QUESTION LIST #24:
| To list of all questions on Website |

  1. The importance of the Christian Baptism

  2. Adam & Eve, and the serpent, and the Tree of Life, in the Garden of Eden

  3. Adam & Eve, who did what?

  4. Illustration of the danger of extra-Biblical writings; the Targums on Gen 3

  5. An answer to those who challenge the validity of the "Serpent Seed Doctrine" simply on the grounds of 'guilt by association' with the many groups, both good and bad, that realized the Biblical truth of the teaching all down through the ages.

  6. A man has a problem with the concept of 'pre-existence.'

  7. Did Jesus change the Law?  And, what of food laws?

  8. How could God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit be One?

  9. Is celibacy for Priests Biblical?

 


Question #1
| Back To Top |

The importance of the Christian Baptism

 

Answer to a reader on the matter:

Hi, you asked:

 
"So if I have read correctly you do not believe in baptism being essential but necessary? Would it be correct to say that?"
Let me clarify:  I do not think that it is OK for one not to be Baptized!  Jesus told us to get Baptized, so how can we say it is OK to disobey Him???
 
What I did say was that Baptism does not save you, Jesus Christ does.  And this Jesus Christ, whom saves you, said that you were to be Baptized:
 
Matt 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.  (KJV)
What I said that you may have misunderstood was that the man on the cross next to Jesus was saved by Jesus on the cross and he did not have a chance to get Baptized.  Therefore, technically, he was saved without being Baptized.  But you do have a chance to get Baptized.  The man on the cross didn't get Baptized because he was unable to for being nailed to a cross dying.  What excuse will use when Jesus asks you why decided not to get Baptized?  Surely the man on the cross would have gotten Baptized had he the chance.
 
Any Christian can baptize you.
 
If you believe upon Jesus Christ, do as He said. 
 
Do it.
 
You said:
 
"I first gave my life to Christ under an Oneness Pentecostal Church, but I don't believe that anymore, however the thought of having to be baptized still plagues me from time to time. Please keep in mind I'm not trying to argue just get another view on all this."
I know the error of the Pentecostal Church, and I know that all their dogma about being 'Baptized in the Holy Spirit' is error.  But are you saying that they do not water Baptize?  Inform me, for I did not know that.
 
We have a study, and in it is the testimony of many who have come out of the Pentecostal church error.  Perhaps you would like to read it as it clears up much err of the churches (especially the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and like teaching churches); it is at: The Holy Spirit & The Holy Trinity  
 
If you would consider it, I would like your testimonial as to your experiences in the Pentecostal Church and what events led up to your breaking free from it.  I may like to include it in the above study - I would not use your name.
 
So if you are led by God to share, so that it may help others still trapped, would you take your time and give me your testimonial for possible use in the study?  Perhaps if you had been warned in the beginning you would not have spent time in the Pentecostal Church.  it seems that your time in the Pentecostal Church has confused you instead of uplifted you.  Well, by sharing maybe you can help to warn others.
 
But either way, feel free to follow-up with questions.
 
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)

 

The reader follows up; to which we replied as below:

 

Hello again, you asked:
 
"Another question would be in Baptized in Jesus name, or father son and Holy Ghost?"
 
It is the same thing. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are One.  Jesus is God in the flesh, God is the Father in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.
 
Jesus was the only one to say to be Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 
 
Matt 28:19 [Jesus speaking]
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  (KJV)
All other's Baptized in the Lord's name.  Why?  Because He had been crucified and risen by that time:
 
Acts 19:3-5
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (KJV)
 
Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)
Jesus said this (to Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) because at the time of His statement He had not yet been glorified, i.e., He was not yet crucified and risen AND ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN, He was still on the earth prior to His ascension in:
 
Acts 1:8-9
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.  (KJV)

After His ascension the Apostles said to be Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.  They had not changed the ‘formula,' for Christ's coming did not change the Scriptures, He fulfilled them.  And after His ascension it was His rightful place to have Baptism in his name.

 
Jesus in the Hebrew is Yehoshua ("Ye" is Yehovah, "hoshua" is salvation), which means the Salvation of Yehovah or Yehovah Savior, or in the English the Salvation of God, God the Savior
 
Jesus was God in the flesh.  You remember the Scripture announcing Jesus' birth?  He is there called the "God with us" (Emmanuel):
 
Matt 1:23-25
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)
"Christ" means the Anointed One.  Anointed with what?  Anointed with the Holy Spirit. 
 
Luke 1:31-35
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.  (KJV)
 
Luke 4:1
1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,  (KJV)
So when you say Jesus Christ (God Savior the Anointed One) at Baptism it is the same thing as saying Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  It is not magic in the words, but what is in the heart that matters.  When we are Baptized we go down into the water as Christ went down into the earth at His burial.  When we rise up out of the water it is as Jesus rose from the dead.  We become alive in Christ.  It is not the water, the H2O, it is not the ritual, not the words, but it is truth, what we believe. 
 
We must believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior from God.  That is what Baptism is, it is an affirmation, a statement of our faith in obedience.  When we are Baptized we are agreeing (or testifying) that Jesus did these things and that God hath sent salvation to mankind in the name of His Son Jesus Christ:
 
Acts 4:8-12
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.  (KJV)
Our study on the Holy Spirit will help you understand why "Jesus Christ" is the same as saying "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" at Baptism: The Holy Spirit & The Holy Trinity  
 
      
You asked:
 
"My next question would be tithing? Something I'm very confused on, I due it out of my heart anyways, giving more than the 10% or so that most churches require from people, but I do not stand fully convinced that is required of us, but in not fully convinced that it is not required of us either. I have looked on your site but I cannot find anything about this practice."
I don't write about tithing unless it is in private questions because I feel that it looks like I am begging for money when I address such topic.
 
But in the Bible the original formula was 10%, for that is the meaning of the word "tithe" (a tenth).  However, in the days of that writing the church supported the community, they gave food and money to the widows and orphans, they sustained the priests and the government.  Now we pay taxes to the government of the United States which (supposedly) cares for the needy and the needs of the community, the retired, the lame, etc.  So to give 10% now would go beyond what is expected because we give so much to the government already to do the things that the church used to do.
 
How much should you give?  The number does not matter, it is the thought that counts.  Many people give much money but believe little, they are just ‘covering their butts,' if you know what I mean.  Many people give little, but what they give comes from their heart and is acceptable to God more so than the much given by the unjust.
 
God doesn't need the money, He could supply the needs of the needy and the Church on His own, but He wants us to care, He wants us to help.
 
So for you, maybe you are led to give more than others, and for others they have little to give.  But if given in Christ's name and from a pure heart, all offerings are equally acceptable unto the Lord.
 
Personally I do not see any Godly point of decking the false preachers out in Cadillac's and $500.00 suits while the parishioners are poor and in need themselves.  Sadly, the modern church is far from helping the widows and orphans, which the Good Book directs us to do, but as often is the case the church bilks money out of poor widows.  Shame!
 
I suppose that some poor souls think that they can buy Heaven because greedy false apostles have lied to them for gain.  And they are not blameless, for it is their love of the ‘praises of man' that drive many to publicly give.  God knows the difference.
 
Follow your heart when it comes to offering to the Lord.  But remember, your offering can be given directly to a needy family, a Ministry, or a bum on the street, it needn't be given to a rich preacher - to be considered a tithe.
 
