Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
I know, I am just giving you a hard time. :)
***Then that eliminates Peter from being the “rock” upon which the Church was built. If we agree that the rock was a person, then servants serve THAT person. The Pope serves Christ by serving the people who serve Christ, Who is the cornerstone upon which the Church of God was built.***
What it does is to emphasize that Peter is the vicar or the steward of the King. No Christian has ever claimed that the Pope is the Head of the Church (note that the monarch of England is the Head of the Church of England, though). The Pope is the servant, in succession, appointed to the stewardship of the Church until He comes again.
***God bless and thanks for the great conversation and friendship***
It’s my pleasure, sir.
***I know, I just didn’t want to appear to be pitting two current allied posters against each other. I mean, I would never do that.
I appreciate the consideration. Yet, I would rather Mark disagree with me than present myself on false pretense to be “allied” with him. I believe what I say. If there is any alliance between us it is based on our core beliefs.***
Exactly so. Something very fortunate is that the faith is presented to us, we don’t have to make it up as we go along; we either agree with the Faith or we don’t. It’s much more objective that way.
***There is no doubt that the OT and Paul approve of slavery. But if you can find Jesus teaching that slavery is God ordained, and morally right, I will no longer call myself a Christian.***
I cannot find anything from Jesus; but we have plenty from Paul. Eph 6:
5
Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ,
6
not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,
7
willingly serving the Lord and not human beings,
8
knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9
Masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a Master in heaven and that with him there is no partiality.
Paul’s fine with having slaves as long as they act properly and you treat them reasonably well.
The WCF says that we are all wholly inclined to all evil; it makes no sense to claim that the wholly evil can possibly find happiness in the Greatest Good (God).
The only way that it makes sense is if we understand that God gives His Grace to all men and men can use that Grace in order to love and appreciate Him, if only for a time in the case of those who stray.
***The lost who say they are happy with/in the Gospel don’t REALLY know what the Gospel is or means. They are deluded, with a false happiness.***
Again, how can evil be happy embracing good?
***Before I had read the Bible all the way through I never woke up one morning quoting a verse I had never read. Holy Spirit LED me to read it. Now, He CAN certainly put the essence of a teaching into the mind of a believer, that has happened to me, and as a reminder we always have the scripture we can refer to and memorize.***
Fallible men reading fallible translations of Scripture producing infallibly saved elect? Is the Reformed Holy Spirit unable to infuse the elect with an infallible set of instructions?
Exactly. Christian God, Christ, never returns evil for evil. It is God's love that burns the evil ones, because they cannot get God to commit evil no mater how hard they try. There is nothing that Satan would wish more than to get God to succumb, to be "provoked," to evil. That would, in fact, be Satan's victory. So, where there is holiness, the demons howl.
**************
Amen.
***Christian God, Christ, never returns evil for evil. It is God’s love that burns the evil ones, because they cannot get God to commit evil no mater how hard they try. There is nothing that Satan would wish more than to get God to succumb, to be “provoked,” to evil. That would, in fact, be Satan’s victory. So, where there is holiness, the demons howl.***
Wonderful prose, my friend. And so very accurate.
There is no doubt why each Christmas and Easter that the heathen news media turns its eyes to the Church. The devils recognize God and believe in Him and His Church. And with as close as we get to a modern Church Father (Kolo mentioned this some time ago), there is even more howling nowadays. Together we are much stronger than apart. There is little doubt in my mind that we shall end the schism in my lifetime. I think that it did serve a purpose - the East kept orthodoxy while we in the West wandered off the strict and true path in some areas.
God does not do evil; He cannot. His pleasure does not extend to pulling the wings and legs off human flies, nor does His pleasure include dropkicking the mass of humanity into the fiery pit forevermore. But satan would love to have us believe it...
***I doubt that. I don’t know how much you know about medicine, but there is something called shock from blood loss. Never mind the fact that Jesus was afterwards throwin in the dungeon and then crowned with thorns that caused additional bleeding (head bleed a great deal), and was shown chained standing all night long. Under such cirmcumstances (hypooxygenation, dehydration, hypovolemic and hypostatic shock) the kidneys and other organ functions would have simply shut down, FK.***
Of course, the whole intention was to show us how impossibly much Jesus suffered - beyond anything that ordinary mortals should have been able to take. With Jesus operating out of time, He knew what He was going to go through and He prayed to the point where He sweated blood that the cup would be taken from Him.
