Conclusion from Peru and Mexico

email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

[kosta50]

Kosta: The term itself, the Son of Man, the Son of God, and the Elect One, in Judaism is never associated with God. Jewish messiah is human, form the the tribe of Judah, of davidic genealogy, a favorite of God, but not divine.

FK: But how can that be when the Gospels say:

I wrote a verifiable fact about Judaism, namely what Judaism believes about the messiah. Are you saying that's not what they believe?

You the follow up with the following (and you are not alone, as many others have quoted thes same verse):

Luke 24:44 : He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

Which prophesy would that be, FK?

John 5:45-47 : 45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

I am simply going to ask you to show me where Moses actually writes about Christ (I imagne His detah and suffering), as John claims.

I don't agree that actually happened by the independent actions of men for a minute

I suppose that's "truth" by fiat, FK.

[Mad Dawg]

I wasn’t blaming, I was describing or portraying a point of view. I think some on FR have the point of view I described. I didn’t say good or bad. I described or presented, that’s all. It seems to me that much of what passes for “exchange” here can only be motivated by the principles I articulated.

[MarkBsnr]

***The very futile audacity of Philip to Preach the Word to the poor Eunuch and send him off with only Scripture and Holy Spirit to guide him. /sar

Excellent points, Quix!***

Lousy points Quix. Philip was commissioned, authenticated, had hands laid upon him, consecrated and sent out by the Apostles, including Peter.

You guys really need to understand what the purpose of the Apostles really was.

[MarkBsnr]

***The very futile audacity of Philip to Preach the Word to the poor Eunuch and send him off with only Scripture and Holy Spirit to guide him. /sar

Excellent points, Quix!***

Lousy points Quix. Philip was commissioned, authenticated, had hands laid upon him, consecrated and sent out by the Apostles, including Peter.

You guys really need to understand what the purpose of the Apostles really was.

[Forest Keeper]

I think we see Scripture come alive right on these threads. Unless the LORD opens your eyes no matter how much evidence is presented it is not enough. If the LORD has opened your eyes you begin to see how much evidence was around you the whole time.

AMEN, WM!

[MarkBsnr]

***When you bow to a statue of Mary, is your heart bowing to Mary or to Christ?***

To Jesus Christ.

***And as we know from Isaiah 44, Christ is not found in the stock of a tree.***

Isaiah had no idea that Jesus would be crucified on a cross. The saving grace of Jesus is displayed upon the cross. Why does it wound you so sorely?

***You invoke Mary’s name and attention and ask for her help when you bow to her statue.***

As you may ask for intercessory help. I know many Protestants who do.

***’there is only one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus***

Are you saying that anyone who prays for you is of satan?

[Quix]

Thanks thanks for your kind words.

Just came to me as obvious. I can’t imagine the convoluted mental pretzel gymnastics necessary to construe that the eunuch went off with all the chains of FUTURE ROMAN POLITICAL POWER MONGERS all securely attached . . . stretching all across the Mediteranian . . . back to Ethiopia.

As Christ said . . . loaded on the serfs burdens the power mongers themselves were unwilling to bear.

God’s best to you and yours.

[Quix]

This from the fellow who declared candidly that prostrating one’s self before an image of Mary WOULD BE idolatry . . .

and now seems to be glibly side stepping the fact that 100’s of thousands and likely millions do just that?

How convenient.

[Quix]

INDEED.

Why bow to a distraction!

. . . a doilie screen . . . so to speak.

[Quix]

accurate?

GTTM! LOL! ROTFLOL!

History has proven you wrong in a long list of ways.

You still have not even rationalized away the many thousands of RC reps who DO prostrate themselves before Mary routinely!

Nor have you even rationalized away the fact that the RC edifice magicsterical power mongers observing such routinely continue to support the statues EVEN THOUGH they have every reason to believe they are cultivating BRAZEN idolatry.

Yet I read hereon the audacity to claim ACCURACY???

Mind boggling.

[Quix]

Fascinating slipping and sliding around the key issues.

