The dictionary doesn't make that claim. Even in the human world, one can help another in a one-way exchange. There is nothing in the definition of "co-" that demands a two-way exchange of aid. That is ridiculous, furthermore, when discussing God. Which CHRISTIAN would even make that claim? Do you really think Catholics believe that WE help God do anything, as if He couldn't do it without us?
You then later show me that you DO understand what I am talking about:
But, I do not say that we do not participate. Of course we do, and as you said, it is God's will that we do. Otherwise, we would all just sit here and do nothing until we died. :) My "protection" is all about who gets the credit and who makes what happen
Yes, we participate. And God gets the credit. However, where there is free will involved, God grants us a reward for our participation. Thus, we do receive credit from God. God rewards us when He commands us to REPENT - and we repent...
It is only incorrect to take credit for it, just like it would be incorrect for the cookie daughter to take credit for the cookies.
Does the loving mother scold her child when she proudly tells her father "Daddy, look what me and mommy did"... In your view of God, the mother would yell at the top of her lungs "HOW DARE YOU TAKE CREDIT FOR MAKING THE COOKIES! I AM THE COOKIE MAKER. YOU MUST NOW BE PUNISHED!!! ARRGGHHH!" This is utterly ridiculous in the real world. What makes you think God is below us on such matters? Doesn't He love to share with His loved ones His glory? God highly exalts us - see Mary's Magnificat when she speaks with Elizabeth in Luke 1.
??? What does this have to do with whether I have the power and authority to be a co-redeemer?
If you are prompted by the Spirit to speak about Christ to an unbeliever, but you refuse out of some shyness or whatever, your power of speech has been inhibited, and the Word of God does not go out to that person. Is this a trick question?
Although it's funny, I don't know what is meant by the parasite comment. God uses us as vessels all the time to accomplish His will.
A parasite uses the host without any care of the host, solely for its own purpose. God does not act that way, but chooses to involve us in His loving work. God doesn't have to come through man's actions to spread His Word!!! When you witness to someone and they seem to heed what you say, don't you feel a sense of joy? That you were part of the equation of God coming to that person? Doesn't the daughter making the cookies also feel this joy, of being part of the equation of doing something with her mother?
I think if one could have done a DNA sample on the man Jesus back then, it would have shown that Mary was His mother. Nothing wrong with that...
Whew! Wonderful... Doesn't Scripture tell us this also?
Of course our side would say that from either God's or our POV, He chose His elect first. I can know that because God existed before man, and scripture says He chose us first.
God acts WITHIN time by keeping it in existence, but He is not subject to it. If he foresaw EVERYTHING during the first day of creation, doesn't it follow that He "chose" us then - but at the same time, He also foresaw our actions in time? The Scripture speaks from man's point of view - God chose us first. And He did. But from God's point of view, His choosing and our choosing happen simultaneously - there is no passage of time that intervenes between His view of His choice and our choice (which is based on His grace that He gives us).
Believe that this was really the work of Jesus and not Peter (the raising of Tabbatha). Just like with all the other things we have been talking about. No one has to know, I won't tell.
Of course - and yet, God chose to raise this girl THROUGH Peter. Wow. Peter baked some delicious cookies, Daddy would say...
What is the difference between you and a theologian? Before asking this stupid question, I looked it up in the dictionary and all it said was "one learned in theology". (Thank you Mr. dictionary :) You fit that. Is it an official "office" within the Church?
Uh, I think it is someone more properly in an official, paid vocation. Such as a college professor, or a Catholic writer (for pay). Theologians used to be mostly clergy (they were the only educated ones), but now, everyone has an opinion! Theologians do not have the same "ranking" in the Church as they once had, because of so many views that seem to border on heresy.
How can ALL prophecy have multiple meanings? When Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt in three days, what was the double meaning?
The hearers of this thought Jesus was speaking about the actual Temple - while Jesus was speaking of His own Body. Thus, multiple meanings.
What is the double meaning of the person referred to in Is. 53?
The nation Israel is the suffering servant of the Lord - while Christians interpret it as Jesus Christ. See, multiple meanings to different people.
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
Crucifixion had not been invented yet? When was it "invented"? From my studies of military history BEFORE becoming a practicing Christian, I remember it going back quite some time - the Greeks practiced it before Alexander the Great. Again, I would imagine Jews would refer this to mean something other than crucifixion, but I don't have their interpretation on it. To them, it probably is just a form of describing persecution, like when the Psalms talk about eathing one's flesh. Or do you believe the Psalmist was refering to cannibals?
Regards
Yes, if you change "couldn't" to "doesn't", that is the clear message I have gotten so far. I see your belief on salvation as that God does some of it, but then it is up to people to "co-operate" (do things) and finish their own salvation themselves (How can free will be free will if God interferes?). Both parties "operate" by being responsible for different things, and both are necessary. This is the normal sense of "Co-". I see "cooperate" and "participate" as being very different.