The ordeal was impossible - but so was the ransom that He paid for us.
***The Reformed God described in the WCF has created us for His own cruel amusement and sadistic pleasure, much like a small boy pulls the wings and legs off flies or burns ants under a magnifying glass
Very Zeus-like.***
Or Ares / Mars.
I understand that and fully agree. I was simply reacting to the statement by another poster that the way The Passion depicted it was fully "realistic." The Romans would not have treated Christ any differently than any other human was being "prepped" for crucifixion. In their eyes He was no God, and in His human nature Christ was no different than we are when it came to passion.
In view of that, Roman physicians or torture experts would have applied the same degree of torture established by the experience in order not to kill the victim before crucifixion. Thus, I have no reason to believe that The Passion in any way represents what really happened, but I have every reason to believe that Jesus received the same treatment as any other accused human who was tortured before crucifixion, and I don't mean to diminish the level of pain and horror this entailed.
Well, Jesus was scourged and He did have the thorns pressed into His scalp, so He was given some extra treatment above and beyond the usual.
Remember that they were surprised at how quickly He died. His physical condition was probably a little worse than usual.
Those are valid points, Mark, I have to admit. I just don't see why they would want to kill Him sooner given that the whole purpose of crucifixion was torture. Especially for those who got the attention of the highest authorities.
There is one thing curious though (and I am not making any implications): dead people don't bleed.
***Those are valid points, Mark, I have to admit. I just don’t see why they would want to kill Him sooner given that the whole purpose of crucifixion was torture. Especially for those who got the attention of the highest authorities. ***
I think that they gave Him some extra attention during the warmup due to high spirits, and the fact that the Jewish authorities were probably doing something that they rarely did - cooperate with the Roman overlords and ask them to handle somebody that might prove irritating to them. I doubt that that hand of cooperation had ever been extended before.
The guards and flagellators were probably feeling their oats about all this. It must have been one great loss of face for the Jewish authorities to go hat in hand to the Romans, and the Romans - faced with all the problems of these damnable Jewish troublemakers over the years - were probably quite happy to help.
Oh, I don't know about that. It was the Roman governor who appointed the High Priest, so it stands to reason that higher Jewish authorities cooperated with Romans as much as possible, making those tough career decisions.
At any rate, the purpose of crucifixion was to make one suffer a horrible and slow death. Killing someone before they could crucify him would defeat the purposes. I am sure Christ received more attention and was exposed to more ridicule than others, but the aim of the Jewish authorities was to make Him suffer so that any other messianic character might think twice.
Yet, I would rather Mark disagree with me than present myself on false pretense to be "allied" with him. I believe what I say. If there is any alliance between us it is based on our core beliefs.
Yes, I was just being light-hearted. I know you won't agree with anyone just because of who he or she is, versus what is being said. I like that! :)
I am not saying there were no floods, or even catastrophic tectonic events (such as the Atlas mountains spanning Africa and Spain breaking and flooding the Mediterranean region, or the range spanning Asian Minor and Europe at Bosporus breaking and creating the Black Sea.
These cataclysmic events were huge and could have been described for all practical purposes as involving the whole world of the ancient peoples of the region.
I was saying that it never happened because God regretted having made man. That is contrary to an omniscient God. (emphasis added)
Yeah, but that's deciding to have a near entire worldview of world history based on one interpretation of ONE WORD!! :) Surely you are well aware that there are many on your side who see Gen. 6:6 basically as we do and have no problem with the factual history of the flood. I have no problem in saying that the verse needs to be looked at, but think about what we have to give up in order to see it in only one way (the way that discredits the factual truth of the Bible).
FK: How did you determine that your interpretation of Gen. 6:6 is the correct one?
Being omniscient and perfect means never having to say He is sorry.
Yes, but what is the root word you are relying on? Strong's has "nacham", which in no way necessarily means "sorry" in the way you mean it. Neither does "atsab" depending on where you are focusing. IOW, in neither of Strong's definitions is your interpretation required.
Jesus is how God wants us to know Him.
But don't you say in the same breath that the OT righteous didn't "really" know Jesus? It doesn't compute to me that according to the OT God had one on one communication with the prophets, while "hiding" the Jesus you seem to say is only knowable in the NT. My side says that God's ENTIRE HOLY WORD is true in how He wants us to know Him.
