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."
The Orthodox Church would break communion with any bishop who endorsed papal primacy formulated as supremacy in jurisdiction over other bishops.
But I would rather see Assyrian Church become fully integrated into the Church of the West than remain a non-Chacedonian Nestorian Church whose Christology is gravely flawed.
FK: Not only does He imply it all over the place, He says it specifically in several Gospels: Mark 14:60-62..."Yes I am"...Matt 26:62-64.. "Yes, it is as you say"...Luke 22:66-71 "You are right in saying I am."
NB: John doesn't even mention it (and for a good reason). I will return to this later on.
FK, He never said He was God, as you claim. Let's repeat the question in context. He was asked "Are you the anointed one (moshiah), the son of God?" Why is it important to rephrase the question? Because no one ever called Him or referred to Him as "Christ." Christ is a Greek word and means the same thing as the Hebrew moshiah, namely the anointed one. It's a title, not a proper name.
The term "son[s] of God" is also a title and does not mean someone divine. Luke uses it (3:38) for Adam, angels and those who are born again (20:36), as well as for Jesus. It is also a title used in the same manner as the word elect or chosen in the Old Testament. Thus, the OT refers to the Jews in general as sons of God, and the NT uses it for Christians (those who are tested/chastised) by God as in Heb 12:5-8.
The Jews did not take lightly anyone claiming to be the messiah, the anointed one, whose sole purpose was to restore the kingdom of Israel (acting on God's behalf). This restored Israel, under God, is called the Kingdom of God on earth (as mentioned in the OT), and will represent the Olam Ha-Ba or the "World to Come" (the new world order). The Sanhedrin took such claims very seriously, and making false claims to that effect was disrespectful towards God and, as such, blasphemous by definition. And Lev 24:16 says "anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death."
So, what does moshiah or messiah mean in the context in which the Sanhedrin asked Jesus of he was the anointed son of God?
The word "moshiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. [Judaism 101, Moshiah]
When they asked Him if was the anointed son of God, they meant the Jewish missiah. They did not ask Him is He was the second Person of the Holy Trinity, or if He was divine. The idea that what the Man they were looking at was God Incarnate never crossed their minds (as it didn't cross anyone's minds, including those of the Apostles at that time) because it is alien to Judaism.
And what will the Jewish messiah do?
The moshiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15). [Ibid]
So, claiming to be someone like that was a big deal, because it is in the Bible, and making false claims without being able to substantiate them was as good as blasphemy.
If you say that Christ never claimed to be God, then why do you say He was crucified? He was crucified BECAUSE He claimed to be God.
No, He did not. He never said He is God because He was never asked "Are you God?" He was crucified because He was found guilty of blasphemy (that is gross disrespect, an insult) towards God for claiming He was the moshiah and not proving satisfactory evidence to that effect.
Now, back to my note at the very beginning. Why doesn't John say anything about the "trial" by the Sanhedrin? Well, it could be simply because he wasn't there to testify (frankly, I don't know where do Mark, Matthew or Luke get their information from, since they weren't there either; and neither were Peter or Paul, the two Apostles feeding the information to Mark and Luke respectively).
The other reason may be because, to John, Jesus was a lot more than the Jewish moshiach. He knew that Jesus said enough things that could get Him convicted of blasphemy and the sentence was a foregone conclusion as much as His "trial" was. Concentrating on, and stressing Christ's divinity was a lot more important to John.
Prayers are worship, FK. I was not aware that God worships Himself.
Kosta: To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance in the entire New Testament where the Apostles actually pray to Jesus!...
FK: So for you in SOME cases, Biblical silence de facto means that a thing DID happen, such as all the Mariology stuff, but in other cases, Biblical silence means de facto that a thing DID NOT happen, such as prayer to Christ
The only thing the Orthodox Church teaches as dogma about the Blessed Ever-Virgin is that she is the Theotokos, the Birthgiver of God. That is the essential part of the Christology of the Church.
