Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.
My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.
I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.
It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.
I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.
Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."
***********************
It's rare to see such an eloquent post. Thank you.
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head, Irish! :)
Is there any wonder why Palsters make up probably over 90% of the Orthodox OT references and why Psalms are included in the Horos and the Divine Liturgy? Most of the readings are done during sittings (kathismata) and standings (staseis) during Matins (morning) and Vespers (evening) prayers. The whole book of Pslams is read at the side of the deceased Orthodox Christian before funeral.
But this is one book of the OT (out of 39 or 46, depending which side of Christianity you are on), based on repentance and belief in merciful and loving God. Psalms mean "praises" in Hebrew, and "songs" in Greek. And this is how we pray, we chant praising God, "Doxa si Kyrie!" They are probably the most "Christian" part all of OT.
There is a reason why early Christians retained that part of the OT as part of Christian worship. They were written in the Babylonian captivity and reflect the repentance that brought Jews back to God, realizing that we have sinned, what they had before we lost it, and expressing hope of being saved from captivity—all the themses present in early Christianity.
During many feast days and funerals, the Catholic Church bell towers, equipped with powerful public address systems, pump out some of the most morbid, blood curdling sounds, often for a straight 24 hours. All night long — recordings that can be heard in every house and shop in every corner of three barangays — wailing and chanting and dirges. It cannot be called music. They are sound affects like those used in horror films and freak shows at a circus. It is very difficult to get any sleep. And the blaring recordings take place during Sunday mornings, too, and there is no respect for any non-Catholic groups who might be trying to conduct worship or prayer meetings. It is actually demonic; like conjuring up evil spirits.
Comically, though, in Catholic funeral processions, the most widely used music is Frank Sinatra's, “I Did It My Way.” This is also played from powerful PA systems. The family is saying that the departed “did it his own way.” Of course, that isn't God's way. So, not much is being learned I guess.
During weddings, the Catholic bell tower PA systems pump out, at the same intensity, Rock and Roll and other Pop music, including “Sex Bomb, Sex Bomb.” Then 30 minutes before the wedding, some religious music. Then the wedding March, then the wedding mass, then a return to the Rock, Pop and filth.
I'm not making it up, and I'm not exaggerating.
FK, this is one of those simple and unambiguous verses where "deeper" meaning is not necessary. It simply says that no one has ascended into heaven except the One who came from it.
Just as Aruanan rightly pointed out, quoting from an extra-scriptural work in no way authenticates the entire work.
Aruanan's example is comparing apples and oranges. Jude 14 quotes Enoch as a prophesy. Other NT references (which I listed in my reply to Aruanan) deal with popular (not even religious) phrases of Greek poets. Big difference.
Early Christianity considered the Book of Enoch as scripture. The ancient and very much unchanged Ethiopian Orthodox Church does to this day and is part of their canon.
When Jude quoted a prophesy from that book, it was at the time when the Book of Enoch ranked prominently among Christians, the way the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas did. We know they did because they are part of the canon of the oldest (mid 4th century) extant Christian Bible.
Historical context, dear friends, trump popualr opinions. Saying the Book of Enoch was not quoted as scripture is simply a rationalzation to keep the Bible "pristine" based on the preconceieved notion that it is, because the whole Protestant error rests on that preconceived notion.
Yes ,FK, We agree on this mystery.
FK-””God willed to allow evil to exist””
This does not follow, because in this scenario God would have willed evil.
It would be better for you to say that God wills us a FREE WILL and in turn WE are the CAUSE of evil to exist in the world. The same goes for the fall of lucifer.
God allows evil to exist but is not the author of it.
Here is one more writing from Aquinas to help.
That God knows Evil Things
WHEN good is known, the opposite evil is known. But God knows all particular good things, to which evil things are opposed: therefore God knows evil things.
2. The ideas of contraries, as ideas in the mind, are not contrary to one another: otherwise they could not be together in the mind, or be known together: the idea therefore whereby evil is known is not inconsistent with good, but rather belongs to the idea of good (ratio qua cognoscitur malum ad rationem boni pertinet).* If then in God, on account of His absolute perfection, there are found all ideas of goodness (rationes bonitatis, as has been proved (Chap. XL), It follows that there is in Him the idea (ratio) whereby evil is known.
