What I Think

[WebersHome]

[font=Georgia]-
Hello;

Seeing as how this area is set up for people with an urge to express their
opinions rather than argue back and forth in endless disputes that never get
to the bottom of anything; I'm taking advantage of the relatively peaceable
environment hereabouts to post my thoughts on a variety of Bible subjects;
beginning with the one below.

Light

In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist
Avi Loeb stated that the Bible attributes the appearance of stars and
galaxies to the divine proclamation "Let there be light". Is Mr. Loeb's
statement correct? No; of course not. God created light on the very first day
of creation; while luminous celestial objects weren't created until the fourth.

The Bible is notoriously concise in some places; especially in it's story of the
creation of light. Well; the creation of light was a very, very intricate
process. First God had to create particulate matter, and along with those
particles their specific properties, including mass. Then He had to invent
laws to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the
presence of, other kinds of matter in order to generate photons.

The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate photons also
make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice, soil, rain, life,
centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy, gravity, atoms,
organic molecules, magnetism, radiation, high energy X-rays and gamma
rays, temperature, pressure, force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et
al. So the creation of light was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives
its origin passing mention.

†. Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the
surface of the deep

That statement reveals the cosmos' condition prior to the creation of light;
and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that make light
possible, the cosmos' particulate matter would never have coalesced into
something coherent.

2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the
cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
the Higgs Boson.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Knowing Your Religion is Right

Every so often I get asked how I know that my beliefs are true. My answer
is: I don't know if they're true. Then of course they follow up with: Then why
do you believe your beliefs are true when you have no way of knowing
they're true?

Most of the people who ask me those kinds of questions are genuine; they're
not trying to trip me up and make a fool out of me. They really are curious
about it. So I tell them that though I don't know if my beliefs are true, my
instincts tell me they are; in other words: I cannot shake the conviction that
they're true.

Mark Twain once remarked that he didn't believe in an afterlife; but
nevertheless expected one. In other words: Twain logically concluded that
there is no afterlife, but his instincts did not agree with his thinking; and I
dare not criticize him for that because even my own religion requires that I
believe in my heart rather then only in my head.

Why does any believer believe what they believe? Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu,
Bahá'í, Hare Krishna, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Judaism, Voodoo, Wiccan,
Jain, Druze, Native American, etc, etc, etc. The answer is: It appeals to
them.

It's a known fact that quite a few voters do their voting with their gut. In
other words, they settle on a candidate based upon how they feel about him,
and then use their minds to craft a justification for their choice.

Take for instance President Barack Hussein Obama. A large block of
Americans voted for him solely on the basis of his color rather than on the
basis of his executive ability. (Ironically Mr. Obama isn't even Black. He's
what used to be called Mulatto but now called Mixed Race; viz: his father
was Black, but his mother was White. Lucky for him that his skin turned out
dark or he might not be President today.)

Anyway, my point is: I've observed that people typically adhere to a religion
not with their mind; but with their feelings: the meanwhile using their minds
to defend their choice. Goes on all the time.

It is of course impossible that all religions are right; that's pretty much a
given. But on the other hand, it's very possible that none are right. So I
would say that when settling upon a religion, don't worry so much about
picking the one that's right; instead pick the one that's right for you; and if
none are right for you, then in my estimation; you're just as well off because
if your heart's not in it; then let's face it; your choice is no less arbitrary
than randomly selecting a cookie out of a jar of 100.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
The Rich Man, Lazarus, And Abraham

Fiction can be defined as stories about people and events that, though
untrue; are plausible; viz: realistic.

Fantasy can be defined as stories about people and events that are not only
untrue; but implausible; viz: unrealistic.

For example: a story about a boy like Pinocchio is unrealistic; while a story
about a boy with autism is realistic. The difference between Pinocchio and a
boy with autism is that the one is compatible with normal reality; while the
other is far removed from normal reality.

I have yet to read even one of Jesus Christ's parables that could not possibly
be a real-life story. They're all actually quite believable-- farmers sowing
seed, women losing coins, sons leaving home, wineskins bursting, tares
among the wheat, leavened bread, barren fig trees, the blind leading the
blind, et al.

