Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
I can say nothing positive in negative theology.
Why, because God is unsure?
The difference between testing and temptation is in the intent of the initiator
Not necessarily. Job is an example where God practically accepts a "bet" from Satan as if to prove him wrong. God allows Satan to do whatever he wants but not to harm Job. What was the test? It seems almost like a cruel game, with rules and limits, with the outcome clearly known to God.
When God subjected Jesus to hunger in the desert it was to test him in his reliance on God but when Satan tempted him in the same situation it was to sin by relying on himself to perform a miracle to satisy his personal hunger.
Christians believe Jesus is God and Man at the same time, one Person, divine and human, unconfused. So, to say "God" subjected Him to hunger sounds, well, "Pauline."
My question to you is: was there any time that Christ had any doubt or wondered if He would be able to resist the temptation and pass the test? Is there any possibiliyt that Vhrist could have failed the test/tempattion?
If not, then what was the purpose of the test/temptation?
The whole concept of Jesus being subjected to test/temptation is an oxymoron in the context of the developed Christian theology of His divinity.
But not if Jesus is seen as the Jewish Messiah, anointed, but not divine. In fact, the synaptic Gospels very much express such an image of a Jewish Messiah, who is a favorite of God, anointed, but not divine. Christ is never called divine; none of the Apostles pray to him or to the Holy Spirit, even after the Resurrection.
The divinity of Jesus is introduced for the first time in the NT in John's Gospel, written at the very end of the 1st century (and as such should be placed at the very end of the bible and not after the Gospel of Luke), when the Christian doctrine had fully evolved and Christ's divinity had become a matter of faith.
LOL! I love your sense of humor! :) You are right...I'll include your smiley faces from now on.
Bulls-eye.
Thanks for your kind ping.
The aternative is to give everybody apostolic authority—then we have Protestantism...talk about heebie jeeepies!
MD: Well, that's pretty much the first step in apophatic theology
Bullseye, MD!
Boy have you been brain washed.. protestants are protesting nothing.. They are not protestants.. The so-called catholics are not "universal(catholic)" either.. Churchs are clubs.. or better Synagogs.. Jesus instituted a family not an organization.. Jesus never supported "the Synagog".. He taught in them but never advocated gathering like that..
“What was the test? It seems almost like a cruel game, with rules and limits, with the outcome clearly known to God.” that’s what Job thought until God met him,
Job 42:1-6, “Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”
“The whole concept of Jesus being subjected to test/temptation is an oxymoron in the context of the developed Christian theology of His divinity.”
“So, to say “God” subjected Him to hunger sounds, well, “Pauline.” That’s not what history tells us.
Matt, 4:1, “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.”
“My question to you is: was there any time that Christ had any doubt or wondered if He would be able to resist the temptation and pass the test?”
Matt. 26:37-39, “And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
Matt. 27:46, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Heb. 5:7-9,”Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;”
“Christ is never called divine; none of the Apostles pray to him or to the Holy Spirit, even after the Resurrection.”
Why would they pray to any one but the Father when He is the one Jesus commanded us to pray to? Jesus intercedes for us and the Holy spirit helps our infirmities in prayer. they are interceding for us when we pray to the Father who knows our needs.
Matt. 6:7-13, “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.”
John 16:23, “And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.”
“The divinity of Jesus is introduced for the first time in the NT in John’s Gospel,”
No, it is introduced in Matt. 1:23, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
Hmm, you wrote the Bible? I don’t think so.
I hope you know I’m sincere when I say that. There’s no reason for any of us to go to Hell. Our faith and trust in Jesus and Jesus only is what will get us there. When we ask Him to come into our lives, He comes. It’s up to us to walk it out, of course, but He IS in our lives when we ask with faith and believe on Him as Lord and Saviour. I have that assurance of eternal life with Him because I did that almost 39 years ago. My walk has been rocky at times, for sure, but He’s never let go of me.
Thank you, bd. M
And what does ‘Bush’ have to do with these threads? You just can’t wait to bash our President, can you? Disgusting.
I would be careful about laughing at anyone becuase you could be laughung at yourself.
Direct quote from the Bible doesn't mean there is only one interpretation. Especially when it comes to St. Paul whose writing is notorious for difficulty in interpretation.
You are also negelcting the fact that what St. Paul wrote did not come in KJV. It looked more like this: ifucnrdthisthenucnalsounderstandthedifficultyinvolvedwithbiblicaltextswhichcomingfromvariousauthorsanderaswithoutproperpunctuationspellingcontaintranscriptionerrors.
