Jump to content

Daniel1212

Members
  • Content count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Daniel1212 last won the day on March 25 2017

Daniel1212 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,045 Excellent

About Daniel1212

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Interests

  • Interests
    Bible doctrine, Catholicism, Computers, Bikes

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

Relationship Status

  • Relationship Status
    Single

Denomination

  • Den
    Non-denominational

Country

  • Country
    USA
  1. Daniel1212

    Is the Word of God flawed?

    Related: Gender neutral is not needed or is wrong depending on the context. People should understand that as in much historical literature statements like “It is written, Man [anthrōpos] shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” (Matthew 4:4) God “now commandeth all men [anthrōpos] every where to repent,” (Acts 17:30) refers to mankind (man-faced). And what some scholars fail to mention is that most often the word for men as in “all men” is not the Greek in the New Testament, which is thus in italics in the KJV, and usually in the few places “all men” occurs in the OT then it is male-specific. For there is more than one word translated “man” in both Hebrew and in Greek, and in contrast to 'adam in Hebrew and ánthrōpos in the Greek which are often used for those of mankind, both men and women, 'iysh in the Hebrew is male-specific as in “Therefore shall a man ['iysh ] leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife ['ishshah] : and they shall be one flesh.”(Genesis 2:24) As is 'enowsh such as in “And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men [enowsh ] of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.” (Genesis 17:23) And in the Greek arrēn is male-specific as in “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male [arrēn] and female,” (Matthew 19:4) Anēr is another Greek words translated “man” which is most always male-specific. This is not an exhaustive study but as you can see, one cannot be gender neutral where Scripture is not and claim to be teaching the word of God. In addition, the male occupies the headship position according in God’s order, “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,” (1 Corinthians 11:3) and thus can be used to represent male and female.
  2. Daniel1212

    By Grace Alone Through Faith Alone

    Man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God not only gave him life, and breath, and all good natural things he has, (Acts 17:25) but also convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10) Thus man owes to God all things, and while the lost is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) believers can not claim he actually deserves anything positive, and indeed God does not owe him anything but damnation, yet under grace, which denotes unmerited favor, God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects. Which means that God justifies man on Christ's account, by His sinless shed blood, (Rm. 3;25; Col. 1:14) without the merit of any works obtaining this, which is what Romans 4:1-7ff teaches, with works of the law including all systems of justification by merit of works, for, "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21) Thus the penitent publican and the contrite criminal, both of whom abased themselves as damned and destitute sinners and cast all their faith upon the mercy of God (which ultimately is Christ), were justified, and as such could go directly to be with the Lord at death, even before they did any manifest works of faith. But works justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace for such, (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) though only because God has decided to reward man for what God Himself is actually to be credited for. Because justification is appropriated by faith, (Rm. 4:5) then we have statements that one will be saved if he believes (Jn. 3:16; 3:36) thereby being forgiven/washed, sanctified and justified, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; 2Co. 6:11) yet because salvific faith is not inert but is "living" faith which effects evidential "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) then we have statements that if persons do something which expresses faith then he will be saved, from confessing Christ with mouth and or in baptism to being holy loving mother to overcoming, (Rm. 10:13; Acts 2:38; 1 Tim. 2:15; Rv. 2:7) since this evidences such is a true believer, versus one that is dead. (Ja. 2:20) And thus we have the exhortations to continues in the faith and warnings against departing from it, faith being the issue. (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:38,39) But contrary to Catholicism, in which one actually becomes good enough to be with God (first by what the act of baptism does, and then, usually, thru Purgatory), the effects of justifying faith are not the cause of justification, except in the sense of justifying one as being a believer, being saved. The meek shall inherit the earth not because meekness earned this foir him, but because that is a characteristic of God-given saving faith, yet as said, God rewards believers under grace. (Heb. 10:17,35) though salvation is a gift. (Rm. 6:23)
  3. Daniel1212

    Martin Luther: "The Jews and Their Lies"