Now; if he had told one that alleged the moon was made of green cheese;
we would have good reason to believe that at least that one was fantasy;
but none of them are like that. No; there's nothing out of the ordinary in his
parables. At best; Christ's parables might qualify as fiction; but never
fantasy because none of them are so far removed from the normal round of
human experience that they have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Luke 16:19-31 is commonly alleged to be a parable; which of course implies
that the story is fiction; and some would even say fantasy. But the parable
theory has a fatal flaw. Abraham is not a fictional character: he's a real-life
man; held in very high esteem by at least three of the world's prominent
religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And he's also the friend of God
(Isa 41:8). I simply cannot believe that Jesus Christ-- a man famous among
normal Christians for his honesty and integrity --would say something
untrue about a famous real-life man; especially about one of his Father's
buddies.

And on top of that, the story quotes Abraham a number of times. Well; if the
story is fiction, then Jesus Christ is on record testifying that Abraham said
things that he didn't really say; which is a clear violation of the
commandment that prohibits bearing false witness.

There is something else to consider.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus didn't originate with Jesus Christ. No,
it originated with his Father. In other words: Jesus Christ was micro
managed.

†. John 3:34 . . He is sent by God. He speaks God's words

†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things
as the Father taught me.

†. John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

†. John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who
sent me.

So, by implying that Luke 16:19-31 is false, the parable theory insinuates
that God is a person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the
truth about people, not even about His own friends, which is ridiculous
seeing as how Titus 1:2 and Heb 6:18 testify that God cannot lie.

God's impeccable character is what makes the narrative all the more
terrifying. Unless somebody can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
Christ's Father is a tale-spinner; I pretty much have to assume the narrative
was drawn from real-life; and if not drawn from real life, then at least based
upon real life.

In other words: there really is an afterlife place of conscious suffering where
people endure unbearable anxiety worrying their loved ones are on a road to
where they are and there is no way to warn them.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
The Only God Begotten Of God

Q: One translation of John 1:18 says that Jesus is the only begotten god;
while another translation of John 1:18 says Jesus is the only begotten son.
Which translation is correct?

A: Either one will do because, biologically speaking, they're both saying the
very same thing.

God has lots of sons; but only one is His son by means of procreation.

The Greek word for "only begotten" in John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16,
John 3:18, is monogenes (mon-og-en-ace') which is a combination of two
words.

The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel rather
than two or four in surround-sound stereo. Mono is very common; e.g.
monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome,
monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which
Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls
or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing.

In other words: monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than
many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to a parent's sole
biological child. If a parent has two or three biological children, none of them
qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a monogenes child, the
child has to be an only child. Obviously then, an adopted child can never be
monogenes in the home because it wouldn't be the home's biological child.
Examples of monogenes children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and
Luke 9:38.

Now if God's monogenes son is really and truly His biological offspring, so to
speak, then we are going to have to admit that His son is a chip off the old
block; which in fact the Bible declares.

†. Col 2:9 . . In him all the fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form.

Webster's defines "divinity" as the quality, or the state, of being a god.

According to the Greek version, "divinity" is modified by a definite article; so
that what we're looking at here isn't nondescript divinity; rather, the
divinity; viz: the quality, or the state, of being Almighty God.

People have difficulty with the literal meaning of "only begotten" because it's
unthinkable to them that God is somehow able to reproduce. Well; I don't
know how God goes about it; but if single cell organisms like amoeba can
reproduce by means of a process called binary fission; then we shouldn't be
all that aghast at the prospect of God multiplying Himself in a similar way.
And if God actually did reproduce; then His offspring is more of Himself; viz:
God would produce God just as humans produce humans.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Christ's Demise

The Koran claims that Christ didn't die on the cross.

"And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the
apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it
appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are
only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only
follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure." (The Women 4.157)

The Bible claims that Christ fully expired.

"And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into Thy hands I
commit my spirit. And having said this, he breathed his last." (Luke 23:46)

"When they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not
break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear,
bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given
testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and
he testifies so that you also may believe." (John 19:31-35)

Since Jesus was somewhat elevated, (it's not stated exactly how high) the
spear point would have entered his body at an upward angle. The text
doesn't say which side was penetrated, but from John's description, and
judging from the intent of the soldier to leave no doubt about Jesus' death,
the heart side was very likely the side they cut into and the spear point
would've entered just under his rib cage.

The heart is surrounded by a membrane called the pericardium; which
serves to contain a serous material resembling water to prevent the surface
of the heart from becoming dry and/or chafed by its continual motion. It was
very likely this which was pierced and from which the water flowed. The
point of the spear also seems to have reached one of the ventricles of the
heart, and the blood, yet warm, rushed forth, either mingled with, or
followed by, the liquor of the pericardium, so as to appear to John to be
blood and water flowing together. Though not medically accurate in our day,
John's calling the serous fluid "water" was accurate enough in his own day.