I know that I sound 'down' on many Ministries, but look around you, how many good ones are there anymore?  How many teach truth?  Yours apparently teaches to babble in demonic tongues things that they know not what they say.  Some day they will learn what it is that they were saying - and they shall be ashamed.  Are there good Ministries out there yet?  Yes, but they are far and few between.  Most are corrupted by satan in one way or another.  I mean really, what baby Christian even can't see that the concept of 'slain in the spirit' is evil?!?  The prosperity Ministries are all in vain.  Most of the churches are compromised by now, they will user in the antichrist period, though they pay lip service against him now.  Look at Kenneth Copeland's eyes, if you can't see demonic possession then you have absolutely no spiritual discernment whatsoever.  The man is evil with a dead gaze.  So is God well pleased at the dupes who finance these mega-Ministries?  No way!
 
Frankly, our money in many cases would better get to the needy in Christ by bypassing the money-changers at the pulpits.  But I do understand that all Ministries have financial needs that must be met, so if you have a good Ministry then you should financially support them. 
 
Follow your heart.  Give to God what is His and to the preacher what is his.  God will guide you as to which is which if you seek His council.  Though you won't be quite so popular at church if you give some of their money to the needy in Christ.  Isn't that the point?
 
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)
 

 

Back to list of questions at top of page


Question #2
| Back To Top |

Adam & Eve, and the serpent, and the Tree of Life, in the Garden of Eden

 

Hello Cathy, you asked:
"In the garden Eve had sex with Satan - you believe.
In your opinion, when in Genesis it says that Adam and Eve are thrown out of the Garden so that they will not eat of the Tree of Life and live forever, what does this mean? Had adam and eve stayed they would have had sex with that tree ? Was that tree Jesus?"
The Tree of Life was Jesus, yes.  But would Adam and Eve done what you asked (had sex) with the Tree of Life?  God forbid, no! 
 
You are confusing several elements here.  For one, Adam and Eve did not have sex with a tree, in fact Adam isn't said to have had sex with the serpent, only Eve is said to have had sex with the serpent.
 
 
Observe what Eve did with the serpent compared to what God didn't want Adam & Eve to do to the Tree of Life:
Gen 3:13
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. (KJV)
 
Gen 3:22
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (KJV)
Eve was beguiled (seduced) by satan (the serpent).  Let me clear this up better for you, let's look at another element in the sin of Eve.  Eve was told not to "touch" the tree; this word 'touch" is naga in the Hebrew and can be a euphemism for sexual intercourse.  Adam was never told by God not to "touch" the tree of evil, perhaps because He knew that Adam would not be tempted like that.  Else you have the origin of Homosexuality.
Touch:  Hebrew word #5060  naga` (naw-gah');a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., to lie with a woman); by implication, to reach (figuratively, to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): KJV-- beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.
Below observe that Eve was given two commands regarding the Tree of Good and Evil; one: to not "touch" (naga) the tree, and two: to not "eat of it."  Regarding the Tree of Life no such mention is made of "touching" (naga) the tree only about eating of it:
Gen 3:3-5
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.  (KJV)
 
Gen 3:22
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (KJV)
Don't let the English translation confuse you.  Don't confuse the "put forth his hand, and take" of Gen 3:22 with the "touch" of Gen 3:3.  For the "touch" in Gen 3:3 is naga, Hebrew word #5060, but the "put forth his hand, and take" in Gen 3:22 is three Hebrew words (#'s 7971, 3027 & 3947) having nothing to do with naga.
 
You asked:
"Also- if Satan's seed is mixed with Adam's here on earth, does that mean it is like a recessive gene - some times you have red hair - some blond or brown and so then some people are Satans' and some God's?  if not - then how do you account for people in China, Iraq, Africa etc, when they hear the Word preached, coming to Christ?"
You are confusing several things here.  For one, you seem to believe that all people descended from Adam and Eve, for you ask about recessive genes as though all people have the same genes whereby differences are simply recessions in some people.  All people are not from Adam and Eve (nor from the serpent and Eve).
 
Also you seem to think that salvation is by race, for you ask of others of other races being saved.  People of all races, when they believe upon Jesus Christ, are saved; it has nothing to do with their genes whatsoever.
 
Cathy, if you would just invest the time to read the below three Bible studies, in their entirely (no skipping around), in the below order, all of this will make perfect sense to you:

When was the beginning?  Learn when the true beginning of creation was, and of the three Earth ages.  Discover why God had to destroy the first Earth Age.

Mankind; the two separate creation events  The FORMING of Adam in the Garden of Eden was a long time preceded by the CREATING of all the various peoples of the world.  Understand why this was necessary and you are well on your way to understanding the plan of God.
 
What was the real sin in the Garden of Eden?!?  Did Adam and Eve really eat the wrong apple and ruin everything?  Of course not; find out what really happened, the reason it happened, and the repercussions of it.  When you learn the truth from God's Word on this, much of the Bible is at once put into perspective.
I am not putting you off in any way, but it would take hours and dozens of e-mails to answer the questions that are answered in these three Bible studies.
 
Please feel free after having read the three studies to ask any question that you are yet unsure of.
 
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)

[The reader wrote back, and it is contained in the below Q & A]

 

Back to list of questions at top of page


Question #3
| Back To Top |

 

    Adam & Eve, who did what?

 
 

The above reader (question #2) wrote back; below is our reply:

You asked:

"I keep asking about the Tree of Life because-  in the Gospels when Jesus says "you must drink my blood and eat my flesh", I was wondering if that fit in in the Garden of Eden scenario in your opinion"
Yes, I can see it no other way.
 
You ask:
"I know that Adam and Eve would not have had sex with the Tree of Life, but what would they have done?"

Gen 3:22-24
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.  (KJV)
The fulfillment of the above Scripture:
John 6:57-58
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.  (KJV)
You state:
"I have always heard that although both Adam and Eve sinned, Adam's sin was worse because he was not deceived as Eve was but sinned knowingly"
     Here is where you are 'missing it,' dear.  In the below Scripture what it is saying is that Adam at the first had obeyed God, he had not sinned, he had not eaten of that tree; but then along came Eve who disobeyed God and sinned and (among other things, I might add) she ate of that tree.  Eve then went on to lead Adam astray, and he did eat of that tree.
1 Tim 2:13-15
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.  (KJV)
     Adam "was not deceived", but Eve "being deceived was in the transgression", and "she shall be saved" if "they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety".
 
Eve "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen 3:6)
 
Eve "gave also unto her husband with her" (Gen 3:6).
 
Adam then took from his wife "and he did eat" (Gen 3:6).
 
Adam pleaded to God that "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat" (Gen 3:12).
 
Eve pleaded to God that "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat" (Gen 3:13).
 
God charges the serpent with "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed" (Gen 3:15).
 
God charges Eve with "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" (Gen 3:17).
 
God charges Adam with "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life" (Gen 3:17).
 
