In the garden of Eden we have
- God (walking around in the cool of the day) Gen 3:8
- Satan in the form of a serpent.
- Adam an naked man. Gen. 3:10
In the garden where Jesus was arrested we have:
- Jesus.
- Satan who entered Judas. Luke 22:3
- A naked man. Mark 14:51-52
The connection between Jesus and God is clear. Same for the serpent and Judas.
But what about the naked man?
What's the connection to Adam?
He fled. In a way Adam and Eve did a similar thing when hiding.
The naked man did were a linen cloth. (linen points to purity)
Why did that man left the cloth behind?
Is there a connection with Jesus leaving His linen clothes behind in the tomb? Luke 24:12
So my question is: What connections do you see? And above all: How are the relevant?
the adversary did not enter Judas in the garden... Joh 13:27 And after the morsel, then the Adversary entered into that one, Jesus, therefore, saith to him, `What thou dost--do quickly;'
Paul said 2Co 11:3 and I fear, lest, as the serpent did beguile Eve in his subtilty, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in the Christ;
Why had not Paul used the word "satan" rather than the "serpent?"
I would like to know what reasoning you have for your wonderings? As far as the man who ran and left his linen clothe, I believe he was scared, like me or you should an event come upon us as followers of someone who has shown so much strength and good, now being taken to prison.
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 10, 2011, 10:37:27 AM
the adversary did not enter Judas in the garden... Joh 13:27 And after the morsel, then the Adversary entered into that one, Jesus, therefore, saith to him, `What thou dost--do quickly;'
I didn't write that satan entered Judas in the garden. I wrote that satan was in Judas at that point. I think he entered "in your verse" and left Judas shortly before Judas returned the 30 pieces of silver.
QuotePaul said 2Co 11:3 and I fear, lest, as the serpent did beguile Eve in his subtilty, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in the Christ;
Why had not Paul used the word "satan" rather than the "serpent?"
It's about a pattern. Patterns rarely are exactly the same as what they pattern. This thread is to ask if someone does see that/a pattern.
QuoteI would like to know what reasoning you have for your wonderings? As far as the man who ran and left his linen clothe, I believe he was scared, like me or you should an event come upon us as followers of someone who has shown so much strength and good, now being taken to prison.
No reason. Just wondering. I think that man was there for a very good reason. That person isn't just "scenery".
Edit Jabcat: you forgot :2c: :laughing7:
who is this man I wonder?
I don't think he left the linen cloth behind I think perhaps, a tree branch got hold of it or something.
Christ is our righteousness[covering/linen garmet] if you flee throu fear of death[not being willing to conquer the last enemy] the shame of your nakedness
will be revealed...They loved not their lives,even unto death.The garment is left in the tomb..to cover those raised up from it.
Quote from: sheila on August 10, 2011, 07:58:43 PM
Christ is our righteousness[covering/linen garmet] if you flee throu fear of death[not being willing to conquer the last enemy] the shame of your nakedness
will be revealed...They loved not their lives,even unto death.The garment is left in the tomb..to cover those raised up from it.
"not being willing to conquer the last enemy..."
Are you saying that we are to conquer death? I thought Jesus did that on the cross. I may be wrong thats why I ask.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 10, 2011, 09:10:39 AM
In the garden of Eden we have
- God (walking around in the cool of the day) Gen 3:8
- Satan in the form of a serpent.
- Adam an naked man. Gen. 3:10
In the garden where Jesus was arrested we have:
- Jesus.
- Satan who entered Judas. Luke 22:3
- A naked man. Mark 14:51-52
The connection between Jesus and God is clear. Same for the serpent and Judas.
But what about the naked man?
What's the connection to Adam?
He fled. In a way Adam and Eve did a similar thing when hiding.
The naked man did were a linen cloth. (linen points to purity)
Why did that man left the cloth behind?
Is there a connection with Jesus leaving His linen clothes behind in the tomb? Luke 24:12
So my question is: What connections do you see? And above all: How are the relevant?
This may not be the connection but it was after Adam and Eve sinned that they wanted to cover themselves but thecoverning they made wasn't good enough. God himself had to make them coats of skins. Maybe the connection is, the man lost his linen cloth which he had made and was clothed with righteousness instead because of Jesus sacrifice.
CHB
I've been thinking about the linen cloth Jesus left behind in His tomb. The naked man left a cloth behind too.
So did craftsmen....
It seems that there was a certain custom at those days. Craftsmen like carpenters and other 'construction workers' of that time sweated a lot in the that hot climate. So they always had a cloth hanging at the place they worked so they could wipe off the sweat.
Bit like a "under construction" sign.
But when their job was done they folded the cloth in a orderly way and laid it down somewhere. On a shelf IIRC. That was the a way of telling "project completed".
