...
His flesh is the man Christ.... the Person... emphatic . Like if you feed on me you must eat the Person.
...
eating my flesh is eating me the person.
...
in a sense it is an inevitable happening.
...
a
further explanation of the body or flesh ... the bread from heaven ...
salvation requires believing in His death and resurrection.
...
the
emphasis is on lit. the one coming down out of heaven then the living
one and then the bread. emphasis... becoming man in contrast to the
manna in the ot. that was physical bread... this is eternal life...
...
What
you are saying is like what you are reading--it's all Greek to me! I
don't want you to think that i'm being silent when i don't respond to
that which i don't understand. Please make it easier for me to see.
Explain how the individual words should be translated other than the way
they are translated in the NIV. Put it in English. Retranslate the
text word for word, if you will.
Thanks Soc....
let me continue on this with the lex and explain. Thanks for these
verses... they are full of intentions and hidden truths that you dont
see in the english text. Jesus was being very definite... leaving no
questions.
| 5032
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: A question about the bride
|
on: May 06, 2009, 03:38:21 PM
|
Great2bHIS,
This
is the way that I have understood that verse to mean. Paul tells us
that 'works' can not save us. Yet James tells us that our salvation
will be shown by our 'works'. In other words, Works will be the result
of our salvation, not the means to our salvation.
Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Yet
in Revelation, it says that our spotless white robes stand for the
Righteous acts of the saints. I see this as a matter of focus. When
we have Christ as our focus, and we do the right things because we are
trying to serve him, then our works become righteous. But when our
focus is on the things of this world and we are only doing these things
because it is expected of us, or because that is how we have always done
it, then they become like filthy rags.
Our works are not righteous in and of themselves, they only become righteous when we have our focus completely on him.
Joshua David
Heres
the problem... if we claim to be righteous in ourselves then we must
meet the standard of what the definition of righteousness is... because
we are the example of what goodness is by our doing what we claim is
good. In other words if i say that i am righteous inherently... in other
words i am good in myself.. or the righteousness of Christ makes my
righteousness acceptable then i am saying that Christ has given me the
ability along with Himself to show the standard of righteousness. So
that Christ must look the other way when my righteous deeds are good
cause He knows that i am not able to be righteous... i mean Christ
measures by His view of me ... not in denying that there is a problem
with my part. When we go to heaven and stand before God and He ask..
why should i let you in to heaven... and we say because i am righteous
.... then He will determine by the standard of His Son whether that is
true or not...and if you say .. i share in the righteousness of Jesus
... i mean then we know who claims this ... rite? Lord... did we not
prophecy in your name and in your name drive out demons?... He will
say... no one has a share in my Sons righteousness... depart from me.
Its our imagination that we can in any way ... at any time ..meet the
requirements in ourselves inherently. Let me give you an
example of what it looks like... here the nation is involved in a war...
now then King Jesus has been fighting and destroying the enemy....but
there is one more thing to be done.... the bomb in the middle of the
city set to go off will need to be dismantled in order to secure the
victory... so you go in there and dismantle the bomb... then you think
that you are the reason the war was won... you deserve the credit for
keeping the bomb from blowing up the city... and then you come before
the great warrior king Jesus and you have a reason to boast because of
what you did... then the King looks at His Father and they look at you
and smile.... then they break out in laughter ... because the bomb that
you thought you dismantled had the explosives taken out of it before you
turned the power off.... Jesus knows how foolish thinking we are.... Yes
who secures the victory?.... Deu 7 7 The LORD did not set his affection
on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other
peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because
the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that
he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of
slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that
the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant
of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his
commands. 10 But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him Deu. 32 30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? 31 For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. Lev 26 6
" 'I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one
will make you afraid. I will remove savage beasts from the land, and the
sword will not pass through your country. 7 You will pursue your
enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. 8 Five of you will
chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your
enemies will fall by the sword before you.
|
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
5033
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: May 06, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
|
alright let me break the text down in Jn 6 in the grammar construction and get back to you. 51ἐγώ
εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς: ἐάν τις φάγῃ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ
ἄρτου ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα: καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν
ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς.... 53 εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν
λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ
τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. 54ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων
μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ: these three verses A . T . Robertson Grammar σάρξ
μού ἐστιν- enclities 2. an enclitic word- MBG ... accented, as Latin
que “and” in arma virumque, “arms and the man.” emphatic in both
instances .. MBG -His flesh is the man Christ.... the Person... emphatic
. Like if you feed on me you must eat the Person. ἡ σάρξ μού-
mbg - This is the same idea as the above... both σάρξ μού are definite
... treated as identical... one and the same, and interchangeable.mbg...
because of the use of the article ἡ. mbg lit. .. eating my flesh is
eating me the person. δώσω will give... future ind. mbg
speaking of His death on the cross. Rob... modal aspect of the future.