    Thanks for the clarification, but did Luther address Jews any differently than Catholics? I think that must be a rhetorical question. And yes, there is a vast difference btwn the rowdy rhetoric of the 16th C. and the other extreme, that of liberal snowflake society, which is most manifest on colleges*, but which hypersensitivity to anything possibly offensive to culture, etc. is a one way street, as it is in liberal politics, in which conservatives are not sheltered from offensive language or treatment, but are objects of it. And which snowflakedom extends to Christian (in name anyway) forums. For over 10 years (by the grace of God) I have been an very active debater on http://www.freerepublic.com, with hardly even being cited for an offense amidst thousands of posts, and whose rules and mods for the religion forum are overall reasonable. But I have also been on https://www.christianforums.com for about a year, and which has mostly liberal members, and many many rules, and overprotective ecumenical mods who protects Catholics while, among other things allowing a traditional RC to deny salvation to ex-Catholics. The refusal to bow before the politically correct flag did get Trump some votes, while there must be wisdom as well. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: (James 1:19) *Students Confess Their Sins At 'Masculinity Confession Booth' 3/29/2017, 5:54:47 PM · by Zakeet · 64 replies Daily Caller ^ | March 27, 2017 | Rob Shimshock A university will be hosting a "Masculinity Confession Booth" along with a number of other workshops and screenings to combat "hypermasculinity."...“We have all reinforced hypermasculinity one way or another regardless of our gender!!” explains the University of Regina event description. “Come and share your sins so we can begin to discuss how to identify and change our ways !!!”
  4. Daniel1212

    Martin Luther: "The Jews and Their Lies"

    Thanks for the input. regarding treatment/attitudes in the 16th C toward the Jews or Judaism, you must be familiar with James Swan who has a series on Popes and the Jews, and The Popes Against the Jews by David Kertzer. Which sources I have posted in response to Catholics who attack Luther for his anti-Judaism (described as anti-antisemitism). Moses himself was provoked to speak unadvisedly with his lips, as I have also, but there is no real excuse for it. I think some of the charges were likely true, and as a culture the Jews may have had a self righteous attitude that looked down on others, and overall made themselves easy to be scorned. But such is the test of Christian love. But about my attitude toward Liberals...
  5. Daniel1212

    Our first death

    While in my flesh (sinful nature) dwelleth no good thing, and which carnal mind is enmity against God and is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be, (Rm. 7:18; 8:7), but by nature makes me a child of wrath, and which flesh is only to be crucified, Christ as God incarnate being without a sinful nature would mean that in Him dwelleth no evil thing, but by nature He was subject to the law of God, which I like much better. Thus rather than "no good thing" having to be being crucified, the One Wholly Good Thing on earth was crucified for us who are by nature children of wrath, and would be punished according to our practice. (Rv. 20:11-15) Lucifier and apparently many more angels, as well as Adam and Eve, though being made "very good" and without a sinful nature, could be tempted, and likewise the Divine Son of God. One different btwn the sin nature and the absence of it is that Adam and Eve could stand next to each other in their "birthday suits" and neither be ashamed or have to resist lust, unlike us (speaking as a male as concerns the latter). But the reality of pleasure, possessions and prestige/power was there, all of which God gives, but the test was choosing these over obedience to God. Maybe there are even sins that we can do which cannot be blamed at all on our natural proclivity to sin. A question is, being without a sinful nature would Adam and Eve have gotten tired, and if not, what is the implication of the Lord becoming tired in His incarnated body? RCs go so far as exclude that Mary suffered the pains of childbirth, since she was merely without sin, not an Adamic nature (though their supererogatory adulation infers that and more).
  6. Daniel1212

    Saul and Samuel

    Indeed, and both Fidel Castro and America's founding fathers were both rebels, but there was a world of difference btwn them. What i meant that that this text, which speaks of profound latter-day satanic supernatural delusions deceiving souls away from the basic salvific Truth is used by souls such as deny the immortality of the souls to antagonistically condemn those as lost, who disagree with them but who preach salvation by grace and other basic core salvific truths. I cannot say you are lost if you believe the basic gospel yet disagree with us on this, though your antagonistic insistence on your seemingly decisive doctrine, unreasonably making Scripture to agree with you, does not help.
  7. Daniel1212

