Demons

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Jesus is the "seed" of Abraham and He is the "seed of the woman" - Gen. 3:15

Paul views Heb. singular "seed" as a collective noun with both singular and plural implications
Gal. 3:16 - "He does not say "seeds", as referring to many, but rather to one,..that is Christ"
Gal. 3:19 - - "the seed to whom the promise had been made"

No, not including all mankind in this. The Scriptures do not include all mankind.

Hey Rick,

Your conclusion does not necessarily follow because Paul's logic is obviously fallacious. That verse has bothered me from the first time I read it thirty years ago. The fact that Paul used a false argument has been recognized since the time of Jerome (5th century). Here is a good review of the problem from Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one ... - He does not use
the plural term, as if the promise extended to many persons, but he speaks in
the singular number, as if only one was intended; and that one must be the
Messiah. Such is Paul's interpretation; such is evidently the sentiment which he
intends to convey, and the argument which he intends to urge. He designs
evidently to be understood as affirming that in the use of the singular number
σπέρμα sperma (seed), instead of the plural σπέρματα spermata (seeds), there
is a fair ground of argument to demonstrate that the promise related to Christ
or the Messiah, and to him primarily if not exclusively. Now no one probably
ever read this passage without feeling a difficulty, and without asking himself
whether this argument is sound, and is worthy a man of candor, and especially of
an inspired man. Some of the difficulties in the passage are these:

(1) The promise referred to in Genesis seems to have related to the posterity
of Abraham at large, without any particular reference to an individual. It is to
his seed; his descendants; to all his seed or posterity. Such would be the fair
and natural interpretation should it be read by hundreds or thousands of persons
who had never heard of the interpretation here put upon it by Paul.

(2) the argument of the apostle seems to proceed on the supposition that the
word "seed" σπέρμα sperma, that is, posterity, here cannot refer to more than
one person. If it had, says he, it would be in the plural number. But the fact
is, that the word is often used to denote posterity at large; to refer to
descendants without limitation, just as the word posterity is with us; and it is
a fact, moreover, that the word is not used in the plural at all to denote a
posterity, the singular form being constantly employed for that purpose.

Anyone who will open Tromm's Concordance to the Septuagint, or Schmids'
Concordance on the New Testament will see the most ample confirmation of this
remark. Indeed the plural form of the word is never used except in this place in
Galatians. The difficulty, therefore, is, that the remark here of Paul appears
to be a trick of argument, or a quibble more worthy of a trifling Jewish Rabbi,
than of a serious reasoner or an inspired man. I have stated this difficulty
freely, just as I suppose it has struck hundreds of minds, because I do not wish
to shrink from any real difficulty in examining the Bible, but to see whether it
can be fairly met. In meeting it, expositors have resorted to various
explanations, most of them, as it seems to me, unsatisfactory, and it is not
necessary to detail them. Dr. Burner, Doddridge, and some others suppose that
the apostle means to say that the promises made to Abraham were not only
appropriated to one class of his descendants, that is, to those by Isaac, but
that they centered in one illustrious person, through whom all the rest are made
partakers of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.

This Doddridge admits the apostle says in "bad Greek," but still he supposes
that this is the true exposition. Noessett and Rosenmuller suppose that by the
word σπέρμα sperma (seed) here is not meant the Messiah, but Christians in
general; the body of believers. But this is evidently in contradiction of the
apostle, who expressly affirms that Christ was intended. It is also liable to
another objection that is fatal to the opinion. The very point of the argument
of the apostle is, that the singular and not the plural form of the word is
used, and that therefore an individual, and not a collective body or a number of
individuals, is intended. But according to this interpretation the reference is,
in fact, to a numerous body of individuals, to the whole body of Christians.
Jerome affirms that the apostle made use of a false argument, which, although it
might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians, would not be approved by wise
or learned men - Chandler. Borger endeavors to show that this was in accordance
with the mode of speaking and writing among the Hebrews, and especially that the
Jewish Rabbis were accustomed to draw an argument like this from "the singular
number," and that the Hebrew word זרע zera‛ "seed" is often used by them in this
manner; see his remarks as quoted by Bloomfield in loc.
But the objection to this is, that though this might be common, yet it is not
the less a quibble on the word, for certainly the very puerile reasoning of the
Jewish Rabbis is no good authority on which to vindicate the authority of an
apostle. Locke and Clarke suppose that this refers to Christ as the spiritual
head of the mystical body, and to all believers in him. LeClerc supposes that it
is an allegorical kind of argument, that was suited to convince the Jews only,
who were accustomed to this kind of reasoning. I do not know but this solution
may be satisfactory to many minds, and that it is capable of vindication, since
it is not easy to say how far it is proper to make use of methods of argument
used by an adversary in order to convince them. The argumentum a.d. hominem is
certainly allowable to a certain extent, when designed to show the legitimate
tendency of the principles advanced by an opponent.

