Do you understand the New Testament

[sojourner]

So according to the above one has to believe in a religion before he can believe the Lord.

To espouse religion is to believe in God. We don't "believe in the religion," we believe in the One (or Ones) the religion embraces.

But you weren't talking about the irreligious. You were talking about those who embrace something other than Jesus, if I'm not mistaken. My thinking is that God has many names and many faces, just as the humanity that reflects God has many names and many faces. Belief in Deity is the common factor -- not belief in Xy, Judaism, Hinuism, Heathenry, etc.

Yes but some are disobedient and some are obedient.

Yes, and just because our own children are disobedient, go outside, play in mud puddles and get dirty, we don't disown them. We claim them as ours, bring them inside and clean them up.
That's the overall thrust of the Gospel: We who are dirty cannot clean ourselves, so God cleans us, instead, through Jesus.

I did not say mirror, but a fogy vision, but please tell me your idea.

We don't envision God by looking at ourselves. It's the other way 'round. We envision ourselves by looking at God.

I cannot fellowship with those brothers that are no brothers, I must be true to my self.

Jesus touched the unclean, and ate with sinners. Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman, for Pete's sake! Jesus commanded us, at the end of Matthew to go and make brothers out of those who are not brothers. What more do you need, to emulate the Master?

I do not attend church because without wanting to, I find myself judging what the pastor is saying, and most of the time I like to tell him a better way, a simpler way, a growing in the spirit way.

it sounds like (on the surface, because that's all I've got) several things could be at issue. Either your preacher isn't worth your trust, in which case you need to find another church, you have a humility problem, in which case you need spiritual counseling, or you're misunderstanding just what the Truth is. Your preacher is supposed to have authority to say what s/he says, and you need to trust that. You don't have to agree 100% -- everybody has a different perspective -- and that's OK, but you need to be in a place where such differing perspectives are welcomed, not shut down.

the day will come when i will be send out with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

Or, it might be that being "sent out" isn't your ministry to do...
It might be something else you haven't discovered yet.

How do you know,Jesus was not received by those in authority nor was Paul, but we do, also the Jews killed the prophets, but their children said they would have not killed them. well anyone can believe after the event. So I ask would you be able to recognize the men send by God? or would you dismiss him as a deceiver, because he is not in agreement with your doctrine.

That's not the issue, either. The thrust of those stories is that the opposers only thought they had authority. Jesus was received by his disciples. Paul was received by his proselytes.

My church don't identify ourselves by doctrine. We identify ourselves by praxis.

Yes but the Lord will send men to them to see if they have ears to listen still, most of the time those men have no standing in the comunity, like he did in the hold days

How do you know this? Spong was not well-received -- and he has standing.

truth is holiness, you aider are holy or you are not, no half way, no way.

And yet, the poor in spirit are the ones that are congratulated. The hungry are filled, the dirty are the acceptable ones. If such is the case, then those who strive to honestly love whom they love, at the peril of finding themselves disenfranchised by their fellows are certainly holier than you or I.

God is a benevolent dictator

God is a Lover.

he does not change to our political correctness.

Including those who are outcast is not political correctness -- it's a Christian virtue -- and commanded by Christ.

What is DSM?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It's the reference standard for psychiatry, in order to determine, understand and diagnose mental disorders, ranging from deviant behavior to psychosis. Homosexuality ain't in there. It's a normal, human function.

 

[AK4]

sojourner
No, it isn't "what all the parables are about." It isn't even what the parable of the wheat and tares are about, which is the closest parable, in terms of message.

Yes it is. Its about the called and the called AND chosen. You have some parables that show or emphasizing just one side or sometimes contrasting the other but its still about the called and the called AND chosen. Its not about the believer and non-believer.

Why do you think Jesus spoke in riddles to the masses? Wasn't it to get them to think about what he was saying, and take it to heart -- to quicken their imaginations, so that they would "get it?" You're presenting this as if Jesus was using a secret code, so that only"the few" would be able to understand.

See this is what im talking about. You cant be serious. You are spewing and parroting out unscriptural jargon taught by the church. You have stated completely the opposite of what the scriptures say.

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 (the few disciples) to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (the many called that just heard the parable) it is not given. ….. 13 Therefore speak I to them (whos the them again? The many called. Not the people who have no interest at all in the Word) in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Yes a “secret code” if that’s what you wanna call it. Even the apostles/disciples didn’t understand the parables until the were given the spirit. Jesus had to explain the parables to them and then sometimes He would explain a parable with a parable. Jesus taught in a way that no one would understand. Jesus didn’t want to heal them now because God has a plan that involves calling many but choosing few. Do you understand this truth?

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah said, Lord, who has believed our report?" (Rom. 10:16).

"And when He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked of Him the parable. And He said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables." (Mark 4:10-11).

"That seeing they may see, and not perceive: and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them. And He said unto them. Know ye not this parable? And how then will you know all parables?" (Verse 12-13).

Hmmmm remember me saying this to you before? If you would know but one parable, you would know all parables! This is because all parables are speaking of the same subject, just presented from different perspectives. Wouldn’t you just love to know just one parable so that you could know all parables? Yet if you keep with the churches interpretations youll never understand even one.

 

[AK4]

sojourner
That's right. improper reading will not yield proper understanding. If you don't know what the writer intended to write, you don't know what the writer intended to write. You only know what you understand him to have written. Basing an interpretation on your own understanding isn't good enough.

The writers intention huh? Again all writers of every book in the scriptures had a “Boss” who gave His servants instructions/inspiration to write what HE INTENDED AND THOSE SERVANTS COULD DO NOTHING ELSE BUT WHAT THE BOSS INSTRUCTED/INSPIRED. HENCE ONE GIANT BOOK. Its no different than Henry Ford building his assembly line and giving instructions on how to build what he wanted to his workers to build. But Ford is the “boss” and his vision/intention is what will be done. Do you still not understand?