Depending on the translation the garment of Jesus was not just laying in His empty tomb. Sure you already guessed by now.... It was neatly folded laying on the "whatever Jesus was laying on".
So it was a "project completed" sign.
The only connection I see I the linen cloth. But that very well could be random. Jesus was crucified at/very near the spot He was arrested. Did the naked man just lose his cloth or was it hanging on for example a tree like a "under construction" sign?
I hope the above makes any sense to someone. My initial reply to Charlotte was just the first line. The rest just popped in my head when I was typing :happy3:
........thosewho through fear of death,were all their lives slaves to sin...Romans 8;15 Hebrews 2;15
perfect love casts aside fear....fear not those who kill the body.......and then can do nothing else...outside are the cowards
we 'conquor' our fear of death by tust in Him who was raised from the dead John 14;27 Hebrews 10;39 but my righteous one will live by faith
,and if he shrinks back,I will not be pleased with him.
when the time came for Christ to return to the Father....he told them..where I am going,you can not[able] come now..but you will follow later...
they all fled for fear,or denied him from fear...but I tell you...later they died a martyrs death[were able] strengthened by His conquering death
indeed, we are dragged through death whether willing or not[.
..Jesus told Peter that when he was old,men would lead him and take him to where he does not wish to go.. John 21;18 Jesus said this to indicate
the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God
I'm not disagreeing with anything in your post; but I don't see how it's revelant to this thread :sigh:
Ok the apostles fled and the naked man too. I'm not even sure the naked men fled out of fear. Is there a connection with adam (see my 1st post)?
Why was that naked man there? Why is it mentioned his cloth was linen? I know what linen signifies; that's why I think those few verses about the naked man are a whole teaching on itself.
I just know 100% sure there is something to be learned from it. Unfortunately I have no clue what.....
I think it helps to know who's side the naked man is on. Is he like Nicodemus, following Jesus from a far.
Is he the disciple of christ?
Is he a spy?
If he is a spy for the enemy, be it Roman or Religious orders/ powers, perhaps the removal of the cloth, shows his nakedness.
That christ came to reveal and be the light of the world, so that nothing remains hid.
Quote from: thinktank on August 12, 2011, 12:09:57 AM
That christ came to reveal and be the light of the world, so that nothing remains hid.
TT, that makes sense. Also I was thinking how that the linen could represent the self righteousness of the naked man and how the sacrifice of Jesus uncovered it.
If the linen of the naked man and the one Jesus wore are connected maybe it is showing the difference between self righteousness and righteousness somehow?
Just some thoughts I had on the subject.
CHB
maybe in the sense that sense God told Adam he would die in the day he ate of it...then Adam 'hid' from God in the garden..because he was afraid?
Mark describes the young man in question as a neaniskos, meaning he was in the prime of his life, perhaps 15 to 25 years old.
The verb that is used, sunékolouthei, means "was following as a disciple" or "was accompanying."
The word neaniskos, which is rare in the New Testament, appears a second time in Mark,
to describe the young man in the long white robe who tells the women disciples that Jesus has been raised and they will see him again in Galilee.
also of note:
John 20;
6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart.
Jesus did not just leave the grave clothes behind.
He folded the cloth that covered His head. It is finished.
He left unfolded the cloth of His Body for we are waiting for the manifestation of the Sons of God.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 04:45:56 AM
Mark describes the young man in question as a neaniskos, meaning he was in the prime of his life, perhaps 15 to 25 years old.
The verb that is used, sunékolouthei, means "was following as a disciple" or "was accompanying."
The word neaniskos, which is rare in the New Testament, appears a second time in Mark,
to describe the young man in the long white robe who tells the women disciples that Jesus has been raised and they will see him again in Galilee.
also of note:
John 20;
6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart.
Jesus did not just leave the grave clothes behind.
He folded the cloth that covered His head. It is finished.
He left unfolded the cloth of His Body for we are waiting for the manifestation of the Sons of God.
I like that last part! I find it a solid gold nugget! :grin:
*off topic*
John 20;
6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart.
This Scripture casts doubt on the Shroud of Turin.
For there are two separate cloths, not one, covering the Lord.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 04:57:41 AM
*off topic*
John 20;
6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart.
This Scripture casts doubt on the Shroud of Turin.
For there are two separate cloths, not one, covering the Lord.
Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck.
It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried.
This fits in with what we learn from John's gospel, which tells us that the sudarium was rolled up in a place by itself.
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm
I don't buy into it for one second.
It's all Babylon hype to sell tickets to their adventure land.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 06:25:10 AM
I don't buy into it for one second.
It's all Babylon hype to sell tickets to their adventure land.
:thumbsup:
"This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck." Molly
Im not trying to be negative but when I read Isa. 53:2-3 it would seem that he was not pleasant to look at anyway.