The future with the descriptive or identifying relative shows no modal
features. mbg... pointing to the event.. not the mode or mood.. with the
descriptive. in a sense it is an inevitable happening. δὲ-
particle- the apodosis of the condition in this sense ... is always post
positive and in this case occupies the fourth place in the sentence.
apodosis -the clause expressing the consequence in a conditional
sentence, often beginning with then, as “then I will” in “If you go,
then I will.” mbg ...a further explanation of the body or flesh ... the
bread from heaven mbg... salvation requires believing in His death and
resurrection. Dana... Mantey εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα-prep phrase functions as an adverb...forever..mbg modifying ζήσει... eternal life.... ὁ
ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάςThe repetition of the article with
some word or phrase which modifies the noun is a device employed for
emphasis. the article functions as a relative pronoun. The use of the
article is to lend greater emphasis and prominence to a clause which in
some way defines. the emphasis is on lit. the one coming down out of
heaven then the living one and then the bread. emphasis... becoming man
in contrast to the manna in the ot. that was physical bread... this is
eternal life... ἐάν-Is a combination of ει plus άν - vagueness or
uncertainty... the verb is a subjunctive ... a mood of uncertainty....
φάγῃ eats aor. 2 subjunctive. καταβάς...aor. act part.
nom..repetition of the article....ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς
the clause is emphatic... his incarnation. restrictive participle...DM
a fact assumed as obvious. Ingressive aorist...entering into that
state or condition. Bauer... cont...
|
5038
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: A question about the bride
|
on: May 05, 2009, 03:33:28 PM
|
Welcome to the forums, Joshua David The
bride was given the fine linen to wear, but to make herself ready, she
had to put it on. I think that's showing that salvation (clean robes)
is offered, but received by faith (put on). And MBG's J. Edwards' quote is referencing the parable of the wedding banquet, which you may want to read: Matthew 22 The Parable of the Wedding Banquet 1Jesus
spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is
like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his
servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to
come, but they refused to come. 4"Then he sent some more servants
and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my
dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything
is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.' 5"But they paid no
attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The
rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was
enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned
their city. 8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding
banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to
the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the
servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they
could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with
guests. 11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he
noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12'Friend,' he
asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was
speechless. 13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand
and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." I'm
a little confused by the phrase that the linen represents the
"righteous acts of the saints". The KJV says "the fine linen is the
righteousness of the saints" which makes sense to me as talking about
our imputed righteousness because of Christ. But, most of the modern
translations say "righteous acts", so now maybe I'm as confused as you
are, Joshua David. 
Yes....
when we accept the doctrine of Justification by Faith we believe that
the only righteousness that will be the reason for our being accepted
into heaven is Christ righteousness. Now then we are not inherently
righteous... but we are required to obey non the less. The quality of
our obedience is based upon the sliding scale since our acts of goodness
do not meet the requirements of Gods perfect justice. If we compare our
obedience to the law then either we must lesson its requirements of us
or we must see that we have never met the requirement as it is our
obligation to be perfect. One act of disobedience means that we break
the whole law of God... because the law of God is the introduction of
God Himself. It may seem that there is a legal requirement but we must
meet the standard of the law as if we understand who God is by its
revelation to us. And if we think that we obey the law in a complete way
then we must compare our obedience to Christ obedience. Now then we get
into stealing something from Christ when we think that we have done it
according to His standard... we steal His rite to be the only acceptable
man who met all of the law. He was the only man who obeyed completely.
Now then we must be graded on a curve.... that is we are accepted
because of Gods love even tho we fail miserably. Thats why our righteous
acts are not good enough to meet the requirements even tho we do our
best to conform.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5039
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Did Jesus go to Hell?
|
on: May 05, 2009, 02:53:03 PM
|
Ephesians 4:7-10
But
unto every one oe us is given grace according to the measure of the
gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, WHEN HE ASCENDED UP ON HIGH, HE LED
CAPTIVITY CAPTIVE, AND GAVE GIFTS UNTO MEN. (Now that HE ASCENDED, what
is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the
earth?) He hat descended is the same also that ascended up far above
all heavens, that he might fill all things.