And the article continued looking for a solution but found none. And so I feel that we have encountered a fatal flaw in the Bible.

Note also that some commentators (see underlined above) have adopted something close to Kathryn's solution, that the "seed" actually refers to all believers as opposed to Christ alone.

All the best,

Richard

[heb13-13]

P.S. Let me answer your last question which was unanswered. Why was the Brass Serpent a Type of Christ?

Why was a Serpent used in the garden? Because that is what Satan was. A "Nachash", Seraphim, Serpent. It is very clear that Satan is a fallen angel.

In the Hebrew this being or person is called 'Nachash.' The Hebrew word Nachash is translated to "shine" (like brass) or whisper (as in enchantment). The Nachash was not a literal snake. The Nachash was, to use literal Hebrew, a 'shining enchanter.' He was also shrewd' (smooth or slick), as a descriptive term in the Hebrew for 'naked and cunning' in deceiving Eve.

This word is also used for angelic creatures called Seraphim in Isa 6:2 and 6:6. Seraphim are six winged angels who are the highest ranked angels known. Satan was a fallen Angel, he shone like brass and God is showing us who he was when He refers to him as Nachash, the serpent (shining enchanter).

From Fausett's.

Seraphim
Isaiah 6:2-3. ("God's attendant angels".) Seraphim (plural) in Numbers 21:6 means the "fiery flying (not winged, but rapidly moving) "serpents" which bit the Israelites; called so from the poisonous inflammation caused by their bites. Burning (from saraph "to burn") zeal, dazzling brightness of appearance (2 Kings 2:11; 2 Kings 6:17; Ezekiel 1:13; Matthew 28:3) and serpent-like rapidity in God's service, always characterize the seraphim. Satan's "serpent" (nachash) form in appearing to man may have some connection with his original form as a
seraph (singular) of light. The serpent's head symbolized wisdom in Egypt (2 Kings 18:4). Satan has wisdom, but wisdom not sanctified by the flame of devotion.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" ^{(2 Cor 5:21)}

The serpent was a reminder and emblem of the curse ^{(Gen 3:15).} The one who is the sinner’s Savior was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh (Jesus is not Satan and Satan is not Jesus), ^{Rom 8:3.}

Brass is the metal that speaks of judgment and pride and Satan. Brass is also a type of Christ as it is harder than gold, silver or iron and pictures the strength of our Mighty God. On the cross, Christ bore our judgment for us. Note that the serpent was not effective in Moses’ hand, or on a shelf. It had to be 'lifted up" and likewise Christ had to be crucified. ^{See John 3:14, 8:28, and 12:30-33.}

A Standard implies authority and protection and a particular way of doing things."And He will lift up a standard for the nations, And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah, From the four corners of the earth." ^{Isa 11:12 (Also, Isa 49:22, 59:19 and Isa 62:10).}

The people had prayed, 'Take away the serpents!' But the Lord wants us to overcome the sting of death by faith. Looking to Him in faith because He overcame it. 'Look and live!' was the answer. We will not overcome the sting of death by ignoring the bites, or "beating" the serpents, concocting some special medicine (philosophy), or running away.