Isa 53:2 And He is coming up as a layer-plant before Him, and as a root sprout from earth that is arid. No shape has He nor honor when we shall see Him, and no appearance nor loveliness that we will covet Him."
Isa 53:3 Despised is He, and shunned by men, a man of pains and knowing illness. And, as One concealing His face from us, despised is He, and we judge Him of no account."
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 12, 2011, 06:31:07 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 06:25:10 AM
I don't buy into it for one second.
It's all Babylon hype to sell tickets to their adventure land.
:thumbsup:
The same goes for all the pieces of the cross they claim as relics.
There are enough "pieces" in Babylon's "churches" to rebuild a hundred crosses.
Actually the details about the shroud of Turin are quite fascinating.
In particular, the image on the shroud is made in a way that scientists cannot now explain. It is first of all in the negative. Secondly, it is like it is burned into the cloth by a laser. which of course did not exist in those days. Third, it is three dimensional.
Quite amazing, and, I think, evidence of the body of Christ in the process of vivification.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 06:40:45 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 12, 2011, 06:31:07 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 06:25:10 AM
I don't buy into it for one second.
It's all Babylon hype to sell tickets to their adventure land.
:thumbsup:
The same goes for all the pieces of the cross they claim as relics.
There are enough "pieces" in Babylon's "churches" to rebuild a hundred crosses.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: sheila on August 12, 2011, 12:20:30 AM
maybe in the sense that sense God told Adam he would die in the day he ate of it...then Adam 'hid' from God in the garden..because he was afraid?
Adam was naked and got dressed. The man was clothed and became naked. That's the reverse.
But if those two verses are really about reversing things the man shouldn't be running away. He should run toward Jesus to for example kiss His feet. Say comforting words.....
Sorry Sheila, again I see some sort of connection but so weak it could just be a random connection.
Let's this thought of mine not diverd the discussion but I think God never walked in Eden. It was Jesus. Adam ran away from Jesus. If the naked man is proof of reversing/reconcilation then the man should run toward Jesus.
Can't express myself any better.
Quote from: wwLet's this thought of mine not diverd the discussion but I think God never walked in Eden. It was Jesus.
Not disagreeing with you, but the Bible says it was the LORD God that walked and talked in the garden with Adam, which leads one to the logical conclusion.
Quote from: Molly on August 12, 2011, 06:17:54 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 04:57:41 AM
*off topic*
John 20;
6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart.
This Scripture casts doubt on the Shroud of Turin.
For there are two separate cloths, not one, covering the Lord.
Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck.
This is going off-topic. Still intresting so I would like to ask you to start a new thread. Then we can also discuss why Jesus could be maimed when He was crucified because the sacrifician lamb needed to be in good condition. God didn't accept second rate sick animals. BTW very likely Jesus was stoned while on the cross.
BS: Certain Jewish customs can be Babylonian corruption. But that doesn't do away the fact people did those things. A prime example of this is "The first day" The day of the the Wave sheaf offering.
Guess what... God "adjusted" to their misunderstandings.
The first day was the day after Sabbath.
Pharisees, the leading sect at that time, thought is was the day after the Saturday Sabbath.
But the Saducians, who "managed" the Temple, thought it was the first day after Passover which is also a Sabbath (High Sabbath)
The "adaption of God" iis that Pentecost is two days not one. So Jesus fulfilled both views.
Back on topic again.... :laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 12, 2011, 07:49:52 AM
Quote from: Molly on August 12, 2011, 06:17:54 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 04:57:41 AM
*off topic*
John 20;
6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart.
This Scripture casts doubt on the Shroud of Turin.
For there are two separate cloths, not one, covering the Lord.
Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck.
This is going off-topic. Still intresting so I would like to ask you to start a new thread. Then we can also discuss why Jesus could be maimed when He was crucified because the sacrifician lamb needed to be in good condition. God didn't accept second rate sick animals. BTW very likely Jesus was stoned while on the cross.
He is the sacrificial lamb to us, but could it be because he was the scapegoat to the Jews? I don't start threads.
The scapegoat was a goat that was designated (Hebrew לַעֲזָאזֵֽל ) la-aza'zeyl; either "for absolute removal" (Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon) or possibly "for Azazel" (some modern versions taking the term as a name) and outcast in the desert as part of the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, that began during the Exodus with the original Tabernacle and continued through the times of the temples in Jerusalem.
Throughout the year and on the Day of Atonement, the record of all the sins of the Israelites was transferred to the Tabernacle by the blood of the sacrifices. On the Day of Atonement, the tabernacle was cleansed of all the accumulated sins by the ritual described in Leviticus 16. At that time the high priest confesses the accumulated sins of the Children of Israel to the scapegoat which is then sent into the desert wilderness. The Tabernacle and the Children of Israel were thus cleansed of sin.[6]
--Wikipedia
Quote from: Molly on August 12, 2011, 08:02:05 AMHe is the sacrificial lamb to us, but could it be because he was the scapegoat to the Jews?