It's not a matter of black-and-white. It's a matter of negotiating a huge grey area. I trust the lamp of scholarship in areas of translation, exegesis, criticism, history, archaeology, anthropology, etc. to get me as close as can be gotten.

Human intellect will not allow you to understand this book. You can learn a lot about it, where and how it was written, the culture, the history and you can memorize it.
You can be like Jack Van Impe says he’s memorize 25,000 verses or whatever. But he has not a clue as to what the gospel is, not a clue. James Kennedy speaks Greek and Hebrew fluently and has not a clue as to what the gospel is.

Here's your bugaboo: The Bible is not written "in plain language." It's written in language that needs translation and interpretation.

My bad, I misspoke. It has become, all praise be to God, pretty plain to me. I can see through most of bad translated words and am able to throw out the garbage that I was taught by the church. So to me it has and more and more becoming plain language and anyone else who is given the eyes to see by God, not by some human intellect they think they posses.

Not in terms of exegesis.
Yes. You're foisting a methodology upon an exercise that methodology was never meant to serve.

Oh boy, that’s right you continue to disobey Gods Word with your methodology and I will do it the way His Word says and what the apostles did okay

I do admit the errors of the Church. They just aren't what you think they are.

You see them and yet overlook them--- Iguess the scripture where it says you will know them by their fruits means nothing to you also? And Am I the only one who sees these errors. You have even atheists showing you and your church and church doctrines your errors. What you don’t believe them just because they aren’t believers? There is some things they point out that cant be ignored.

Could be possible that you're misinterpreting the symbolism...

Riiiiiight or it could be someone is just being naive to the obvious because he loves his position in his church

 

[AK4]

sojourner
In fact, the Trinity was not "something that we wanted to see." The Trinity is something that is heavily implied, and it causes problems, because it's a mystery. The Trinity doesn't solve anything reasonable. But it does serve insight into who God is.

Wow such an admission yet you still hold on to this false doctrine/god. God and His Son is not a mystery to those He has revealed Himself to. Like I said I can almost plainly see Him (Christ) throughout all scripture and how He unfolds the Father and see that there is no trinity.

You are in no position to make such an assessment. Frankly, I'm getting real, real tired of you accusing me of deception.

Again, can the deceived see that they are deceived? So ultimately you are not responsible, but you will be held accountable.

Why? They're all scriptural statements.

No there is scriptural statements mixed in with false and half truths are no truths. Its deception and blasphemy

That seems perfunctory. Do you mean "Catholic" as in RCC, or "catholic" as in "the church throughout the world?

It doesn’t matter. Have you not read MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. All these different denominations still BOW to their mother in some sort of way or another (doctrines).Yet she is just one of the harlots really and not the mother.

Concordances don't do that. How do you know if a word or phrase was translated "wrong?"
At some point, you've got to trust the translators, because they're all we've got. Thankfully, there are some very good translations out there.

Most translations aren’t bad its just the key words and phrases they chose to mistranslate that make all these people fall into deception

No, but our perception of it does change

LOL You sound just like the jewish rabbis and such and why they have their torah.

None of this really has anything to do with "called vs. chosen" passage you cited. But I'm sure you'll dream up some convoluted connection to shame us with.

Wow the Word right in your face and you deny it. Well you know what Christ said about those who deny Him

The parable of the sower and the seed does not show division, as you conceptualize it here. This parable isn't a judgment, but a device to take away the distinction between the religious elite and the commoner.

Wow. Read it. They all heard the word and believed it right? Right. But only a few actually kept it and endured till the end. Simple. All were believers at one point in their lives but only the few (the elect) made it. What is so difficult in that that you cant understand it?

And no the division (seperating) is done by God.

 

[AK4]

THE BIRTH OF SIN


Many Christians, and many Christian denominations struggle to define the origin of the original sin, for most of us have never considered that when Adam sinned the origin of sin become an integral part of our human character. It is something innate and undetectable. So in order to understand sin and humanity’s fall from grace we must begin where it all started and that is from the first sinner, “Lucifer” and the sin he committed. ”

Freespirit i like you and it seems you are searching for truth but you still have some doctrines of the church that are still ingrained in you. Hey it was the same for me and it takes awhile but God will get you through it. The lucifer doctrine (which could be the birth of the free will doctrine). Lucifer is a christian hoax. A deliberate lie put in by the early Roman church to decieve many.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is TRANSFORMED into an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14).

Lucifer is the Latin Vulgate translation of the word "xosphoruos" in the Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12, which the King James translators then translated over into the English as "Lucifer."
The Latin and the Greek, as well as a supposed form of a "Hebrew" word in verse 12 mean "bright shiner" or "shining one." The problem is, however, that Isa.14:12 was not written in Latin or Greek, but Hebrew. And I assure you that "lucifer" is not a Hebrew word, nor is it an English translation of a Hebrew word. Lucifer is Latin, and is related to a group of Latin derived English words including lucid, luciferin and luciferose, as we saw defined above, all of which suggest brightness or shining. Likewise xosphoros in the Greek derived English words such as, fluorescence and phosphorescence.
But, there seems to be no Hebrew or Aramaic text in which there is a word in this verse to correspond. What we find in all such texts is the word "hehlehl,’ eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill. And what is the meaning of "ill"? Are you ready? It means HOWL. That’s right, "Lucifer" turns out to be nothing more than a "howl" (maybe of ‘hot air&#8217!
It has been suggested that the translators of the Septuagint (Hebrew into Greek) could have overlooked the smallest of the Hebrew letters or been using a copy in which it had been inadvertently omitted. Thus if the form of the world eill, as it occurs in this particular text, were shortened to ell its meaning would be derived from a different root, in fact would be itself a different root, and the sense given in the Septuagint and the Vulgate would be at least understandable, with one giant exception. There is still absolutely no reason or rule of grammar for turning this word into a personal name! It could possibly mean "a shining one," but not a personal name such as "Lucifer." Doubtless the translators followed the Vulgate as they did in most of their translating.
Even such an eminent translator as Rotherham seemed to follow the Septuagint in this verse, however, from his comments within parenthesis, it is clear that he was fully aware of the fact that whatever this word meant, it was referring to none other than the context of these verses which is Babylon and not Satan:

"How has thou (Babylon—see context) fallen from heaven, O Shining One (O howl)—Son of the Dawn! (Babylon conspicuous as Venus). Hewn down to the earth, O crusher of nations."
​

Clearly the reference is to Babylon and none other. It was Babylon which was exalted to heaven (as conspicuous as Venus, the brightest star of the morning) in her wealth, power, and glory. Yet just as Capernaum, God says she is brought down to the earth, the one who was a "crusher of nations."

