"MARK" of the Beast (bring calculator)

Don,

First off My father is not a "pharisee" He is an "unbeliever" theres a difference in the mentality, I not once "justified" what He did, I honor marriage, you just want to prove fault and are not listening to what I'm saying, I'm drawing paralells here to simplify it. As for Proverbs 26:4-5 If I knew or pretended to know EVERYTHING in scripture I'd be knowing way more the the Appostle Paul even claimed to know, He saw in part also. But He knew Christ and what He knew of Him he desired to know more. So for me to sit and play Holy Spirit on YOUR questions things you have desired to learn and understand is not in me to do.

We all look into those things we are led to understand, Jesus showed the disciples as much as they were able to understand, so it is with all of us, God is not respector of persons. So for me to pretend I have your questions in my back pocket or all knowledge both perfect and complete is untrue.

As far as the Birth of Christ in one woman (Mary) I see the solid form in the gospels, meaning I completely believe that Christ was born of Mary who was under the law, but in that I also see Christ referring to His disciples as a Woman travailing to bring forth man. So I see Mary two fold. As Christ was born into the World through One woman so also is Christ IN US our hope of Glory, in this I see Christ being born in those who believe in Him. Paul labored desiring for Christ to be formed in them. Theres nothing unbiblical about that whatsoever. If you want to get more specific in this one lets start a new thread (since the closed topic warning has been issued) I'm equipped enough to dive into that one.

As Gods Sword in Zech is raised against His Shepherd so also was that sword to peirce Marys Soul for the sole purpose that it should reveal the thoughts of MANY. Here the Sword has a threefold purpose, in Christ, in Mary and in His Church (I see this as two or three witnesses).

As in Luke 7: 36-50 Like I have said, the gospels or Christ is the Substance or "Solid form" of the Old testament scriptures. God said He spoke through the prophets by multiplying visions using similitudes, your questions or complaints are not with me but with God who said it, I'm just defending what He said and how He said He chose to speak. I'm haven't dove into EVERYTHING, but I see beauty in the passage concerning Paul who said all were given over to disobedience that He might have "mercy upon them" and Paul (under the law where the power or strength of Sin is) set out to murder the church of God, when light from heaven changed His understanding He LOVED MUCH, He knew His unworthiness and His righteousness derived from the law lived to kill the Life of His Lord which he had no idea he was doing, He thought he was sincerely doing a service unto God. He was forgiven much and Paul loved much and He was an example of the long suffering of the Lord. So the law and its intended purpose has is seen in the example of Paul, who preached the "light" of the gospel.

As for the very simple two verse psalm offered, Christ is the Truth and because of Christ Gods mercy endures forever.

Jesus said (Luke 24:44)

And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning ME.

So if you have a problem with the God speaking multiplying visions, using similitudes by the ministry of the prophets your not really arguing with me, I'm just believing what He said, concerning Luke Christ is the substance of the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms.

Paul not myself is the one who said these were a shadow not the reality of things, and if a "temple was built" it was regarded as a "mere copy" these were paterns.

In Him Kim

 

You didn't answer a single question I asked; yet you answered the one thing I ended my post with: You're seeing similitudes in everything.

Is the story of the birth of Christ a similitude, or can you see a similitude in it?

Is the passage from Luke 7:36-50 a similitude, or are you saying you see a similitude in it?

Is Psalm 117 a similitude, or are you seeing a similitude in it?

The two are not the same--just as "love" and "fornication" are not the same.

So again, I come back to the thing I've posted at least four times, if not more: HOW can you see a word that means "illicit sexual intercourse" and come to conclude that it means agape-type love?

 

Don I did answer your question, I see it for what it is and I see a similitude how on earth am I not answering your question? As for "illicit sex" just in itself it says what it says, no interpreter needed. But IF as in the case of "fornication" I need not add anything to what Christ already said.

I'm not following your question in regards to what I already answered I feel like I'm running in circles around you and thinking I'm answering your question and you say I am not.

Wheres the hebrew word "Poth" (hinged opening) at? How does God USE IT? in Isaiah 3:17

In Him Kim

 

Well, I guess it's in Isaiah 3:17. Looks like in the KJV it's translated as "parts." Definition is sockets, hinges, secret parts.