No. He was the scapegoat when He was 40 days in the wildernes. That's a clear pattern.
so then..when His flesh took on the 'appearance' of sin..it was afflicted and marred...and perished in the wilderness....'goat[scape[' = sin in flesh....
but the sheep/spirit followed and obeyed Father[you men are sheep and I am your God] so..then He really is the pattern son...and we better understand
the seperating of the sheep and goats at judgement
Not sure I understand everything you wrote Sheila.
But I'm fairly sure the real animal goat was not seen as evil (Leviticus said goats are equally suited for (passover) sacrifice as sheep).
The goat didn't become evil either. The priests symbolically laid all sins on the head of the goat. So basically the goat was for transportation only.
Jesus was both goats.
A priest did casts lots. One goat was sacrificed in the Temple. The other one was send into the wilderness.
In my understanding Jesus died during baptism (water grave). That was the first goat.
Then the goat was led into the wilderness by a fit man. Goat=Jesus, fit man=HS
ACVLeviticus 1621 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the sons of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins. And he shall put them upon the head of the goat, a
I think there are also some parallels with the 2 doves. One is killed and the wing of the other dove is dipped in the blood and then the dove is set free.
Quote from: SheilaHis flesh took on the 'appearance' of sin
I think that's not correct. The sin was on the head of Jesus/the goat, but in my understanding that sin didn't enter the body.
BTW I think this whole thing means it was Atonement day when He was baptized. The way I understand that system may sound odd to some of you.
It was the Jewish (false?) belief that God did
not forgive sins during the year.
In a year many sacrifices were made in the Temple. The ritual was that the priest took some blood and poured it under the altar. The fresh blood then was covered with dust. (sins covered) Basically the sins were stored under the altar for up-to a year.
The sins the priest put on the goats head was that dust. When the goat walked away the sin finally were gone.
Could be wrong on some details but that was basically how the system worked.
Now I wonder how the dust was put on the head of Jesus.....?
Maybe His own Flesh was the dust.
BTW I think this whole thing means it was Atonement day when He was baptized. The way I understand that system my sound odd to some of you.
It was the Jewish (false?) belief that God did not forgive sins during the year.
In a year many sacrifices were made in the Temple. The ritual was that the priest took some blood and poured it under the altar. The fresh blood then was covered with dust. (sins covered) Basically the sins were stored under the altar for up-to a year.
The sins the priest put on the goats head was that dust. When the goat walked away the sin finally were gone.
Could be wrong on some details but that was basically how the system worked.
Now I wonder how the dust was put on the head of Jesus.....?
Im just wondering, and I may not be looking at it correctly, but did not the Jewish priests from a certain time on to even today, change/ or configure these laws? I worked for a Jewish family(family owned and I worked close with the son in law) and we were very close, I was young and continued to witness to all them of Jesus. We had our discussions and one time I asked did they still offer the blood sacrifices? And of course he said no. I said then what do you do and surprised to me he said
we pray. My point is, and I know you study much in to the OT and Hebrew ways. Whats to say that how you have just explained it had not been changed to some other way? I probably should have sent this PM.
yeah,ww..but would not the sin placed on it make it 'wicked" it was never to enter the Holy city again..but to perish in the wilderness...not evil in itself[flesh]
but the sin in it
Quote from: sheila on August 13, 2011, 12:19:16 AM
yeah,ww..but would not the sin placed on it make it 'wicked" it was never to enter the Holy city again..but to perish in the wilderness...not evil in itself[flesh]
but the sin in it
"to perish in the wilderness"
My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?
Good question Micah. Jews never were without flaws. It was for a reason Jews argued so much with the Scribes. But I think they kept to their rituals fairly well. Until Jerusalem got destroyed. From that point one it went downhill. But that's just my guess.
The goat sacrifice is correct as I wrote it. You can read Leviticus 16 to check. (Leviticus contains much of their rituals)
But to be honest I don't remember if I found the blood/dust under the altar in the OT or is Jewish commentary.
But we can also approach the your question from another angle. I just assume most Jews were God fearing people that prayed for forgiveness every day. So basically if you pray 1 second after you sin it's forgiven almost instantly.
But then what's the use of Atonement day? God already has forgiven all sins. So the day must have had some use. If we look a bit closer at Leviticus we see at that day the sins of the nation were forgiven.
And that I don't understand. Nations don't sin. A nation is a dead thing. Soil, border, taxes and laws. It's the people in it that sin. Those people already asked and likely received forgiveness.
