Posted on 09/01/2010 3:02:30 PM PDT by pastorbillrandles
Verdugo is an Aug 13 newbie attacking others on the religion forum. Great volume of posts in just one month
Troll or retread?
I don’t see anywhere where any of those people that you claim I’m “attacking”, are making any such claim against me. If you post your opinions on FR, they are open to debate. I’m a staunch Catholic (married 8 years and have 5 children under 8), AND for me the pope himself is open to scrutiny! If one posts on the public forum, it is natual for people to react/respondr. It’s not like I’m barging into your house at your dinner conversation.
NKJV: Josh 24: 1 Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem and called for the elders of Israel, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God. 2 And Joshua said to all the people, "Thus says the Lord God of Israel: 'Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the River in old times; and they served other gods. 3 Then I took your father Abraham from the other side of the River, led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his descendants and gave him Isaac.
The NKJV appears to be clear that Terah was an idolater. It is probably true that of his 3 sons, Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. Odds are that Nahor was an idolater, since his son Laban had household gods that Rachel stole. That's assuming the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.
Interestingly, the only record of Haran is his son, Lot. While Lot turned a blind eye to some bad stuff, there's no indication that he was an idolater. He wanted to go with Abraham when Abe went out at God's command.
The Josh passage says plural "fathers" were idolaters, and it offers up Terah as a guilty party. One father, however, is not the plural, "fathers." "Your fathers...dwelt...and served other gods."
Those who dwelt beyond the River were definitely: Terah, Abe, & Nahor. They all did.
Those who "served other gods" were definitely Terah and probably Nahor based on Laban's gods.
One can find no evidence in Abe's life that he had any focus other than the Lord. His was devotion only to the Lord, even to the almost sacrifice of Isaac.
Perhaps it was a "by association" issue that was being addressed. As a boy, Abraham was brought up in idolater Terah's household, so one would have expected him to have been indoctrinated in that practice.
As we refer to many as "cultural Christians" because they come from Christian homes in a Christian culture, perhaps we can acknowledge that Abraham was a "cultural idolater" because he came from an idolatrous home in an idolatrous culture. It could have been something he NEVER bought, and that could have been by design of the Lord who eventually calle Abraham out of that culture.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
“Easy way to make a living” is an attack.
I’m fine with your being a Catholic. While it’s an open thread in an open forum, saying to a freeper named “pastorbillrandles” something about his means of livelihood is a “personal” attack.
For your info, I too am a pastor, and my good relationship with many Catholics is well known. If you are actually new, and you aren’t a troll, then welcome. But, even then, you would need to know that the religion forum draws a distinction between a disagreement and a personal attack.
I noticed that myself. He has posted almost exclusively in the Religion Forum since his inception date and he is quite versed in the HTML and pinging procedures. His presence on this thread was clearly nothing but trolling. If I were a betting man, I would lay odds that we have a retread.
I would be inclined to agree, though it's a bit of a gray area because the poster is also the author.
Yep. I vote retread. More power to him if he keeps clean, but....retread.
true, but clearly identified. I had no doubts, anyway.
Disagree all you want, but “easy way to make a living” to a pastor is a low blow.
That aside, I’m just heartsick over yesterday’s court ruling on DADT. There’s no way to fight it because the powers in the military welcome it....Gates, CJCS, Obama.
It’s Congress power to make regulations for the military, though, so maybe if the conservatives win this fall, they’ll highlight this area as an area of separation of powers and for the Scotus to butt out, or even deny them oversight.
With so many gay-friendly repubs,though, I doubt it.
I think we just lost that battle. UNLESS the troops speak out.
Thank you P-Marlow for your generosity of spirit in this discussion.-
I think the point I was making is in danger of being lost. Abraham was a sinner- that is why he needed to be justified. I am not trying to impute any particular sin to Him, I think I have valid grounds to believe that He, being one of the Fathers Joshua referred to,”Your fathers...”- was an idolater.
I see why you can infer that he wasn’t guilty of that particular sin. This is one of those things that inferences can go either way- True the scripture doesn’t say “Abram bowed down to Marduk”, not does the scripture say “Abraham’s father and brothers worshipped Idols but he always knew better than to do that”-
I think Joshua is telling us that Israel’s Fathers worshipped idols, and yes I did state that Abraham was an idolater. In the Romans 1 sense every sinner is an idolater, so I dont see what the point would be of trying to exonerate Abraham of sin before he believed in God.
I am not going to say that this is authoritative, because it isn’t but there are many evangelical theologians who also say on the same basis, that Abraham was an idolater- AW Pink comes to mind, but there are others.
This is one of those issues where equally sincere Christians can disagree about what they think they see in Joshua 24 and it dosn’t really matter much. The point is that the conversion of Abraham is a prototype of the conversion of us all- thank you- and God bless you-
However, making a thread "about" individual Freepers is also a form of "making it personal."
Enough has been said now, so return to discussing the issues and not making it personal.
YHvH did not breath the breath of Elohim I don't want to put too fine a point on this but
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
at the time of Genesis 15:6 Abraham's NAME
was Abram not Abraham !
(Holy Spirit) into him until Genesis 17:5. Gen 17:5 "No longer shall your name be called Abram,
Unless you consider Eliezer of Damascus
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
as a type of the Holy Spirit.
YHvH did not breath the breath of Elohim (Holy Spirit) into him until Genesis 17:5.
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. – Isaiah 51:1-2
Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4
Indeed, even Calvin came to that conclusion, but that doesn't make it so. I think we need to differentiate between what the scripture says and what it implies. If it implies something then we need to make sure that when we make an assertion based on the implication that we don't state it as a fact but as an opinion. I think we can state as a fact that David was an adulterer and a murderer and that his justification was by faith.
There are several sins of Abraham that are quite clear in the scripture. The most obvious was his lack of faith in God's promise that Sarah would bear him a son who would be the father of many nations. The world itself is still suffering from the effects of that sin, but Abraham was justified by his faith in being willing to sacrifice Issac and believing that if he did, that God would raise him from the dead. His disobedience is the sin of Abraham that we should focus on and not some vague reference to idolatry that may or may not have happened.
JMHO :-)
That's a critical issue, imho. And another like it is basing an inference on a prior inference. (Secondary inference?) And then making another inference (tertiary inference.)
The probability of accuracy gets less with each added inference....not that it isn't true, but that it's suspect.
Good point Uri, i was coming from the standpoint of Romans 4 - but your point is well taken
There are several sins of Abraham that are quite clear in the scripture. The most obvious was his lack of faith in God's promise that Sarah would bear him a son who would be the father of many nations.And yet isn't it interesting that God said Abraham didn't stagger at the promise of God,but grew strong in faith glorifying God, in Romans 4-
All I have to say about grace and works is....
We work from grace and not for grace. Grace is a free gift from God.
If not, how hard do you have to work to get the grace and can you do enough?
Amen brother- I wish I would have put it so well!
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.