3. Truth is the good of the understanding: for an understanding is called good inasmuch as it knows the truth. But truth is not only to the effect that good is good, but also that evil is evil: for as it is true that what is, is, so it is true that what is not, is not. The good of the understanding therefore consists even in the knowledge of evil. But since the divine understanding is perfect in goodness, there cannot be wanting to it any of the perfections of understanding; and therefore there is present to it the knowledge of things evil.
4. God knows the distinction of things (Chap. L). But in the notion of distinction there is negation: for those things are distinct, of which one is not another: hence the first things that are of themselves distinct, mutually involve the exclusion of one another, by reason of which fast negative propositions are immediately verified of them, e.g., ‘No quantity is a substance.’ God then knows negation. But privation is a sort of negation: He therefore knows privation, and consequently evil, which is nothing else than a privation of due perfection.
8. In us the knowledge of evil things is never blameworthy in mere point of knowledge, that is in the judgement that is passed about evil things, but accidentally, inasmuch as by the observation of evil things one is sometimes inclined to evil. But that cannot be in God; and therefore there is nothing to prevent His knowing evil.
With this agrees what is said, that Evil surpasseth not [God's] wisdom (Wisd. vii 30) and, Hell and perdition are before the Lord (Prov. xv, 11) and, My offences are not hidden from thee (Ps. lxviii, 6); and, He knoweth the vanity of men, and seeing doth he not consider iniquity? (Job xi, 11.)
It is to be observed however that if God's knowledge were so limited as that His knowledge of Himself did not involve His knowing other beings of finite and partial goodness, at that rate He would nowise know privation or evil: because to the good which is God Himself there is no privation opposed, since privation and its opposite are naturally about the same object; and so to that which is pure actuality no privation is opposed, and consequently no evil either. Hence on the supposition that God knows Himself alone, by knowing the excellences of His own being, He will not know evil.* But because in knowing Himself He knows beings in which privations naturally occur, He must know the opposite privations, and the evils opposite to particular goods.
It must be further observed that as God, without any argumentative process, knows other beings by knowing Himself, so there is no need of His knowledge being argumentative in coming to the knowledge of evil things through good things: for good is as it were the ground of the knowledge of evil, evil being nothing else than privation of good: hence what is evil is known through what is good as things are known through their definitions, not as conclusions through their premises.
FK: The Bible doesn't say that. It says: Isa 44:24 : "This is what the Lord says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb...Jer 1:5 : 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
The authors of the Bible believed that a whole preformed human being was in the "seed" and that the womb was "fertile soil" in which the "seed" grew, the way plants do. To even consider their notions of "science" as anything remotely credible takes a leap of faith, my friend. Once you do that, even bats can be considered "fowl," and the earth is standing of four pillars...
The authors of the Bible believed ... these words suggest that the Bible is a compilation of what men thought and are of little relevance even to us this day. What does the Bible mean then?
The Jews, along with pagans and Gnostics, believed in the pre-existence of the souls, so verses such as Jer 1:5 reflect that belief. Paul's own teachings reflect that belief, which is why Paul was so near and dear to the Gnostics.
Moses pens not one word regarding the creation of the devil but yet the devil was there in the Garden and beguiled Eve with knowledge of good and evil..
What was in the garden was a serpent, the most cunning of all creatures. There is nothing to suggest it was the 'devil' or Satan. That's something people made up at a later date. The Jews did not know the 'devil.' Satan was a faithful angel of the Hebrew God, known only by his title (ha-satan), the accuser.
The devil, as the personification of all evil, is a product of the post-Babylonian Jewish belief influenced by Persian dualism. It wasn't part of Judaic belief before 400 BC, and then only among some sects.
I would not call II Peter a fraud, as that to me would be like saying the Heavenly Father, Christ as well as allllll those holy prophets Peter refers to are frauds as well.
2 Peter was written in the 2nd century, dear friend. It wasn't written by Peter.
Based upon my study a generation has not passed since Christ left this earth
Your study is ignoring that He is also quoted as saying that those who were actually living when He spoke will be alive when He returns. The "never-ending" generation theory was a necessary rationalization when it became obvious that all those who lived when Jesus spoke were dead. Thus, 2 Peter was a badly needed 'scriptural' evidence of this theory.
Strange that Christ said that Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be build and yet even the few words that Peter penned get such a slight of hand
By all accounts, Peter never wrote anything that has been attributed to his name.
