generally accepted definition of "literal" and "descendant."

But it doesn't matter because in either case God is not governed by YOUR limited, mortal ability to reason and understand.

God is, however, governed by his own character, which is reasonable and rational. Turning a rock, which was never in the lineage of Abraham, into a descendant of Abraham, is irrational, therefore it is contrary to the character of God.

The scripture did not say God would create “literal descendants” as YOU define them. It just says He would raise up children of Abraham. They may be “literal descendants” or something else altogether.

So descendants of Abraham may not, in fact, be descendants of Abraham? And you took me to task for claiming John wasn't speaking literally?

My dictionary gives this definition for blasphemy: "The act of claiming for oneself the attributes or rights of God."

Your arguments meet this definition. That is why what you wrote is blasphemy.

Where, by your definition, have I claimed for myself any attributes of God? Please show me, or retract your false accusation.

 

Just what part of OMNIPOTENT do you not understand? You, a human, do not have the RIGHT to assert that ANYTHING is impossible for God, but you did, and that is what I consider blasphemy by the definition I provided.

Your first post in response to me made your line of mortal reasoning pretty obvious and to suppose you need to explain it further is, I think, a bit arrogant.

And, if you can't see the difference between "literal descendants" and "literally impossible" then the rest of this post may be useless.

But,at the risk of seeming arrogant myself, I will try one more time.

First, and this may surprise you, I completely understand and completely agree with your logic on a HUMAN level. But God is not limited by our defintions of words and phrases and our finite human capabilities to understand them and we must allow for that fact. If God says it is so then it is so.

Perhaps Charlie Daniels can be of help here:

" Jesus walked on the water and I know that is true, But sometimes I think that preacher man'd like to do a little walking too."

No matter how smart you are or how much you study scripture you will never be able to think LIKE God. So you shouldn't try to think FOR Him.

 

RayMarshall19 said:

Just what part of OMNIPOTENT do you not understand?

I understand "omnipotent" just fine. For God to be "omnipotent" means that he is able to do all things that are the proper object of his power. For God, a universe created ex nihilo is the proper object of his power. The dead raised to life are the proper object of his power. Walking on water is the proper object of his power. Scripture records no instance of his turning a stone into a man, but if God wished to do so, that would be the proper object of his power.

Omnipotence does not mean that God is capable of performing any arbitrary act that our minds may conceive of. Such is not necessarily the proper object of God's power. The self-contradictory or absurd are not the proper objects of his power. For example, he cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it (since if God is truly omnipotent, such a rock cannot possibly exist). He cannot create a spherical cube or a married bachelor, since those things are absurd by definition. He cannot change the subject of the previous sentence to, say, rice pudding, since by definition it is not about rice pudding. He cannot alter the past (and if he could, how would we know?).

God cannot act in ways that are contrary to his own nature and character. He cannot lie, for example, for he is the "faithful and true witness" (Jer. 42:5; Num. 23:19; Heb. 6:18). He cannot get lost, since he is omnipresent and omniscient. He cannot die, for he is eternal and not subject to decay or injury.

Turning a hunk of granite not merely into a man, but a man who is descended from Abraham, is a logically absurd act, and furthermore it arguably falls into the category of altering the past (since in order to do so he would have to invent a lineage for the rock that did not previously exist).

Therefore, it is not a proper object of God's power, and it is not a challenge to God's omnipotence, to say that he could not literally do such a thing. John the Baptist must have been speaking figuratively, employing hyperbole to make a point with the Pharisees.

You, a human, do not have the RIGHT to assert that ANYTHING is impossible for God, but you did, and that is what I consider blasphemy by the definition I provided.

By the definition you provided, "blasphemy" consists of claiming the attributes of God for oneself. You have changed your story, sir.

And, if you can't see the difference between "literal descendants" and "literally impossible" then the rest of this post may be useless.

Since I am the one who used those terms myself, I think I am the better qualified to know what I meant by them, wouldn't you agree?

But God is not limited by our defintions of words and phrases and our finite human capabilities to understand them and we must allow for that fact.

Logic is not a human invention. It is a necessary consequence of a rational universe created by a wise, good, and rational God. For God to go against logic is to work contrary to his own nature.

 

I am really curious why no one bothers to look at God's Word for defining concepts therein.

Hark! [listen up! ]:

Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Jhn 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Act 13:26 Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.


***** Please note - it is not according to bloodline [other than Jesus' ] but according to FAITH. Stone is ALLEGORY

Gal 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is no slave nor freeman, there is no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are of Christ, then you are a seed of Abraham, even heirs according to promise.

 

I won't copy your entire post but I will correct ONE point.

You say: "By the definition you provided, "blasphemy" consists of claiming the attributes of God for oneself. You have changed your story, sir."

That is incorrect. My definition of blasphemy included claiming the RIGHTS of God. Only God has the right to say what His own limits are, but you continually attempt to usurp that right. That meets the definition of blasphemy I provided. I did not change my story.