Next I will list the King James renderings of the word that is found in the "Hebrew" texts and transliterations of its various forms in every occurrence in the entire KJV Bible. Now you can be the judge. In all Hebrew or Aramaic texts of Isa. 14:12, the only word found is "heh-lehl," eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill, meaning howl. Here is Kittel’s Hebrew Text for the Hebrew Stem ill—"yah-lahl"—HOWL:

Isa. 13:6 eiliu Howl ye
Isa. 14:31eili Howl
Isa. 15:2 iilil shall howl
Isa. 15:3 iilil shall howl
Isa. 16:7 iilil Howl
Isa. 16:7 iilil shall howl
Isa. 23:1 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 23:6 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 23:14 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 52:5 eililu make to howl
Isa. 65:14 eililu shall howl
Jer. 4:8 ueililu Howl
Jer. 25:34 eililu Howl
Jer. 47:2 ueill and shall howl
Jer. 48:20 eilili Howl
Jer. 48:31 ailil will I howl
Jer. 48:39 eililu They shall howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 49:3 eilili Howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 51:8 eililu howl
Ezek.30:2 eililu Howl ye
Hos. 7:14 iililu They howled
Joel 1:5 ueililu And howl
Joel 1:11 eililu howl
Joel 1:13 eililu And shall be howlings
Amos 8:1 ueililu and howl
Micah 1:8 uailile howl ye
Zeph. 1:11 aililu Howl
Zech.11:2 eill howl
Zech.11:2 eililu howl
Isa. 14:12 eill Lucifer (??)​

I don’t believe one has to be a Hebrew scholar to see at a glance that "Lucifer" is totally out of place in this list. The meaning of this word is clear; eill is a verb that means "HOWL", and not a noun than can be twisted into a personal name such as "lucifer"!
Is there no end to the religious lies fostered on the naive Church? I assure you there is an end, and that end may be soon in sight!
And notice carefully that the Hebrew verb eill in Isa. 14:12 is the identical form of the first verb eill in Zech. 11:2. Now try substituting the personal noun "Lucifer" in place of the verb "howl" in the two places it occurs in Zech. 11:2. Here as in many Scriptures, the trees are likened to people who are crying out because of the death and destruction:
"Lucifer, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; because the mighty are spoiled: Lucifer, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the ventage is come down."

Just something for you to think on

 

[Oberon]

Lucifer is the Latin Vulgate translation of the word "xosphoruos" in the Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12, which the King James translators then translated over into the English as "Lucifer."
The Latin and the Greek, as well as a supposed form of a "Hebrew" word in verse 12 mean "bright shiner" or "shining one." The problem is, however, that Isa.14:12 was not written in Latin or Greek, but Hebrew. And I assure you that "lucifer" is not a Hebrew word, nor is it an English translation of a Hebrew word. Lucifer is Latin, and is related to a group of Latin derived English words including lucid, luciferin and luciferose, as we saw defined above, all of which suggest brightness or shining.

This is exactly why you shouldn't get into the meaning of words in languages you don't read.

Lucifer does mean "bearer of light" but it was also the name of a roman god. Helal in the HEBREW text of Is. 14:12 is a Canaatite deity similar to the Roman god Lucifer. The translation in the vulgate is taking the canaanite god and giving the roman equivalent.

 

[sojourner]

The writers intention huh? Again all writers of every book in the scriptures had a “Boss” who gave His servants instructions/inspiration to write what HE INTENDED AND THOSE SERVANTS COULD DO NOTHING ELSE BUT WHAT THE BOSS INSTRUCTED/INSPIRED. HENCE ONE GIANT BOOK. Its no different than Henry Ford building his assembly line and giving instructions on how to build what he wanted to his workers to build. But Ford is the “boss” and his vision/intention is what will be done. Do you still not understand?

The Bible isn't a Model T. A closer analogy would be the inclusion of several makes and models of the most exemplary cars in a collection that displays the history of the automobile and its impact on human society.

James Kennedy speaks Greek and Hebrew fluently and has not a clue as to what the gospel is.

Well...not anymore, anyway, but you're right.

Human intellect will not allow you to understand this book. You can learn a lot about it, where and how it was written, the culture, the history and you can memorize it.

Human intellect allows us to engage in two important aspects of "understanding the Bible." One is exegesis, as I've pointed out. This closely resembles what you say in your second sentence. The other aspect is gaining a theological understanding. The second, in order to be true, depends upon the first. Exegesis does not give us theological understanding. But it does provide a base upon which theology is built.

You seem to be skipping the first, foundational step. Therefore, your theology is skewed, because you're trying to understand something you haven't measured or appreciated for its social or literary merits.

My bad, I misspoke. It has become, all praise be to God, pretty plain to me. I can see through most of bad translated words and am able to throw out the garbage that I was taught by the church. So to me it has and more and more becoming plain language and anyone else who is given the eyes to see by God, not by some human intellect they think they posses.

Again, you're missing some pretty important bricks in the foundation.

Oh boy, that’s right you continue to disobey Gods Word with your methodology and I will do it the way His Word says and what the apostles did okay

And your methodology takes you further and further away from your fellows and creates deeper and deeper division. The Bible was never meant to do that.

You see them and yet overlook them--- Iguess the scripture where it says you will know them by their fruits means nothing to you also?