The ineffable and incomprehensible God became one of us, so that we can see Him, relate to Him and imitate Him.
That is part of it, but He also came to SAVE His people. IOW, we SHOULD agree that Christ is multi-faceted, but it doesn't "appear" that we do.
Yes, Christ is the very standard of what God is, within our perception and understanding. So, yes, everything that's in red letters is our guide against which we interpret the rest of the scriptures. Unless we find the same Christ in them, it is not from God.
Is the Christ who overturned the money-changers' tables the same Christ who did not condemn the adulteress EVEN THOUGH He knew that she was guilty (by the text)? Is the Christ who proclaimed the Law the same Christ who said that it is good to do good work on the Sabbath? The point is that while Christ's message is on one level very simple, He nonetheless was a very complex man with a world of teachings that confound billions to this day. Those teachings INCLUDED those of the OT God, the same God. God is NOT mono-faceted. :)
Jesus doesn't mention God in Luke 17 [26-27], or in Mar 24, for that matter.
The Jews accepted the Flood as historical fact, an act by God, just as they accepted the first Passover (as Jesus did). Here is another example where you appear to have Jesus purposely misleading His own people, in red letters no less!! Remember how Jesus at the end is supposed to be the lawyer that is going to make the other 99.99% of us look bad? You have Him pulling our worst tricks. :)
But, on this account, let me ask you: do you believe slavery is morally justified? The Bible does. How can it be immoral to buy another human being if the Bible considers it morally just? [e.g. Gen. 17:12]
YES! BIBLICAL slavery was justified in SOME cases. A distinction was clearly made. Many people in those days voluntarily CHOSE to enter slavery to pay off debts, or win a woman, or whatever, etc. There was nothing immoral about it, and it worked well economically (or toward all interests fairly by bargain) for all parties concerned, hence we have God's teachings to treat the slaves well so as not to abuse the relationship. Obviously in Egypt that did not happen and the Lord heard their cries, etc. Egypt slavery was not voluntary or punitive by crime. When Americans think of "slavery" we only think of one thing, a very important thing because it is so woven into our history, but nonetheless there is more to the concept, especially in those days.
There is no doubt that the OT and Paul approve of slavery. But if you can find Jesus teaching that slavery is God ordained, and morally right, I will no longer call myself a Christian.
The KJV says "servant" but here is NIV:
Matt 20:25-28 : 25 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave — 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Now, I do not claim that this is enough to compel you to your pledge. LOL!! :) However, I note it to show that Jesus saw Himself as a suffering servant, indeed a slave to His Father's will, and that if anyone wanted to be like Him that he should adopt the same mindset. In John 8:34, Jesus specifically talks about being a slave to sin. Paul follows up on that in talking about being a slave to righteousness. Those fit so well together as opposites. Again, (and you never said this), but in Biblical terms the word "slave" does not ONLY mean what we know from "Roots".
The only way Jesus could teach meaningfully to the Jews was through the OT, and what they believe, and that included the Flood, Jonah, Exodus, and other myths the Jews believed in. If He had told them otherwise they would have walked away from Him.
But that would make Jesus a salesman instead of our omnipotent LORD GOD.
I believe in what Jesus is said to have taught; the idea. Fact is, there is no direct physical or historical evidence of Jesus or His birth or His resurrection whatsoever. For someone who got the attention of the highest authorities of Israel and Romans, there is not a word written about Him, save for forged Josephus' "testimony" years later.
That's why we call it faith, FK. We believe in it without physical or historical evidence and for all we know it could be a delusion, but I can tell you that if we all became Christ-like in this life we would have an earth that resembled heaven, a true paradise, where no one would be afraid, or killed or tortured, where everyone would help another, and where happiness would make sorrow obsolete. We have that CAPACITY, FK. And I believe in that.
And that could not have come from the nature (the world), because there is no love or mercy or compassion in the ways of the nature. They are something not of this world, but we are capable of if not by nature then by grace.
OK, I re-quoted all of the above both for the time reasons in my absence and so as not to leave anyone with the wrong impression with the following. Please do not take offense at this, and if it seems so then please chalk it up to my not really understanding what I am asking. How would you describe what you have said here as faith as distinguished from a philosophy?
I have no problem in saying that the verse needs to be looked at, but think about what we have to give up in order to see it in only one way (the way that discredits the factual truth of the Bible).