But what does man do? He will manufacture his own ointment to "heal" his wounds. Or, Man thinks that if he just ministers to others leaving God out of the equation, then by all of us helping each other (god is in all of us) out we will all be made whole. Many think they can fight the serpents. Some still think they can make an offering to the serpent on the pole and appease it's wrath.

"He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan" ^{(2Ki 18:4).}

Interesting isn't it that the people were told to look at the serpent on the pole. They were not told to look at Moses, yet many look at and towards their spiritual "leaders" today. Even many still look at Moses thinking the Law can save them (Hebrew Roots Movement).

Salvation came through looking by faith to the uplifted serpent in the center of the camp.
"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" ^{(Isa 45:22).}
"...not of works lest any man should boast" ^{Eph 2:8-9.}

And Kathryn, the serpent was not connected with the tabernacle in any way. No amount of "sacrifices" will save us from death.

The serpent was lifted up in the center of the camp so all anyone had to do was look. If you were lame or two weak to crawl that was ok. You just had to LOOK. Likewise, Christ is not far away, today. Just look with the eyes of faith.


The serpent was not lifted up in some hidden corner. It was lifted up in the center of the camp where all could see it and live. The brazen serpent was lifted up so those who were too weak to crawl to the pole could look and be healed. Christ is available today; He is not far way. ^{John 12:32; Rom. 10:8-10.}

Jesus said^* to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" ^{(John 14:6).}
'And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" ^{(Acts 4:12)}

Unless a sinner looks to Christ by faith, he or she is lost forever. That is what the Bible teaches!


"For the preaching of the cross is to them that PERISH foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign (objective evidence), and the Greeks seek after wisdom (reasoning and logic): But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men"_{^{(1 Cor 1:18-25)}}

Rick
P.S. I was experimenting with superscript and if you think the scripture passages are too small, let me know.

[heb13-13]

Hey Rick,

Your conclusion does not necessarily follow because Paul's logic is obviously fallacious. That verse has bothered me from the first time I read it thirty years ago. The fact that Paul used a false argument has been recognized since the time of Jerome (5th century). Here is a good review of the problem from Barnes' Notes on the Bible:


And the article continued looking for a solution but found none. And so I feel that we have encountered a fatal flaw in the Bible.

Note also that some commentators (see underlined above) have adopted something close to Kathryn's solution, that the "seed" actually refers to all believers as opposed to Christ alone.

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard,

I am pretty sure when Eve bore her first child she probably thought that she had given birth to the "seed" who would crush the head of the serpent. Her words were quite emphatic, "I have begotten the manchild, even Jehovah" (Gen. 4:1). Nope, that wasn't Jehovah! She thought God's promise of the "seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head" (Gen. 3:15) was being fulfilled. Little did she realize how long it would be until the "Seed" was manifested.

I think that God did not put the cross right outside of the garden and remedy man's problem right away because there had to be a process or preparation in which Man was to really "SEE" his sin and rebellion and also to understand that God keeps His word and His judgment is always just. By man's inability to keep the Law he was supposed to recognize his own insufficiency and depravity and come to the place where he would appreciate God's salvation by grace manifested in His Son, Jesus (the Seed).

We are His offspring by faith and could never bruise the serpent who had the sting of death
1Co 15:56
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

And who destroyed Him that had the power of death? Was it all of us who are children of God by faith, all Believers as you and Kathryn say?


Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

"He might" (Singular, context is Jesus, Heb 2:9) destroy him (singular personality) ... the devil.


Isa 25:8
He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.


Hos 13:14
I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

2Ti 1:10
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

All the best,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I am pretty sure when Eve bore her first child she probably thought that she had given birth to the "seed" who would crush the head of the serpent. Her words were quite emphatic, "I have begotten the manchild, even Jehovah" (Gen. 4:1). Nope, that wasn't Jehovah! She thought God's promise of the "seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head" (Gen. 3:15) was being fulfilled. Little did she realize how long it would be until the "Seed" was manifested.

