Posted on 02/03/2004 9:35:26 AM PST by xzins
I guess Reading isn't one of your more finely honed skills then....
I don't feel a need to "reconcile" it, because I don't believe that God literally forsook Jesus on the cross. Jesus did cry out the opening verse of Psalm 22, which to any Jew would automatically reference the whole Psalm in their minds. That is a common method of teaching and discourse utilized by Rabbis.
Jesus didn't do it from the standpoint of "I think I'll quote that Psalm now, then they'll know who I am.." He fulfilled prophecy, because Psalm 22 was ALL prophecy. How many times did Matthew say in his Gospel, "that the prophecy might be fulfilled..." concerning the things Jesus did and said? It was the cry of a soul in anguish over the weight of sins being borne. It was the cry of Adam when he realized what he had done. God didn't turn His back on Jesus. God beheld the fulfillment of His judgment for the sins of those whom He purposed to save, borne in the Body of His only son, out of Love for His sheep. Jesus died to save those whom God had given Him, redeeming them with His own Blood.
I guess Reading isn't one of your more finely honed skills then....!~ 402 posted on 02/05/2004 9:31:11 PM EST by nobdysfool
***
No, Man (as in, the First Man, or the First Adam) sinned because of Satan.
Funny, that's the exact same excuse Adam used when confronted with his sin..."the woman you gave me! She made me eat of it!" Some things never change.... ~ Post # 291 posted on 02/04/2004 6:45:14 PM EST by nobdysfool
Gen.2
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
It seem Adam was without guile he just simply answered the question.
the first words out of his mouth were "The woman..."
If he had truly been without guile, he would have said, "Yes, I did." He blamed Eve, in the course of admitting his guilt. Read it. That's what it says.
Did you ever think that Jesus did not say the words of Psalm 22 because they were there, but that the words were in Psalm 22 because that is what Jesus would be saying at His crucifixion?
A slight but important difference IMO.
Whoops! I guess you did! ;^)
(Note to read most of thread before responding to posts....)
Exactly!
Not a bad analysis for a GRPL. :-)
Well stated ksen. You deserve a medal. But I am not vested with the power to confer medals on GRPL's. Only KOETT's
Would you care to make an application?
Well stated ksen. You deserve a medal. But I am not vested with the power to confer medals on GRPL's. Only KOETT's
Would you care to make an application?
Why not give credit where credit is due, and make me the same offer?
Good point, Alex.
Care to submit your application? All you have to do is get yourself evicted from the GRPL and you will receive your medal of valor.
I await your response.
Your #329: Tell us the rationale for LDS saying that Adam sinned in order to obey God. That one has always baffled me.
Neither "noble" nor "sinned in order to obey God" appears in the LDS Scriptures anywhere relating to the Fall of Adam.
There would be a lot less controversy if people would find these things in the LDS Scriptures before claiming that this is what Latter-Day Saints believe.
Perhaps you refer to the blessing God gave them to be fruitful and multiply. Perhaps you refer to Lehi's statement that they would have had no children if they had not partaken of the forbidden fruit. That could arguably have been a "noble" motive on Eve's part, doing this for their future children, if, and it is a big if, she knew that much.
They were in a state of innocence in the Garden, and yet all sorts of bad motives are proposed, and "noble" motives argued against. Why don't we just say that they were in a state of innocence, and not ascribe any motives?
I have offered my opinion before that God knew that we needed this fallen, mortal experience, to taste the bitter that we may learn to prize the sweet, but could not just place us here in this fallen state. The Fall had to come about as a consequence of transgression.
Also in my opinion, since Eve was the one who would be going through pregnancy and childbirth, and caring for small children, in the most primitive of conditions, it was a necessary courtesy to her, as the mother of all living, that somehow it work out that she partake of the forbidden fruit first, thus making the irrevocable commitment that brought about those primitive conditions.
The moderator will pardon me for making such a bold assertion, but many of the theological conundrums and controversies of the centuries, such as this one, could be readily resolved:
(a) through a solid understanding of what the Lord has revealed and caused to be written in these latter days,
or, to put it another way:
(b) by following the links in my #185, for starters, and coming to the knowledge, by the witness of the Holy Spirit, that what you find there is the Word of God.
Consider that the GRPL is, at the core, a collection of individuals who share Reformed doctrine and personal convictions. Beyond a confession to that, the sole basis of admission to the group is the ability to provide a decent quote from an author of the Reformed persuasion.
"Getting myself evicted from the GRPL" would mean I would have to deny my own deeply-held beliefs, violate confessions that I have made, and act contrary to my personal convictions. Or at least pretend to, to gain your favor.
And you would encourage an individual to do this, ascribe the word "valor" to such actions, and publically reward them?
drstevej: "Means: "We could solve all of this by becoming Mormons."
The links lead directly to the "official" website of the LDS, and their scriptures. You nailed it, Steve. It's the same thing I'd challenged White Mountain on, re his "calls to repentance". If he wants to discuss the topic at hand, that's fine. But posts like #414 are solely proselytizing efforts - and directed to the mod, no less!
You asked me to make you the offer. I made the offer under the conditions that you were aware of prior to your asking. You refused the offer. Indeed you used the opportunity to impune my motives.
I would therefore have to conclude that your request was not in good faith.
As I see it, the issue focuses on that nature of Jesus, not the Trinity which is eternal, immutable, etc. In that God chose to participate in human life in Jesus of Nazareth, the revelation of God was in human form. The human form had a human nature (he was hungry, he thirsted, he felt pain as a human, he died as a human, etc.,). His Divine Nature cooperated fully with His human nature and energized it for the supreme sacrifice of Himself on Calvary. It was this very human who not only "bore" our sins, but "was made" sin for us that God "forsook."
Part of the problem is how God could become man. The Docetist answered this by saying he only seemed to be man. That view has been rejected. He was fully God and fully man.
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.