But, it is not just the silence of the Bible regarding Apostles not praying to the Risen Christ; it is the fact that they pray to God throughout the whole New Testament but never to Jesus! It is in the fact that Paul says that God raised Jesus and not that Jesus raised Himself, or, on another occasion, that the head of Christ is God. Such statements explain in more than silence why the Apostles never prayed to Christ.
If your test is that a simple sentence should be read literally, then what do you make of these?:
Matt 16:16 : Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Peter answered: "You are the anointed one (moshiach), the human beloved of God, who is here to restore the Kingdom of Israel."
This is based on the meaning of key words "christos" and "son of God" as it was understood by everyone in the 1st century Israel. Just as the word "gay" was understood to mean something completely different 50 years ago. It's not a matter of "allegory," but of fact. In fact, the modern Christian interpretation of Peter's reply is out of context with the Judaic meaning from which peter was answering, as much as it is in context with the Christian mindset.
Matt 13:55 : Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
In context of the Middle Eastern culture, it reads "Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his cousins/brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"
To this day, in Mediterranean cultures the first cousins are called "brothers" or "sisters." This terminology was a way for the society to prevent close intermarriages. The Apostolic Church always taught, as far as I know, that the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born, just as she remained a virgin when she conceived. Therefore, we (Orthodox/Catholics) read the word 'brothers" as cousins.
Again, it is a straight interpretation based on proper linguistic, cultural context and unchanged theological teaching.
If someone who knows nothing about American culture stumbles upon a word "cool" it would be highly possible that he or she would not interpret it correctly without proper contextual and cultural knowledge of the American culture.
That's why just "cold" reading of the Bible does not lead to proper understanding and that's why Christ established His Church to safeguard the interpretation held by the Apostles.
John 10:30 : I and the Father are one ."
John emphasized Jesus' divinity. The Synoptic Gospels emphasize His humanity. Given that John wrote last, at the end of the first century—again in context of the contemporary events of his time, and mindsets, the break with Judaism (c 90 AD), false messiahs, etc.—and the fact that the other Gospels do not stress Christ's divinity, John establishes a simple statement of who Jesus is.
These are all simple sentences and you do not take any of them literally
I take them literally in context when, where and by whom they were written.
I did NOT write anything that is in the Bible. But when someone tells me a thing is of Christ I have discovered that I can through Scripture discern the credibility of said claim. Now it may make me a cultist in your opinion but I long ago decided I would no longer take man's word for what Christ did, said, or gave instruction and when He quoted one of those holy prophets that gives the holy prophet all the credibility needed to be learned in my opinion.
The Bible is about one flesh man his wife and his generations up to the conception of Christ. As well as the other peoples of this earth and entities not of flesh they came in contact with. The Bible carefully traces the bloodline right to the conception of Christ.
Paul says in ICorinthians 10:11 Now *ALL* these things happened unto them for ensamples: (examples) and they are written for our admonition, (warning) upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come. By the way Paul starts out with Moses when he says these things are written for our admonition and Moses was the first holy prophet.
Just like another holy prophet penned Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Christ said I have foretold you all things Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. Then Christ quotes Isaiah 13:10 and Isaiah 34:4.
Most people use the Bible as a crutch or a weapon. Specifically, very few live according to the (four) Gospels, imitating Christ.
In Matthew 2:17 one of the four Gospels it is Written Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy (Jeremiah) the prophet, saying, quoting Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:18 - "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."
And in Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy (Jeremiah) the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, (the price of Him That was valued. Whom they of the children of Israel did value):
Now the curious thing about this reference to Jeremiah is that Jeremiah did not write this down but he spoke it Zechariah 11:12 did write the words and give not reference to Jeremiah having spoke the words.
Now how is it possible to live like and be like Christ if you don't even believe what He foretold, yep that would make me a cultist to discover what was foretold.
Kosta: And that makes it "right" by fiat? We need proof, not just mutual agreement. Patting ourselves on the back does not constitute proof, FK.