     There was more than one thing being done in this first sin in the Garden (see our Was Eve's sin more than simply sexual in nature?  And just what exactly did Adam do?).  All that Adam did we are uncertain of; but we know that Eve became pregnant after what she had done:
Gen 3:16
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (KJV)
 
conception:  2032  herown (hay-rone'); or herayown (hay-raw-yone'); from 2029; pregnancy: KJV-- conception.
Every other occurrence of the word herown in the Old Testament:
 
Ruth 4:13
13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son. (KJV)
 
Hosea 9:11
11 As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. (KJV)
 
For did not God say to the serpent (satan):
Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.  (KJV)
seed: 2233  zera` (zeh'-rah); from 2232; seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity: KJV-- X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowingtime.
Some other occurrences of the word zera` in the Old Testament:
Gen 4:25
25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. (KJV)
 
Gen 9:9
9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; (KJV)
 
Gen 21:13
13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. (KJV)
 
Gen 38:8
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. (KJV)
You state:
"Eve was told to be a helpmate to her husband - not a slave"
     The choice of the word "slave" is yours, not mine; for the word carries with it much baggage that confuses this issue here today.  God originally had made Eve to be a helpmeet as you said (Gen 2:20-25), but then Eve fell by transgression and was 'demoted' so to speak:
Gen 3:16
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (KJV)
You said:
"My parents were Episcopalians - I don't think they were ever born again"
     I see that you have been mislead by the term "born again."  One becomes "born again" when one believes upon Jesus Christ.  Episcopalians are a Christian denomination which believes upon Jesus Christ (though they have become apostate of late over the 'gays' issue).  If your parents believed upon Jesus Christ then they were automatically "born again."  See our Getting Saved; What does it mean, and how can I be?, and also The "born of the water" in John 3:5
 
You said:
"I have been going to the First Assembly of God Church"
     This explains the confusion.  See our testimonies about this Church and other's like it from people who have come out of it, at  The Holy Spirit & The Holy Trinity .
 
You closed with:
"I am sure I am telling you much more than you really wanted to know.  Thanks for your time. I always love talking to a brother in Christ."
     No, you told me what I needed to know to help you.  I know that you must be going through a lot right now coming out of the AOG Church (Assemblies Of God); and that you are dealing with the 'Rapture theory', the 'born again' misrepresentations, the 'spiritual gifts' misrepresentations, the 'talking in tongues', etc., misrepresentations, but continue in faith and trust the Lord; He will guide you into sound doctrine.
 
     And may God bless you dear Sister in Christ Jesus.  Feel free to write in with questions anytime.  And I do not discourage disagreement, I just demand that that disagreement be supported by the Word of God.
 
     Please do read those recommended links I supplies in the above.  Also see About the 'Word-faith' Movement.
 
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)

 

 

Back to list of questions at top of page


Question #4
| Back To Top |

Danger of extra-Biblical (non-Biblical) writings; the Targums on Gen 3

 

 

A Reader writes:

"  Dear friend ( Nick Goggin), I would just like to comment on your statement you made that the serpent seed doctrine ( or whatever the masses would call it)  can be traced back just 50 years as you stated. I assume that the source ( 50 year old) you speak of is Mr. Burnham. When I began to study the "birth" of the "rapture" doctrine I noticed that it was extremely new as far as Biblical doctrines go. This lead me to the task of finding the source of the "serpent seed' doctrine which lead me back about 50 years, until I ran across a source much older, nearly 1300 years older, namely the Targum fashioned Psuedo-Jonathan. I know many of the Targums are quit corrupt with "jewish" (more like babylonian) myths so I approched them with care. Yet the fact of the matter is that the Psuedo-Jonathan targum is at least 1250 years old and was most likely copied from a much older source. So with that in mind the Targums account of Genisis is worth a look and boy did it surprise me when I read it. It not only explains that Eve had sexual relations with the serpent it also calls the serpent an angel of death. It also plainly states that Cain and Abel are twins and that Cain is from the angel whom Eve desired. Quite frankly this blew me away, there are some other things in this targum that are not scriptual but it still proved interesting to say the least. If you would like to take a look at the Targum P-J on Gen.  link to www.tulane.edu/~ntcs/pj/pjgen1-6.htm"

 

ANSWER:

Hi Mr. or Ms. ? (you didn't leave a name).  Thank you for passing that info along to me, I am always interested in seeing what is out there.
 
However, there is a danger in the Targums (Jewish Literature) to the Christian as I will illustrate shortly.
 
You said:
"I know many of the Targums are quit corrupt with "jewish" (more like babylonian) myths so I approched them with care. ... It not only explains that Eve had sexual relations with the serpent it also calls the serpent an angel of death...."
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in the study; I didn't mean that the teaching was only 50 years old, but that, rather it has only gained renewed widespread interest in the last 50 years.  The teaching itself (so-called Serpent Seed) was written down in approx 1490 B.C. when Moses wrote it in Genesis.  And the teaching itself goes back to 4004 B.C. when Adam witnessed the events.  Let's not loose sight of the antiquity of the Holy Scriptures.
 
What this Targum presents is a perversion of the ancient truths written by unsaved antichristian Jewish Rabbis some 5000 years after the actual events.
 
Below I excerpt from the Webpage depicting the Targum in question.  You will at once notice a very obvious error; that obvious error I will highlight with bold text in the below excerpt:
"...And he said, The voice of Thy Word heard I in the garden, and I was afraid, because I am naked; and the commandment which Thou didst teach me, I have transgressed; therefore I hid myself from shame. And He said, Who showed thee that thou art naked? Unless thou hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded that thou shouldst not eat. And Adam said, The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said to the woman, What hast thou done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me with his subtilty, and deceived me with his wickedness, and I ate. And the Lord God brought the three unto judgment; and He said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou of all the cattle, and of all the beasts of the field: upon thy belly thou shalt go, and thy feet shall be cut off, and thy skin thou shalt cast away once in seven years; and the poison of death shall be in thy mouth, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha." ... "...And the Lord God made to Adam and to his wife vestures of honour from the skin of the serpent...." -- THE TARGUM OF PALESTINE,  COMMONLY ENTITLED THE TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL, ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS. SECTION I. BERASHITH.
This writing of the Jewish Sages (Targum) thinks that the serpent in the Garden of Eden became a literal snake with venom; that his (satan's) arms were cut off!  Not only that, but it even went on to say that the clothes that God had made for Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness where made of the serpent's skin! 
 
Any document with such a glaring fundamental errors is not Inspired.  Therefore the whole of the document cannot be trusted and could never be used to substantiate a Biblical truth.  The two don't mix, for "...what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14), and, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3).  This is the leaven that our Lord spoke of:
Matt 16:6-12
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
...Cont. ...
...12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (KJV)
Also in this Targum, purportedly written 1250 years ago, is pure Jewish Doctrine; the doctrine of salvation through the Law (not by belief upon Jesus Christ):
"...Before He had created the world, He created the law; He prepared the garden of Eden for the righteous, that they might eat and delight themselves with the fruit of the tree; because they would have practised in their lives the doctrine of the law in this world, and have maintained the commandments: (but) he prepared Gehinnam for the wicked, which is like the sharp, consuming sword of two edges; in the midst of it He hath prepared flakes of fire and burning coals for the judgment of the wicked who rebelled in their life against the doctrine of the law. To serve the law is better than (to eat of) the fruit of the tree of life, (the law) which the Word of the Lord prepared, that man in keeping it might continue, and walk in the paths of the way of life in the world to come." -- THE TARGUM OF PALESTINE,  COMMONLY ENTITLED THE TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL, ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS. SECTION I. BERASHITH.
But the Bible speaks of better things:
Gal 2:16-21
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.  (KJV)
But anyway, thanks for the information.  And please use caution whenever reading extra-Biblical materials; I know that you said that you did, but remember, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Gal 5:9).
 
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)

Back to list of questions at top of page


Question #5
| Back To Top |

 

An answer to those who challenge the validity of the "Serpent Seed Doctrine" simply on the grounds of 'guilt by association' with the many groups, both good and bad, that realized the Biblical truth of the teaching all down through the ages.