The phrase in the KJV
translated "He led captivity captive" can also be translated "He led
forth a host of captives...". If so, this would reference the O.T.
saints who died before the cross.
One school of thought is that
between Jesus' death and ressurection, His soul/spirit went to Paradise,
a place in the center of the earth where the souls of the O.T. saints
remained until Christ's finished work on the cross. Then, 3 days latter,
when He arose, they went with Him to be with the Father.
Paradise
is viewed as a temporary holding place for the Old Testament saints
awaiting the finished work of Christ on the cross to enter into the
presence of God. This also fits with the account of the rich man and
Lazzarus in the gospels, where both Paradise and a place of punishment
(Torment) are described. Thus Jesus words to the thief "Today you shall
be with me in Paradise" would not refer to heaven per se.
Bill
Bill
its interesting that the phrase about the captives was from a Psalm...
and this was related to the ot church.... bringing the captives back
into the Ot worship... since the phrase gave gifts to men is reversed in
the OT economy of worship where He received gifts from men.Which is
interesting to me in distinguishing the difference between the Old
Covenant and New.... Christ needs no gifts... He is the gift and He gave
His life... His Spirit and in that He gave gifts to His NT Church...
The old worship is slavish comparatively speaking. Just as it is used in
a metaphorical sense of the ultimate worship of God on the mountain of
God where the nations around Jerusleum bring gifts ... It is a heavenly
worship reference as well. This is what He did in coming and giving His
life. In a sense the church is made up of misfits or captives. Its a
good comparison.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5040
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: A question about the bride
|
on: May 05, 2009, 02:32:15 PM
|
I will give you a quote.... "Rev. xix. 7, 8. “The marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted
that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine
linen is the righteousness of saints.” None, I suppose, will say, this
righteousness that is so pure, is the common grace of lukewarm
professors, and those that go about to serve God and mammon. The same
wedding-garment we have an account of in Psal. xlv. 13, 14. “The king’s
daughter is all glorious within, her clothing is of wrought gold: she
shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needle-work.” But we need
go no where else but to the parable itself; that alone determines the
matter. The wedding-garment 451 spoken of as that without which
professors will be excluded from among God’s people at the day of
judgment, is not moral sincerity, of common grace, but special saving
grace. If common grace were the wedding-garment intended, not only would
the king cast out those whom he found without a wedding-garment, but
also many with a wedding-garment: for all such as shall be found then
with no better garment than moral sincerity, will be bound hand and
foot, and cast into outer darkness; such a wedding-garment as this will
not save them. So that true piety, unfeigned faith, or the righteousness
of Christ which is upon every one that believeth, is doubtless the
wedding-garment intended." J Edwards.... Here you have the same
kind of presentation as in Hebrews.... now why did the Ot Church not
enter the promise land... wasnt it because they were unable? Thats the
reasoning of the Apostle.... and why did they not enter... because of
their unbelief ... they did not possess saving faith that gave them the
ability.... now this is so very important that the Hebrews account
repeats this pronouncement about those who lacked saving faith because
they did not know the ways of God. And so the Hebrews author exhorts the
saints to see if they have saving faith. God s will is not two but one.
He can harden a heart at the same time that He can convict that heart
through the word and the Spirit.... this is about the culmination of all
the church in all ages as Gods for the end of redeeming a people for
Himself... the bible is a history of redemption... not a collection of
good moral stories. "Every one of those many millions, whose
names were written in the book of life before the foundation of the
world, shall be brought in; not one soul shall be lost. And the mystical
body of Christ, which has been growing since it first began in the days
of Adam, will be complete as to the number of parts, having every one
of its members. In this respect, the work of redemption will now be
finished. And now the end for which the means of grace have been
instituted shall be obtained." J. Edwards
|
5042
|
Members Only / Purgatory / Re: Universalism: Definding the unbeliever at the expense of the Sheep
|
on: May 05, 2009, 12:45:41 PM
|
Universalism is like a developed disposition
that turns the grace of God over in a self love to have an equal desire
to find justice in responsible action. There is nothing equal in the
time spent speaking about ones own abilities and Gods sovereignty. If
there is a method of grace it is very simplistic in its understanding.