FK: I see. Well, then I'll agree with you that we should throw out the Consensus Patrum.
Consensus patrum refers to what is needed for the Church to teach as catholic faith. It's an internal ecclesiastical mechanism, a set standard and a system of checks-and-balances. It is not peddled outside the Church as universal truth to the non-believers.
That being said, the example showing Christ in the OT are relatively scarce given the volume of books involved and definitely not a black-and-white, consensus-forming, clearly and unambiguously agreed-upon truth.
The Muslims, for instance, find Mohammad in Isaiah! Does that mean it is true? If you are a Muslim, it is!
What proof do they offer?
For what? Their faith? By definition, people with faith need no proof and can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't believe as they do!
What, the writings of dead men from the second century are true, but the writings of dead men from the first century are forgeries?
The writings of the 2nd century dead men do not claim Christ all over OT. When Jesus says that Moses wrote about Him, He is talking in terms of the Jewish messiah, moshiach.
The Jews will tell you that the idea of the anointed done coming to establish the Kingdom of God on earth is not something invented by the prophets. They say that
"Belief in the eventual coming of the moshiach is a basic and fundamental part of traditional Judaism." [Judaism 101, "Moshiach"]
And the knowledge of the meshiach is to be found even in the Torah!
[T]raditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The moshiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people.
However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the moshiach; thus, the concept of moshiach was known in the most ancient times. [Ibid.]
So, based on this, we can very easily see why Jesus would say that even "Moses wrote about me." It's just that it wasn't necessarily about the Christian Christ so to say.
In addition, the requirement for the laity to assent would also be moot. The laity offer no proof.
No proof is required. That's what "faith" means. It can be true or it can be a self-delusion. No one would ever know.
Where did you read that and when did I allegedly write such a nonsnese?
Now it may make me a cultist in your opinion but I long ago decided I would no longer take man's word for what Christ did, said, or gave instruction and when He quoted one of those holy prophets that gives the holy prophet all the credibility needed to be learned in my opinion.
Your views would be "cultist" vis-a-vis the Church (for example, your belief in pre-existance of souls is rather Gnostic).
As far as I am concerned, your views are simply your views, some of them being inherently self-contradicting. For example, you say that you "no longer take man's word for what Christ did, said..." except, of course, yours.
And what is your word, if not "man's word?" You place your word as the final arbiter of what is true Christ and what is not, elevating it above all else.
Now, you will counter with the Holy Spirit inside of you and I will tell you that such is a silly argument since you not only can't prove it but I would venture to say that it is not really possible to know what it is.
Furthermore, I submit to you that, like so many, you seem to know a whole lot of the Bible, but not a whole lot about the Bible, imo.
The Bible carefully traces the bloodline right to the conception of Christ.
The two genealogies are divergent and cannot even agree on who Joseph's father was.
Now the curious thing about this reference to Jeremiah is that Jeremiah did not write this down but he spoke [sic] it Zechariah 11:12 did write the words and give not reference to Jeremiah having spoke the words
Zechariah makes no mention of Jeremiah. You are making this up. Matthew simply made a mistake in his reference [Mat 27:9] attributing the quote to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah.
Now how is it possible to live like and be like Christ if you don't even believe what He foretold
Try reading the Gospels, beginning with the Beatitudes. It's a good start.
To which I replied: But we can measure the truth by how many people claim they get something? Every sect and cult can (and does) use your argument, fallaciously I might add
To which you respond: No, I never claimed that the converse was true. Truth is truth irrespective of how many people get it. So, your above is not my argument
If the first is true, then the second is true also. The truth is truth irrespective of how many people (claim to) get it or don't get it, FK.
If the Muslims find Mohammad in Isaiah doesn't mean it's there. If Jews and Christians don't get it doesn't make them wrong either.
Kosta: Who is Isaiah's servant in context?
FK: Jesus is the Lord's servant
Some believe Israel (the people of God) are the servant. They believe the passage in Isaiah is about Israel, not one person.