    Saul and Samuel

    It is obviously true that according to the Law absolute obedience is required, and as all have sinned, If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? (Psalms 130:3) and thus must be justified by faith. However, it is also obviously true that there the overall basic character of the practical outworking of justifying faith, whereby,. as shown and ignored, believers . (2 Samuel 22:22-25 and God Himself characterizes sinners as having walked "in integrity of heart, and in uprightness," (1 Kings 9:4) as walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." (Luke 1:6) Even of King Asa the Spirit states, "But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days." (2 Chronicles 15:17) Yet the next chapter (2 Chronicles 16) makes manifest his character defects. This does not mean they are not sinners and are good enough to be with God in Heaven, but it means that justifying faith is evidenced by characteristic obedience (and repentance when convicted of not doing so), "things that accompany salvation" (Hebrews 6:9). Believers can be called sinners, (James 4:5-11) and yet if it cannot be said that believers overall walk in righteousness then it cannot be said (in the context of evidence of faith) that "he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7) He that doeth (practical outworking of faith) righteousness evidences that he is justified by saving, living, effectual faith (and whereby he can know he presently has eternal life: 1Jn. 5:13), which is what produces the obedience of faith. And God's estimation of Job is life that of Zacharias, and Elisabeth walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless, yet in both cases it is soon revealed that both Job and Zacharias were not perfect in heart/character, nor was David despite his overall integrity. Under the Law one could be said to be obedient in actually doing what was commanded, (1 Kings 15:5) but it did not mean one was Divinely perfect, whereby He could enter Heaven. All must be essentially looking to the cross, under the rubric of which forgiveness was granted before it. Indeed, as Job's friends did, and as some believers yet do. But actually the accusation of Satan was not that Job thought he was an "upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil," and held fast his integrity, which God said of him even after Job's initial suffering, but the devil's accusation was that Job was faithful because He blessed Him. It is you who wrongly accuse God, making what God clearly said of Job to merely be what Job said of himself. He did justify himself as regards seeing no reason for his chastisement in protesting (against 3 health and wealth prosperity preachers who essentially insisted Job must have been really doing something sinful to warrant his chastisement, and who did not speak right, "as my servant Job" in the end: Job 42:7) to God that he did nothing to warrant this punishment, and as if "It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself with God." (Job 34:9) Which was contrary to his initial submission and justifying God as having the right and the wisdom to do what is right, and as a sinner who actually deserved worse, though overall he had walked in obedience to God (as one in covenant with God who would see his redeemer.) Yet this wrongly reaction brought about by severe testing by God in no way invalidates the repeated affirmation of God as regards prior Job's overall walk and character, and contrary to the judgment of his 3 friend's (who were thus judged), his chastisement is nowhere said to have been due to some manifest failure in his prior walk with God. Instead his sin is manifest as justifying himself, in protest, as one who without cause was being chastised, seeking to appeal his sentence as it were on that basis, and rather than justifying God as having good reason for what He was doing. By protesting that, while a sinner (which he confessed to be) he was being chastised without warrant, and then Job was implicit charging God with injustice, thus essentially placing him "in company with the workers of iniquity, and walketh with wicked men" (Job 34:8) as Elihu charged. The first thing we need to do when suffering is to examine whether we are being chastened for something we did or failed to do, (Lam. 3:40) and were impenitent about, and repent if we were, )Heb. 12:11-13) and Job could not find anything of this character. For while we are sinners, God does not severely chastise us simply because in our flesh dwelleth no good thing, and who often fail somewhat in heart and deed to love God and neighbor as we should, but are repentant about it. God blesses obedience and has mercy on the contrite of heart. However, if needed, He not only will chastise us to varying degrees to bring about real repentance, but He can also chastise overall faithful men to refine them into being better believers. "Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator," (1 Peter 4:19) That "the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you." (1 Peter 5:10) However, we see that Job cannot figure out why his is suffering , since in his theology, faithful men do not, and asks God to show him where he erred: Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred. (Job 6:24) For he breaketh me with a tempest, and multiplieth my wounds without cause. (Job 9:17) Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book. (Job 31:35) I will say unto God, Do not condemn me; shew me wherefore thou contendest with me. (Job 10:2) If my step hath turned out of the way, and mine heart walked after mine eyes, and if any blot hath cleaved to mine hands; Then let me sow, and let another eat; yea, let my offspring be rooted out. (Job 31:7-8) If I have walked with vanity, or if my foot hath hasted to deceit; Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know mine