I do realize the RC edifice provides endless practice at such slipping and sliding but . . . still . . . skillfully done . . . on the surface, anyway.

You have yet to deal with the substantive points I made about the Eunuch.

Running and hiding from them and assaulting instead is not dealing with the points at all—much less honestly and rationally.

[Quix]

***’there is only one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus***

Are you saying that anyone who prays for you is of satan?

= = =

I gather you expect your readers to pretend that the above is a gleaming example of rational accuracy???

LOL!

GTTM!

ROTFLOL!

I’m curious. Does the magicsterical dispense large crates of straw dogs along with indulgences, holy water, roseries, dashboard plastic Mary’s and the like?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: ***Can you really throw away your “right” to be your father’s son? ***

We are adopted into His family. That can be rescinded.

Not by a Christian or a Christian God it can't. When one adopts, one is making a commitment. If you made the commitment to adopt a child, would it ever be the Christian thing to do to "unadopt" that child? The child might turn out to be very troublesome, but it would take an act on your part to give up (to quit), and rescind the adoption. (The child doesn't get a say once it's done.) I don't see how a Christian could do that. I don't think our God would do that either.

[irishtenor]

What loving Father would do that? None that I know of, and our Father in heaven is much more loving to his adopted children that ANY father on earth can be. Especially when God the Father makes promises that we WILL be with him in heaven, not MIGHT be with him in heaven.

[irishtenor]

***If the priest denies someone that is truly repentent, the Holy Spirit is not subordinate to the priest (rather vice versa) and presumably would forgive that person’s sin***

Then the priest is not necessary at all, just the HS.

***God spent the entire OT and most of the New trying to get the Chosen People to be saved and, generally speaking, He failed.***

God failed? GOD FAILED??????? What are you smoking? God doesn’t fail, God cannot fail. Everything God does is PERFECT!

[wmfights]

MB:We are adopted into His family. That can be rescinded.

FK:Not by a Christian or a Christian God it can't.

Why live in fear. Our Saviour does not lie.

John 10:28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

What in the world is required of us for this incredible gift, that He will never lose us, that no one can pull us away from Him?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

If you truly believe in Jesus everything will fall into line. IOW, If you believe, you will have Faith in Jesus. If you have Faith in Jesus you will be blessed with Grace and through Grace you are saved. It is so simple we make it complicated.

Why come and save your people to have them live in fear?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views, dear Mad Dawg!

Well, you see, the problem with talking about it is that when the laws of the excluded middle and of non-contradiction are tossed, then what are we doing?

This:

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16

You also said (emphasis mine:)

Sanctification is certainly a process, a "walk" (or, for Paul, a "run"), but you're saying it's a walk in which you are your own guide because you have a greater certainty that you are not running in vain that Paul does, since he checked with Cephas and those of repute.

I am not my own guide:

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9

Likewise, Paul did not receive the Gospel from men - nor did he imagine it:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. – Galatians 1:11-19

Moreover, the doctrine/tradition of requiring Gentiles to be circumcised would have continued had Paul not confronted the apostles and elders (Acts 15.) Or to put it another way, Paul was led correctly by the direct revelation of Jesus Christ. The men from Judea in verse 1 were led incorrectly by men.

For the record, I’m not non-denominational either. I eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men across the board. I’m a Christian, plain and simple.

And yes, God is indeed raising a family. We are born into His family as adopted children. It is not "about" this heaven and earth, it is about the next one (Genesis to Revelation, Alpha and Omega.)

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. - Romans 8:15

To God be the glory!

[Forest Keeper]

FK: ***However, :) if a priest denies absolution to a confessor, then isn’t that person “presumptively” still damned?***

It is not the priest’s place to do so. It is the Holy Spirit that judges the repentance, not the priest.