There are many instances where St.Paul's sentences can be read in more than one way, depending where the commas are placed and the way they are worded. Take for example Rom 5:12: εφ ω παντες ημαρτον (ef' haw pantes hemarton)
It can be translated as "because all have sinned" as well as "in whom (Adam) all have sinned." Both readings are legitimate. They served as the basis for the divergent doctrines of the original sin.
In the East, it was read in the former way, which places the responsibility and guilt on each human individually for his sins, and therefore does not impute inherited guilt of Adam passed on to all generations.
In the West, the latter reading became doctrinal and with it the idea that we are born with Adam's sin. The implication of these different interpretations is mindboggling.
It affected St. Augustine's doctrine, as well as the Eastern rejection of his doctrine when it became known (14th century) in the East.
It led the Roman Catholic Church to justify the dogma of Immaculate Conception, which the Orthodox do not share, and it also led to Anselm's (erroneous) doctrine of atonement which your Protestants inherited form the Latin Church, and which was unknown tot he Church for the first 1,000 years.
So, as you can see, not only is the text of St. Paul's writings physically difficult to read, but conceptually open to different interpretations.
When you write "We post scripture STRAIGHT from the Bible and you call it an interpretation" it tells me two things: (1) you have no idea what you are talking about and (2) you are assuming that only the interpretation of your version of the Bible is correct.
Reading a neatly packaged Bible in Protestant lecture halls on Sundays gives a false reality of what the Bible is, and gives you absolutely no idea how much the Bible you read is actually an artificial product of human hands and minds.
***It can be translated as “because all have sinned” as well as “in whom (Adam) all have sinned.” Both readings are legitimate. They served as the basis for the divergent doctrines of the original sin.
In the East, it was read in the former way, which places the responsibility and guilt on each human individually for his sins, and therefore does not impute inherited guilt of Adam passed on to all generations.
In the West, the latter reading became doctrinal and with it the idea that we are born with Adam’s sin. The implication of these different interpretations is mindboggling.***
Interesting in that, when I look at both of my normal versions (those I read the most) (NIV and ESV) both say “because all sinned”, and no mention of Adam. So, maybe you are mistaken about a great many things you think we believe.
No. We use the same liturgy our ancestors used 1700 years ago. We teach the same doctrine that was taught by the Church when it canonized the Bible. We know this objectively and have material evidence to show that it is so.
You don’t have the same documents that the 1st century had, nor do your priest have the same garments, nor did the 1st century church have the relics you use, nor the commentaries you use, nor do you know that the liturgy you use was used in the 1st century church
I never said we did. Vestments are not doctrine. Vestments are not how we worship! We do have writings from Apostolic Fathers (+Ignatius, +Polycarp) and early Chruch Fathers (ST. Clement, St. Justin Martyr, etc.) and the latter-second century Church Father (such as +Inrenaeus, etc.) to say with confidence that what the Church believed in the 4th century was no different than what it believed at the end of the first.
If you are one of those who claims the Church became "apostate" by the end of the first century, then clearly the late-1st-century bible books (NT deuterocanonicals and the Gospel of St. John) must also be deviant since they were read in those churches. And that would imply that a deviant Church infallibly collected all the inpsired documents and equally infallibly rejected some 180 profane ones! How realistic is that? Especially since such a conjecture of yours is baseless.
Now, if the Curch, then, was not deviant by the 4th century—and there are no indications that it was—but was the same Church established in the 1st century, and we teach the same doctirnes of that Church to this day, and we use the same liturgy we have used for 1700 years, it is reasonable to say that ours is the same catholic Church, teaching the same orhtodox faith, that canonized the Bible.
And because it is not predated by any other, it represents the oldest and purest form of Christianity by all accounts. It's not something we "believe in." It's something we know objectively.
Then say what's negative in our theology? You have mentioned on several occassions that the Orthodox have "negative theology," and now is the time for you to explain what you mean. And puns are not a very smart way to answer.
You need vision correction.
LOL! Is that as bad as being delusional?
protestants are protesting nothing.. They are not protestants.. The so-called catholics are not "universal(catholic)" either.. Churchs are clubs.. or better Synagogs.. Jesus instituted a family not an organization.. Jesus never supported "the Synagog".. He taught in them but never advocated gathering like that
Coming from the self-styled Pope Hosepipe, the Pope and the Church all in one single human (or are you? you have expressed ideas that you may be only an eternal spirit "trapped" in a body....Gnostic alert). And by what authority? The voices you hear?
YES..... -Hosepope I
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.