Hey there Rick,

I am familiar with that interpretation, but Eve's words are not nearly as "emphatic" as you suggest, else we would expect at least one translator would have followed your interpretation. As it is, all 16 major English translations listed on this page render it as something along the lines of "I have gotten a man from the LORD." The Hebrew reads:

qaniti (I have obtained) ish (a man) et-YHWH

The "et" preceding "Yahweh" could be the sign of the direct object, in which case your interpretation would follow, but all translators that I have checked interpret it as the preposition meaning "with" or "from" so it means "from the Lord." Here's Strong's definition:

Strong's 0854 'eth {ayth}
Meaning: 1) with, near, together with 1a) with, together with 1b) with (of relationship) 1c) near (of place) 1d) with (poss.) 1e) from...with, from (with other prep)

Now I admit that the Hebrew could be read as you suggest, but that would imply the doctrine that the Messiah would be Yahweh himself, and it does not seem reasonable to impose such a doctrine on the text of Genesis 4:1.

I think that God did not put the cross right outside of the garden and remedy man's problem right away because there had to be a process or preparation in which Man was to really "SEE" his sin and rebellion and also to understand that God keeps His word and His judgment is always just. By man's inability to keep the Law he was supposed to recognize his own insufficiency and depravity and come to the place where he would appreciate God's salvation by grace manifested in His Son, Jesus (the Seed).

Well, I don't think history has shown any such thing. On the contrary, if history has shown anything, it is that God's ways do not appear to be just at all. Even the concept that we are all born in sin because of our first parents transgression transgresses the true meaning of sin and righteousness, as recognized even within the Biblical text, as when Ezekiel says that the son shall not die for the father's sin.

We are His offspring by faith and could never bruise the serpent who had the sting of death
1Co 15:56
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

And who destroyed Him that had the power of death? Was it all of us who are children of God by faith, all Believers as you and Kathryn say?

Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

"He might" (Singular, context is Jesus, Heb 2:9) destroy him (singular personality) ... the devil.


Isa 25:8
He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.


Hos 13:14
I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

2Ti 1:10
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

All the best,
Rick

I don't understand why you quote those verses. There is no question that the Bible teaches that Jesus (singular) destroyed the works of the devil.

The problem is Paul's argument which is a very bad argument. Take a look again at the quote from Barnes' Notes on the Bible. All biblical scholars recognize this as a very serious problem. Paul was completely illogical when he appealed to the singular form of sperma (seed) since that is how sperma (seed) is used throughout the Bible when it is referring to multiple (plural) descendents.

And worse, Paul is inconsistent with his own argument since he himself uses the singular sperma to refer to all believers!

Romans 9:7 Neither, because they [plural] are the seed [singular] of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Here we see that Paul uses seed in the singular to refer to all believers. His argument in Galatians 3:16 makes no sense at all.

All the best,

Richard

[duxrow]

Way to go, Rick. Anyone doubting Paul's Truth had better look to himself. Paul is one of those holy men who spoke/wrote as the Ghostwriter intended.

Another POV re the brass serpent is how it was physical--they had to turn their stiff ? necks. Now in the New Covenant we 'reflect' back and REPENT if we expect to be saved, born-again, transformed, translated, redeemed, delivered, or turned into a pillar of salt. amen?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Way to go, Rick. Anyone doubting Paul's Truth had better look to himself. Paul is one of those holy men who spoke/wrote as the Ghostwriter intended.

Another POV re the brass serpent is how it was physical--they had to turn their stiff ? necks. Now in the New Covenant we 'reflect' back and REPENT if we expect to be saved, born-again, transformed, translated, redeemed, delivered, or turned into a pillar of salt. amen?

Hey there duxrow,

Did Rick write something that explained the logical fallacy in Paul's argument based on the singular use of "seed" (sperma)? If not, why do you say "way to go, Rick?" The problem with that passage has been recognized by all commentators, and no one, to my knowledge, has found an adequate solution. Are you saying all those commentators "better look to themselves?" They were only speaking truth about what they read in the Bible.