Had Christ managed to survive the spear he most certainly would have died
of suffocation. According to the records, his friends covered his face with a
towel, wrapped him with strips of cloth like a mummy, and coated him with
a paste consisting of 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes: all of which served to
not only put him in a straight jacket, but also sealed him in an air-tight
cocoon of sorts.

1• The towel

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)

The koiné Greek word translated "napkin" is soudarion (soo-dar'-ee-on)
which defines a sweat-cloth; viz: a towel for wiping the perspiration from the
face, or binding the face of a corpse.

2• The mummy

"Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes" (John
19:40)

"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself." (John 20:7)

The Greek word translated "wound" is deo (deh'-o) which means to bind

The Greek word translated "linen cloths" is othonion (oth-on'-ee-on) which
defines bandages.

3• The cocoon of sorts

"And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night,
and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the
spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19:39-40)

Myrrh is a gum resin. The aloe of that day was a thick liquid taken from an
aromatic tree and used in medicines and cosmetics, etc. Blending those two
ingredients together produced a nice sticky goo that could be slathered and
plastered all over the deceased to seal the body and retard putrefaction
and/or seal in odors and thwart vermin. This was likely the final step just
prior to wrapping the whole affair in a shroud (Matt 27:59).

So all told-- the spear, the face towel, the wrappings, and the gooey paste
--there is just no way in nature that Christ could have possibly survived
either his crucifixion or his burial.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Christ's Recovery

There lacks a universal consensus regarding the nature of Christ's
resurrection. Some say his crucified body came back to life. Some say that
his crucified body was exchanged for a glorified body. Still others say that
Christ's crucified body not only didn't recover, but he came back with a spirit
body; and his post resurrection physical appearances were done as an angel
disguised in a fully-functioning human avatar.

It's evident that Christ has a glorified body at present (Php 3:20-21). But I
really don't think such was the case out at the cemetery.

†. John 2:19-22 . . Jesus answered them: Destroy this temple, and I will
raise it again in three days. The Jews replied: It has taken forty-six years to
build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days? But the temple
he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his
disciples recalled what he had said.

Had not Christ's crucified body revived, then his prediction would be easily
proven false because the temple he spoke of was "this temple" viz: the body
he was standing in as he spoke with the Jews.

Q: If Christ didn't come back from death with the glorified body spoken of in
Php 3:20-21, then how and when did he obtain it?

A: Some day the bodies of all Christ's believing followers will be returned to
life and taken up to meet the Lord in the air (1Thes 3:14-17). On the way
up, the bodies will undergo a sudden and miraculous transformation. (1Cor
15:51-53).

I think it's pretty safe to assume that Christ's body underwent a similar
transformation while on the way up to heaven as per Acts 1:9 so that today
his body is no longer a normal human body; but instead a superhuman body
to which all his believing followers' bodies will one day conform.

Q: What about the fact that he was able to pass through a locked door?
(John 20:19). Surely a normal human body could never do such a thing.

A: Jesus Christ was virgin-conceived, walked on water, calmed storms,
restored withered limbs, put the lame up on their feet, healed blindness and
leprosy, multiplied loaves and fishes, converted water into wine, raised the
dead, withered a fig tree, levitated into the sky, etc. Come on now; what's
one more miracle more or less for a man like that?

Q: Why make a big deal out of the nature of Christ's resurrection?

A: The nature of Christ's resurrection is one of the essential components of
the gospel that must be accepted if one is to have any hope of escaping the
wrath of God.

†. 1Cor 15:1-4 . . Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I
preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which
also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless
you believed in vain.

. . . For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried,
and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

Paul goes on to say that if Christ's crucified body did not revive, then his
followers haven't a prayer of escaping the wrath of God.

†. 1Cor 15:17 . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you
are still in your sins.

Bottom line: If one's concept of Christ's resurrection is false, then they do
not yet believe in his recovery.

Q: What and/or where are the scriptures about which Paul spoke?

A: There's at least two. One is the story of Jonah; which Christ appropriated
as a "sign" of his own resurrection. (Jonah 1:17, Matt 12:40). Another is in
the book of Psalms at 16:8-10 (cf. Acts 2:22-36)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Inspiration

A common interpretation of inspiration is as follows:

†. 2Pet 1:20-21 . . No prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophets
themselves or because they wanted to prophesy. It was the Holy Spirit who
moved the prophets to speak from God.

That's actually motivation rather than inspiration. This next example is
better.