The Church -- like all human communities, contains both good and bad, just as Matthew quotes Jesus as saying. Unlike you, I choose to follow Jesus' advice to let the tares grow among the wheat, and trust God to take care of it in due season.

Riiiiiight or it could be someone is just being naive to the obvious because he loves his position in his church

Ego has nothing to do with it.

Yes it is. Its about the called and the called AND chosen. You have some parables that show or emphasizing just one side or sometimes contrasting the other but its still about the called and the called AND chosen. Its not about the believer and non-believer.

You obviously know far, far more about it than I, because I have wasted my money and time on people who've spent a lifetime studying the parables and the gospels. It's further obvious in your disdain for the Body of Christ on Earth. So be it. Go ahead and be the only one who's "right" and separate your sheepy little self from we goats. In the meantime, the rest of us will concern ourselves more with loving God and loving our neighbor and not concern ourselves so much with who's "right."

but to them it is not given. ….. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

I dunno... Sounds like what I said to me. "They don't get it. So I feed them riddles, because they have neither seen nor heard, nor understood." Riddles get our imaginations going. Riddles help us solve problems and see different perspectives.

Jesus taught in a way that no one would understand. Jesus didn’t want to heal them now because God has a plan that involves calling many but choosing few. Do you understand this truth?

A teacher doesn't teach so that the students will not understand. That's foolishness writ large. God has a plan that involves the reconciliation of humanity.

Hmmmm remember me saying this to you before? If you would know but one parable, you would know all parables!

Not so.

Wouldn’t you just love to know just one parable so that you could know all parables? Yet if you keep with the churches interpretations youll never understand even one.

Wouldn't you just love to know what the parables mean? Yet if you keep with your own interpretation, you'll never understand even one.

God and His Son is not a mystery to those He has revealed Himself to.

Of course God is mystery, because we cannot fully understand God.

Like I said I can almost plainly see Him (Christ) throughout all scripture and how He unfolds the Father and see that there is no trinity.

You're seeing one dimension of a three-dimensional figure.

can the deceived see that they are deceived?

You're projecting.

No there is scriptural statements mixed in with false and half truths are no truths. Its deception and blasphemy

Let's take a look, shall we?
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, (Mt. 5:16)
Creator of heaven and Earth. (Gen 1)
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son (Jn 3:16)
our Lord. (Jn 13:13)
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. (Mt 1:18)
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucifed, died and was buried. (Lk 22:63-65;23:33,53)
On the third day, he rose again. (Mt 17:23)
He ascended into heaven (Lk 24:51)
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Mk 16:19)
He will come again to judge the living and the dead. (Jn 14:3;I Pet 4:5)
I believe in the Holy Spirit, (Acts 2:4)
the holy catholic church, (Mt 16:18)
the communion of saints, (Acts 2:42)
the forgiveness of sins, (Col 1:14)
the resurrection of the body, (Job 19:26)
and the life everlasting. (Jn 3:16)
Sorry. All scriptural. Every last bit of it.

It doesn’t matter. Have you not read MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. All these different denominations still BOW to their mother in some sort of way or another (doctrines).Yet she is just one of the harlots really and not the mother.

You purport to bow to the Bible. Doesn't that make the Bible a whore, just as bowing to doctrine makes doctrine a whore?

Most translations aren’t bad its just the key words and phrases they chose to mistranslate that make all these people fall into deception

What makes you think you're translation efforts are any better? In fact, they are not.

LOL You sound just like the jewish rabbis and such and why they have their torah.

The Torah is part of the "one book -- the Bible."

Don't you think perceptions change? We have a completely different perception for what it means for "God to provide for us" than ancient subsistance farmers.

Wow the Word right in your face and you deny it.

No, I just deny your interpretation of it.

What is so difficult in that that you cant understand it?

Right back at ya!

And no the division (seperating) is done by God.

You seem to have done a fairly good job of that, yourself, in this thread...

 

[AK4]

sojourner

Irrelevant, for you are not Jesus, and I am not a Pharisee. Being like Jesus does not include usurping his authority, for it makes you like the Pharisees in the passage you quoted.

I am not usurping His authority. Jesus grants authority to those He gives His spirit. And I don’t feel like I am excersing anything. Besides you are probably saying the same things the ancient Israelite priests of that church were to the prophets. And geee I wonder who was in the right back then.

Bull crap, because, by quoting the scriptures in answer to my questions, you imply either that you possess the good qualities presented therein, or that I possess the bad qualities presented therein.

Judge for yourself. Or as Paul put it judge yourselves lest you be judged. Im not judging you I am trying to get you to open your eyes to the hypocrisy of the church so you can “Come out of Her my people”. You are definitely called because you say you are a preacher, but going by the doctrines you say you trust in you are not called and chosen yet. And no I don’t know even if I am part of the called AND chosen, but I know I have definitely been called. All Christians are called.

Plus it shows how you twist the scriptures you hold in such high regard, in the same way you claim that the Church does, thereby making you worse than those you rebuke. The parable in question does not mean that "all servants of Christ have the authority" to tell others that they're contradicting the Word.

Twist? I haven’t twisted any. That’s funny because I show you multiple scriptures with two or three witnesses and you try to say im saying these things when it is the scriptures that are showing you in error, not some silly exegesis or church doctrine. Did I say it says “all servants”? Nope. Theres one twist from you. Paul told Titus to sharply rebuke those who contradict including those in the church. Is that just addressed to Titus, no. Jesus sent out his disciples to cast out demons, which demons are also doctrines, so the disciples (notice this doesn’t just the apostles) cast out also doctrines of/by demons also. You lack the understanding to know this though.

No, you're "giving it" to them -- in other words, handing everyone a line, beating us over the heads with it, touting how you're right and the entire organized Church is wrong.

That’s funny. You believe the church is teaching the full truth. They only give partial then further down somewhere they contradict scripture. Now is that full truth. Or is it that by the grace of God He has shown me but a bit of the deep things of God?