Even that rich man could see Lazarus in Abraham's bosom across that proverbial gulf and none of them were in flesh bodies.
There was no proverbial golf. They were both in Sheol, except that Lazarus was comforted and the rich man wasn't. The fact that Luke speaks of both being in Sheol tells me that early Christians (or at least those being instructed by Paul) did not believe any souls were in heaven, or that they had any concept of Christian heaven.
The soul has a body, Christ Himself demonstrated that in His visible to that group could go through a wall...
You seem to suggest that Christ resurrected spiritually and not bodily. The Bible, which you believe in, says that God made man out of dirt and then breathed his breath into him and he became human. Humanity, by biblical definition, is a union of body and soul. What you profess is Gnostic. Getting "instructions" from the Word, as you say, tends to do that to many. That's why Christ established a Church, lest everyone drift away according to his own understanding.
Thank you both.
That's a skewed way of looking at things, dear friend. Then we can say that children "take over" our lives. That may be true in some case, but if we allow them. The same can be said of pets.
What happens in human mothers happens in all mammalian mothers. This is not some specially designated gift from God to humans. If a mother wants to smoke and drink, or use drugs during pregnancies, and not take care of herself, the "product" can do nothing to force her to do otherwise. And, the mother's behavior can lead directly to the premature expulsion of the "product." The "product" has no control over nay of it.
It's growing in the body the way tumors grow, sapping the nutrients and oxygen from the host. It is "parasitic" in that sense; and when the parameters established by natural law have been reached, the product is expelled, not by its will but by the will of the body that carries it, the autonomic nervous system over which neither the mother nor the offspring have any control.
I didn't say "thought," I said "believed." Big difference. I also never suggested such beliefs were of little relevance to us.
The Bible means many things to many people, precisely because it reflects their beliefs. The Bible does not give you faith. People look for "evidence" of their faith in the Bible and the Bible is a perfect soil for every sect and cult to find itself in it if read uncritically.
As the very Bible reminds us, even demons can quote from the scriputre, and even Satan can appear as the Angel of Light. The Bible means to us what we want to see in it.
I think Aquinas understood this as well
That the Human Soul is brought into Being by a Creative Act of God
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc2_87.htm
Everything that is brought into being is either generated or created. But the human soul is not generated, either by way of composition of parts or by the generation of the body (Chap. LXXXVI); and yet it comes new into existence, being neither eternal nor pre-existent (Chapp. LXXXIII, LXXXIV): therefore it comes into being by creation. Now, as has been shown above, God alone can create (Chap. XXI).
2. Whatever has existence as subsistent being, is also made in the way that a subsistent being is made: while whatever has no existence as a subsistent being, but is attached to something else, is not made separately, but only under condition of that having been made to which it is attached. But the soul has this peculiarity to distinguish it from other forms, that it is a subsistent being; and the existence which is proper to it communicates to the body. The soul then is made as a subsistent being is made: it is the subject of a making-process all its own, unlike other forms, which are made incidentally in the making of the compounds to which hey belong. But as the soul has no material part, it cannot be made out of any subject-matter: consequently it must be made out of nothing, and so created.
5. The end of a thing answers to its beginning. Now the end of the human soul and its final perfection is, by knowledge and love to transcend the whole order of created things, and attain to its first principle and beginning, which is God. Therefore from God it has properly its first origin.
Holy Scripture seems to insinuate this conclusion: for whereas, speaking of the origin of other animals, it scribes their souls to other causes, as when it says: Let the waters produce the creeping thing of living soul (Gen. i, 20): coming to man, it shows that his soul is created by God, saying: God formed man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life (Gen. ii, 7).
Here is arguments and answers on this
Apparent Arguments to show that the Human Soul does not begin with the Body, but has been from Eternity, with Replies to the same
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc2_83.htm
Arg. 1. (A.) What will never cease to be, has a power of being always. But of that which has a power of being always it is never true to say that it is not: for a thing continues in being so far as its power of being extends. What therefore will never cease to be, will never either begin to be.
Reply. The power of a thing does not extend to the past, but to the present or future: hence with regard to past events possibility has no place. Therefore from the fact of the soul having a power of being always it does not follow that the soul always has been, but that it always will be. — Besides, that to which power extends does not follow until the power is presupposed. It cannot therefore be concluded that the soul is always except for the time that comes after it has received the power.