 

A reader writes with his opinion.  And shows the danger of guilt-by-association:

[Quote of reader] Check for your self ,but two groups teach the serpent seed doctrine. One you may not be aware of but The proof of what I am about to state here can be verified easily. In any good cult book on Moon

1. Preachers of Hate KKK Teach this. The only need of such a doctrine is to disprove Gods Word and to show that all People , ALL come from Adam. You see, according to the Bible If one is not Born Of Adam They can not be a sinner. Through one Man sin entered the world. Notice I did not say One Devil Sin enterd the world. So according to these two. Being white would be a curse due the penalty of death because the Adamic blood line. I am a 36 yr old white male.

2. Sun Myung Moon AKA as the Unification Church Or Moonies
Teach this same Doctrine. Sir or Madame, This Man claims to be The second coming of Jesus Christ. Or An antichrist in my book. What you are teaching as to be from the Bible, is taught by sabatarian hate groups and an Anti-christ. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck ,well it must be a duck. Just add to your site that a deranged Korean man who claims Jesus Christ failed and He is to be the Savior  of the world now, agrees with you on the nature of the original sin
and the serpent seed doctrine. Post that the KKK teach this as dogma.# 16 in their list of we believes. Oh by the way Sun Myung Moons wife is an incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Hey every cult group has their own peculiar doctrine . Arnold Murray Of Gravvette Ark. Teaches this but twists it a little to say the Kennites, (Moses own Kinfolk) was the product of the union of satan and Eve. I know this will not get posted but I could not resist a response to this Teaching. It truly Is from their Father the Devil.  From A concerned Denominational Christian who studies the Cults. [end quote]

Answer:

Hello Sir.  I agree that the above groups are spurious.  But even they have some true doctrine (not much).  But even a stopped clock is correct twice in a day.  Take the Catholics for example, they are ever worshipping idols and corrupting doctrine, but even they will tell you that Jesus Christ resurrected from the grave.  Are we to throw away that truth because the idolatrous and apostate Catholic Church declares it?  of course not.  Be realistic here, please.  What you are presuming to do is to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater.'  The teaching of the so-called Serpent-Seed Doctrine stands on Scriptural foundations.  See our: What was the Real sin in the garden of Eden?

God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)

Back to list of questions at top of page


Question #6
| Back To Top |

A man has a problem with the concept of 'pre-existence.'

 

 

A reader writes:

Hello,

As a fellow student of the bible, I agree with 95% of the explanations you give concerning God’s word and what it teaches. I do have a problem with your teaching that we have lived in spiritual bodies in the first earth age. I have read all of the Bible studies I could find on your website as well as listened to Pastor Murray on tape concerning this subject.

I do not have trouble believing the teaching of the three earth ages nor that there were spiritual beings living during the first earth age, and we live in the second. I have believed those teachings for years and long before I knew Pastor Murray or the Watchmen Bible Study Group. I do have a problem with the teaching that these beings are then “Born of women” and live in the second earth age “today” as you and I. (In other words the belief that we pre-existed.)

The only relevant scripture that I have heard you back this specific belief with is Jeremiah 1:5 KJV “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”  Although this scripture may sound like it supports your belief I don’t believe it does....

In his Service, Brad

 

Answer:

...Sorry to be brief....so busy..., have been dealing with a possessed woman...  I have two jobs...  Etc..

 
BUT:
 
You said:
 
" It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
 
Your answer lies in:  What is the "it" in the above Scripture?  Whatever the "it" is, it preceded the flesh body of this world and the spiritual body of the age to come.  For "it" was before "it" was now.
 
"It" is you. You "were" before you were born into the natural (flesh) body.

What can't you see here?

 
And PS:  Reincarnation is a lie from satan.  Every entity that exists in this world only lives HERE once.  Don't be confused.

1 Cor 15:35-44
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.  KJV

God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)

 

Back to list of questions at top of page


Question #7
| Back To Top |

Did Jesus change the Law?  And, what of food laws?

 

Dean asks:

"Hi Nick, I've looked all over your web site and I cant find a study on the Law.
 
I was told that Christ Fulfilled the law in Matt 5:18 and then He further changes it even more, but Pastor Murray says the law is still in place, can you help me with this one?
 
I'm being told all the food laws are null and Void, that Jesus made all foods clean?"
     The confusion is arising in what is the law?  'We' use an incorrect term when 'we' say "Food LAWS."  It is true that in referring to what animals, fish, birds, and insects were 'clean' (acceptable/healthy) to be eaten, the Old Testament Scripture says that "This is the law of the beasts..." (meaning these are the rules of what animals you should eat), but these are not laws like the Ten Commandments are: 
Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.  (KJV)
     In the above Scripture, God had just saved Israel out of Egyptian bondage; He was now leading them through the wilderness for the forty years and giving them His laws and statutes and teaching them all things again (for they had forgotten their God during their four hundred years of slavery in the land of Egypt). 
 
     But when it says "This is the law of the beasts..." (Lev 11:46) it is not like the Ten Commandment Law, it is rather like the "law" of leprosy in the below:
Lev 14:54
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, (KJV)
In other words it was God's explanation.  Let me explain like this:
  • When God explains foods, He is giving His explanation on what is healthy to eat (i.e., what is clean to the human body to consume).
  • When God explains the Medicinal, He is giving His explanation on what is diagnosis and cures of sicknesses (i.e., what is the way to cleanse the human body of disease).
  • When God explains Commandments, He is giving His explanation on what is commanded by God of men to do and not to do  (i.e., what is the way to eternal life of the human soul).
Comparative explanation:
Below is God explaining food Laws, i.e., what is the way of foods for the body:
Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.  (KJV)
 

Below is God explaining Disease Laws, i.e., what is the way of diagnosis and curing of the sick body:
Lev 14:54-57
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall,
55 And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house,
56 And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot:
57 To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy.  (KJV)
 
Below is God explaining Commandment Laws, i.e., what is the way that men ought to act under penalty of eternal death:
Exod 20:1-4
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
 (KJV) [Etc., the Ten Commandments continue through verse 17...] 
     To say that all this law has the same weight would be to say that eating a piece of bacon (pork is forbade under the food laws) is the same as murdering a man (murder is outlawed in the Ten Commandments).  Do you see the folly in calling the food laws the same as Commandment Law?  
 
     So it can become confusing when we use the modern-day English term "Law" for everything that God said.  Don't get me wrong, whenever God speaks it is law, for He speaks only to command, not engaging in idle conversations; but there are laws unto death and there are laws that are not unto death.  In other words, if you break the food laws you get sick, if you break the medicinal laws you won't get cured, but if you break His Commandment Laws you are apt to end up in Hell.
 
     In the New Testament, Peter was told by God to eat unclean foods; Peter objected; God was a little bit upset with him:
Acts 10:11-15
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.  (KJV)
     Was God here rescinding His "food laws" of the Old Testament?  No, He was not.  But this shows that the "food laws" were not commandments unto death if not followed; for God would not tell Peter to sin against God - yet God told Peter to break the 'food laws," thus proving unassailably that the "food laws" were not like the Commandment Laws (the Ten Commandments, etc.)  Below Peter explains what God was showing him when God told Peter to eat the unclean foods (foods against the "food laws"):
Acts 10:28
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.  (KJV)
     But there is more to this.  Before and after Christ's time, the religion of the Hebrews (the Old Testament) was in a shambles.  The Jews among the Israelites had corrupted the Law and the religion of God.  They had made their own laws and their own religion; that being referred to in the New Testament by Jesus Himself as the "tradition of the elders."  Today we know this tradition of the elders as Judaism - the religion of those whom today call themselves Jews.  And their "Bible" is the Babylonian Talmud, not the Old Testament..
 