But still it's one of most important religious days. I think the most important one. Even more as Passover.
Could the Jews have corrupted the goat sacrifice? Yes! Did they even do it when Jesus lived? I don't know! Should we care? No! I think it's of zero importance because I'm sure Leviticus wrote it down correctly and Jesus performed the ritual correctly. So should we really bother what the other Jews did or didn't do? Only the fact that Jesus did it correctly matters....
I'm no Rabbi... so all the above is approximately how it was done. Handle with care :winkgrin:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 13, 2011, 12:34:56 AM
Good question Micah. Jews never were without flaws. It was for a reason Jews argued so much with the Scribes. But I think they kept to their rituals fairly well. Until Jerusalem got destroyed. From that point one it went downhill. But that's just my guess.
The goat sacrifice is correct as I wrote it. You can read Leviticus 16 to check. (Leviticus contains much of their rituals)
But to be honest I don't remember if I found the blood/dust under the altar in the OT or is Jewish commentary.
But we can also approach the your question from another angle. I just assume most Jews were God fearing people that prayed for forgiveness every day. So basically if you pray 1 second after you sin it's forgiven almost instantly.
But then what's the use of Atonement day? God already has forgiven all sins. So the day must have had some use. If we look a bit closer at Leviticus we see at that day the sins of the nation were forgiven.
And that I don't understand. Nations don't sin. A nation is a dead thing. Soil, border, taxes and laws. It's the people in it that sin. Those people already asked and likely received forgiveness.
But still it's one of most important religious days. I think the most important one. Even more as Passover.
Could the Jews have corrupted the goat sacrifice? Yes! Did they even do it when Jesus lived? I don't know! Should we care? No! I think it's of zero importance because I'm sure Leviticus wrote it down correctly and Jesus performed the ritual correctly. So should we really bother what the other Jews did or didn't do? Only the fact that Jesus did it correctly matters....
I'm no Rabbi... so all the above is approximately how it was done. Handle with care :winkgrin:
:grin:I like it! :HeartThrob:
Quote from: sheila on August 13, 2011, 12:19:16 AM
yeah,ww..but would not the sin placed on it make it 'wicked" it was never to enter the Holy city again..but to perish in the wilderness...not evil in itself[flesh]
but the sin in it
That raises some questions.
Did Jesus become (wicked for a while)? --> Think not.
Got Jesus did enter the city many times after that.
Did Jesus perish? I know some on this forum say we must die to ourself etc. Was Jesus imperfect so He also had to die to Himself? Jesus was loaded with lots and lots of sins of Israel when He met satan. The way I read it satan had zero grip on the situation. If anything perished in that wildernes it was satan not Jesus.
The scapegoat wasn't killed it was set free. Very possible it died from hunger and thrist but it wasn't killed.
BTW I've just reread Leviticus and I can't find nothing about dust on the goat's head. Leviticus just mentions laying 2 hands on the head and confess the sins of the nation. But I'm sure I've read about the dust. Maybe it's hidden in Hebrew word meanings???
It;s of lesser importance i think. But about the laying of hands.... did John the Baptist do that with Jesus?
"did John the Baptist do that with Jesus?"
I dont know how they baptized, but I am sure John had to have two hands on Him if he lowered Him into the Jordan, whether on the head, that I do not know.
He that knew no sin,become sin[when He was on the cross/serpent]..let us suffer outside the camp....set free to wander and perish in the wilderness.....just
as that evil generation perished and did not enter into promised land
Quote from: sheila on August 13, 2011, 01:17:13 AM
He that knew no sin,become sin[when He was on the cross/serpent]..let us suffer outside the camp....set free to wander and perish in the wilderness.....just
as that evil generation perished and did not enter into promised land
Just to clarify, "He that knew no sin, become sin..." He who knew no sin became a sin-offering, He did not become sin. Im sure you meant that. :HeartThrob:
Amen. :HeartThrob:
2 Cor 5;21
God made him who had no sin,to be sin 'for us".....and yes, maybe it is the translation NIV...yes, He bore 'our sins' He had none of His own :HeartThrob:
"bore" means "carry".
That was exactly what the goat did. Carry away sins and dump them somewere in the wilderness.
The Greek word sin means:
1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
All standard stuff. But if we look at the uncertain root of that word we find G1 as a negative particle Alpha. The beginning.
And the more certain G3313
1) a part
1a) a part due or assigned to one
1b) lot, destiny
2) one of the constituent parts of a whole
2a) in part, partly, in a measure, to some degree, as respects a part, severally, individually
2b) any particular, in regard to this, in this respect
Priests casts lots over the two goats.
So with some selective chosing of defenitions we also can (wrongly???) change the verse into: His lot/share was to carry our sins.