Context of verse is judgement; context of passage, based on previous verse is to uncover their wickedness. Based on following verses (18-26), it's talking about removing the false exterior. Based on the entire chapter, the children of God got too big for their britches again, and God's saying "get it right, or you're gonna get knocked down again." More to the point, they got full of themselves, and were saying, "look at me," when the emphasis should have been "look to God."

As for the circles, it's because there's a problem when we see similitudes in passages that aren't meant to have similitudes. The ten commandments, for instance. I'm sure we could come up with a similitude for them; but reading them as they are doesn't give a person the end result of "hidden meanings." We must be careful not to interject meanings that aren't there!!!

As for what Christ said in Matthew 19, do YOU believe Christ said "fornication"? Or do you believe He said porneia? Or do you believe He said "agape"?

I'm not adding to what He said either; but Ken is definitely changing what Christ said.

 

Oh, and if it's just circles to you, then why do you keep responding to me?

 

Don,

As Far as the Ten commandments YES I can see a similitude or rather that which Paul thought would bring life brought death. Sin afforded by the commandment given through Moses showed Paul something, a revelation concerning that which He desire to do THAT he did NOT but the very thing he hated THAT he did. He found the revelation by the Spirit of God in experiencial knowledge concerning the law. Though it was written...

(Neh. 10:29)They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and ENTERED INTO A CURSE, and INTO AN OATH,TO WALK IN GOD'S LAW, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;

It looks pretty darn clear by the commandments given in the time of Moses that it would no problem to keep, Paul talked about the law being "spiritual" him being "unspiritual" and expressed the inner struggle of the law. What was included is "thou shall not covet" he found sin in him decieving Him and Sin afforded by the commandment. Nehemiah makes perfect sense. The law also was a similitude for Christ who MAGNIFIED the law. The law should lead you to Christ so yes in that regard I can see the law being a similitude for Christ both because we needed a deliverer to set us free from the power of sin and death because they did not know or desire to admit that in the law comes only the knowledge of sin, but also contained the strength of Sin.

In regards to Christs "fornication" he does by no means call it "agape love" I never said that neither did Ken. What I understand him saying is the very thing Christ said, "let her/him go" if they are in fornication "with another". I'm not advocating "divorice" you THINK I AM, thats why I shared my story trying to bring it down to earth for you. What I see is that if something like this DOES HAPPEN a husband "fornicates" (illicit sex with another) in "letting them go" (Though I honor marriage) your taking the wrong done to you HOW IS THAT NOT LOVE???????????? Should my mother have dragged my father into court and raged over the "unrighteousness of it all" held back the papers, refused to sign, follow my father all over the world, pick the lock to the doors and sat there with her suitcases and two kids demanding reconcilation where it wasn't happening??? If she should have in YOUR eyes how long do you think she should have done this? What is your point in bringing up "fornication" does it mean my father can never be "saved" because of fornicating in the past? For what purpose is the law anyway? To show you you can live perfectly in it from under it or to make you conscious of sin?

I feel like giving you my phone number to discuss the matter because its very fustrating "post by post" when writing would seem to me to get the job done more accurately.

Am I STILL MISSING THE POINT??? I'm married to an unbeliever I DID NOT WANT TO BE MARRIED TO HIM AT ONE TIME (Truthfully) but I submitted out of love and stayed (i'm not thinking about all the happiness I can find in another Christian man or myself) I'm thinking of HIM. Now after twenty years of marraige after giving all I can in the grace and knowledge of Christ if He fornicates and wants to leave me I'll let Him go. I won't throw up in his face that I wanted to leave you all along and that I've wasted so many years of my life trying to win you over, see? I count my life as a loss in all things, nothing matters but knowing Him, and if that happens to me I will not let a bitter root grow up in the midst of that circumstance if it was ever mine. I'm not bound by his decision to leave me or his fornication, thats my husbands not mine, I'll let him go, thats what I'm saying, is that clearer?

In Him Kim

[ April 25, 2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Star ]