     Jesus came for His First Advent because of this sinful tradition of the elders, to stop it.  But they would not listen and instead they killed Jesus Christ so that they could keep their tradition of the elders.  This is the legacy of the modern-day Jew.  This is the history of the religion of Judaism. 
 
     That is why I get so upset when an unwitting Christian looks upon the modern-day Jew and their religion as some kind of noble and holy thing.  Judaism is a religion of the devil.  Not a socially-correct thing to say nowadays, I know; but nevertheless it is the truth of the matter.  And let's face it, no truth is socially-correct today.  Every lie and obscene thing and practice and religion is socially correct, and every Biblical absolute is assailed as intolerant and "hate speech."  Gay marriage, gay priests, abortion, ecumenism (interfaith meshing) between different religions, etc. ad nauseum.  These are indeed the end times where it was foretold that right would be considered wrong, and wrong right.
Isa 5:20-21
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!  (KJV)
 
Mal 2:17 [The words of the disobedient placed in maroon italicized text]
17 Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or [when ye also say], Where is the God of judgment? (KJV)
     Well, the disobedient in the above Scriptures asked a question "Where is the God of judgment?"  It wasn't a question, really it was a statement meaning that He (God) is not real (they say), or that He is far, not near.  Well God is near, and not far; and He is very much real, as they shall one day see.  Below is His word for THEM:
Jer 5:29-31
29 Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
30 A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;
31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?  (KJV)
 
2 Pet 2:2-3
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. (KJV)
 
John 3:19
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.  (KJV)
 
2 Tim 4:3-4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.  (KJV)
 
Deut 32:28-29
28 For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them.
29 O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!  (KJV)
 
     But anyway, back to our point.  We may eat "unclean foods" if we want.  But there is one time that we should not.  That time is when we sit down to eat with a weaker brother who thinks that the food laws are necessary to be followed to be saved.  In front of this legalist we should not eat, say Pork; which is an unclean food.  Because to do so would offend that weak in knowledge one and make him think that we are not faithful to God.  Because to him (the unknowledgeable one) he thinks that not eating pork is the way to please and obey God.  So for this man's ignorance we should ourselves abstain from eating pork in his presence because it would be a stumbling stone to him to eat pork.
 
     Let us allow Apostle Paul in few words to explain the food laws and how they relate to man, which would take me volumes to explain:
Rom 14:14-17
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.  (KJV)
 
1 Cor 8:6-13
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.  (KJV)
You said/asked:
"I was told that Christ Fullfiled the law in Matt 5:18 and then He further changes it even more, but Pastor Murray says the law is still in place, can you help me with this one?"
     Ok, to prove my point; did Christ become a food law or a leprosy law?  No, of course He did not; it is silly to even say that.  He became the Commandment Law.  For now if one does not believe upon and follow Jesus Christ, that man is in jeopardy of damnation; just as in the Old Testament when a man followed not the Commandment Law, he was jeopardy of damnation. 
 
     Jesus did not change the law, He fulfilled it.  Today as in the Old Testament times we are not to murder, nor commit adultery, or steal, ... Jesus didn't change that one wit.  But what He did change (and I don't like the word 'change' here) was the sacrifice and offerings laws.  Since Jesus was glorified on the cross, man is not to sacrifice animals to God for repentance, thanksgiving, or blessings any more.  Jesus BECAME that one-time for-all sacrifice to God, a sweet savor pleasing to Him.  To sacrifice the blood of animals to God now that after Jesus had been offered would be the highest form of blasphemy under the heavens.
 
     Incidentally, since I have mention the Jews and their ungodly religion (which religion some unknowledgeable Christians esteem to be honorable), did you know that they are readying themselves to once again offer slain animals to God on the Temple Mount Jerusalem?  (The only thing stopping them is the Muslims)  And that in certain Hasidic Jew's (ultra conservative) groups that on the Feast of Purim they actually already today do offer chicken blood to God to cleanse their sins?!?  (They cut the chicken's head off and sprinkle themselves with the warm blood.) 
 
     Now what do you think that God thinks about this after that He has already sent His son Jesus Christ to shed Holy Blood for sin!
 
But anyway, Jesus didn't change the Law or the Offerings, He became them.
Heb 10:1-20
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;  KJV)
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin

Back to list of questions at top of page


Question #8
| Back To Top |

How could God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit be One?

 

Hope asks (referring to the The Holy Spirit & The Holy Trinity study):

"But Jesus clearly says there are three in heaven and three in earth. He also says that He will pray to the Father that He would send a comforter. I don't see how it can be explained that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one in being - and not just one in unity and purpose."

ANSWER:

You would see it if you remembered that God is omnipotent and that He can be everywhere at once.

You and I can be here or there, never in both places at the same time; but He, He is everywhere at once. We cannot understand Him based upon how we understand ourselves; we and He operate under two entirely different sets of rules.

I have so much trouble with people regarding the Godhead (Trinity). Perhaps for His own good purpose not everyone can understand Him as He is. But to agree with their point of view would be to worship three separate Gods. God forbid, for Jesus Himself declared that there is only one God:

Mark 12:29
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: (KJV)

And Jesus was not speaking this as though He were delivering some new thing. He was quoting Scripture that they should have known:

Deut 6:4-5
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
(KJV)

How can you then say:
"God the father, AND ALONG WITH HIM THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER: God the Son, AND ALONG WITH HIM THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER: God the Holy Spirit" if they be not One?

And if they be not One then they are three separate entities. This cannot be, for Jesus declares "The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29). And again Jesus declared "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (I Jn 5:7).

Jesus was not saying that these three were three separate entities that agreed with each other, He was saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Thus being in perfect alignment of the Old Testament Scripture that Jesus confirmed "The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29).

It is ironic that even the Protestant branches of Christianity adopt the thoroughly pagan Catholic idea of a Three Separate Person God, then call me a blasphemer when I say that God is One (I am not saying that you call me that, Hope; but that many do).

But why is it so hard to comprehend that this One God could come in the flesh, be sent as a Spirit, be in the world, and return from earth to the heavens as often as He wished?

The Scriptures state this very thing, the Scripture tells us that GOD came in the flesh (Jesus Christ), that God was seen of angels (as the Father), that God was sent in the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), and yet He was God (Theos Gr. #2316 - the supreme Divinity):

1 Tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV)

God: Greek word #2316 theos (theh'-os); of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very: KJV-- X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

Many are confounded because God could speak to Himself from Earth, could send Himself to Earth, and could create the Earth. To this I say “...With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.” (Mark 10:27).

One simply cannot understand God based upon how they understand the world. How do we compare the Creator to the created and then hope to understand the difference?

God bless, in Jesus Christ' precious name!
Nick Goggin
 



Hope replied, and I excerpt her reply below with our answers

 

Hi Hope:

     I appreciate your reply. With volumes we could look into each Scripture where you feel that God and Jesus Christ are two different Divinities, two different Gods (three, counting the Holy Spirit which people who take your position also consider as a separate Divinity (another God); i.e., three Gods, not One God. But we do not have that kind of time here and it would all run together and get confusing. At the end of this post I posited a course of action.

     But first I will comment on a couple of your points that I feel may clear some things up. But I don’t expect to change your mind.

From your reply:

Quote:


(Our) Quote:
I have so much trouble with people regarding the Godhead (Trinity). Perhaps for His own good purpose not everyone can understand Him as He is.