Mmmm, back to the OP please. Are there any paralells for all three persons involved?
Casting lots was done quite frequently by the priests. Lots were also be cast for the 2 goats. Nothing is recorded about John the Baptist casting lots for the 2 Jesus goats.
The lots were not random. God controlled them and so expressed His will regarding the goats. When Jesus emerged from the water a voice from heaven said He loved The Son. Maybe the whole purpose of this event is that God approved Jesus with His voice instead of the usual lot.
?????????????
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 13, 2011, 07:28:26 AM
Casting lots was done quite frequently by the priests. Lots were also be cast for the 2 goats. Nothing is recorded about John the Baptist casting lots for the 2 Jesus goats.
The lots were not random. God controlled them and so expressed His will regarding the goats. When Jesus emerged from the water a voice from heaven said He loved The Son. Maybe the whole purpose of this event is that God approved Jesus with His voice instead of the usual lot.
?????????????
I don't know, but I like the thoughts. :thumbsup:
The Roman soldiers cast lots over the garment of Jesus. What should I learn from that?
Quote from: thinktank on August 10, 2011, 07:38:25 PM
who is this man I wonder?
I don't think he left the linen cloth behind I think perhaps, a tree branch got hold of it or something.
Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth. I wonder if that cloth was left behind by that man?
I doubt the wealthy Nicodemeus would use some cloth he found to wrap Jesus. I also doubt such a costly cloth would lay there for more than an hour.
But still I wonder......
Adam.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 04:57:41 AM
*off topic*
John 20;
6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart.
This Scripture casts doubt on the Shroud of Turin.
For there are two separate cloths, not one, covering the Lord.
Yes and no.
Jesus was wrapped in a single cloth on crucifixion day.
After the following Sabbath Joseph and Nicodemus removed that cloth.
They came to wrap Jesus in a 100 pounds of myrth and aloes with linen stripS.
(Matt 27:59) And taking the body, Joseph wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
sindo
Thayer Definition:
1) linen cloth, especially that which was fine and costly, in which the bodies of the dead were wrapped
2) thing made of fine cloth
2a) of a light and loose garment worn at night over a naked body
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(John 19:38) And after this, Joseph from Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took away the body of Jesus.
....more than a day passes....
(John 19:39) And there came also Nicodemus, who at the first came to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.
(John 19:40) They took therefore the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the custom of the Jews to prepare for burial.
othonion
Thayer Definition:
1) a piece of linen, small linen cloth
2) strips of linen cloth for swathing the dead
Yes and no...hmmm...
...strict convictions from down in the Netherworld.
:cloud9: The napkin on his head being folded was a sign to the Jews. It was the custom of the day that if the Master left the table before finishing his meal, he would leave his napkin folded, signalling that he was going to come back. My :2c:
Quote from: Molly on August 12, 2011, 06:17:54 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 04:57:41 AM
*off topic*
John 20;
6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart.
This Scripture casts doubt on the Shroud of Turin.
For there are two separate cloths, not one, covering the Lord.
Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck.
And being stoned.
It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried.
This fits in with what we learn from John's gospel, which tells us that the sudarium was rolled up in a place by itself.
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm (//http:///%3E%3Cbr%20/%3EThis%20fits%20in%20with%20what%20we%20learn%20from%20John's%20gospel,%20which%20tells%20us%20that%20the%20sudarium%20was%20rolled%20up%20in%20a%20place%20by%20itself.%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm)Many pictures of the shrout are fully body size. A sadarium is the size of a small towel.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Full_length_negatives_of_the_shroud_of_Turin.jpg/612px-Full_length_negatives_of_the_shroud_of_Turin.jpg)
Vague body countours... ok tiny possibility.
Beard and hair visible. Even seperate finger. Close to zero.
Jesus a beard and long hair? Don't think so.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 20, 2011, 05:17:51 PM
Yes and no...hmmm...
...strict convictions from down in the Netherworld.
Hu?
If the discovery is that the shroud is a photographic negative image than Jesus would be an albino with white hair and white beard.
It also seems convenient that his hand are covering his genitals instead of placed at his side or folded across his chest.
Quote from: wwJesus a beard and long hair? Don't think so.
On the other hand, trichos could mean beard, and probably does.
14
His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; Rev 1
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 20, 2011, 05:26:47 PM
Quote from: Molly on August 12, 2011, 06:17:54 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on August 12, 2011, 04:57:41 AM
*off topic*
John 20;
6 Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying,
7 and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart.
This Scripture casts doubt on the Shroud of Turin.
For there are two separate cloths, not one, covering the Lord.
Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck.
And being stoned.
It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried.
This fits in with what we learn from John's gospel, which tells us that the sudarium was rolled up in a place by itself.