1 Corinthians 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we (I guess He only gave His spirit to the apostles) have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth (now what was that you were saying before about knowledge); comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Oh but I guess this was only for the Apostles and only in their time huh? Wrong again.

No, you're not. what would make you think that you are?

Joh 6:63 … the words that I (Jesus) speak ….they arespirit,.

Again you know not of the spiritual things, and symbolism of Gods Words and what this symbols mean and represent. Giving to the poor, washing your feet, sell your possessions and follow me, the Passover, baptism, circumcision, water, bread, etc etc etc. Even if I told you what they mean you wouldn’t believe. “Ye are yet carnal”

I haven't heard a speech yet. How can I understand what has not been presented?

Of course not.

Re 2:29 - He that hath an ear, let him hear whattheSpirit saith unto the churches.

I understand what the gospel writer meant when he quoted Jesus as saying this to a rich young man.

Yes you probably do know what the physical meaning is. Who doesn’t.

Better than you will ever know.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that you're coming off as some kind of authoritative pundit where theology is concerned, when you really have no basis for presenting yourself as such.

You make it sound as if I am wanting some kind of following or I want power or a position in high places. Sorry not for me. I don’t want it. I am not concerned with the material things/places/positions in this life. I am spiritually minded not physically. You guys can have your “uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi

Why? Because

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus grants authority to those He gives His spirit.

Not the authority to call other people's hearts into question.

And I don’t feel like I am excersing anything.

Least of all spiritual maturity.

Besides you are probably saying the same things the ancient Israelite priests of that church were to the prophets.

BZZZZZT! Thanks for playing.

I am trying to get you to open your eyes to the hypocrisy of the church so you can “Come out of Her my people”.

This is in clear violation of forum rules. This is proselytization.

You are definitely called because you say you are a preacher, but going by the doctrines you say you trust in you are not called and chosen yet.

You're in no position to make that determination.
As such, this amounts to flaming.

no I don’t know even if I am part of the called AND chosen, but I know I have definitely been called. All Christians are called.

Your time and energy would be far better spent in discerning your own state, than by deciding the state of others.

Twist? I haven’t twisted any.

You absolutely have.

you try to say im saying these things when it is the scriptures that are showing you in error, not some silly exegesis or church doctrine.

It's silly eisegesis and proof-texting that are doing the talking.

Paul told Titus to sharply rebuke those who contradict including those in the church.

That's right. You're not Titus.

Is that just addressed to Titus

Yes, and given to us as an example of what church leaders are supposed to do.

demons are also doctrines,

No, they're demons. The Bible doesn't say "demons are really doctrines," therefore, you're reading that into the texts. Good job!

You lack the understanding to know this though.

You're projecting again.

by the grace of God He has shown me but a bit of the deep things of God?

That's all any of us know.

Oh but I guess this was only for the Apostles and only in their time huh?

You have no idea what this means, do you!

Wrong again.

Yup. You sure are.

Again you know not of the spiritual things, and symbolism of Gods Words and what this symbols mean and represent. Giving to the poor, washing your feet, sell your possessions and follow me, the Passover, baptism, circumcision, water, bread, etc etc etc. Even if I told you what they mean you wouldn’t believe. “Ye are yet carnal”

If it weren't so sad, this would be funny.
Again, you'e in no position to make such an assesment.

Of course not.

Re 2:29 - He that hath an ear, let him hear whattheSpirit saith unto the churches.

What do you care? You don't want to be part of the Church, anyhow.

You make it sound as if I am wanting some kind of following or I want power or a position in high places. Sorry not for me. I don’t want it. I am not concerned with the material things/places/positions in this life. I am spiritually minded not physically. You guys can have your “uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi

Why? Because

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

You have no idea what I'm talking about.
What you think it "sounds like" is not what is meant, at all.

Lost. Completely lost.

 

[free spirit]

To espouse religion is to believe in God. We don't "believe in the religion," we believe in the One (or Ones) the religion embraces.

what I meant was, before you can receive Jesus you must believe in God through a religion, like Abraham said to Lazarus.

But you weren't talking about the irreligious. You were talking about those who embrace something other than Jesus, if I'm not mistaken. My thinking is that God has many names and many faces, just as the humanity that reflects God has many names and many faces. Belief in Deity is the common factor -- not belief in Xy, Judaism, Hinuism, Heathenry, etc.

God is one bu we identify ourselves by the denomination we belong.

Yes, and just because our own children are disobedient, go outside, play in mud puddles and get dirty, we don't disown them. We claim them as ours, bring them inside and clean them up.
That's the overall thrust of the Gospel: We who are dirty cannot clean ourselves, so God cleans us, instead, through Jesus.

Repentance is to make yourself available to be clean.

We don't envision God by looking at ourselves. It's the other way 'round. We envision ourselves by looking at God.

I have not seen God. But i know about his character and I do my best to emulate that.

Jesus touched the unclean, and ate with sinners. Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman, for Pete's sake! Jesus commanded us, at the end of Matthew to go and make brothers out of those who are not brothers. What more do you need, to emulate the Master?

the problem are not those that are no brothers, but the problem are those that are false bothers, believing things and acting contrary to the holiness and the truth of God.

it sounds like (on the surface, because that's all I've got) several things could be at issue. Either your preacher isn't worth your trust, in which case you need to find another church, or you're misunderstanding just what the Truth is.

That is the problem they have some truth but they do not understand what is the truth.

you have a humility problem, in which case you need spiritual counseling,

Having said that above, how can the spirit of a teacher have humility with a pupil.

Your preacher is supposed to have authority to say what s/he says, and you need to trust that. You don't have to agree 100% -- everybody has a different perspective -- and that's OK, but you need to be in a place where such differing perspectives are welcomed, not shut down.

Well what they preach is like 2+2=3 it is very close but not correct.

Or, it might be that being "sent out" isn't your ministry to do...
It might be something else you haven't discovered yet.

i do feel that I have a teaching ministry without the chains of religious dogma, my articles shows the simplicity of spiritual matters. for the poor in spirit of this world I may had.

