Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Because you lost your credibility with me atleast a dozen posts ago ---
Because by that time Gnosticism was found in other churches outside of Alexandria -- churches that had swallowed hook, line, and sinker all of those subtle Gnostic doctrines embedded in those corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts that your father Origen was manufacturing. Embrace your heritage -- don't run from it.
And who took Metzger’s picture since no cameras are allowed?
And how in the world does anyone judge if a manuscript is an "original" if it cannot be taken out of the shadows of a small room in the basement of the Vatican?
That having been disproven...
Nothing has been disproven, except perhaps the integrity of the Vaticanus.
We "guys" know the vital distinction between grace and knowledge. It's Rome who mixes up grace with works. From the other thread...
This renovation is said to be not in knowledge, much less by knowledge, but unto knowledge, so that he knows. Knowledge is the effect of the renovation spoken of." "In opposition to (Rome,) Hodge, following the lead of Calvin, stresses the fact that the whole set of sinful man needs to be renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The natural man must be "renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Col. 3:10)...
Knowledge of grace does not bring grace. Grace brings knowledge of everything.
It's fine by me if you prefer that the RM is pinged or the abuse button is hit on comments like yours (KOSTA: "Maybe it's the medication, or who knows...but you don't seem to register it.")
***I am absolutely convinced that God ordained salvation for the Greeks, and all the rest of the world too...and He chose Greek for His new scriptures, not English, or German or Latin.***
How about Pig-Latin? :>)
That is your opinion, FK, not a fact. Hebrews 8 tell a different story. The entire OT is a series of attempts and failures to bring the Jews to stay with God.
No, God's plan never failed. Everything that happened did so exactly according to design. In Hebrews 8, presumably you are zooming in on this:
Heb 8:7 : For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Since you have read all of Paul you must know that Paul NEVER presumes to criticize God. He is not doing so here. Paul is noting that the first covenant was insufficient, IOW, it was preparatory. It was not a failure. The sacrifices the OT priests offered were not sufficient to save. Only the sacrifice of the ONE was sufficient. Paul lays all this out plainly in Romans. For example:
Rom 5:18-19 : 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men , so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men . 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
This is the correct context in which Paul was comparing the covenants. The first covenant did not have this part, and that was by design.
Apparently, even the New Covenant failed with them and had to be assumed by non-Jews (although that is revealed more as an afterthought than a plan). What purpose did God have to play dice with Hebrews?
God does not have "afterthoughts". He is omnipotent and omniscient. His entire plan was formed before the foundations and has always been, and is now being perfectly executed. God plays dice with no one. God wills, and it happens. The God of the Holy Bible is not a God who scrambles to pick up the pieces when something He tries doesn't work out. Such would be some other god.
***Maybe you guys think “knowledge” and “grace” are two ways of saying the same thing
It’s called Gnosticism, and it seems to be alive and well in the Reformed world.***
It is the underpinning of Reformed theology. If people couldn’t claim that they KNEW that the indwelling Holy Spirit helped, guided and directed them to do the things that they were doing, the whole thing falls apart.
The Calvinistic theology of the elite is, of course, only a variant on Gnostic beliefs from 1500 to 1800 years previous, in which an elite “knew” that they were special.
Gnosticism is prevalent in the fascist liberal world of today. Hillary Clinton openly states that she will take money away from those that she wishes to take it away from, and give it to those whom she wishes to give it to. Because she ‘knows’ that she is of the elite and is therefore entitled to do as she wishes, because she is of the elite.
That same type of circular logic is paraded constantly here. No proofs are required, selected cherry picked verse is plucked from Scripture to show evidence, and the self-identified elite giggle amongst themselves like teenage girls knowing that they are superior in every way to the serfs and plebians surrounding them. Or they show great sympathy and sorrow, like snooty blue haired ladies in soup kitchens, relieved as all get out that they won’t have to associate with the riff raff once this lifetime lets out.