The truth of the Bible is in the truthfulness of its authors. If they honestly perceived God in a way that is not Christ-like it is because they did not have full revelation, yet. No one did until Christ appeared. Claiming otherwise would make Christ less than the fullness of God's revelation. That's why the OT is considered to be a gradual revelation, the forerunner. It's still God's revelation, though incomplete. Even the disciples, in Christ's very presence, did not fully grasp who He was and what He wanted of them.
Yes, because one word can be crucial, and in this case it is crucial to show that the author of Gen 6 did not have a the same "idea" of God that we may have.
Yes, but what is the root word you are relying on? Strong's has "nacham", which in no way necessarily means "sorry" in the way you mean it
Srong's (#05162) definition of "nacham" as 1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion, 2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent, 3) to comfort oneself, be comforted, 4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself.
So, in the "best" case it was euthanasia! Nevertheless, following Reformed theology, the wickedness of mankind was there by His "plan" and according to His will, and regret or even "compassionate" killing (drowning compassionate? Try not breathing for a minute or so....) does not fit God who is always in control.
The Septuagint reads different form the Hebrew Bible. It says (Gen 6:6)
It says God "took it to heart" (the Greeks don't use "regret" as "nacham" but "enthumemoai," to ponder, to deliberate"). But if this is all part of God's perfect "plan," what is there to "ponder?"
Neither does "atsab" depending on where you are focusing. IOW, in neither of Strong's definitions is your interpretation required
"Atsab" (Srong's #06087) definition is 1) to hurt, pain, grieve, displease, vex, wrest, a) (Qal) to hurt, pain, b) (Niphal) to be in pain, be pained, be grieved, c) (Piel) to vex, torture, d) (Hiphil) to cause pain, e) (Hithpael) to feel grieved, be vexed.
I don't see your point here. Atsab is clearly associated with hurt or pain, as in when realizing one's mistake.
Besides, what does the wickedness of man have to do with birds? And how does one "drown" birds? The whole story is ridiculous, FK, if taken literally as a matter of fact, for the implication is that the entire earth (including Mt. Everest!) was covered with water so that the even the birds eventually became exhausted and fell into the ocean and drowned!
Wrong. That is something men made up. The Bible doesn't say anything about "tools" or different methods. In fact, it says nothing of how the HS does that.
What? As Irish pointed out for one thing the Holy Spirit uses prophets to carry His message. In addition, He also teaches US DIRECTLY what to say, thus teaching:
Luke 12:11-12 : 11 "When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say."
We also have this:
John 16:7-10 : 7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer;
How do you propose that Jesus keeps this promise if what you say is correct? In addition, by definitional implication, the Holy Spirit uses other Christians around us to teach us Godly truths. Since you are forced to agree with that, when we add the scriptures themselves we clearly have the Spirit using different tools.
John 14:26 says that the Spirit, whom the Father will send, will teach "you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you"
Here, again, Jesus is addressing specifically his disciples, specifically those that have actually witnessed Him in Person, not every Tom, Dick and Harriette. ...
In that case I will agree with you again that therefore it would be wrong to recognize any authority in your Church leaders, since Jesus only ever spoke to His disciples. :) None of your Church Fathers ever witnessed Christ, so they would be included in the group you list above. There is nothing even hinting at Apostolic succession here, THEREFORE, apparently according to your reading, it doesn't exist. :)
This doesn't apply to everyone. The only tools are the disciples who will bring faith to others through their word (cf John 17:20). In other words, the Church and its clergy.
The CLERGY'S word??? Well, I suppose that would make sense from the Apostolic point of view. From the same passage you reference:
John 17:9 : I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
When you read the whole passage, if you think that verse 20 only applies to your leaders, then you must also think that verse 9 does also, IOW, that Christ doesn't pray for you because you are part of the world. It is an odd result to agree with Apostolic theology, but it does seem forced. I disagree and say that Christ prays here for all of His beloved children, for they (we) are His. I suppose for Apostolics only your clergy are His? :)
***If you would read the book of Acts, you see a multitude of people prophesying and teaching after they received the Holy Spirit.***
The Spirit gives many gifts, each according to His design.
***Not just the Disciples, but multitudes in various places. Barnabas, Stephen, Saul/Paul to name a few.***
All of them fulfilled Church offices.
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.