In the OT many lost people recognized the existence of the Jewish God, but did not believe on Him
I said "understand," not "believe."
Kosta: So, the Church is wrong but individual readers, who read gospels "faithfully," get it right? What evidence do you have for such a silly claim?
As always, I have God-breathed scriptures as my evidence. I realize not everyone accepts that evidence as true. A personal Holy Spirit has a personal relationship with personal believers.
You have evidence that the Church is "wrong?" Whatever it is that you claim is evidence doesn't explain why is the Church subject to error and the individual reader is immune to it!
I know you haven't gotten to the post I already made earlier, but I will simply re-post Lev 11:13-19. It leaves no doubt that Moses counted bats among the birds.
Every species mentioned is a bird except for the bat. Now, why would the Holy Spirit lie to Moses? So, that we can be having this argument 3,500 years later?
No, bats were never birds, even though some humans supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit believed they were. And humans were never dogs, even though the Bible likens some humans to dogs!. Truth doesn't change with changing classifications. Science changes because sciencia is imperfect. Some claim the Bible is perfect even thouhg it is clear that it isn't.
But when one's entire faith and ego rests on the infallibility of a book, I can see why, some hold on to it tenaciously like a drowing man would hold to a straw, and stop at nothing to deny that which is obviously wrong in it.
So are you.
Evil is evil and was never good, and never will be good, no matter what taxonomy is used. Things are created the way they are God would not mislead His prophets to think they are something else.
God leads and men follow—imperfectly. God's truth is always true. Man's perception and interpretation of God's truth are not. Matthew thought he was quoting Jeremiah but ended up quoting Zechariah. Do you believe the Holy Spirit misguided Matthew? I don't. I am certain it was his own omission.
God's word doesn't contain error; man's rendition and interpretation of God's word is subject ot all human errors, unless the original meaning is retained through "tradition and the epistles," as your favorite Apostle says.
God leads, and men follow—imperfectly. God obviously allowed error, just as He allowed man to fall.
No, I don't know what you are referring to. The Bible says Enoch was a prophet.
The Book of Enoch is not scripture. We are talking about quoting from a non-scriptural source in the New Testament as a prophesy. Can we also quote prophesies from the Koran then?
Kosta: What constitutes "scriptures," FK? What the Church says? What Luther says? What SBC says?
FK: The original 66 books that God led men to canonize.
Christian canon is not fixed. Different sects have different canon. Did God lead all of them to canonize different books?
Scripture is the word God wanted us to have
Us, who? Again, that word is not uniform throughout Christianity.
I believe the ones that are in the Bible BECAUSE they're in the Bible. It is irrelevant if any other prophecies come true or not
So, then, you suggest there is a source of truth other than God? I would imagine you'd recognize that all truth is from God.
Kosta: The scripture rule is very simple: if the Bible expresses what the Church believes, then it is scripture. In other words, the biblical canon are those books that reflect the faith, not the other way around
FK: That is a good summation of Apostolic thought.
Which Apostle?
The Church determines the faith, and then fills in all the holes with what the men of the Church want.
So, you admit there are "holes" in the faith? That's progress. How do you know it's not what the HS wants rather than the "men of the Church?" What proof do you have that it is the "men of the Curch" and not the Holy Spirit who determine the faith?
Only a man-made God would be afraid and offended by man, or subject to human vices, such as jealousy, and pleasure. Only such a God would have to exert complete control over man out of fear that man (o, the mighty man!) could thwart His will, and threaten His sovereignty. Only such a God would demand sacrifice and complete obedience and allow no freedom. His people would be the puppets on the string, and He would be their puppeteer. Such is the Reformed God.
Where did you read that and when did I allegedly write such a nonsnese?
Post 5,499 5th line down from the top you wrote the following.
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.
Your views would be "cultist" vis-a-vis the Church (for example, your belief in pre-existance of souls is rather Gnostic).