It is a self serving ideology, as opposed to the others-serving message of Jesus.
We should talk presuppositionalism sometime, A-G!
***No, God’s plan never failed. Everything that happened did so exactly according to design.***
Planning? God is out of time and space. A plan is designed over time through space.
***God does not have “afterthoughts”. He is omnipotent and omniscient.***
Very true, but how would you reconcile the Reformed theology of all men being frogmarched when God spent the entire OT and most of the New failing to get the Jews to accept the Messiah?
Then we are even.
Origen is not a Church "Father." That is another Protestant lie. I wonder why they seem to lie so much?
Origen left the Church when he embraced Gnostic heresy and taught the pre-existence of the souls (the same thing taught by Greek paganism, Judaism, some Protestants and definitely by the Mormons).
Yup, in his second half, Origne sure turned weird.
Heb 8:7 : For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Well, yes and no. I am also looking at this with my emphases:
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. " [Heb 8:6]
Sure doesn't sound like the Old One was perfect! For, if it was perfect, then nothing could be better.
Your NIV version "attenuates" the statement in verse 7. The word used by the author is amemptos (blameless, faultless, without a defect).
So, let's recap: verse 6 says the new one is better and verse 7 says it was not faultless. Either God intentionally placed a fault and doomed it to failure or perhaps the people resisted God's will and failed?!
Well, luckily, the author tells us in verse 9 that this is exactly what happened: "they continued not in my covenant." It doesn't say God wanted them to fail. God puts the blame squarely on the unfaithful Hebrews. If it was according to His will, he would claim credit for it.
Since you have read all of Paul you must know that Paul NEVER presumes to criticize God
You have evidence that Hebrews was written by St. Paul?!?
Paul is noting that the first covenant was insufficient, IOW, it was preparatory
Oh please! It says faultless and the new one is better. In either case it couldn't have been perfect!
Paul lays all this out plainly in Romans. For example: Rom 5:18-19 ... This is the correct context in which Paul was comparing the covenants. Hebrews 8 says the Old Covenant was imperfect (it wasn't faultless); the unfaithful Jews made it fail. Romans 5:18-19 does not apply because Hebrews 8 makes it clear who was to be included in the New Covenant:
"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" [v. 8]
The new Covenant was not intended for the Gentiles! And Romans is all about Gentiles!
The first covenant did not have this part, and that was by design.
The Book of Hebrews does not predict or talk about Christ as the Book of Romans (5:18-19) does. So, why are they being compared? Let's try to find some coherent message without cutting and pasting, and mixing and matching!
Heb 8:7 : For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Well, yes and no. I am also looking at this with my emphases:
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. " [Heb 8:6]
Sure doesn't sound like the Old One was perfect! For, if it was perfect, then nothing could be better.
Your NIV version "attenuates" the statement in verse 7. The word used by the author is amemptos (blameless, faultless, without a defect).
So, let's recap: verse 6 says the new one is better and verse 7 says it was not faultless. Either God intentionally placed a fault and doomed it to failure or perhaps the people resisted God's will and failed?!
Well, luckily, the author tells us in verse 9 that this is exactly what happened: "they continued not in my covenant." It doesn't say God wanted them to fail. God puts the blame squarely on the unfaithful Hebrews. If it was according to His will, he would claim credit for it.
Since you have read all of Paul you must know that Paul NEVER presumes to criticize God
You have evidence that Hebrews was written by St. Paul?!?
Paul is noting that the first covenant was insufficient, IOW, it was preparatory
Oh please! It says faultless and the new one is better. In either case it couldn't have been perfect!
Paul lays all this out plainly in Romans. For example: Rom 5:18-19 ... This is the correct context in which Paul was comparing the covenants. Hebrews 8 says the Old Covenant was imperfect (it wasn't faultless); the unfaithful Jews made it fail. Romans 5:18-19 does not apply because Hebrews 8 makes it clear who was to be included in the New Covenant:
"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" [v. 8]
The new Covenant was not intended for the Gentiles! And Romans is all about Gentiles!