Gods sovereignty and mans responsibility are not equal evidences. They
cannot co exist in the universe of the truth of sovereign grace. The
moment i begin to prove my righteousness by what is an evidence of grace
in my heart is the moment that God raises the bar of the law. That is
in order to bring down one man and exalt another. I mean that it is Gods
business alone and there is no equal treatment in that expression from
one man to another. Because grace is the cause of how we are real in
our understanding of our image of ourselves. There is no righteousness
... real ... personified ..... pure and worthy outside of Christ in how
that imagination of worth is bought... but only in the stolen worth of
obedience in the real world in the image we have of real righteousness.
When it comes down to it we are not only what we are by the grace of God
but we are the greatest sinner in real terms in our buying the worth of
righteousness in comparing ourselves to Christ. The most obnoxious
thief is stealing reality in imagining equal proof of real
righteousness.
| 5044
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Did Jesus go to Hell?
|
on: May 05, 2009, 11:53:25 AM
|
I'm a bit of a literalist too Lisa--and have been taught something similar.
Since
he paid my price--besides bearing sin I guess I always thought going to
hell was part of that price. He came out victorious with the keys to
death and hades.
Luv Chess brings up a good point though!
If so, what about what he said to the thief, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43 ?
Jesus said TODAY. Humm?
You are either in the body or present with the Lord right? Believers that is anyway.
So where was Jesus during that period when he was dead--before the stone was rolled away?
We
also have verses in Hebrews that tell us he entered the Heavenly
Tabernacle, the real one not the copy where the veil was torn in two.
MBG brings up a good point too: Jesus said right before he gave up His Spirit It is FINISHED.
--so when he died he ___________ until he rose again and rolled away the stone.
Then
you know His body was in the grave... but His spirit is eternal... i
mean... He is God....so is it a question of where since He is present
everywhere? I mean He is even present in Hell at this moment and i think
that is what is so terribly painful for the sufferers ... to be
confronted with something they could never be connected to for all
eternity. I mean as well as the physical anguish. See how this presents
many problems?... even in the verses that teach the message of His
salvation at the cross ... never mention Him preaching.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
5046
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Did Jesus go to Hell?
|
on: May 05, 2009, 11:07:48 AM
|
Because Jesus took the blame for my sins and was crucified. Did he also go to hell for me between his death and resurrection?
If so, what about what he said to the thief, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43 ?
Just thought I would ask the experts, I couldn't find anything that specifically said he went to hell.
thanks
Why
would Jesus actually visit hell after the darkness of the Fathers
judgment on sin had engulfed the earth... and He cried My God ... My God
... why hast thou forsaken me? And then after the curtain in the holy
of hollies had been completely torn down the center He said It is
finished...at this point He already conquered the power of sin and Satan
for all eternity. That was the message preached in full view in the
entire work of Christ of which our confidence is firm to the end.. Since
those spirits in hell were already in judgment so that there was no
reason for Christ to give a message... then we say that the language of
entering to preach to the spirits was the metaphor of His crucifixion
and resurrection. Even those who wrote the apostles creed held to this
view.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5047
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Excruciating Pain
|
on: May 05, 2009, 09:55:46 AM
|
|
I am speaking from experience... but i ask
myself after having gone through a life of over bearing sorrow and very
high experiences of ecstatic influences as well ... what brings on these
bouts of depression where the sorrow is having an effect as if there
was a weight in the grief that we carry around as if it is all we have
before our eyes.
The first thing is that it comes from the
power of a thought. If we are thinking a certain way then we will focus
on that thing so that the pleasure of a thought is not that strong. Why
do we have this two fold potential in its effects to determine our
countenance?
First of all since God is in control of all
circumstances so that He knows our thoughts before we think them then
obviously He has determined for us to have the experience of the desire
of a thought in order to bring us low. Now then some men are naturally
of a strong constitution..... i mean... there are different abilities in
everyone... no one person is the same. People are susceptible to
different ways of thinking and feeling by this constitution. Some people
have a very weak constitution. Those who are weak should be upheld by
those who are strong. Or the lesser parts of the body should be given
greater honor. Maybe i am comparing this kind of sensitive weak
constitution to having the same level of usage in the sense of someone
with a low IQ. But for whatever reason this stigma is attached to
inhibit a persons usefulness .. it can be hidden in such a way that a
person could be miss understood in how he is treated in society. I mean
you could see a physical handicap as a reason for that level of
understanding.... but its not always the same with depression. Because
the pain is hidden and there is a lot of energy expended to fight the
tendency to give up.