†. 2Tim 3:16 . . All Scripture is inspired by God

The Greek word for "inspired" is theopneustos (theh-op'-nyoo-stos) which is
a combination of theo which means God, and pneustos which means to
inflate: as in blowing up a balloon or a soccer ball.

Theopneustos is probably about as close as you'll get for a Greek word
corresponding to Gen 2:7 where it's stated:

"Then Yhvh God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

"breathed into" is pretty much what theopneustos says. But the breath of life
isn't artificial respiration. Pumping air into a corpse doesn't work. It's been
tried. The breath of life is a mysterious energy with enough power to even
make solid rock sentient and aware. (Luke 3:8)

What all this means is: scripture is more than just text-- God has willed
scripture to have a peculiar kind of life all its own.

†. Heb 4:12-13 . . For the word of God is living and active and sharper than
any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of
both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the
heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open
and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Scripture, then, is a divine agent: it speaks about God, it speaks for God,
and it speaks as God. In a manner of speaking then: scripture can be
thought of as a close encounter.

"In its pages we recognize His voice, we hear a message of deep significance
for every one of us. Through the spiritual dynamism and prophetic force of
the Bible, the Holy Spirit spreads His light and His warmth over all men, in
whatever historical or sociological situation they find themselves." (Paulus PP
VI, from the Vatican, September 18, 1970)

Paulus PP VI said it well. So then: when people listen to the Bible, they listen
to God; and when they mock and ridicule the Bible, they mock and ridicule
God.

The voice of God is set to be called as a witness in the prosecution's case
against certain individuals.

†. John 12:48-49 . . He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings,
has one who judges him: the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last
day. For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father himself who
sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Jephthah's Daughter

†. Judg 11:30-32 . . And Jephthah made a vow to Yhvh and said: If you will
indeed give the sons of Ammon into my hand, then it shall be that whatever
comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from
the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up as a burnt
offering.

Long story short: Yhvh gave Jephthah the victory and the first person to
meet him coming home was his daughter; and she was his only child; but
Jepthah, with his daughter's consent, kept his end of the bargain.

There's some very important things to consider if we're to correctly sleuth
what happened.

1• Bloody human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy; so Jephthah couldn't take his daughter to the
Levitical priests to be offered on the altar as a literal burnt offering.

2• Heb 11:32 lists Jephthah as a man of faith. Men of faith don't kill their
children in pagan rituals knowing full well that God regards all such sacrifices
as abominations.

3• According to Judges 11:29, Jephthah was under the influence of Yhvh's
Spirit when he made the vow. I seriously doubt that Yhvh would lead that
man to kill his daughter contrary to God's feelings about sacrificing one's
own children in a bloody pagan ritual.

4• Jephthah's daughter didn't bewail an impending death, but rather, she
bewailed her virginity; in other words: she wept at the prospect of spending
the rest of her life as an old maid.

5• The Bible doesn't mention her demise, but rather, that she never slept
with anybody.

When all of the above is taken into consideration; I think it's fairly safe to
conclude that Jephthah's daughter took a vow of celibacy and became
something in that day and age equivalent to a nun in our day and age.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Eating Meat

†. Gen 9:1-4 . . Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them: Be
fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you
will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon
every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the
sea; they are given into your hands.

. . . Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you
the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that
has its lifeblood still in it.

Blessings should never be construed as commandments and/or laws and
edicts. In other words: God gave Noah and his sons the green light to eat
meat, but He didn't say they had to.

†. Rom 14:2-3 . . One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another
man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats
everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does
not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has
accepted him.

FYI: Prior to the Flood, humans were vegans. Afterwards; they were given
permission to become omnivorous. People are often curious about that.

According to an article in the Dec 10, 2013 Science section of the New York
Times, scientists believe that the early human body was able to manufacture
all of its own essential vitamins; but over time gradually lost the ability to
manufacture all but K and D.

That seems plausible to me seeing as how Noah lived to be 950 years old,
but by the time of Abraham, the human life span had decreased
considerably to 175; which the Bible describes as a ripe old age (Gen 25:7
8). Well, Noah at 175 was about equivalent to Abraham at 32; so the human
body was obviously a whole lot stronger back in Noah's day than it was in
Abraham's.

Apparently the inclusion of meat in Man's diet after the Flood was intended
primarily as a source of natural supplements to make up for the human
body's gradually lessening ability to manufacture all it's own essential
nutrients; much the same reason that modern vegans resort to synthetic
supplements in order to avoid contracting deficiency diseases.