Arg. 2. Truth of the intllectual order is imperishable, eternal, necessary. Now from the imperishableness of intellectual truth the being of the soul is shown to be imperishable. In like manner from the eternity of that truth there may be proved the eternity of the soul.
Reply. The eternity of understood truth may be regarded in two ways, — in point of the object which is understood, and in point of the mind whereby it is understood. From the eternity of understood truth in point of the object, there will follow the eternity of the thing, but not the eternity of the thinker. From the eternity of understood truth in point of the understanding mind, the eternity of that thinking soul will follow. But understood truth is eternal, not in the latter but in the former way. As we have seen, the intellectual impressions, whereby our soul understands truth, come to us fresh from the phantasms through the medium of the active intellect. Hence the conclusion is, not that our soul is eternal, but that those understood truths are founded upon something which is eternal. In fact they are founded upon the First Truth, the universal Cause comprehensive of all truth. To this truth our soul stands related, not as the recipient subject to the form which it receives, but as a thing to its proper end: for truth is the good of the understanding and the end thereof. Now we can gather an argument of the duration of a thing from its end, as we can argue the beginning of a thing from its efficient cause: for what is ordained to an everlasting end must be capable of perpetual duration. Hence the immortality of the soul may be argued from the eternity of intellectual truth, but not the eternity of the soul.
Arg. 3. That is not perfect, to which many of its principal parts are wanting. If therefore there daily begin to be as many human souls as there are men born, it is clear that many of its principal parts are daily being added to the universe, and consequently that very many are still wanting to it. It follows that the universe is imperfect, which is impossible.*
Reply. The perfection of the universe goes by species, not by individuals; and human souls do not differ in species, but only in number (Chap. LXXV).
(B.) Some professing the Catholic faith, but imbued with Platonic doctrines, have taken a middle course [between Platonists, who held that individual souls were from eternity, now united with bodies, now released by turns; and Alexander, Averroes, — and possibly Aristotle himself, — deniers of personal immortality]. These men, seeing that according to the Catholic faith nothing is eternal but God, have supposed human souls not to be eternal, but to have been created with the world, or rather before the visible world, and to be united with bodies recurrently as required. Origen was the first professor of the Christian faith to take up this position, and he has since had many followers. The position seems assailable on these grounds.
1. The soul is united with the body as the form and actualising principle thereof. Now though actuality is naturally prior to potentiality, yet, in the same subject, it is posterior to it in time:* for a thing moves from potentiality to actuality. Therefore the seed, which is potentially alive, was before the soul, which is the actuality of life.
2. It is natural to every form to be united to its own proper matter: otherwise the compound of matter and form would be something unnatural. Now that which belongs to a thing according to its nature is assigned to it before that which belongs to it against its nature: for what belongs to a thing against its nature attaches to it incidentally, but what belongs to it according to its nature attaches to it ordinarily; and the incidental is always posterior to the ordinary. It belongs to the soul therefore to be united to the body before being apart from the body.
3. Every part, separated from its whole, is imperfect. But the soul, being the form (Chap. XLVII), is a part of the human species. Therefore, existing by itself, apart from the body, it is imperfect. But the perfect is before the imperfect in the order of natural things.*
(C.) If souls were created without bodies, the question arises how they came to be united with bodies. It must have been either violently or naturally. If violently, the union of the soul with the body is unnatural, and man is an unnatural compound of soul and body, which cannot be true. But if souls are naturally united with bodies, then they were created with a physical tendency (appetitus naturalis) to such union. Now a physical tendency works itself out at once, unless something comes in the way. Souls then should have been united with bodies from the instant of their creation except for some intervening obstacle. But any obstacle intervening to arrest a physical tendency, or natural craving, does violence to the same. Therefore it would have been by violence that souls were for a period separated from their bodies, which is an awkward conclusion.*
(D.) But if it be said that both states alike are natural to the soul, as well the state of union with the body as the state of separation, according to difference of times, this appears to be impossible, — because points of natural variation are accidents to the subject in which they occur, as age and youth: if then union with body and separation from a body are natural variations to the soul, the union of the soul with the body will be an accident; and man, the result of that union, will not be an ordinary, regular entity (ens per se), but a casual, incidental being (ens per accidens).