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm (//http:///%3E%3Cbr%20/%3EThis%20fits%20in%20with%20what%20we%20learn%20from%20John's%20gospel,%20which%20tells%20us%20that%20the%20sudarium%20was%20rolled%20up%20in%20a%20place%20by%20itself.%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm)Many pictures of the shrout are fully body size. A sadarium is the size of a small towel.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Full_length_negatives_of_the_shroud_of_Turin.jpg/612px-Full_length_negatives_of_the_shroud_of_Turin.jpg)
Vague body countours... ok tiny possibility.
Beard and hair visible. Even seperate finger. Close to zero.
Jesus a beard and long hair? Don't think so.
That picture shows both front and back of the body--that's a 3 Dimensional image!
9I 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.
Daniel 7
the everlasting Father
Quote from: Molly on December 20, 2011, 06:01:15 PM
That picture shows both front and back of the body--that's a 3 Dimensional image!
And?
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 20, 2011, 06:16:02 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 20, 2011, 06:01:15 PM
That picture shows both front and back of the body--that's a 3 Dimensional image!
And?
We know it's old, and older than any technique that could produce an image like that.
So what made it?
It's like it's burned into the cloth without the body actually touching the cloth.
:cloud9: I watched a recent documentary on it, and the scientists are unable to produce the same image with the same qualities. It's not paint. And pollen on it are from plants specific to the Holy Land. Odd to me that only one of them has ever been discovered. You would think if it was a hoax, there would have been many of them.
But, on the other hand, the RCC is notorious for hoarding supposed "Christian" artifacts, as well as manuscripts. I suppose their greed, once released, will prove to have been useful, when they are moved by the Spirit to release all they have killed to possess and hoard.
Seems like it would be impossible to hoax it.
Lasers weren't even invented until the 1960's.
And, of course, the shroud has a much older history than that, by a 1000 years or so.
Quote from: Molly on December 20, 2011, 06:15:40 PM
9I 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.
Daniel 7
A 33-year-old man walking around with white hair and beard?
Isaiah tells us that His countenance was NOT something to behold. Isaiah 53:2.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 20, 2011, 06:36:46 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 20, 2011, 06:15:40 PM
9I 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.
Daniel 7
A 33-year-old man walking around with white hair and beard?
Isaiah tells us that His countenance was NOT something to behold. Isaiah 53:2.
Not if it's a picture of the resurrected Christ, and it would be because that would be the process by which the image is burned into the shroud.
It would also explain why no one recognized him.
But we see the resurrected Christ here:
14His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 10, 2011, 09:10:39 AM
In the garden of Eden we have
- God (walking around in the cool of the day) Gen 3:8
- Satan in the form of a serpent.
- Adam an naked man. Gen. 3:10
In the garden where Jesus was arrested we have:
- Jesus.
- Satan who entered Judas. Luke 22:3
- A naked man. Mark 14:51-52
The connection between Jesus and God is clear. Same for the serpent and Judas.
But what about the naked man?
What's the connection to Adam?
He fled. In a way Adam and Eve did a similar thing when hiding.
The naked man did were a linen cloth. (linen points to purity)
Why did that man left the cloth behind?
Is there a connection with Jesus leaving His linen clothes behind in the tomb? Luke 24:12
So my question is: What connections do you see? And above all: How are the relevant?
I think the naked man symbolizes our state without Christ, and he goes naked at the point where Jesus hands himself over to Satan.
Also, Levite priesthood goes naked.
This is the hour of darkness and the power of evil, also seen in the garden of Eden.
They did not have the covering yet in the garden, making them vulnerable to the Nachash.
But, God covers them [hides them, really] in animal skins before they leave.
Spirit is both internal and worn as a mantle. The disciples already had the internal HS when they received the mantle at Pentecost.
So did Adam [have the internal HS]. But, both anointings are needed to signify King and Priest.
If the shroud is proof Christ is risen than faith is obsolete.
Proof? No we don't need the shroud for proof.
It's just interesting, is all.
Millions and millions of people believe in the shroud.
The shroud still requires a lot of belief.
a] It just as well can be the shroud of someone other than Jesus.
b] The shroud doesn't prove resurrection.
Perhaps the greatest leap in faith: Trust RCC it's real :laughing7:
If the shroud is real than faith is obsolete.
Because?
Faith is obsolete if the shroud is real?
naw
If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
--Lk 16:31
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 20, 2011, 09:47:31 PM
Because?
Because faith is believing in things unseen.
If the shroud is real there is no reason for faith, for you now how visible evidence.
Faith is more than that. But, there will always be plenty of unseen things, even in the ages to come.
We could handle the shroud being real.
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see. Heb 11:1
:cloud9: My faith is not dependent on whether or not the Shroud is real or not. It's like the handkerchief the disciples had; it's just a visible point of contact for them to focus their faith on, if they are weak in the faith. His appearing in the crucified form was the same principle.