integrity. (Job 31:5-6) O that one might plead for a man with God, as a man pleadeth for his neighbour! (Job 16:21) Are thy days as the days of man? are thy years as man's days, That thou enquirest after mine iniquity, and searchest after my sin? (Job 10:5-6) And he protests that he is not "wicked" as in practicing rebels, yet he feels punished for as a sinner sins he does not know of: If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction; For it increaseth. Thou huntest me as a fierce lion: and again thou shewest thyself marvellous upon me. (Job 10:15-16) If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soul: I would despise my life. (Job 9:20-21) I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself? And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be. (Job 7:20-21) Then Job answered and said, I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. (Job 9:1-3) How much less shall I answer him, and choose out my words to reason with him? Whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer, but I would make supplication to my judge. (Job 9:14-15) For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin? My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity. (Job 14:16-17) Yet he holds fast to his faith in final redemption: For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: (Job 19:25-26) Against the charge of sins he did not commit, he protests, My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit. God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me. My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live. (Job 27:4-6) I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out. And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth. Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand. (Job 29:15-18) Elihu finally has space to speak, and in reproving Job for inferring he is being unjustly chastened, he asserts God's righteous character and just sovereign power: Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man. Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters. (Job 33:12-13) Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, wickedness; and the Almighty, iniquity. (Job 34:10) Behold, God exalteth by his power: who teacheth like him? Who hath enjoined him his way? or who can say, Thou hast wrought iniquity? (Job 36:22-23) Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out. (Job 36:26) Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict. (Job 37:23) Elihu thus concludes, Job hath spoken without knowledge, and his words were without wisdom. My desire is that Job may be tried unto the end because of his answers for wicked men. (Job 34:35-36) Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou saidst, My righteousness is more than God's? For thou saidst, What advantage will it be unto thee? and, What profit shall I have, if I be cleansed from my sin? (Job 35:2-3) For he hath said, It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself with God. (Job 34:9) Job's failure was thus one of both theology and heart. Therefore, rather than God showing Job that he had failed in his prior walk with God, such as was charged by his friends and contrary to God's affirmation of him, the Lord revealed His sovereign power and omniscient wisdom, that He had both the right, the wisdom and the power to do what He did, which was right and glorious as shown by creation, which Job failed to see. And and was in that humbling light that Job's confession or his error and repentance was effected, "Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee." (Job 42:3-5) Note also that Job needed to pray (+ thus forgive) his friends before the blessings would follow, and "as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation." (2 Corinthians 1:7) But again, the accusation of Satan was that the overall uprightness of Job which God stated he maintained, even after his first stage chastisement, was due to Job being blessed by God, since the devil rejects that worship of God can be due to God's unique inherent worthiness. In addition, contextually Job's self-justification was not as one who was good enough to merit Heaven, but one whose walk did not warrant his chastisement. Nonsense. You are simply reading your conclusion into the text, which does not follow from it. God is referring to Job's practical life, not his positional status, and thus once again affirms that despite what the devil worked to make him do, Job yet was "a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil and holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." (Job 2:3) Which conclusion is still fallacious, since the devil utterly failed to show that Job's obedience was due to loving the "perks" so that if the opposite was realized then "he will curse thee to thy face. (Job 1:11) Job did protest that he was being unfairly treated, which was a lie from the devil, but nevertheless, he did not reject God. Instead, under the presumption that one who walked in overall faithfulness would not suffer as he did, then as one blindly perplexed he protested and appealed his case to God, who after hearing all his venting, set Job straight in the light of His glory, power and wisdom. Job already looked forward to the Redeemer, and belonged to God, but repented of his ignorant self-justifying protestation as one being as one unjustly chastened, rather than trusting that God was good, and in knew what He was doing, and basing himself as an ignorant protester, who was actually not being rewarded according to his iniquity. (I am guilty of the same. All that should matter is what best glorifies the Lord. We should be willing to go to Hell if that would be the case.) None of which is contrary to God's repeated initial positive overall affirmation of Job, prior to the testing which revealed hidden faults, which still left the devil a liar.
  8. Daniel1212