(E.) But if it is said that souls are united with bodies neither violently nor naturally, but of their own spontaneous will, that cannot be. For none is willing to come to a worse state except under deception. But the soul is in a higher state away from the body, especially according to the Platonists, who say that by union with the body the soul suffers forgetfulness of what it knew before, and is hindered from the contemplation of pure truth. At that rate it has no willingness to be united with a body except for some deceit practised upon it. Threfore, supposing it to have pre-existed before the body, it would not be united therewith of its own accord.
(F.) But if as an alternative it is said that the soul is united with the body neither by nature, nor by its own will, but by a divine ordinance, this again does not appear a suitable arrangement, on the supposition that souls were created before bodies. For God has established everything according to the proper mode of its nature: hence it is said: God saw all things that he had made, and they were very good (Gen. i, 31). If then He created souls apart from bodies, we must say that this mode of being is better suited to their nature. But it is not proper for an ordinance of divine goodness to reduce things to a lower state, but rather to rise them to a higher. At that rate the union of soul with body could not be the result of a divine ordinance.
(G.) This consideration moved Origen to suppose that when souls, created from the beginning of time, came by divine ordinance to be united with bodies, it was for their punishment. He supposed that they had sinned before they came into bodies, and that according to the amount of their guilt they were united with bodies of various degrees of nobility, shut up in them as in prisons. But this supposition cannot stand for reasons alleged above (Chap. XLIV).
The Jews, along with pagans and Gnostics, believed in the pre-existence of the souls, so verses such as Jer 1:5 reflect that belief. Paul's own teachings reflect that belief, which is why Paul was so near and dear to the Gnostics.
So are you saying that what the Heavenly Father said to Jeremiah was a LIE for the sole purpose to mislead people? Paul was elected, chosen and his free will at the time was to rid this earth as many 'Christians' as possibly could. So IF God chose him why would God pick somebody who was so totally wrong about what Jeremiah had already penned.
Now I do not know who you are speaking of when you use the word Jews, but when Jeremiah was walking this earth the House of Israel, those ten tribes, had already been sent into captivity to the Assyrian king to the north and on their way to being dispersed throughout this world. Their punishment was to forget through the generations who they ever were and it still holds to this day. Not since that civil war has the children of Jacob/Israel been a nation which is yet to take place. The House of Judah was in the process of being sent down to Babylon and they were told to go and the king and his religious class did everything in their human power to resist. This bunch even threw Jeremiah in a cistern and treated Jeremiah like a curse rejecting the WORD from God. We can read what happened to the king and his sons while it was Jeremiah that was eventually given charge over the daughters of the king.
Any church that ignores and clips out the words of Jeremiah are ignoring the voice of the Heavenly Father and even His saving Hands through His only begotten Son.
Moses pens not one word regarding the creation of the devil but yet the devil was there in the Garden and beguiled Eve with knowledge of good and evil..
What was in the garden was a serpent, the most cunning of all creatures. There is nothing to suggest it was the 'devil' or Satan. That's something people made up at a later date. The Jews did not know the 'devil.' Satan was a faithful angel of the Hebrew God, known only by his title (ha-satan), the accuser.
What kind of snake was the 'serpent'? Another place says that the title/role of the serpent is another name for the devil. What kind of mythology are you making this mythical snake that could beguile ... means 'holy seduce' Eve by whispering sweet nothings into her ear? The devil was created perfect and he was so filled with himself that he decided he would be god. Ezekiel and Isaiah describe that rebellion. Is there another god beside the Hebrew God?
There is a whole lot of deception made up about what that 'original' sin was, eating apples and ending up in a fig grove sewing together *FIG* leaves to cover up nakedness.... Just hmmmmmm to much for some churches to deal with cover their eyes and plug their ears.... Yet Christ cursed that *FIG* tree and right in the middled of telling the signs of His return tellllllllls us even to this day "Learn ye the parable of the *FIG* tree. So I will agree with you about the church making up a whole lot of pleasing to the ear junk to cover over what really took place.... But hey Christ did say these things need be and it is up to the Heavenly Father to tear off the blinders to whomever He elects.
The devil, as the personification of all evil, is a product of the post-Babylonian Jewish belief influenced by Persian dualism. It wasn't part of Judaic belief before 400 BC, and then only among some sects.