Does the loving mother scold her child when she proudly tells her father "Daddy, look what me and mommy did"... In your view of God, the mother would yell at the top of her lungs "HOW DARE YOU TAKE CREDIT FOR MAKING THE COOKIES! I AM THE COOKIE MAKER. YOU MUST NOW BE PUNISHED!!! ARRGGHHH!"
LOL! Of course not. The mother would do what any loving parent would do. She would humor the daughter and smile at her and agree, with a wink to her husband. That's what God does with us. He let's us feel good as if anything has come from us on our own merit, when in reality it is God who does it all.
If you are prompted by the Spirit to speak about Christ to an unbeliever, but you refuse out of some shyness or whatever, your power of speech has been inhibited, and the Word of God does not go out to that person. Is this a trick question?
I was trying to imply that under no circumstances of any kind could we be considered co-redeemers with Christ. God uses us and we participate, but only God does the redeeming. In this context, a co-redeemer is one who helps to pay for the redemption. How do you help pay for the sins of those you witness to?
When you witness to someone and they seem to heed what you say, don't you feel a sense of joy? That you were part of the equation of God coming to that person? Doesn't the daughter making the cookies also feel this joy, of being part of the equation of doing something with her mother?
Sure, that is how I feel, and I think I am just like the cookie daughter. It is a true blessing when that happens. And, it is only God who does the actual redeeming, it is only God who makes anyone of the elect, and it is only God who saves.
FK: "I think if one could have done a DNA sample on the man Jesus back then, it would have shown that Mary was His mother. Nothing wrong with that..."
Whew! Wonderful... Doesn't Scripture tell us this also?
Yes, I think it does. That is, unless of course "mother" doesn't mean "mother", the way "brother" doesn't mean "brother". :)
But from God's point of view, His choosing and our choosing happen simultaneously - there is no passage of time that intervenes between His view of His choice and our choice (which is based on His grace that He gives us).
Which decision is dependent upon the other? To say they are independent and happened simultaneously avoids the issue. Did God choose us because He foresaw that we would chose Him, OR, did we choose Him because God had already ordained it to be so? Another way to frame the question is to ask: "On what did God base His decision to choose His elect"? Did He base it on His independent will or did He base it on our choices which He foresaw?
Of course - and yet, God chose to raise this girl THROUGH Peter. Wow. Peter baked some delicious cookies, Daddy would say...
Daddy would say "Way to go Peter, you did a wonderful job!", all the while knowing that it was all the real work of Christ. Is this how you see priests forgiving sins and binding and loosening? That would surprise me. :)
Thanks for your comments on theologians.
FK: "How can ALL prophecy have multiple meanings? When Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt in three days, what was the double meaning?"
The hearers of this thought Jesus was speaking about the actual Temple - while Jesus was speaking of His own Body. Thus, multiple meanings.
But the hearers were clearly wrong in their interpretation. Every verse has multitudes and multitudes of meanings if you include all the false ones. :) There was only ever one correct meaning. The claim in Gen. 3 was that there were 2 very different, but both correct meanings.
I found multiple sources saying that it was invented by the Persians between 300-400 B.C. I also found this link to a friendly website which says the following:
When did Crucifixion start? Crucifixion probably started first with the Persians (what is modern day Iran). Initially, the victim was suspended to keep their feet from touching holy ground. The Phoenicians, traders to many lands, seem to have also acquired the practice and probably spread it to other cultures, including the Greeks.
Alexander the Great (a Greek) introduced the practice to Carthage, where it was picked up by the Romans. The Romans started using it around the time Jesus was born.
Here is another website (with excerpt) that cites Britannica, putting the first known crucifixion circa 519 B.C., still well after the Psalms were written:
History of crucifixion and archaeological proof of the cross, as opposed to a stake.
History of crucifixion:
Britannica reports that the first historical record of Crucifixion was about 519 BC when "Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon" (Encyclopedia Britannica, crucifixion)
Some further detail is given in "The Eerdman's Bible Dictionary", Rev. Ed., 1975: CROSS ... Crucifixion is first attested among the Persians (cf. Herodotus, Hist. i.128.2; iii.132.2, 159.1), perhaps derived from the Assyrian impalement. It was later employed by the Greeks, especially Alexander the Great, and by the Carthaginians, from whom the Romans adapted the practice as a punishment for slaves and non-citizens, and occasionally for citizens guilty of treason. Although in the Old Testament the corpses of blasphemers or idolaters punished by stoning might be hanged "on a tree" as further humiliation (Deut. 21:23), actual crucifixion was not introduced in Palestine until Hellenistic times. The Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes crucified those Jews who would not accept hellenization (Josephus Ant. xii.240-41; cf 1 Macc. 1:44-50).