(Hope's reply):
I don't think it is very fair to insert an idea here that because some may disagree with you, it must because we haven't reached a high enough level of revelation from God about His Word.


     That is not at all what I am saying. The fact that you disagree with me means nothing in this, it is the fact that you are incorrect that matters. If I agreed with your point of view, and then we were both incorrect, would that somehow be more ‘humble’ of me?

     And you do not understand that an understanding of some things cannot be earned by great study effort of the individual, it is given of God. Therefore you are incorrect when you said “it must because we haven't reached a high enough level... ”. We cannot “reach levels” regarding things that are only given of God.

Are you getting upset at me?

From your reply:

Quote:


Mark 12:29
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: (KJV)

Yes, the Lord our God IS one Lord. That is not in dispute. And who is the verse talking about? Who is the Lord?


OK, here goes:

Mark 12:29-30
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord
[Kurios] our God [Theos] is one Lord [Kurios]:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord [Kurios] thy God [Theos] with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (KJV)

Jesus was quoting the Old Testament Scripture:

Deut 6:4
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD
[Yehovah] our God [‘Elohiym] is one LORD [Yehovah]:  (KJV)

From your reply:

Quote:


I happen to think that is exactly what He was saying and not just that they agree with each other, but that they are ONE in purpose, power, unity, direction....


But not one Being, huh?

From your reply:

Quote:


Well, from my vast personal experience with maintream churches, what you say here is not the case at all. Protestant churches, for the most part, do not teach three separate beings at all. They are mostly all strictly three-in-one believers.


     Well, they CLAIM to be, as you term it, three-in-One believers. But when you ask them to explain what this means to them, they will express the views that you express that there are three Gods in Heaven, but they don’t like the way that it sounds to them when they try to explain it.

     They believe as you, they believe that Jesus is a separate God, they just won’t admit it because they are uncomfortable saying that there is more than one God. So they just can’t understand.

     You know, a full understanding of the Holy Trinity (Godhead) is NOT a salvation issue. If it was it would have been given at conversion, for at the conversion a Christian is at that moment in possession of all things unto his salvation. For if he died a moment after his salvation, he would be granted eternal life. Even though he does not fully understand the nature of the God that has saved him.

     And I know that no matter what point I make, what explanation I give, you cannot get it out of your head that Jesus is mentioned separately in some Scriptures from God. I know, Hope, I know that it bothers you; and I also know that you want to believe the thing that is right and correct and pleasing to God.

     Let me try to explain it a little further in a slightly different way. You do not have to blindly follow what I say, but please do clear your head of all preconceived notions and do hear me out here:

     Jesus’ flesh body was very real and very separate from God, for God is a Spirit and not flesh “God is a Spirit...” (John 4:24). Therefor, God prepared a human body of Mary for Himself to dwell in “...the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35).

     Now at long last God was able to dwell amongst His mankind again, for had God revealed Himself in His Spirit form all who looked upon Him would die, because sin cannot stand in God’s presence. That is why God uses Jesus Christ all throughout the Millennium and even up till and at Judgment Day. But then, in the New Heavens and the New Earth, it is not then Jesus who abides with man, but it is God Himself “...and God himself shall be with them, and be their God” (Rev 21:3), for all sin is cast away “...for the former things are passed away.” (Rev 21:4) and God’s creation is now at that time prepared to bear His Glory. You cannot know how vile sin is to God.

     After the New Heaven and New Earth in Revelation chapter 21 we no longer hear of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. It is not that Jesus is gone, God forbid, it is rather that God is now all in all (One) and the Son (flesh) is made to submit to the Father “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:28).

     I.e., the flesh body of God (which was called Jesus Christ) is gone, just as our own flesh bodies at that time are gone. What is mentioned is the Lamb - that everlasting token of God’s forgiveness, the token that exists long after sin is no more remembered. Jesus is God, and when all flesh is done away with - then there is only left God.

God is the Lamb, the Lamb is the Glory of God:

Rev 21:23
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. (KJV)

From your reply:

Quote:


Why is it so hard to comprehend that this one Godhead could be three separate beings with three distinct roles. Especially when we have the very words of Christ explaining that to be the case.


     We do not have “the very words of Christ explaining that to be the case,” we have your interpretation of what Jesus was saying.

     I wonder if my answer in the previous section has helped your understanding? Please take that thought and consider it as you read the couple below Scriptures that plainly show that God has said that He is, and shall be, several of the things that we know Jesus Christ was and did become. In that you should, for a moment, see that God is Jesus Christ, or better stated, that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh:

     I shall show concordance with God in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ in the New Testament; they are both one in the self-same entity, Jesus is God and God was Jesus, for Jesus fulfilled (became) that which God said that He Himself (God) is:

Isa 43:10-11
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. (KJV)

2 Pet 1:11
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (KJV)

 

Isa 44:6
6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (KJV)

Rev 2:8
8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; (KJV)

 

Isa 44:8
8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (KJV)

John 20:28-29
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (KJV)

[Note: believed what? believed that Jesus Christ was "My Lord and my God".]

 

Isa 45:5-7
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)

John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (KJV)

 

Isa 45:21-22
21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. (KJV)

Titus 2:13
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (KJV)

[Note:  Not two entities; not the “Great God” along with another individual called “Jesus Christ,” as many read it; but the Great God, whom (He) is our Savior Jesus Christ. For we know that at the Second Advent Jesus does not bring God from Heaven with Him, He comes alone (with His angels). Therefore, by the internal evidence in just the last two Scriptures above, Jesus Christ can be none other than the One Lord God manifested in the flesh body (called Jesus Christ on the Earth) to save His creation from perdition.]

     Don’t be angry with me Hope. But don’t also expect me to dumb myself down to manplease. I understand the Trinity (Godhead); I cannot say anything other than that I understand it, because I do understand it. I also know that many (most) good Christians cannot understand it, I cannot lie about that either. I do not mean to offend, but when you tell a serious Bible student that he is wrong, it offends naturally, though not intentionally.

     I am doing my best as a flawed human Bible teacher to teach that which I know to be true – but I know that if God doesn’t show it to a person, no man can teach it into someone. It is not a salvation issue, and perhaps it is best that most do not understand it for conscience sake.

     You mentioned (alluded perhaps), in a round about way, that you feel that I was (am) acting as a know-it-all. I am not, I do not know-it-all, but I do know this that we speak of. What else can I do but declare it to be true??? Would anything else be acceptable to God? Would anything else be acceptable to you?

     Instead of confusing with numerous Scriptures, why don’t you take the Scripture that you feel best supports your position. And I shall address it the best that I can, trying to explain in it?

God bless, in Jesus Christ' precious name!
Nick Goggin

 


Continued Misc. dialogs on Internet Forum concerning this topic:

 

 

Hi Jay, some points, you said:

 

Quote:


“God the Father gave his son, not became his son. That's a huge difference.”

“Again, sent not became.”



1 Tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV)


You said:

 

Quote:


“1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

When this says "these three are one", it is not "one" as in "one being". It is further clarified in the second verse to be "agree in one", which means to be "one of mind" not to be "one being".”



The second verse is a different subject. The first is in Heaven, the second on the Earth, speaking of earthly things. There is no blood in Heaven. And “these three are one” is just that, One. One cannot add “in unity” or "of one mind" to the Scripture to fit their own interpretations.

You said:

 

Quote:


“Here Christ prays that this group he is praying for to be "one" just as He and his Father are
one. As Christians, we should be as "one" in the same manner as Christ is one with his Father
but this doesnt mean we all are actually one person as well, only one as in of "one mind"...
working as if we are in one spiritual body. The symbolic body of Christ.