HUH NO the devil was well described by Moses through out the Torah, and even in the Book of Job, and then oh never mind toooo deep for some minds.
I would not call II Peter a fraud, as that to me would be like saying the Heavenly Father, Christ as well as allllll those holy prophets Peter refers to are frauds as well. 2 Peter was written in the 2nd century, dear friend. It wasn't written by Peter.
You do have the freeeeee willl to discount, ignore, and clip out anything. Not my job to change your mind.
Based upon my study a generation has not passed since Christ left this earth
Your study is ignoring that He is also quoted as saying that those who were actually living when He spoke will be alive when He returns. The "never-ending" generation theory was a necessary rationalization when it became obvious that all those who lived when Jesus spoke were dead. Thus, 2 Peter was a badly needed 'scriptural' evidence of this theory.
Yes and Christ was NOT speaking of the flesh body, as was the purpose of the transfiguration (among other things) and even Paul goes into as well as others about the two different bodies. Christ said fear not them which kill the body, (flesh) but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him Which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. What kind of 'fire' do you suppose it will take to destroy a 'soul'? Once again Peter was there and in the asking Christ what would be the sign of his return.... Christ listed events some of which have NOT happened yet that would 'mark' His return. So all Peter did was elaborate upon events - segments of time- as to what had been what was and what would be. We are still in the world (age) Peter calls NOW and will be until the flesh is no longer the vessel that houses the soul.
Paul says at the last trump, there are seven, that alllll flesh will be changed, good bad and the ugly. AS even from the time of Moses there was the knowledge that flesh could not see God thus the people were in fear of dying.
Strange that Christ said that Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be build and yet even the few words that Peter penned get such a slight of hand
By all accounts, Peter never wrote anything that has been attributed to his name.
You do realize this statement comes across as a proclamation from the Heavenly Father. And at the pace you are going, there is not going to be much of the Bible... that anybody can pay attention to. Which most have been given the free will to make claims to protect their own system and call if of God. Nothing new there.
Even that rich man could see Lazarus in Abraham's bosom across that proverbial gulf and none of them were in flesh bodies.
There was no proverbial golf. They were both in Sheol, except that Lazarus was comforted and the rich man wasn't. The fact that Luke speaks of both being in Sheol tells me that early Christians (or at least those being instructed by Paul) did not believe any souls were in heaven, or that they had any concept of Christian heaven.
Who comforted Lazarus? Quite an omission you have there. There was a separation wherein the 'rich man' could not cross to get the comfort Lazarus was offered and none of them were in a flesh body but yet it could be seen.
The soul has a body, Christ Himself demonstrated that in His visible to that group could go through a wall...
You seem to suggest that Christ resurrected spiritually and not bodily. The Bible, which you believe in, says that God made man out of dirt and then breathed his breath into him and he became human. Humanity, by biblical definition, is a union of body and soul. What you profess is Gnostic. Getting "instructions" from the Word, as you say, tends to do that to many. That's why Christ established a Church, lest everyone drift away according to his own understanding.
Was not the purpose of the Mount of Transfiguration to demonstrate that body in 'spirit' loooooks just like the flesh body yet none were literally in flesh bodies. God buried Moses himself so the devil would not have access to his flesh body, and now where did Elijah get buried??? The flesh body of Christ was transfigured and NO remains were left so some would not use said flesh remains to make the claim that Christ did not raise up that Temple. It would go against the laws of nature, say gravity, for Christ in the flesh body to have risen.
Flesh will die, and nobody is going to come back looking for their dead bones. The soul-spirit body does not earn their reward life eternal or complete and total removal, until that future event. Nobody will go to the proverbial fire of 'hell' without full understanding from the beginning to the end.
I can't disagree with your premise. And isn't the purpose to be educated enough to know when Satan, the devil, the accuser, the serpent, etc., does show up transformed into the angle of light. Satan is going to have his day to deceived if possible even the 'very elect'. Ephesians 6:11-24 verse 12 saying For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
John,
Thank you for your post. Only the RCC defense league will dispute your report, as their official position is that “No Catholics do such things!” You must be seeing things :-) And hearing them, to boot :-)
Press on.
There are many "trigger" factors that can induce the body to "put forth" the product. The mechanism you propose is a single study as far as I know and is believed to be a factor in human fetuses as it is in mice.