It is interesting, though. I personally think it might be real, for this reason, if no other. It's like a cylindrical stamp made as they had clay cylinders that were stamped.
The HG is the seal of God, which is why He sits upon His right hand, like a ring of authority the kings used to make purchases in their stead, and so when the HG came back into that lifeless body, it would have "stamped" it, because His job is to form us into His image. My :2c:
Quote from: Cardinalit's just a visible point of contact for them to focus their faith on, if they are weak in the faith
Ah, I finally understand that scripture --
blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe [Jn20:29].
They are blessed because their belief [not having seen] is proof of the strength of their faith.
This shroud is not taken to heal the sick or drive out demons, no, it simply is an idol an altar of Baal.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 20, 2011, 09:57:55 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 20, 2011, 09:47:31 PM
Because?
Because faith is believing in things unseen.
If the shroud is real there is no reason for faith, for you now how visible evidence.
Although I see your point, it is not entirely scriptural. The scriptures shows that many believed on Jesus based on their witness of his miracles, seen and heard.
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed?
Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? <— That's not faith.
Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." <— This is.
So,knowing things as fact isn't as good as believing they might be true?
Newsflash! :icon_flower:
Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8966422/Italian-study-claims-Turin-Shroud-is-Christs-authentic-burial-robe.html
They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)."
..."could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers..."
Quote from: Molly on December 21, 2011, 09:28:43 AM
Newsflash! :icon_flower:
Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8966422/Italian-study-claims-Turin-Shroud-is-Christs-authentic-burial-robe.html
They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)."
..."could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers..."
Looked at some of the new info, Molly. I think the shroud stuff is definitely interesting, But even with all my doubts and failings, even if they said it was fake or that nothing like that was
ever possible, (like you and others) I still know that my Redeemer lives!
In Him we live and move and have our being. Amen.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 21, 2011, 09:13:06 AM
So,knowing things as fact isn't as good as believing they might be true?
Apparently not.
Read what Jesus said in the post immediately above yours and argue with Jesus about it.
Quote from: Molly on December 21, 2011, 09:28:43 AM
Newsflash! :icon_flower:
Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8966422/Italian-study-claims-Turin-Shroud-is-Christs-authentic-burial-robe.html
They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)."
..."could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers..."
Bologna.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 21, 2011, 04:29:05 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 21, 2011, 09:13:06 AM
So,knowing things as fact isn't as good as believing they might be true?
Apparently not.
Read what Jesus said in the post immediately above yours and argue with Jesus about it.
I did read what Jesus said.
My conclusion is that you take the verse out of context. It has zero Biblical support.
He did not call those that saw Him blessed.
It is those who did not see, He calls blessed.
So it's better for man (mankind) to never meet God but only believe in God?
Jesus was not blessed because He knew God before earth was created?
Many had met Jesus in that day and not believed.
Blessed be the Name of The Lord.
One thing that interests me about the shroud is that technology can't keep up with it.
You couldn't really see the image clearly before the invention of photography. Then you could only see it in the negative.
It has 3-d holographic information so with modern technology you can now see it in 3-d.
These Italian scientists have now experimentally replicated a mark using a laser but their lasers are not yet advanced enough to create this image.
All of which leads me to believe that this is meant for the end times and the last harvesting before the end of the age. :2c:
Like Beloved Servant says, it's for those of little faith [which describes Peter at one time].
It might be God's way of getting people's attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EbgIM-djlM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 21, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
He did not call those that saw Him blessed.
It is those who did not see, He calls blessed.
Yes, but nevertheless
John 14:11
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Psalm 78:32
For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.
Both views are scriptural.
Quote from: thinktank on December 21, 2011, 08:57:57 PM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 21, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
He did not call those that saw Him blessed.
It is those who did not see, He calls blessed.
Yes, but nevertheless
John 14:11
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Psalm 78:32
For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.
Both views are scriptural.
For but yesterday you stated it was unscriptural — then yet today it is!
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 21, 2011, 09:28:18 PM
Quote from: thinktank on December 21, 2011, 08:57:57 PM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 21, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
He did not call those that saw Him blessed.
It is those who did not see, He calls blessed.
Yes, but nevertheless
John 14:11
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Psalm 78:32
For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.
Both views are scriptural.
For but yesterday you stated it was unscriptural — then yet today it is!
I said, not 'entirely scriptural' as in, not the whole story. I read from your posts that the shrouds are of no value, I simply stated that there is scriptural support for seeing the works of God. I think that this shroud, if real, does qualify as a work of God and therefore can be useful for those who need to see miracles of God.
The shroud of Turin is as real as
the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
And just as much an abomination.