That's not the issue, either. The thrust of those stories is that the opposers only thought they had authority.

Well the Pope thinks that he has the authority, the church thinks that it is the only one that can interpret the scriptures. So they imprisoned the Holy Spirit for themselves, so they think. For no one can imprison the Holy Spirit. The only teacher of the truth.

Jesus was received by his disciples. Paul was received by his proselytes.

But those in authority did not.

My church don't identify ourselves by doctrine. We identify ourselves by praxis.

What do you do that is different

How do you know this? Spong was not well-received -- and he has standing.

And yet, the poor in spirit are the ones that are congratulated.

yes the poor in the spirit of this world.

The hungry are filled, the dirty are the acceptable ones. If such is the case, then those who strive to honestly love whom they love, at the peril of finding themselves disenfranchised by their fellows are certainly holier than you or I.

Yes but you have to ask the brother of the prodigal son. look at the way he behaved when his brother returned.

God is a Lover.

And so is his law. if you keep yourself within that law.

Including those who are outcast is not political correctness -- it's a Christian virtue -- and commanded by Christ.

It is written "those who turn a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins." in other words a repenting sinner is always welcome.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Men is not God, but he likes to be God. what I am trying to tell you is God has the last word on the matter, regardless of what we think.

 

[free spirit]

Freespirit i like you and it seems you are searching for truth but you still have some doctrines of the church that are still ingrained in you. Hey it was the same for me and it takes awhile but God will get you through it. The lucifer doctrine (which could be the birth of the free will doctrine). Lucifer is a christian hoax. A deliberate lie put in by the early Roman church to decieve many.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is TRANSFORMED into an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14).

Lucifer is the Latin Vulgate translation of the word "xosphoruos" in the Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12, which the King James translators then translated over into the English as "Lucifer."
The Latin and the Greek, as well as a supposed form of a "Hebrew" word in verse 12 mean "bright shiner" or "shining one." The problem is, however, that Isa.14:12 was not written in Latin or Greek, but Hebrew. And I assure you that "lucifer" is not a Hebrew word, nor is it an English translation of a Hebrew word. Lucifer is Latin, and is related to a group of Latin derived English words including lucid, luciferin and luciferose, as we saw defined above, all of which suggest brightness or shining. Likewise xosphoros in the Greek derived English words such as, fluorescence and phosphorescence.
But, there seems to be no Hebrew or Aramaic text in which there is a word in this verse to correspond. What we find in all such texts is the word "hehlehl,’ eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill. And what is the meaning of "ill"? Are you ready? It means HOWL. That’s right, "Lucifer" turns out to be nothing more than a "howl" (maybe of ‘hot air&#8217!
It has been suggested that the translators of the Septuagint (Hebrew into Greek) could have overlooked the smallest of the Hebrew letters or been using a copy in which it had been inadvertently omitted. Thus if the form of the world eill, as it occurs in this particular text, were shortened to ell its meaning would be derived from a different root, in fact would be itself a different root, and the sense given in the Septuagint and the Vulgate would be at least understandable, with one giant exception. There is still absolutely no reason or rule of grammar for turning this word into a personal name! It could possibly mean "a shining one," but not a personal name such as "Lucifer." Doubtless the translators followed the Vulgate as they did in most of their translating.
Even such an eminent translator as Rotherham seemed to follow the Septuagint in this verse, however, from his comments within parenthesis, it is clear that he was fully aware of the fact that whatever this word meant, it was referring to none other than the context of these verses which is Babylon and not Satan:

"How has thou (Babylon—see context) fallen from heaven, O Shining One (O howl)—Son of the Dawn! (Babylon conspicuous as Venus). Hewn down to the earth, O crusher of nations."
​

Just something for you to think on

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is TRANSFORMED into an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14).
So Lucifer is a borrowed name for Satan, I did not know that; however my argument does not change because
"Angel" I understand to mean "messenger" So an "angel of light" would be as I understand it, "messenger of light" or (messenger of understanding or wisdom to be specific) Therefore replace the name "Lucifer" with the proper name "Satan" all the rest remains the same. Is now "the birth of sin" article acceptable to you.

 

[Oberon]

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is TRANSFORMED into an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14).
So Lucifer is a borrowed name for Satan, which describes "bright shiner"
Or angel of light. Did I understood correctly?

Again, Lucifer is a translation of a canaanite deity more or less similar.

 

[free spirit]

Freespirit

Consider this written in 1st. Thessalonians 5: 23. In Hebrews 4: 12,
please consider also, yes God put two things in man, but when man eat the fruit man changed, so that change could be the third thing. Good and evil = conscience maybe!
Because he became aware that he was naked.

Think about it spiritually, he became aware he was naked---what does being naked mean in scripture spiritually? (Rev 3:17, 16:15, 17:16). The conscience thing—may or may not stand because even those mentioned in verse 3:17 don’t even realize they are naked. So that brings up if they really, really knew good and evil before eating the fruit. Hmmmm.

Yes in revelation and in other parts of the bible "naked" did mean something else, but in Genesis it is obvious because they sewed fig leaves to cover their loins.

Also Eve did know if it was right or wrong to take of the fruit before actually eating it
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"

Yes she did know, Genesis 3: 2 - 3, is clear on the matter, Adam must have told her.
They had one commandment and for that, they knew right and wrong, but to know good and evil in general is different because you need a conscience to guide you. In Genesis 3: 22, we read, "then the Lord said, Behold the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." obviously before they did not know the difference of good and evil. We also know that he made us in his image, but here the Lord said that the man has became like one of them; I ask you which one? I know that the conscience is independent from my mind, for if you are an holy person and you sin, your conscience accuses you mercilessly until you put the wrong that you did right again. but those who have no conscience, or their conscience is dead, they have no problem in doing any evil act repeatedly.
In 1st. Corinthians 8: 12, we read " and thus, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ." if wounding another conscience you are sinning against Christ the conscience must be very important indeed. We can almost say "you shall love the Lord your conscience with all your heart and with all that is in you, and you shall love your neighbor conscience like your own."