We as Christians are one in Christ, so too are the Father and Son one.”
AND ALSO:

“John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

I think when comparing to other scriptures the idea that Christ was saying that
he was the father fails. He was saying they were one in the same way we are to be one. We also are not literally one person, but one of mind and purpose together. We are one in the sense of being parts of the body of Christ.

one body made up of persons, so is God one God, made up of a Father and His Son and a HS”



You are trying to understand spiritual things by physical things. You are trying to understand heavenly things by earthly things. This is what is causing you the problems.

I have highlighted certain words to show that we are separate from God in the eternity, we are not one as Jesus was one with the Father. Jesus was God in the flesh, we shall always be sons [no reproductive gender in Heaven] to God. There is quite a difference. This teaching that we can become one with God is the base of all New Age doctrine.


Rev 21:1-7
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (KJV)



God bless, in Jesus Christ' precious name!
Nick Goggin

 


Jays writes:


"He was still the Son of God before being begotten. That was my point...and if he was the Son, then he had a Father.

Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."



ANSWER:

The Son of God (with the articles) is only used of Jesus Christ. When God comes to Earth He is Jesus Christ. He was also called Melchisedec, and He was also the "Angel" that Jacob wrestled with. Since the fall in Genesis, whenever God is in on the Earth He is Jesus Christ. Thus, when the men saw God in the flames they saw a man, that man was Jesus Christ (who was “the form ... like the Son of God”), before His time.

Jay you are getting ‘hung-up’ on the Father-Son thing. You are thinking in the flesh. You cannot get past thinking that because there is a “Father” and a “Son” that they must be two different souls.

The way things are on Earth is one thing; but with God we are talking about another whole new thing.

You pick verses and comment, but you always come back to that if there is a Son then there has to be a SEPARATE Father.

Well, Jay, you will find a whole plethora of Scriptures that seem show that Jesus was a distinct and separate entity from God the Father. The reason for this is it was not time that Jesus declare that He is God (though that very fact can be found in multiple Scriptures).

Heck, they killed Him for calling Himself the Son of God; who, pray tell, would have even listened to Him if He had come right out and plainly declared that He was in fact the Everlasting Father whom came in the flesh of a human body!?!

You don’t even believe it today, with all the information that we have over them of old; how much less would they have believed?

Jesus hinted at mysteries beyond our grasp; that He was God come in the flesh was one of them.

John 3:12-13
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (KJV)


Jay, I guess that you never will understand this. It isn’t a salvation issue, so why make such a big stir over it? If you will not accept the simple clear Scriptures on the matter, what amount of great debate could ever win you over?

John 1:1-14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...(Cont.)...
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
...(Cont.)...
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)

 

Consider the below Scripture, for it says that God shall come as a man:

Isa 42:13
13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies. (KJV)


LORD: Hebrew word #3068 Yehovah (yeh-ho-vaw'); from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: KJV-- Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 3050, 3069.


as a mighty man: Hebrew word #1368 gibbowr (ghib-bore'); or (shortened) gibbor (ghib-bore'); intensive from the same as 1397; powerful; by implication, warrior, tyrant: KJV-- champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.


like a man of: Hebrew word #376 'iysh (eesh); contracted for 582 [or perhaps rather from an unused root meaning to be extant]; a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation): KJV-- also, another, any (man), a certain, + champion, consent, each, every (one), fellow, [foot-, husband-] man, [good-, great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him (that is), husband, man [-kind], + none, one, people, person, + steward, what (man) soever, whoso (-ever), worthy. Compare 802.

Also consider the below Scripture; here it calls Jesus Christ the Mighty God, and the Everlasting Father.  I.e., Jesus Christ was God come to Earth in the flesh!

Isa 9:6-7
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (KJV)

God bless, in Jesus Christ' precious name!
Nick Goggin

 

 


 

 

Jay said:

"Christ is one with his Father but he 'isn't' his own Father”

 

ANSWER:

I have tried on several other threads to appeal to you to not think of God within the boundaries of our flesh world. You seem ‘stuck’ on the Father-Son thing, as though One can’t be Both. On Earth this is not possible, but with Heavenly things it is possible.

Consider this please: I assume that you agree that Jesus was/is Melchisedec (if you do not, the below Scripture will leave you with no other conclusion). Well, this Melchisedec had no father, no mother, no descent, no beginning of His days, nor any end to his life. That, Jay, can only describe one entity ever - the Lord God, Creator of all. Below in the Scripture you will notice that this One is Jesus Christ:

Heb 7:1-24
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
...(Cont.)...
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. (KJV)


Jesus was/is God in the flesh. They are One, not Two. Though God can be in Heaven and upon the Earth at the same time. I know that this is what is throwing you here.

God bless, in Jesus Christ' precious name!
Nick Goggin

 


The conversation degenerated until a fellow stated that there are two Gods in Heaven, one being Jesus Christ and the other one being the Father!  (This fellow had yet to fit the Holy Spirit into the equation - thank God!)  So after going round and round for two weeks, we ended up here (this will be the final entry for us here on the matter).  Call it an epilog if you will:

 

THE FINAL QUESTION POSED (not by me) DURING THE DISCUSSION:

"God is one entity comprised of two bodies - agree or disagree?"

Replies from others on the above question:

(Caution, errant Doctrine!)

"Agree. God is one entity comprised of two bodies."
     -- love Jay

"I AGREE. The Godhead is one entity, comprised of two beings or persons."
     -- In Him, Hope.

"It is my position that God is two persons in two bodies. I wouldn't say 'manifested' in two bodies because that sounds too much like there was one body, and at some point God became two. There have always been the two 'bodies' "
     -- Name withheld

"I believe both the Father and the Son have their own souls, and have their own spirits. The HS [Holy Spirit] is complex, but there are verses that say it's [the Holy Spirit] the Father's and not the Son's.'
     -- Jay

[WBSG NOTE:  To see where all of the above are incorrect, see our The Holy Spirit & The Holy Trinity ]

WBSG ANSWER:

Hello All:

God does indeed have a body, one body, you know Him as Jesus Christ. In Heaven God does not have a flesh body, for no flesh can enter Heaven. And in the eternity there shall be no flesh, but we shall be there.

John 4:24
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (KJV)

Luke 24:37-39
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (KJV)

1 Cor 15:49-51
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,(KJV)


Flesh and bones are for this world, when God comes to this Earth He comes in a flesh body that you know as Jesus Christ, but when God is in Heaven He is not in a body, for He is Spirit. Once again, you cannot understand Heavenly things by Earthly things; round and round you will go never coming to the knowledge of the truth on the matter if you try to understand Heaven by what you see on the Earth and God by what you see in yourself.

Why can’t you see that the ‘body’ of God is Jesus Christ???

No one can dispute that the below is Jesus Christ seen in a vision by John of Heaven:

Rev 1:13-14
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; (KJV)


Daniel saw this Jesus Christ is a vision as well, and he referred to Him as “the Ancient of days” (God):

Dan 7:9
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. (KJV)


Below we Jesus being foretold of. We see this Jesus Christ being called God. This could not be so if there was another God other than Jesus Christ.