The first covenant did not have this part, and that was by design.
The Book of Hebrews does not predict or talk about Christ as the Book of Romans (5:18-19) does. So, why are they being compared? Let's try to find some coherent message without cutting and pasting, and mixing and matching!
Heb 8:7 : For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Well, yes and no. I am also looking at this with my emphases:
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. " [Heb 8:6]
Sure doesn't sound like the Old One was perfect! For, if it was perfect, then nothing could be better.
Your NIV version "attenuates" the statement in verse 7. The word used by the author is amemptos (blameless, faultless, without a defect).
So, let's recap: verse 6 says the new one is better and verse 7 says it was not faultless. Either God intentionally placed a fault and doomed it to failure or perhaps the people resisted God's will and failed?!
Well, luckily, the author tells us in verse 9 that this is exactly what happened: "they continued not in my covenant." It doesn't say God wanted them to fail. God puts the blame squarely on the unfaithful Hebrews. If it was according to His will, he would claim credit for it.
Since you have read all of Paul you must know that Paul NEVER presumes to criticize God
You have evidence that Hebrews was written by St. Paul?!?
Paul is noting that the first covenant was insufficient, IOW, it was preparatory
Oh please! It says faultless and the new one is better. In either case it couldn't have been perfect!
Paul lays all this out plainly in Romans. For example: Rom 5:18-19 ... This is the correct context in which Paul was comparing the covenants. Hebrews 8 says the Old Covenant was imperfect (it wasn't faultless); the unfaithful Jews made it fail. Romans 5:18-19 does not apply because Hebrews 8 makes it clear who was to be included in the New Covenant:
"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" [v. 8]
The new Covenant was not intended for the Gentiles! And Romans is all about Gentiles!
The first covenant did not have this part, and that was by design.
The Book of Hebrews does not predict or talk about Christ as the Book of Romans (5:18-19) does. So, why are they being compared? Let's try to find some coherent message without cutting and pasting, and mixing and matching!
Apologies for multiple posts. Computer glitch.
Seems like you are unusually busy in this thread. Normally the Greeks are able to stay above the fray and its us Latins who get in it. You are a good defender of the Orthodox Christian Faith. Someday, and I pray soon, we will be One Visible body again.
“The word Son of Man (ben adam) means simply the son of Adam, a descendent of Adam, a human being, of Adam’s seed”
That is the way it is used in Job, Psalms and Isaiah, but it is used as parallelism with “son” and “son of man”. In Ezekiel “son of man” is used as a descriptive name for Ezekiel and Daniel (Daniel 8) but in Daniel 7:13 it is used as a title for a divine person “The Son of man”. This is the title that Jesus uses for himself throughout the Gospels, only using the title “Son of God” a very few times, perhaps three or four. The Jews knew when he was referring to “The Son of Man” he was referencing Daniel 7 and the Jewish leaders knew he was referring to himself as God, that is the reason for the accusation of blasphemy and ultimately the crucifixion along with the threat to their “phoney-baloney” jobs.
When he used the phrase “finger of God” they knew he was claiming “Godlike” attributes just as Pharoah saw in the plagues in Egypt. When the Jewish leaders asked him if he was “The Son of God” he affirmed it by saying “you say that I am” and they understood that to mean he was affirming the title to himself, just as he did when Pilate asked him if he was “King of the Jews”, an eschatological title of looked for kingdom.
The Jews and the disciples all were looking for a restoration of the earthly Jewish kingdom until Pentecost,Peter’s sermon, but Jesus during his ministry was filling out the Old Testament prophecies and expectations with the reality of who he was in fulfillment of the prophecies and the “near and far” proximity of the kingdom.
Do you know that there are about 20,000 house churches in Iran now? I just read that today. I would imagine the same would be true of Iraq, where people are seeing Jesus in visions or in dreams. God is working there. We need to pray for them.
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.