As I said before, your juvenile word games don't merit a response. But I really like your "spherical cube" idea so let me use it to explain. Imagine that your concept of the God's limits is a cube and His own concept of the same is a sphere infinitely larger than your cube. That captures what I've been trying to say.

But wait, I have another analogy that may be even better. I think we can all agree that God likes what is good. But there are two ways to determine what is good. One can look around and, with his limited, mortal abilities, decide what he thinks is "good" and then expect God to like it. Or, he can go to God's word and find out what God says is good and then agree with Him. I use the latter method for determining "good" and the limits of God's omnipotence. It appears to me that your method is closer to the former. I usually avoid cliche's but you are trying to "put God in a box" of your own making.

You posts indicate that you believe you know and understand a lot more about God than I think is possible for you to know and understand. As a result you think you can tell me, and everybody else, what God's limits are in certain situations. I don't think you have that ability or that right.

I think both of us understand the other's position. I also think there is no point to continuing this discussion because we disagree at such a fundamental level.

I would welcome posts from others about the limits of God's omnipotence.

 

"I would welcome posts from others about the limits of God's omnipotence."
I would describe this as self-limiting, for the most part. Scripture says 'God cannot lie', and in another place that 'when He could swear by none greater, He swore by Himself...'.
Beyond that, off the top of mny head, I dunno'. Guess that's about it for now.
Ed

 

One can look around and, with his limited, mortal abilities, decide what he thinks is "good" and then expect God to like it. Or, he can go to God's word and find out what God says is good and then agree with Him.

Oh? And without using "man's logic" to parse the meaning of Scripture, how do you presume you can possibly understand what God means?

 

Unfortunatly, I have an eating disorder that seems to want to manifest itself, here.
I'll not take time to even attempt to follow everything anyone writes, on these pages. I get dizzy easily, with low blood sugar, and trying to follow something going round and round contributes to losing my balance and falling off to one side. I did find one thing you all mentioned illuminating. the Scripture said that God was able to raise up of these stones children of Abraham. (I think that's what Ray said word for word, but pobably isn't) If eluth***** (I told you my head is spinning, so am not even trying to look up to the name, copied the verse right and all places of the raise children bit occurs are cited, my take is the Scripture doesn't really mean raising up chldren of Abraham from the stones. ^ We are trying to make it say more than it really means. *^ Adam from stones? yeah, HE was made from the dust of the ground- dirt, in other words, Anyone want to guess where dirt comes from? Hint: It's a 4 and/or 5 letter word. ^*^ real flesh and blood children from Abraham? Naah! @%@ Ed

 

ROFL - right on . . .

 

Just in passing.

Jesus would have been disqualified from sitting on the throne if he had been physically descended from the line of Joseph.

So this geneology is not to establish His right to the throne.

Joseph was descended from Jechoniah, whom God told that his seed would never sit on the throne.

Mary's line does not include Jechoniah. {sp?}

MR

 

I think you overestimate the value of man’s intellect. I don’t know how I could make it any clearer. You can take God at His word or, when you don’t like what He says, you can try to put your own words into His mouth.

I will give you the opportunity to have the last word on this matter. Let’s go back to Matthew 3:9, which is where this discussion started: “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”

In his word study dictionary of the New Testament, Spiros Zodhiates defines the term “raise up” as: cause to be born, create. He defines “children” as: children, descendants, posterity. Nothing there that needs more parsing, is there?

So, here is the one question I have for you: “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Is this statement as written in scripture, in its entirety and without modification by you or anyone else, LITERALLY true or is it LITERALLY false?

What’s the last word? True or false?

 

Is this statement as written in scripture, in its entirety and without modification by you or anyone else, LITERALLY true or is it LITERALLY false?

Since this statement is, in my view, not literal at all, it is neither. Your question poses a false dilemma.

From a previous post:

Since I am the one who used those terms myself, I think I am the better qualified to know what I meant by them, wouldn't you agree?

No. “Literally impossible to create descendants” and “Impossible to create literal descendants” are two very different statements.

Since by your admission you think you know what I am talking about better than I do, clearly a rational discussion with you is futile. Well, you had your chance.

 

Once again you evade the question.

I didn't ask you if the statement was literal. I asked you if the statement, as written, is LITERALLY true. ("It's raining cats and dogs" is literally false, at least where I live.) There is a difference. To me it's a big difference and if I can understand it then it should be easy for someone with your obvious intellect and learning to understand, also. This seems similar to the problem you say you have understanding the difference between "literally impossible to create descendants” and “impossible to create literal descendants”.

No, I don't think I know what you are talking about better than you do. I just think what you are saying doesn't make sense. Most people wouldn't take the time to dig through the rhetoric to the faulty logic.

 

I didn't ask you if the statement was literal. I asked you if the statement, as written, is LITERALLY true.

If the statement is figurative, whether or not it is "literally true" is completely irrelevant. Duh!

This is simply more proof that you are unwilling to have a rational discussion. Bye.

 

Declare victory and retreat. Good strategy if you can spin it right.