 

[free spirit]

Again, Lucifer is a translation of a canaanite deity more or less similar.

Thanks Oberon, I understand what you say. But does or does not the name Lucifer describing an Angel of light?

 

[Oberon]

Thanks Oberon, I understand what you say. But does or does not the name Lucifer describing an Angel of light?

Originally no. Lucifer was a pagan deity, and as such the term "angel" as we understand it would not apply.

 

[free spirit]

Originally no. Lucifer was a pagan deity, and as such the term "angel" as we understand it would not apply.

"Angel" I understand to mean "messenger" So an "angel of light" would be as I understand it, "messenger of light" or (messenger of understanding or wisdom to be specific)

 

[Oberon]

"Angel" I understand to mean "messenger" So an "angel of light" would be as I understand it, "messenger of light" or (messenger of understanding or wisdom to be specific)

Angel does come from the greek angellos meaning messenger. However, Lucifer is neither semantically nor etymologically related to this word. It isn't until later literature that the Lucifer of the Vulgate was equated with the fallen angel.

 

[AK4]

This is exactly why you shouldn't get into the meaning of words in languages you don't read.

Lucifer does mean "bearer of light" but it was also the name of a roman god. Helal in the HEBREW text of Is. 14:12 is a Canaatite deity similar to the Roman god Lucifer. The translation in the vulgate is taking the canaanite god and giving the roman equivalent.

Come on, you claim to know and speak these languages fluently but cant even see that Lucifer isn’t even a Hebrew word. There is no Hebrew word for Lucifer so there is no reason for the insertion of this canaatite deity at all.

Whatever it doesnt matter even if that was the reason because that whole passage is talking about the king of Babylon and what is the purpose of adding (mind you what it says of sdding to the Word of God) it. Oh and theres more…. Isnt it people like you who claim context context context. The context is about the king of Babylon. Its stated in the beginning

"That you shall take up this proverb against the KING OF BABYLON..." (Ver. 4)

God is speaking of and to and about, "the King of Babylon," not Lucifer, not Satan, not a cherub. And God tells us the end of this man’s (is satan a man now) reign:

"Your pomp is brought down to the grave [Satan never died or was put in a grave], and the noise of your viols [harps or lutes]: the worm [or maggots] is spread under you [can maggots eat a spirit body], and the worms cover you" (Ver. 11).


Next notice throughout the whole bible satan is called satan, the devil, and serpent but curiously THE CHURCH decided to ADD OR MAKE the LATIN (not Hebrew) word, which the Hebrew is a noun, (and its not even a proper noun) LUCIFER INTO SCRIPTURE. Why don’t people think about these things. Curiously, somehow and in some way the church decided that at verse 12 it starts talking about satan. What a crock.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations"! (Ver. 12).

Now context context context. Lets see what they did in just two verses

"All they shall speak and say unto thee [king of Babylon], Art thou [king of Babylon] also become weak as we? Art thou [king of Babylon] become like unto us [mere mortals and not gods from heaven]. Thy [king of Babylon] pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy [king of Babylon] viols: the worm is spread under thee [king of Babylon], and the worms cover thee [king of Babylon]. How art thou [king of Babylon] fallen from heaven, O Lucifer…"?!?


Wow yet you will still fail to admit you are wrong on this.

Heres another thing for you to still deny how wrong you are

Anyway, by A.D. 405 Jerome had completed his work, which we today know as "The Latin Vulgate" Bible. It is far from an infallibly accurate translation of the original texts. Rather, it is an interpretation of thought put into idiomatic, graceful Latin!
For a thousand years this Translation was without a rival--and herein lies the problem!
4. Jerome had understood that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about Satan. There the Hebrew word "heylel" is used and Jerome translated this into Latin as "lucifer"!
This is a mistranslation!!!
5. The word "Lucifer" comes from 2 Latin words:
Lux (=light) + ferous (=to bear or carry). Thus the name "Lucifer" means:Light-bearer or Light-bringer.
But this is not what the Hebrew word "heylel" means! We'll see later exactly what this word does mean.
6. Anyway, as a result of this Latin Vulgate translation, which was almost the only version of the Bible in use throughout Europe for the next 1000 years, Satan popularly became known as Lucifer. It should be self-evident that when the first people who translated the Bible into English came along, one of their paradigms was that the name "Lucifer" applied to Satan. When they came to translate Isaiah 14:12 into English, they decided that rather than actually "translate" the word "Heylel," they would simply substitute it with the already well-known (originally) Latin name "Lucifer." And they could do this because on the surface this seems to be a reasonably accurate translation. But it isn't really!
7. I mentioned earlier that the word "Lucifer" appears only once in the English versions of the Bible. But in the Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome it appears twice! That's right, twice! Where else is this word used and who does it refer to? Jerome certainly knew who it refers to. This knowledge also casts a dark cloud over his intentional use in Isaiah 14:12!
8. 2 Peter 1:19 reads : "...until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." this is another mistranslation!!!
The two words "day star" are a translation of the one Greek word "phosphoros." This comes from the two Greek words:
Phos (=light) + phero (=to bear or carry). Thus the Greek word "phosphoros" means Light-bearer or Light-bringer.
Anyone who knows both, Greek and Latin, can verify that the Greek word "Phosphoros" and the Latin word "Lucifer" are absolutely, one hundred percent identical in meaning. "Lucifer" is the perfect translation into Latin of the Greek word "Phosphoros."
9. Now let's note the dishonesty, first of the English translators and then of Jerome--
All of the English translators of the Bible know very well that the word "Phosphoros" in 2 Peter 1:19 can be perfectly accurately translated by the word "Lucifer." Instead they have chosen to deliberately obscure this fact. Why?
They knew very well that 2 Peter 1:19 refers without doubt to Jesus Christ. This verse calls Jesus Christ "Phosphoros" (in Greek) or "Lucifer" (in Latin). Yet the translators have hidden this fact behind the words "day star." The facts are that "Phosphoros" has absolutely nothing to do with either "day" or "star"! The translators simply borrowed a term that is elsewhere used for Christ--namely "morning star" in Revelation 2:28 (Greek = proinos + aster) and in Revelation 22:16 (Greek = orthrinos + aster).
To translate "phosphoros" as "day star" is plain dishonesty!!!
10. Now let's look at Jerome. The phrases quoted under point #8 above are translated by Jerome into Latin as follows:
"...donec dies elucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris."
Notice that Jerome correctly translated the Greek "phosphoros" into the Latin word "lucifer." Jerome obviously knew that this verse refers to Jesus Christ--yet he wrote "lucifer" with a small "l" and did not capitalize the word. He also knew that he had translated the word "phosphoros" perfectly into Latin.
With this write-up I am including photo-copies of 2 peter 1:19 and Isaiah 14:12 from the Latin vulgate. (Comment: that is what I sent to Pasadena with the original write-up I sent through to them about 4-5 years ago. I can't really put photo-copies on Internet ).
Jerome knew that in the New Testament "Lucifer" is a title for Jesus Christ; yet he still chose to also translate the less- clearly defined Hebrew word "Heylel" in Isaiah 14:12 as "Lucifer," knowing that this word referred to Satan--and here Jerome started the word with a capital "L," as can be seen from the enclosed photo-copies.
So with Jerome Satan gets a name that refers to Christ with a capital letter--and Christ gets His own name only with a small letter.