Isa 9:6-7
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (KJV)


Below Jesus is referred to as the One who’s “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” How can this be? It can be because Jesus was God, not a companion of God, not another second God; He was The God Himself who came to this Earth in a flesh body. That flesh body, God in human form, which the Disciples ate with and with whom the people talked with was Jesus Christ, The Immanuel, The God with us. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...” (John 1:1-14):

Micah 5:2
2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (KJV)



In the book of Revelation Jesus (Yehovah Savior) called Himself the “beginning and the end, the first and the last.” In Isaiah God (Yehovah) calls Himself this very same thing “ I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” This could not be if they were/are not one in the same entity. Jesus could not claim to be the first if there was a God that was also the first - unless of course if they are the same entity speaking about Himself.

Rev 1:17-18
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (KJV)


And also in Rev 22:13-16: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. ... I Jesus ....."

Isa 44:6
6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his [Israel's] redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (KJV)


Jesus is God and God is Jesus; Thomas saw and knew “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28). They are not two separate entities, they are One Entity in two different realms (worlds). “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30).

Now some will try to say that in the above statement “I and my Father are one.” that Jesus meant that He was merely ‘in agreement’ with God, ‘one in purpose’ so to speak and not that He was God. What can we say to that idea? Well, the people that Jesus was speaking face to face with knew exactly what Jesus was saying; Jesus was declaring that He was in fact the Lord God. For this they attempted to kill Him for the crime of blasphemy; and if Jesus had not in fact been God then they would have been justified by the Law to kill Jesus. So either Jesus was a blasphemer (God forbid!), or , He was God - just as He said He was:

John 10:30-33
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (KJV)


Why is it so hard to comprehend that Jesus Christ was God manifested in (shown forth, appeared in) the flesh? I know why; it is because it is a mystery that not all can see even though it be so clearly declared in Scripture plainly telling them so:

1 Tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV)


If you cannot understand the mystery, that is fine, but do not try to twist the Scriptures that you cannot understand to fit that which your fleshly mind can handle. To do so enters into a whole new realm of error.

God opens to whom He will, and closes to whom He will. For instance, here on this forum, Todd understands yet cannot explain it - but he knows in his heart that which he cannot describe with his mouth. On the other hand, others here cannot understand - but they try to explain-away that which they cannot grasp. It is no shame nor penalty for them to not understand, for the full understanding of the Trinity (Godhead) is not a salvation issue, but where they begin to thread on thin ice is when they misrepresent the Scriptures to force spiritual truths to align with carnal insights.

Matt 13:9-13
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (KJV)


My humble advice is that if one doesn’t understand then one shouldn’t teach on it. How do you know if you truly understand it? You will know that you know - ask Todd, he knows that he knows even though he can’t articulate it. He just knows. It is God-given, not any great mental feat on man’s part.

Why don’t we drop this issue? We have so confused the matter over a half-dozen threads for some time now. And those who knew and those who did not know, at the start, still know and do not know respectively after many hours of debate. Nobody changed anybody’s mind. That perfectly proves what Jesus said in the above Scripture (Matt 13:11), does it not!

How then can one understand who does not now understand? Prayer. By asking God to open it for you. But the proud would never ask God for what they feel that they already have and which they suppose that they should have had. God resists the proud and reveals unto babes.

God bless, in Jesus Christ' precious name!
Nick Goggin

 

 

FINAL COMMENT FROM THE FORUM:

Re: God is one entity comprised of two bodies - agree or disagree?

I would agree with the position articulated above. I understand this within, but I do not have the appropriate words to describe it and how it can be. It is not something I understand by my own ability.

I know and understand that the Son was the Father manifested in the flesh. I will leave the statement at that.

--F.S.

 

WBSG FINAL COMMENT (I promise):  F.S., amen to you.  So clear, so short, so correct: "the Son was the Father manifested in the flesh."  Amen!

God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin

Back to list of questions at top of page


Question #9
| Back To Top |

 Is celibacy for Priests Biblical?

 

Reply to a reader:

Hi Bruce, you said/asked:
"Here's my question - my boss is Catholic, and he pointed out places where celibacy for priests is described. Specifically he referred to 1 Corinthians 7:27-34, 38. Matthew 19:10-12, 27. 1 Timothy 5:9-16. Can you help me with interpreting these verses truthfully? Where can I document that celibacy for priests is not Biblical?"
     In each Scripture you mentioned the answer is contained a few verses below or above it.
 
     In your below Scriptural reference, the reference is not at all to Priests being celibate.  And besides, it says "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned":
1 Cor 7:27-28
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.  (KJV)
     In your below Scriptural reference, the reference is not at all to Priests being celibate.  And besides, it says "let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry":
1 Cor 7:34-36
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. (KJV)
     In your below Scriptural reference, the reference is not at all to Priests being celibate.  And besides, it says "he that giveth her in marriage doeth well":
1 Cor 7:38
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.  (KJV)
     In your below Scriptural reference, the reference is not at all to Priests being celibate, the Scripture is against divorce; and the reference is to that if a man is going to end up divorced it was better that he had never married:
Matt 19:9-10
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.  (KJV)
     In your below Scriptural reference, the reference is to "rich men" entering heaven.  It has nothing to do with Priests being celibate:
Matt 19:23-27
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?  (KJV)
     In your below Scriptural reference, the reference is not at all to Priests being celibate.  The Scripture discussed who should be responsible for the financial maintenance of a widow, and that a young woman who is widowed is most likely going to seek the "company" of a man:
1 Tim 5:9-16
9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.  (KJV)
     In every case your friend has misinterpreted the Scriptures.  Here, show him these; it should end the debate for all times whether or not a clergyman can marry in God's determination:
1 Tim 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;  (KJV)
 
1 Tim 3:12
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.  (KJV)
     And finally, Apostle Peter, whom the Catholic Church esteems as the first "Pope" (but he was not and he would rebuke the apostate Catholic Church if he was alive today) was himself married:
Matt 8:14
14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.  (KJV)
     The Priesthood (of many Christian denominations, not just Catholics) need to stop worrying about marrying; they need to work on the rampant Homosexuality and Pedophilia in the ranks of the Clergy.  For them it would have been better that they married.  And even better for them had they not entered the Ministry; for God judges His servants hardest of all, for they have been given much and thus much more is expected of them.  They are in trouble with the Lord.
 
God bless the study of His Word, in Jesus Christ' name!
Nick Goggin (Editor)

Back to list of questions at top of page

| To top |

In His Service:
         
     Nick Goggin 
Editor; www.biblestudysite.com
WATCHMEN BIBLE STUDY GROUP

 Contact Editor  | Bible studies  | Newer students  |  Bible Q & A's  Study tools  | Search our site
Library/Bookstore  Statement of faith  New material on site  | Join our mailing list  Home Page | Donate

NOTE: To insure quality and content integrity, these In-depth Bible Studies are © copyrighted and may only be downloaded for study and shared private use.  They may not be reproduced or distributed for sale or publication without prior written approval.  Other Christian Web sites are welcome to link up to this Website or any page on it. 

Watchman News hosts several archives of Bible studies such as these by the Watchmen Bible Study Group. Although we are not affiliated with this or numerous others using the term Watchman in their names, we believe it important keep the full content intact for research and analysis for Bible students of future generations. We keep it available as good members of the body of Christ, for Christian unity. We do so on a non-profit basis. As the original owner's site went offline years ago, no one has paid to keep it online but us. We pray and hope such ministries are more careful about having successors to carry on their works in the future. Although we do not agree on every point of doctrine, we still believe it very important to not edit any of the original contents. Our own statements of beliefs are found at www.CelticOrthodoxy.com, and for example in the book "7th Day Sabbath in the Orthodox Church" etc.