Well, that isn't what very knowledgeable FR Catholics have told me before. I have been told that the priest has full discretion as to whether to grant absolution or not. For example, if a priest knows that Fred is an alcoholic, and Fred comes into confession and has obviously been drinking, then the priest can and SHOULD deny forgiveness and absolution. I have not been told that this kind of thing happens very often, however, the power is still there and that's what I was talking about.

If the priest denies someone that is truly repentant, the Holy Spirit is not subordinate to the priest (rather vice versa) and presumably would forgive that person’s sin.

In this situation, more than one FR Apostolic has quoted this to me:

John 20:22-23 : 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

This usually comes up in Apostolic succession arguments, and it has been used to point out to me that the clergy really does have the power to determine if sins are effectively forgiven or not. Most FR Catholics I have spoken with, but not all, have said that it IS God who does the actual forgiving, but that the priest has the power to "block" the request from going through according to this passage.

FK: *** Don’t you see the internal inconsistency here? If Christ’s resurrection ONLY made it POSSIBLE for us to be saved, THEN He did NOT rise to “restore our eternal life”. He only rose to make that possible. This is an ABSOLUTE DAY AND NIGHT DIFFERENCE. :)

No I don’t see any inconsistency. It is not only Scripturally supported, it was declared doctrine and practiced by the fledgling Church of the Apostles.

Let's say that your car dies on you and you have it towed to your favorite mechanic, me. I examine the car and then I tell you "I promise I will have it fixed for you by tomorrow". You come back the next day and I smile and tell you that the repairs went fine. You hop in and turn the key but nothing happens. Then you get out and ask me what's going on. I smile again and say that I actually didn't touch your car, but I have assembled all the tools you'll need to fix it yourself. According to you I fully kept my promise to fix your car.

Just for fun, let's extend the analogy. :) Now, let's say that the next time I actually do fix your car, just as I promised. You thank me and ask if my work is guaranteed. I say "Absolutely" and then hand you a certificate which says "Eternal Guarantee". Well, after a while your car breaks down again and you bring it back. You present the "Eternal Guarantee" and expect me to fix it for free. I say "No way. You see, the Eternal Guarantee is only good until the next time your car breaks down. As soon as it breaks down, the Eternal Guarantee expires. Therefore, if you want it fixed you will have to pay full price" (confession/penance). Under Apostolic thought you have no problem with this and think it is perfectly fair. :)

With God in total incremental control, the Sermon on the Mount means nothing. If I recall correctly, you consider yourself a true believer. Do you display everything that is contained within the Sermon? If not, then you cannot be a true believer; there is no man that displays them all, therefore no man is a true believer.

While God does not call for it, He nonetheless knows that we are still going to sin because of the remnant of the old man. So, we give thanks that John tells us:

1 John 2:1 : My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: KJV

Therefore, your logic only applies to a man who is under law. As Paul says, we are not under law but under grace. The law shows us that no one will be able to LIVE by it. So, by God's design we have a Savior. If the Sermon on the Mount meant as you say, then God would be contradicting Himself. That can't happen. God is fully in control, knowing that we will sin. His call is still unto perfection, even as He is perfect. How could He call for less? But He knows that we all still need a Savior so out of His abundant love He gives us one.

God spent the entire OT and most of the New trying to get the Chosen People to be saved and, generally speaking, He failed. That by itself should be proof that He gave us all free will which includes the ability to reject God.

Only a weak God can fail. Only a God who is not omnipotent can fail. If your above is representative of Apostolic belief, then it also proves the belief that man can and DOES thwart God's will. That is, the only explanation of God failing would be at the hands of man. Is this really the God whom you know?

[Quix]

INDEED.

The notion that God FAILED . . . is rather . . . off the wall, yet somehow expectable from a prissy magicsterical mangled, politically power mongeringly managed edifice that construes it-self as Jr God incarnate—at liberty to shove Christ aside in a list of blasphemous idolatrous ways.

Personally, I’ll take God’s ‘failures’ over man’s successes any day or night.

[Quix]

I am not my own guide:

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9

Likewise, Paul did not receive the Gospel from men - nor did he imagine it:

INDEED. Thanks.