    We're Moving! Site Down Expected

    Thanks for your hard work. I am impressed with this forum in more ways than one, thank God. And I like the dark theme you offer that i choose. Easier on the eyes.
  9. Daniel1212

    Saul and Samuel

    2 Thess 2:9,10 is often used by elite fringe groups as a one-size fits all text to dispense with all who do not subscribe to their particular distinctive doctrine. Perhaps transferring to a new server could qualify as a "false wonder."
  10. Daniel1212

    Saul and Samuel

    "Perfect" has more then one sense, and we have positional, imputed righteousness and the practical, which we come short in, but in the overall sense the redeemed are said to be those who practice/doeth righteousness. While I am sure Job recognized his need for redemption as a sinner, yet i still think his being "perfect and upright" was as regards his overall walk of faith, which was surely not claiming Divine Perfection, but overall faith-fulness in his practical walk such as even David claimed, and God affirmed. Simiarly Paul, while confessing he was not already 'perfect" as resurrected saints will be, and which he strove to be as much like as he could in this life, (Phil 3:10ff; cf. Rm. 8:4) yet he could say at the end, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (2 Timothy 4:7-8) (Imagine what Catholics would extrapolate out of that if holy Mary had said it, but making "that day" to be her Assumption.)
  11. Daniel1212

    We're Moving! Site Down Expected

    a When just (8:40) refreshing a page i had open in Firefox, I was blocked with "The owner of http://www.christforums.org has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website." Peer’s Certificate issuer is not recognized. If you want the Certificate chain i have it, meanwhile i added a security exception so that I could access this.
  12. Daniel1212