And where was the justice in turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? All she did was look back. The angels didn't warn her that it would be fatal, did they?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Jesus is the "seed" of Abraham and He is the "seed of the woman" - Gen. 3:15

Paul views Heb. singular "seed" as a collective noun with both singular and plural implications
Gal. 3:16 - "He does not say "seeds", as referring to many, but rather to one,..that is Christ"
Gal. 3:19 - - "the seed to whom the promise had been made"

No, not including all mankind in this. The Scriptures do not include all mankind.

Christians who are "in Christ" are spiritual descendants of Abraham. "Christians" not in Christ are not spiritual descendants of Abraham.
Rom. 4:16 - "the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
"
Rom. 9:8 - "it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants"

Gal. 3:7 - "those who are of faith are sons of Abraham"
Gal. 3:29 - "if you belong to Christ, then you Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
Gal. 4:28 - "children of promise"

Hey there Rick,

Is there a problem with interpreting being "in Christ" and "in Adam" as speaking of those who are "spiritually minded" vs. those who are "carnally minded?" If not, then can we see Christianity teaching Universal Wisdom that applies to all people in all times, not just those who happened to be lucky enough to hear about the Bible?

There are many verses that appear to teach Universalism in the Bible. And there are others that appear to teach an eternal Duality with some "going up" and others "going down." So which verses should "dominate" and which should be reinterpreted? This is the most important question of all because the Bible is filled with apparently contradictory verses, so every interpreter must choose which "dominate" and which are then reinterpreted in terms of the dominate verses. Harold Camping (and all Calvinists) do this when they say that we are "dead in our sins" and cannot repent and believe until after God saves us! This is the problem of the ordo salutis. Where do you come down on this. Do you think a person can choose to be saved? The Reformers would say "no." Only the elect will be saved. No one has any choice in this matter because God chose (elected) them before they were created.

Actually, I did say those He loved but the hostility is against those that love God). The non-christian is already hostile towards God so the enmity (hostility and animosity) is against Christ and those that are for Him (love Him).

Is that true, or is it just something you read in the Bible? I mean, if everyone is hostile to God, then no one would ever choose to get saved. And this, of course, brings us back to the Reformed doctrine of ordo salutis - no one would ever get saved if they had to "choose God" because everyone starts out as God's enemy and so would never choose him! You see, there is some logic to the Reformed position.

Well, like you said God's creation teaches us things too and a snakes tail does not kill or destroy it only causes fear (which could be construed as lies). Looking at Revelation 12:4, "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born", Lucifer was able to sweep away a 3rd of the angels with his lies (join with me and we can overthrow God). Despite his rebellion he was limited sweeping away only a 3rd of the "stars" of heaven.

First, the Bible does not teach a word about any fallen angel named "Lucifer." We should not propagate that error.

Second, the "stars of heaven" probably refer to the rulers of Israel, not angels. This conclusion is based on a careful study of the symbolic meaning of stars and the word "rule" which is introduced on the Fourth Day:

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule (memshalah) the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule (memshalah) over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

The word "rule" (memshalah) is used everywhere else in reference to either God's rule or governmental rule on earth, e.g. -

Psalm 145:13 Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion (memshalah) endureth throughout all generations.
1 Kings 9:19 19 And all the cities of store that Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion (memshalah).

And the stars are used to represent the "seed of Abraham" -

Genesis 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

There is a HUGE amount of "inference" and speculation involved in your interpretation of the Dragon in Revelation 12. I think it's pretty obvious that it represents the governmental power of Rome which persecuted Christians in cahoots with the false prophet (apostate Israel).

Throughout the Scriptures there is the image of a cosmic conflict between God and Satan, between good and evil. This is never portrayed as a dualism of equal powers (yin and yang), however, since God is omnipotent. "There was war in heaven" (Rev. 12:7) that caused "enmity between the serpent and the seed of woman" (Gen. 3:15), requiring that "the ruler of this world be cast out" (John 12:31).

It's curious that you would say that, since you presented God and Satan as the only "two characters" in the whole universe!

