Posted on 10/10/2001 10:57:30 AM PDT by malakhi
The sound of you rolling along.
Now that dosn't even sound funny to me now, I guess you loose something in translation. Lol
There were sorcerers of the day that performed 'miracles'. Signs are not proof. And signs were not used as proof. Authority is established on the Word of God, not in what a man can do. For there is nothing that one can do that the devil cannot fraudulently reproduce. On such things people are decieved for they look not to God but to outward appearances. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for the like. What the Apostles did, they did from authority through Jesus, not to prove they had any. Their fruits bore them out - the souls they led to Jesus. Wow, did a light just come on at home - possibly. The aim is to grow the kingdom, If the kingdom is souls, then those souls are the fruits. A tree of souls may have miracles for leaves, but, the fruits are the important part of the tree. Good fruit does what it's supposed to - ie it knows the word and will of God and follows them!
Believe it because I say it is never a legit argument. It must be proven - thus 'test every word' appears in the scriptures, 'discern the spirits' is written in scripture, 'Trust no man' and so on. Jesus established his authority through scripture and sticking to it, explaining it and showing it at work by living his life fully in the will of God. Jesus performed miracles only in fulfillment of faith, never to build it. Check every miracle he performed, 'as your faith is, so be it unto you.' Not to build faith, but to fulfill faith. Not to prove himself, but to prove those who relied on him. And he didn't do parolor tricks.
This is really very simple, Christ was born without a sinful nature (or original sin - to use a RC term) - like Adam and Eve, but that obviously doesn't mean that you cannot sin or be truly tempted, now does it? Jesus, unlike Adam and Eve, was tempted as we are, yet did not sin.
Interesting analogy, but would the tree have fruit if it was barren of leaves?
Becky
Becky
"Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?"
I will be looking forward to your indepth answers, Thank you all. :)
BigMack
No not really, it was in their nature to chose between good and evil.
If it was not possible for Christ to sin, it was not really temptation at all. But the Scriptures tell us that he was tempted, again your view makes God's word a lie.
You can't say God could chose evil, that is like saying good can be bad, or full can be empty.
Hope I've made myself vague[g]
We should also consider wether giving up His divinity would have still made the act worth wild. If Jesus was not God, what was the effect of the Cross? plenty of normal mortals have died in similar instances, how did Jesus help if he was just one of them?
Had Jesus invoked his divinity anywhere along the line, he would have been admitting that men could not accomplish what he'd set out to prove they could. He would have surrendered the battle then and there. Jesus was proving that men could follow the Will of God in all things and live a sinless life. In proving it and dying free of sin, he ransomed us all! That is why I continually say, he was a man. Had he not been, we'd all just be whistling dixie. Had he not been the Son of God, the same would be true. Had he not been 'God with us', the same would be true. He had to be three things at once, denying his divinity and denying the nature of man - following only God's will.
He relied on the Law and the will of God. Think about that. Christianity isn't a new phenomenon. It is an old one with a new sacrifice and a new direct handling of sin. That's all! Instead of relying on men, we now rely and trust only in God! That was the point of Jesus' sacrifice - a ransom once and for all, and taking men out of the loop. Salvation is now strictly between any individual and his God. No room for a magicsternum or a priesthood, or a bunch of philosophies, etc. Jesus preached Love for brother and the Law. He denounced tradition and rules of men. He denounced those who looked for outward signs. Jesus didn't replace the law, he fullfilled it. You guys are trying to add your own twists to it just as the Pharisees and Saducees had. Jesus called it what it was then. And I call it what it is now.
And very conveniently for you, he ended his earthly ministry about 1,970 years ago, and so now you can present your own interpretations, invoke his name for them, and he's not around to gainsay you.
Actually, he's very much with us - as much as when he walked the earth in flesh. He is here to gainsay me if I'm wrong. And I don't have to invoke his name in proclamation of scripture, the scripture does that quit well enough on it's own. It's just that some have their index fingers so deep in there ears and have nearly gauged their eyes out for fear of actually hearing or seeing the scripture. Some are more comfortable in clinging to their philosophies than in hearing and obeying God and coming out of them.
All I've heard from you so far is your private interpretations, Jack Chick/Lorraine Boettner stuff, and diatribes against history and philosophy.
Uh, no. You've heard scripture. Private interpretation has yet to much enter into it. And the Chick/Boettner charge... you guys need to get some new lines or something. I know they teach you to respond to Chick and Boettner. But, they don't ask you to fully defend, they just teach you to destroy the things those people apparently got wrong. Seems the Catholic church doesn't fully address their charges, just shruggs off all but what it can call absurd and paint them as absurdities. That is absolutely hilarious in its level of hypocrisy. Your so called 'church fathers' can't agree on things and get as much wrong as right even in your own estimations. If you applied the same standards to them as you apply to Chick and Boettner. Hypocrite. LOL. The funnier thing is, nobody is claiming Chick or Boettner to be inspired or scripture. Ya'll have elevated your 'church fathers' well beyond any status any of us might give either of the two you so lambaste. And I can't particularly remember quoting either of them - even once.
Whereas you, on the other hand, are receiving spiritual revelations?
"Oh ye of little faith," Revelations - it's always got to be the extreme with you because you lack faith. But, let's take the extreme, "But greater things shall ye do for I go to the Father." Where is your faith. I take your incredulous answer to mean you have no relationship with Christ, just a passing familiarity with the Bible and the world. How sad.
How would that have been acting "fully in divinity"? It would have been exercising the powers of the Divine, but would have totally blew the one chance for repairing the infinite rift.
We cannot command angels, we may ask God for them to protect us; but, only God may command them -for He alone is their master.
You mean Jesus taught them? He didn't just give them a book and say "maketh of this what ye will"? Maybe someday you will understand "vicarhood" and how the Magisterium does the same teaching function of Jesus. Maybe. (Or, did it ever occur to you that Jesus created the Magisterium, and not the other way around? He didn't need them, they need Him.)
Jesus taught them! Yes, you've got it. He taught them and charged them to pass it on. And they did so by teaching and writing what they taught. The writing of what they taught was intended to last as a proof of what they taught - something against which we should test what others teach and preach. They followed the example of the Jews in writing what happened. We don't need a magicsternum. I understand the Vicarhood already, it's man's attempt to usurp the authority of Jesus and make of themselves Kings of the Lord's Kingdom. It will be recompensed by Jesus himself.
The Magicsternum wasn't created by Jesus, it's a Catholic invention. Nor did Jesus lay upon them any authority or power. No one is your master but one, God. If your master is Jesus then serve and obey him. But if your master be the magicsternum, then serve and obey them - your reward will be according to the Word of God in each case. You can have but one master. Jesus didn't need a the magicsternum and neither does any man that has ever lived. We have the inspired word of God. And we are to find worthy teachers whose words align with those of God - without twisting or adding to them.
If we want to take that step, then one must say that, yes, it can produce fruit absent miracles. Jesus produced fruit without miracles. That's not to say he was completely baren of miracles. The miracles he performed are outnumbered by His fruits by a fairly vast percentage. Again, miracles are not a faith producer, they are a faith fullfiller. If you have a cup it can be filled. You don't hand someone a pound of water with no container surrounding it. Faith is a container. The more you excercise it by filling it and putting it's contents to use, the bigger the container gets. If you don't fill it, you might as well not have it. Thus if you bury your talent, it will be taken from you and given to one who will put it to use and make it grow!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.