People subsisting on vegan diets, such as many of the people of India, often
eat lots of minute insect eggs along with their fruits and vegetables without
knowing it, thus providing themselves with a number of essential nutrients
that most everyone else obtains by deliberately eating animal products. It's
kind of humorous that in their care to avoid meat they end up eating bugs.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Spirit Body vs Spiritual Body

†. 1Cor 15:44 . . It is sown a natural body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If
there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Watch as I revise that passage because the difference is significant.

"It is sown a natural body, it is raised up a spirit body. If there is a natural
body, there is also a spirit body."

No; it doesn't say spirit body but nevertheless that's what some people have
decided it ought to say.

The Greek word translated "spiritual" is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily
refer to spirit. Below is a list of spiritual things that bear absolutely no
resemblance whatsoever to the body chemistry of an angel or a demon.

Spiritual gifts (Rom 1:11)
Spiritual law (Rom 7:14)
Spiritual things (Rom 15:27)
Spiritual people (1Cor 2:15)
Spiritual nourishment (1Cor 10:3)
Spiritual water (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual rock (1Cor 10:4)
Spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3)
Spiritual music (Eph 5:19)
Spiritual understanding (Col 1:9)
Spiritual housing (1Pet 2:5)
Spiritual sacrifices (1Pet 2:5)

I sincerely believe that the spiritual body spoken of at 1Cor 15:44 is in no
way composed of spirit. Of what material it is composed I don't know; but I
do know at least four things about it.

1• The spiritual body is patterned after Christ's body.

†. Phil 3:20-21 . .Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a savior
from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to
bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that
they will be like his glorious body.

2• The spiritual body is capable of dining upon ordinary foods.

†. Luke 22:15-16 . . I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer. For I tell you: I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in
the kingdom of God.

3• The spiritual body is capable of imbibing ordinary beverages.

†. Matt 26:29 . . I tell you: I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now
on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.

4• The spiritual body is capable of being seen by the naked eye.

†. Acts 1:11 . . Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This
Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the
same way as you have watched him go into heaven.

†. Rev 1:7 . . Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
God's Good Faith

†. Eph 1:13-14 . . Having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of
promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the
purchased possession

†. Eph 4:30 . . Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were
sealed for the day of redemption.

The Holy Spirit of God is the seal; which is from the koiné Greek word
sphragizo (sfrag-id'-zo). The word has no reference whatsoever to a zip lock
bag, or a strip of tape, or a gasket, or that little widget that the power
company clips onto electric meters, or a cork, or a bar code, or a bottle cap,
or a label, or a tag, or the lid on a jar, or glue, or the ring of bee's wax that
goes in between the base of a toilet and the flange of the soil pipe it drains
into.

Sphragizo refers to the impression that's made upon wax with a signet ring.
In other words: the Holy Spirit is God's own personal signature on the dotted
line; and it serves a very important purpose.

The Holy Spirit is also the "guarantee" of a believer's inheritance. Let me
explain.

The koiné Greek word is arrhabon (ar-hrab-ohn') which refers to a pledge;
viz: part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for
the rest.

When we bought our home, I had to submit, along with the escrow papers,
an amount of money called a "good-faith" deposit. In the event that my wife
and I backed out of the deal, for any reason at all; we would've forfeited the
deposit. That's no doubt an incentive to make sure people mean business
about buying a home.

Eph 1:13-14 explains a difficult spiritual truth by putting it into a context
easy to understand by anyone familiar with the process of buying a home.
Another context, also easy to understand, is located in the 38th chapter of
Genesis.

Long story short, Judah left his staff and signet with Tamar as a pledge that
he would pay her with a young goat as compensation for sleeping with him
(Gen 38:18). The Hebrew word for Judah's pledge is 'arabown (ar-aw-bone')
which is equivalent to the Greek word for guarantee.

Well; Judah was unable to make good on his promise because Tamar took a
powder. So his response was:

"Let her keep what she has or we will become a disgrace." (Gen 38:23)

You bet your bippy they would have been a disgrace because until such a
time as Judah paid Tamar what he promised; she had a legitimate right to
keep his staff and his signet because that's the way an 'arabown works.

Bottom line is: at this point in the plan of salvation, should God not spare a
believer's soul from the sum of all fears; then He has to forfeit the Holy
Spirit. In other words: should a believer end up in hell, they get to keep the
Holy Spirit and take Him down there with them because that's the way the
arrhabon and the 'arabown work; and believers have God's signature holding
Him to it.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]