At any rate, when an apple becomes ripe and heavy enough, the gravity will pull it off the tree. When the child is "ripe," biochemical signals start a cascade that results in delivery. None of it is done by any volition.
Assuming that theory is correct, the child simply produces a hormone, or a hormone-like substance (no will involved here, it's strictly maturational) inside the womb, and that initiates the first signal ("I am ready!"). It is still up to the body of the mother to respond to the stimulus and that response is also autonomic and free of any volition.
Knowing something about biological sciences I would venture to say that there are probably dozens of stimuli in concert that induce labor.
And if you're going to talk about "skewed" ways of looking at things, referring to a developing individual as a tumor or a parasite is definitely skewed
There is nothing skewed about it. The child is "hitching a ride" inside the mother and that makes it a "parasitic" relationship. Dictionary.com defines it as "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."
The fact that it is actively replicating and growing in volume and mass makes it tumor-like from a biological point of view.
Besides, there is no such thing as "natural law" that oversees and regulates and directs and controls
Sure there is. You are sitting on earth because the inherent property of any mass is gravitational attraction to another mass. Gravity controls your presence on earth. It directs your existence to this planet. It regulates which way rivers will flow, and whether you fall or you don't fall when you trip.
Gravity keeps this planet from shedding all its mass into space, and solar gravity controls the speed of our planet around the sun, as well as the entire solar system; and gravity keeps our galaxy in order and all other galaxies behave according to this gravitational force; it also causes galactic collisions and other cataclysmic events. It is universal.
No. I have no clue what the Heavenly Father said to Jeremiah, or even if God said anything to Jeremiah. Mohammad claims that Allah dictated the whole book of the Koran to him, word-by-word. Does that mean it really happened? Sure, if you already believe it did! The point is: there is nothing intrinsically true about the Bible unless you already believe it!
So IF God chose him why would God pick somebody who was so totally wrong about what Jeremiah had already penned
If I had to provide some credibility to my sermons I would certainly hope to convince people that God chose me. St. Paul's function was to save the Church from certain annihilation in Israel.
The Church did not go to the Gentiles because Christ taught it should (in fact he taught to the contrary), but out of desperation (Acts 13:46). And, while I am sure others tried, St. Paul was the man who was able to convince pagan Greeks to accept a Jewish sect in hopes of having eternal life. So, if God did choose St. Paul, it was not in order to prove Jeremiah spoke with God, but for Paul to show pagans that Jesus died for our sins.
Any church that ignores and clips out the words of Jeremiah are ignoring the voice of the Heavenly Father and even His saving Hands through His only begotten Son.
The Church would exist with or without Jeremiah, Samuel and Jonah to name just a few. The Church is built on what Jesus said and did, what's in the Gospels. The rest of the Bible either conforms to the Gospels or doesn't. Without the Gospels there is no Christianity. I think we can't say the same about Jeremiah.
And the Gospels are at least narratives of eyewitness accounts, not some prophet having visions, visual and auditory hallucinations or taking dictations from God. Big difference.
Moses pens not one word regarding the creation of the devil but yet the devil was there in the Garden and beguiled Eve with knowledge of good and evil..
You keep repeating this and I am telling you that there is no mention of any "devil" in the OT. The way you keep stressing "beguiled" I have a feleing you are one of those people who believes that Cain was the "product" of the serpent and Eve, an offspring of a sexual union between the serpent and Eve. Do you believe that?
What kind of snake was the 'serpent'?
Did I say it was a "snake?"
Another place says that the title/role of the serpent is another name for the devil.
In the Old Testament? Numbers 21:6 says "The LORD sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died." Fiery serpents? Do you know of any "fiery snakes?" And if your theory is correct then God was sending demons to kill people.
The only place I can find where serpent and devil are used synonymously is in Revelation (12:9, 20:2). But Revelation hardly matches anything in the Gospels. I have no clue what that book is doing in the New Testament except to scare people into believeing.
What kind of mythology are you making this mythical snake that could beguile ... means 'holy seduce' Eve by whispering sweet nothings into her ear?
I guess the same mythology of the Old Testament that would have us believe in talking donkeys (Num 22:30), which is also believed by the author of 2 Peter (2:16) who says "But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness." So, if we have a talking ass, why not a beguiling serpent? And what about talking trees, as in Judges 9:8-11 picking their "leader?"