    Saul and Samuel

    Just jumping in here, I see such statements as state that declare certain men to be "perfect," and "upright" (though in each case there are different words translated as such, which I have not fully studied) to to refer to the basic overall character of such in living out true, effectual justifying faith. Therefore, even apparently after the iniquitous episode (Bathsheba, Uriah) of David's life, he could say, "I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly [full apostasy] departed from my God. For all his judgments were before me [if not always]: and as for his statutes, I did not depart from them [overall]. I was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore the Lord hath recompensed me according to my righteousness; according to my cleanness in his eye sight. (2 Samuel 22:22-25; cf. 2 Timothy 4:7-8) And which overall summation God confirms in response to Solomon's reiteration of David's expression, "And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto thy servant David my father great mercy, according as he walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness...(1 Kings 3:6) "And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments." (1 Kings 9:4) The integrity of heart and in uprightness here is as regards practical life, and in which, as with the case of Abraham and other like men, actual sin was an exception. Coming to the NT we have the husband and wife couple, Zacharias, and Elisabeth, who "were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." (Luke 1:6) This overall sense are regards the outward evidentiary manifestation of justifying faith (in the light of which 1Jn. 5:13 speaks) is what1 John refers to in statements such as "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." (1 John 3:7-8) If taken in the absolute inclusive sense then no one is evidently righteous, and all are of the devil, for "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) And practical blamelessness is required of pastors. (1 Timothy 3:2) Thus Job, while being blind to his faults, could and was declared to be "a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil," and seems to be listed later as one of the 3 most holy OT men, (Ezek. 14:14,20) (Job 1:8) The idea that God is simply expressing Job's opinion of himself is untenable, for this is not only nowhere inferred, and any such expression by Job comes later (basically confirmatory of what God said), but it was because of Job's obedience to God that He set him before the devil as an example of one who loved God as uniquely worthy of this, and was thereby blessed by God. Which is evidently anathema to the devil, for his original rebellion (the first "Occupy Movement") was based on the premise that God was not uniquely worthy of His position and glory, and that such should be shared with the devil ("share the wealth"), without the devil doing a single thing that would render him fit to be rewarded (contrary to what God does, under grace, Rev. 3:21. We do not become good enough for Heaven, and are justified by living faith in the uniquely sinless Son of God, yet God rewards believers for what faith effects, Heb. 10:35, which He actually enabled and motivated, and who alone is actually worthy of credit for). Therefore after being abased due to his unholy presumption, the devil worked to seduce Eve with the idea that God was unjustly, selfishly, maliciously withholding power of deity from her by His one restriction and that the penalty for disobedience was not true, but instead would obtain for her what was her right (meaning the idea that one must be worthy/merit rewards was wrong, but such are a right regardless). [You can see like charges of injustice and selfish, malicious intent against God on atheist sites and books, though they dent the very source of such, while in political systems (Communism, socialist liberalism) you can see the seduction of the victim-entitlement mentality, in which they system that requires and rewards merit with benefits is attacked as victimizing those who want to "climb up some other way" (or bcz they are somewhat victims of of injustice within the system) other than by mercy and merit, and by which self-proclaimed "saviors" (typically living in affluence) obtain power by promising to obtain the benefits for the "victims," who have a right to what others have merited (and which eliminates mercy and grace, as instead what would be given under such is made out to be a right, and fosters more demands, not humility and gratitude and desire towards betterment). The end, as seen in Communism, is that the aforementioned "saviors" are the ones with all the benefits they promised, with the rest being in servitude to them, giving them the obeisance they list after.] Thus the devil attacked the idea that Job worshiped and obeyed God because He was worthy by asserting instead that Job's faithfulness was because he was essentially a "rice Christian," charging, "Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land." (Job 1:10) And after God let the leash of the devil out enough that Job experienced enough things to take about 30 years off his life expectancy chart, yet "In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly." (Job 1:22)"and that [saith God] he "still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." (Job 2:3) Therefore the devil raised the bar, that if God would, via letting the devil have at him (cf. 1 Co. 5:5) "touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face." (Job 2:5) Which Job's wife (who was not destroyed with the rest) told him to do, likely in committing suicide. Therefore it was actually because Job uniquely was basically "a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil" (Job 2:3) that he went thru this trial, proving the devil wrong, albeit with a multitude of understandable protests from Job, and that did not receive any direct answers from the Almighty but a multitude of rhetorical questions instead, all saying "I know what I am doing, and can and will do what is right. Trust Me." And it was only in the light of God's omniscience and wisdom in the grand picture that Job realized his foolishness (unlike raging atheists who presume omniscience and omnipotence in judging God for such things as killing Canaanite kids, saving them from replication...). Then Job answered the Lord, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:1-6) I am not much on devotionals, but i think this is fitting here: “Life is but a Weaving” (the Tapestry Poem) “My life is but a weaving Between my God and me. I cannot choose the colors He weaveth steadily. Oft’ times He weaveth sorrow; And I in foolish pride Forget He sees the upper And I the underside. Not ’til the loom is silent And the shuttles cease to fly Will God unroll the canvas And reveal the reason why. The dark threads are as needful In the weaver’s skillful hand As the threads of gold and silver In the pattern He has planned He knows, He loves, He cares; Nothing this truth can dim. He gives the very best to those Who leave the choice to Him.” ― Corrie ten Boom
  13. Not in and of itself, as in a real sense Christ/God was veiled in human flesh. However, the NT emphasizes that this Son of God was indeed incarnated, "a body thou hast prepared Me," not a wafer of bread, "the word was made flesh," not dough, and which body was that which was broken/bruised and the blood poured out (and a face-value literal reading of the so-called "words of consecration" would mean that this manifestly literal body/blood was what they consumed) versus one whose appearance etc. did not physical correspond to what He was.
  14. Well, there was a lot there to shoot at, by the grace of God. Which would be banned at Catholic "Answers."
  15. Actually i think the OP is arguing that there was a roasted lamb, that there had to be as the anti-type to the OT prefigurement, except that (reiterating much here) while claiming correspondence to the Passover and a face-value literal reading of the words at issue. "take. eat, this is my body which is broken for you...", it did not/does not look, taste, test. etc. anything like a roasted lamb, and in fact what you see (bread and wine) does not actually exist, and instead what the believers see, taste, etc. is said to be the roasted lamb (Christ), though by known evidences of physicality it is not, and it even no longer exists once the non-existent host element begins to decay. Yet which metaphysical contrivance is said to really" be the body and blood of the incarnated Lord Jesus who was bruised/broken and His soul/life/blood poured as an offering for sin. (Is. 53:10) Thus i do not think that the OP was intending to argue for his position based upon silence, except perhaps the silence he imagines as regards support for the competing metaphorical understanding, which is actually the only one which conflates with the rest of Scripture, but he is arguing for a distinctive Catholic belief and practice that is simply not evidenced as being what the NT church understood the gospels as saying. Arguing against Eucharistic theology based on this absence could result in the charge of being an invalid argument from silence, but the argument is that the Catholic Eucharistic understanding and practice is not seen in the life and teachings of the NT church (Acts onward). And thus, for those who take Scripture as the sole supreme wholly inspired standard, it lacks the necessary warrant for being binding doctrine. That is all that is necessary for us, yet it is also shown to be contrary to what Scripture teaches. Arguing that the Constitution does not teach Communism is a valid argument, even if based on the evidence of silence, while teaching that Communism based on that is wrong requires showing the contrasts with it. Also, according to some who define things, "An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time."[6][7] In this case, the Holy Spirit certainly would have the information, and to be consistent, would give a complete enough account of the situation to warrant required belief, as an item that was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time. Well, glory to God for what is good, and my fingers do not really hurt, its just that i must lift my whole hand(s) up for each letter, and often the landing is not on the right "pad." Praise God anyway, who can use them who are nothing to bring to nought things that are.
×