What Church? Since when is studying *ALL* Scripture as instructed makes one a "cultist". What Church are you speaking for? Christ is said the souls came from above and that first step in seeing the Kingdom of God was to be born of woman. He sure preached and taught that the soul existed before this flesh age. I do not know a thing about those Gnostic and I do not have the time or inclination to check them out.
As far as I am concerned, your views are simply your views, some of them being inherently self-contradicting. For example, you say that you "no longer take man's word for what Christ did, said..." except, of course, yours.
My words???? I quoted you Scripture after Scripture, remember John 1:1 the Word was/is God from "In the Beginning" and none of us have a clue when that specific date was. I did not write one word of it.
And what is your word, if not "man's word?" You place your word as the final arbiter of what is true Christ and what is not, elevating it above all else. Now, you will counter with the Holy Spirit inside of you and I will tell you that such is a silly argument since you not only can't prove it but I would venture to say that it is not really possible to know what it is. Furthermore, I submit to you that, like so many, you seem to know a whole lot of the Bible, but not a whole lot about the Bible, imo.
Have you now become a mind reader? Not one time have I put forth the notion that I got the Holy Spirit and thus I have credibility. I quoted you scripture time and time again..... Now there are occasions when the scribes and translators down through the ages put their mark on their translations, but there are avenues to search out what the original words used to pass on the intent of Scripture. My words do not mean squat.
Zechariah makes no mention of Jeremiah. You are making this up. Matthew simply made a mistake in his reference [Mat 27:9] attributing the quote to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah.
I said Zechariah did NOT reference Jeremiah, and Matthew did NOT make a mistake saying that Jeremy SPOKE the words. Matthew at least knew Jeremiah existed I have NO reason to NOT believe that Jeremiah did not SPEAK the words. Jeremiah had a whole lot to say, some of which is in the process of being fulfilled in these very days.
Try reading the Gospels, beginning with the Beatitudes. It's a good start.
What about the contrast, those WOES, to the Beatitudes in Matthew 23? Now what does it mean "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." What does this word Blessed mean?
FK: That couldn't have been true for me, and I suspect virtually all other Bible-believing Protestants. I learned what my faith WAS by reading the Bible and adopting whatever its teachings turned out to be
In other words, you had faith but didn't know what you believed in until you opened the Bible? How can you call that faith?
The way you describe this, the Bible gave you faith! If that's so, then things must have reversed sometime between Abraham and the present!
So, there was nothing to mold the Bible TO. What I believe was molded by what the Bible says. That's what led me later to a Bible-believing church.
Let me get this straight: what exactly did you believe when you started reading the Bible?
What if you started reading the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible? Would you have ended up joining a Mormon assembly? If not, why not?
The only way you could tell if something was genuine or not is for you to know what is scripture and what is not. Where would that knowledge come from, and how did reading the Bible add to such a powerful knowledge?
***Only a man-made God would be afraid and offended by man, or subject to human vices, such as jealousy, and pleasure. Only such a God would have to exert complete control over man out of fear that man (o, the mighty man!) could thwart His will, and threaten His sovereignty. Only such a God would demand sacrifice and complete obedience and allow no freedom. His people would be the puppets on the string, and He would be their puppeteer. Such is the Reformed God.***
Only a man made God would be incapable of saving that which he wants, instead has to hope that man will make the right choice. Only such a God would allow man to die because man was not smart enough, wise enough, or pious enough to seek God. Only such a God is unable to prevent evil, and in fact, has no control over evil. His people would never know the hope of salvation, instead, they have to work their own salvation out, never sure if they will die blessed instead of cursed. Such is the God of the Catholics.
See Kosta, it cuts both ways. You can belittle our faith in God, and we can do the same.
The operant word is if, in the context of Paul's ministry. I was saying that it would make sense for anyone doing what he was doing to invoke God's choice to boost his credibility.
What Church are you speaking for?
There is only one Church, catholic and apostolic.
Christ is said the souls came from above
Where does he say that?
He sure preached and taught that the soul existed before this flesh age
Where does he teach that?