After all, does not the Bible say that men can live in a belly of a fish for three days and live to tell about it, or that bats are birds? What kind of mythology is it to say that the earth sits on four pillars and earthquakes happen when God shakes the pillars? I think it's best we leave the fairytale stuff out of this (for now) and concentrate on the good stuff.
There is a whole lot of deception made up about what that 'original' sin was
Why in quotation marks?
ending up in a fig grove sewing together *FIG* leaves to cover up nakedness.... Just hmmmmmm to much for some churches to deal with cover their eyes and plug their ears...
It's in Genesis 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings."
So I will agree with you about the church making up a whole lot of pleasing to the ear junk to cover over what really took place....
But you don't, I suppose?
But hey Christ did say these things need be and it is up to the Heavenly Father to tear off the blinders to whomever He elects.
Actually, the NT says the Father gave the Son all the power on earth to judge so I would imagine it would be Christ tearing off the blinders, except you seem to emphasize the "Heavenly Father" as some "higher" authority.
Christ came to free us form the bondage of death by dying in exchange for us. He gave each and every one of us a second chance. God in His mercy gave everyone a ticket to heaven. That some won't use it is not God's choosing.
the devil was well described by Moses through out the Torah, and even in the Book of Job, and then oh never mind toooo deep for some minds.
Try me.
Based upon my study a generation has not passed since Christ left this earth
Mark 9:1 says "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
This couldn't be clearer: some of those who were listening to Jesus wold not even die before He returned. But, given the reality on the ground, the "undying generation" theory was an absolute must and that's why 2 Peter is in the canon!
Christ said fear not them which kill the body, (flesh) but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him Which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell
Well, we will have to decide if the soul is eternal or not. The OT says it isn't ("the soul that sinneth shall die"), but then you have souls that sinned in Sheol, obviously not dead! And the purpose for the lake of fire was to roast the devil and his angels (who have no bodies), and resurrected reprobates who didn't use their ticket for all eternity, so where does this destruction of bodes and souls fit in?
And at the pace you are going, there is not going to be much of the Bible... that anybody can pay attention to. Which most have been given the free will to make claims to protect their own system and call if of God. Nothing new there.
As I said earlier, everyone makes the Bible what they wish it to be. It goes both ways. That's why it's so popular. Every sect and cult can find itself in it.
Was not the purpose of the Mount of Transfiguration to demonstrate that body in 'spirit' loooooks just like the flesh body yet none were literally in flesh bodies.
It was a transfiguration of the existing body on Mt Tabor. Not a separate body. God created man body and soul. That is our natural state.
That looks like yet another forced interpretation for the sole purpose of discrediting the scriptures. If Christ did not know the exact timing, then He is not omniscient and is not God. It obviously must be interpreted otherwise, such as from His human nature. ...... To many of us the idea of them being "One" is not contradictory at all. Jesus as man did things like pray to the Father. Jesus as God and the Father as God were ONE.
Besides, Jesus leaves no doubt that "being one" is not the same as "equal." You yourself quote John 17:11 where Jesus is quoted as saying "Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name — the name you gave me — so that they may be one as we are one." Are we "one" with Jesus and does that mean we are equal to Jesus? Of course not! being one is not the same as being equal.
What? For someone who spends as much time as you do criticizing scripture as being mostly allegory (and therefore factually false), you sure also spend a lot of time taking everything literally when you want to prove theological inconsistencies in scripture. :) I call that very convenient selectivity. Your mission appears clear. :) Jesus is OBVIOUSLY not asking for the Father to transform our essence into His own. He is asking that believers become one in the purity of faith, seeking to do God's work, all having full devotion to God, etc.
This is how the original Greek text reads (my emphases):
You mean, that's how it reads from Greek as translated by someone you like. :) And that's fine.
Obviously, the punctuation marks are missing and it depends where you place then how you will read it. More importantly, your NIV version erroneously states "Who, being in very nature God" where there is no "nature" [Greek: physis] mentioned in the text. Paul actually says form (morphi) of God. In other words, an appearance of God.
If you wish to believe that the Bible (outside of John) does not teach that Jesus is God, then you are welcome to do so. I would suggest that you would be in the highest minority of Christians who think that. Most Christians, IMO, see Christ as God throughout the scriptures.
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.