There are only two characters
in this Universe,
not one
and
not three
and these characters
cannot be ONE
as in
UNITY.

Flesh + Spirit = 1?
Good + Evil = 1?
Life + Death = 1?
Love + Hate = 1?
Sin + Righteousness = 1?
Lies + Truth = 1?
Holy + Unholy = 1?
Heaven + Hell = 1?
God + Satan = 1?

Your entire list is a list of Yin/Yang dualities.

I thought that was why you were rejecting God as the ultimate unity of all, because you believe there are things that are fundamentally "other" than God.

And this is my problem with you perception of ultimate Reality - it seems you think that it is fundamentally Dualistic. This elevates evil and Satan to the same ontological level of being as God. You say there is an eternal duality. Does this not mean that Satan and Evil and Lies are as eternal as God himself?

I see the same problem with your idea that there will be two places (heaven and hell) eternally separated. This implies that there will be an eternal unreconciled evil in God's universe.

The work of Christ accomplished victory over Satan. "He disarmed the rulers and authorities, having triumphed over them" (Col. 2:15). He is
"victorious over the beast" (Rev. 15:2). The Lion (Rev. 5:5) who is the Lamb (Rev. 17:14) has "overcome the world" (John 16:33) and the "Evil One" (I John 2:14). "He leads justice to victory" (Matt. 12:20). "Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 15:57).

You can have all that without a fundamental dualism. Could it not be that Satan and the Flesh are partial views of Reality, and they are "overcome" when a soul sees its true Self as united with God, beyond all Duality?

[duxrow]

Hey there duxrow,

Did Rick write something that explained the logical fallacy in Paul's argument based on the singular use of "seed" (sperma)? If not, why do you say "way to go, Rick?" The problem with that passage has been recognized by all commentators, and no one, to my knowledge, has found an adequate solution. Are you saying all those commentators "better look to themselves?" They were only speaking truth about what they read in the Bible.

And where was the justice in turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? All she did was look back. The angels didn't warn her that it would be fatal, did they?

Lot's Wife, IMO, was a 'precept' introducing the theme of the salty believers. Some have too much salt, I think, but salt is to flavor the Word.
..and, I strongly suspect she didn't feel anything but warmth and light, absent from the body means to be present with your Lord. ha.

The "incorruptible seed" from 1Pet 1:23 in broad sense is the Bible itself -- the hidden leaven that has permeated all the world; first orally, and now published. Ps68:11 - hallelujah anyhow?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Lot's Wife, IMO, was a 'precept' introducing the theme of the salty believers. Some have too much salt, I think, but salt is to flavor the Word.
..and, I strongly suspect she didn't feel anything but warmth and light, absent from the body means to be present with your Lord. ha.

Yeah, I agree, some folks have too much salt! And others not enough. But Lot's wife? What does she have to do with the "salt" that represents the Christian witness? I don't see a connection there.

And it's nice you think she got saved. Why do you believe that? Most folks would probably see being turned to a pillar of salt as a kind of judgment from God. It certainly doesn't sound very nice.

The "incorruptible seed" from 1Pet 1:23 in broad sense is the Bible itself -- the hidden leaven that has permeated all the world; first orally, and now published. Ps68:11 - hallelujah anyhow?

That's how I used to interpret it too. Or rather, the Seed was Christ, the Living Word revealed through the Bible, the Written Word. I always saw a strong analogy between the two.

[Rose]

Hey there duxrow,

Did Rick write something that explained the logical fallacy in Paul's argument based on the singular use of "seed" (sperma)? If not, why do you say "way to go, Rick?" The problem with that passage has been recognized by all commentators, and no one, to my knowledge, has found an adequate solution. Are you saying all those commentators "better look to themselves?" They were only speaking truth about what they read in the Bible.

And where was the justice in turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? All she did was look back. The angels didn't warn her that it would be fatal, did they?

And besides that, what about Lot? He offered his daughters to the men of Sodom and he didn't get so much as a slight reprimand Where is the justice in that?