http://www.israelofgod.org/lucifer.htm

*sigh*

 

[sojourner]

what I meant was, before you can receive Jesus you must believe in God through a religion, like Abraham said to Lazarus.

Because Jesus is presented by that religion.

God is one bu we identify ourselves by the denomination we belong.

Ok. We've always done that.

I have not seen God.

How sad for you. And yet, you think you might be called to teach others about God? 'f I were you, I'd get busy looking!

the problem are not those that are no brothers, but the problem are those that are false bothers, believing things and acting contrary to the holiness and the truth of God.

Jesus didn't forsake his disciples when they didn't "get" him. Nor did he when they acted contrary.

That is the problem they have some truth but they do not understand what is the truth.

Or you do not.

Having said that above, how can the spirit of a teacher have humility with a pupil.

You're not a teacher. A teacher is prepared to learn as much from his pupils as he teaches them.

Well what they preach is like 2+2=3 it is very close but not correct.

Then you need to find a different church -- making sure you're understanding correctly.

i do feel that I have a teaching ministry without the chains of religious dogma, my articles shows the simplicity of spiritual matters. for the poor in spirit of this world I may had.

Then prepare yourself to teach. (You may be surprised to find that the more you know, the more you know you know very little). BTW, one doesn't "teach" spirituality. One guides, facilitates, and discerns. Not so simple.

Well the Pope thinks that he has the authority,

He has authority -- not the authority, IMO.

the church thinks that it is the only one that can interpret the scriptures.

The Church wrote, compiled, edited and canonized the scriptures. The Church has the "sense of the community" that it takes to interpret its own writings.

So they imprisoned the Holy Spirit for themselves, so they think. For no one can imprison the Holy Spirit. The only teacher of the truth.

No, they don't think that. But the Holy Spirit was sent to the Church by Christ.

But those in authority did not.

Those "in authority" were not in authority. The gospels, in part, claim that the Church has the authority, especially through the Apostles.

What do you do that is different

We embrace similarities and allow great liberty with regard to perspective, belief, hermeneutic. We gather around Christ's Table as one Body. We respect the honest opinions of others. We allow people to be just who they are, and try to meet them where they are. We work for the unity of all God's people.

Yes but you have to ask the brother of the prodigal son. look at the way he behaved when his brother returned.

The story of the prodigal has nothing to do with homosexuality.

And so is his law. if you keep yourself within that law.

The Law is encapsulated in "Love God -- love neighbor."

It is written "those who turn a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins." in other words a repenting sinner is always welcome.

What about those who are not sinners, but who are misunderstood, or disliked? Are they welcome, as well?

Men is not God, but he likes to be God. what I am trying to tell you is God has the last word on the matter, regardless of what we think.

Jesus rails on hypocrisy, power-mongering, gate-keeping, judgmentalism, bigotry, and separation. He has not one thing to say about homosexuality.

You just can't let it go, can you? One has to wonder if you would be as hard on people who wear 50/50 cotton/poly shirts...

 

[AK4]

Okay I will try to look at this as if the Lucifer thing wasn’t in there.

Adam’s sin was to follow “Lucifer” and allow himself to covet knowledge equal to God,

Is there a scripture that really says Adam coveted this knowledge. I don’t think there is. Eve did no doubt. Adam said He ate because Eve gave it to him, that’s all. The rest is speculation. I wonder if we look at a spiritual connection in saying Eve represents the church and Adam represents Christ as Paul was made the analogy of this already and think on it that way.

In contrast Jesus’ loving character did not covet equality with God, for we read in,
Philippians 2; 3 to 7: “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,but emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant.”

Therefore, we should realise that coveting is Lucifer’s sinful character, obviously Adam was enticed to follow him in disregard of God’s commandment, and by that action Adam made coveting the evil integral part of the human character.

Remember Eve already displayed they had this before Adam even ate the fruit. God made man with this spiritual weakness. That is why we are not CREATED in Gods image yet, it is that He IS CREATING man in His image. Its a process and is not completed yet. There is a big difference there.

It remained the integral undisputed ruler of our lives until the law given to Moses contained the commandment, “You shall not covet,” for we read in Romans 7: 7 to 8: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the law; for I would not have known aboutcovetingif thelaw had not said, ‘you shall not covet.’ But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in mecoveting of every kind; for apart from the law sin is dead.”

Yes “thou shall not covet” does cover almost all of the 10 commandments in just that one. I think about 7 of them.

With the rest of what you put I can agree with.