I do not know a thing about those Gnostic and I do not have the time or inclination to check them out
That's fine with me. Like I said, every cult and sect finds itself in the Bible. Every group can 'justify' their beliefs from that source.
My words???? I quoted you Scripture after Scripture
Yeah, your words, the words that convince you that your reading of the Bible is trustworthy, while others' is not worth listening to. You listen to your own interpretations of what you consider to be trustworthy.
Quoting scripture means nothing. Demons can quote scripture too.
[T]here are occasions when the scribes and translators down through the ages put their mark on their translations, but there are avenues to search out what the original words used to pass on the intent of Scripture
I agree that scribes and translators "put their mark.," The avenues used to determine as close as possible the "original" is called textual criticism. the only problem is that when such methods find incompatible or clearly fraudulent verses added at a later date, they keep them! In fact, there is probably no other book in the world as doctored and changed by different men as the Bible. And yet it is presented as the "pristine" word of God.
I said Zechariah did NOT reference Jeremiah, and Matthew did NOT make a mistake saying that Jeremy SPOKE the words. Matthew at least knew Jeremiah existed I have NO reason to NOT believe that Jeremiah did not SPEAK the words.
This is what you wrote in 5544:
"Now the curious thing about this reference to Jeremiah is that Jeremiah did not write this down but he spoke it Zechariah 11:12 "
Let's post Mat 27:9 and Zech 11:12
Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel [Mat 27:9]
"So they paid me thirty pieces of silver." [Zech 11:12]
It is Matthew (not Zechariah) who says that this was spoken by Jeremiah. Nowhere in the OT is anyone giving credit for this to Jeremiah. So, how would Matthew know that it was Jeremiah when he is quoting Zechariah and Jeremiah makes no such a statement anywhere in the OT?
Was Matthew there when Jeremiah (500 years earlier) allegedly spoke it? Let's get real. This fairytale is getting too deep!
What about the contrast, those WOES, to the Beatitudes in Matthew 23?
What about them? The Woes tell all those who live unrighteous and immoral lives what is coming to them. And the Beatitudes say is telling all those who live righteous, and moral ones what is in store for them. No faith involved here. No salvation by faith. It's salvation or damnation by deeds. Jesus is preaching pure Judaism here.
So, in your life, ask yourself which one of those two is your life closer to. Are you imitating Christ or Pharisees and scribes?
True God doesn't have to hope. He know who will come to Him on their own, out of love. But only a man-made God would hijack some and throw the rest off the cliff. Only a man-made God would create some men for his "pets" and the rest as fire logs.
Only such a God would allow man to die because man was not smart enough, wise enough, or pious enough to seek God.
That's right. And the only reason men are not smart enough, wise enough or pious enough is because man-made God would have predestined them to be stupid, unwise and impious. Only a Reformed God would condemn man before he even existed.
Only such a God is unable to prevent evil, and in fact, has no control over evil.
That's right! Such a Reformed God is subject to "necessity" of His "plan" in which evil is not only necessary but a creature of God.
His people would never know the hope of salvation
Correct again. There would be no reason to hope because your fate would have been predestined before you even existed. If you were predestined to hell, then you are bound for hell no matter what. And if you are destined to heaven the, as Luther says, you could commit a thousand adulteries a day and it would be forgiven!
instead, they have to work their own salvation out, never sure if they will die blessed instead of cursed.
Not for the lack of God's love, but for the weakness of our will. Only God can work out our salvation, but we have to repent first, and then ever so slowly ascend in holiness (at least in our hearts), and with lots of God help, prayers, communions and other forms of spiritual medicine for our sick souls.
Knowing how fickle mankind is, no one can be sure where our decisions will lead us. But a loving God will offer us salvation until the last minute of our lives. Man-made God made a decision who lives and who dies before anyone existed. How loving is that?
Such is the God of the Catholics.
That's right! Again! A merciful God, whose patience with our selfish and ungrateful kind defies reason, who love mankind more than mankind could ever love Him.
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.