What exacerbates this stigma? Being molded
in such a way that we deal with this as if the reality of the depression
were off set with secularized normality. I mean that feeling anything
is good in the sense that its better than not feeling anything. In a
secularized culture the practice of Stoicism is predominate. It used to
be in a lesser scientific paradigm that a person would medicate his
moods with alcohol. It was an effort to not feel the sorrow... now there
are other drugs that level off the feelings. In this way the moral
truth is to not feel so that you can practice. And then there are all
the other forms of finding relief in community and returning to a
healthy outlook. But the point is that we are all part of the movement
of society and we just find our place through what works. ...cont.
|
|
5050
|
Members Only / Purgatory / Re: Church or not the Church..debate # ?
|
on: May 04, 2009, 08:20:15 PM
|
Let me say something here about this context
.. of the prophets... and the people.... as you may not know this has
been drawn out of personal experience in my life and is one reason that i
am currently in a PCA church. First of all the context of this call is
very important. Here this message is to a people who do not know the
ways of God even tho they are circumsized. One of the things we need to
see about the message of the prophets is that they were part of the
Theocratic machine in the way God would speak to a nation. Now we in
this country have these separations in our messages since we have the
separation of church and state. But under a theocratic rule the king is
like a spiritual father or a despot carrying out the law of God. The
prophets were the messengers of God not only as a mouth piece in a
political sense in speaking to the entire nation... but they advised the
kings as well. Thus you have Samuel confronting David with a word of
discipline. But one thing we need to see is that the ot church was made
up of the nation of Israel ... since it was required for them to be
circumsized to be faithful to the covenant God made with Abraham. But
just like we are ... so the nation of Israel was always rebelling and
going astray... and just like we are there are people in this country
who attend an orthodox church every sunday and they show themselves
faithful to the call of God... but then there are the rest of the nation
who is not in line with this. I mean there are religious people who
attend church who are not believers as well. But in a theocracy ...
religion is mandatory. So what i am saying is that you have this
ongoing dialogue in the old testament between these prophets and the
National israel. Now the prophets were preaching a salvation message.
They were talking to a rebellious people ... a person who was not
faithful to the ways of God.... and now we come to the nt church and its
a bit different... since we have the separation of church and state...
we do not have prophets who stand at the street corners and preach
repentance.But we have the ot account of a people who were always
straying to show that its not just the national israel who are sinful
... but it is the true church... but the true church does not need a
salvation repentance sermon every sunday... they need a gospel call to
trust in Christ in their daily walk. I hope you see the difference.
| 5054
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Romans and the Flesh Monster.
|
on: May 04, 2009, 05:39:19 PM
|
One thing that has been under girding your
level of understanding is your insistence in your writing about the dual
nature of how truth is developed into a idea. I may be reading into
your writing that philosophy is equal with the scripture.... i mean ...
in the sense that you have not developed the dogma of the self
attestation of the word of God. We believe the truth to be that the
Bible is all we need to live a life of Godliness. The bible is that by
which every thing that is to be understood about truth is tested. First
because we are not just dealing with an idea as it is truth. We are
saying that the succession of events on this earth is worked out in a
Trinitarian communication of that which is true about reality. God
decrees whatsoever comes to pass. And i guess you could say that when
you put all of these second causes together and you have vast un
duplicated created things that works to bring about an event then you
must stand in awe of Gods will and power to present Himself as God in
the view that all things are present with Him. Where do we
understand this flow of Divine emulation and pleasure? We find it in His
revelation of Himself ... that He is as detailed in His word as He is
in the moving of time to the exact second when all these things will
pass and we will be eternally present with Him in the new heaven and
earth. And just as every particle in this universe is intimately
understood in its existence by God... so every word that is written down
in His revelation is determined to sustain His working in and through
men to bring about His pre ordained purpose as the seconds tick off of
the clock. Every space in this universe is Trinitarian because every
space is God as He is soveriegn over the will and movement of all
things. So that every word in His revelation is Trinitarian since He
willed it to be revealed. For His word does not return void.
| 5056
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Lukewarmness
|
on: May 04, 2009, 12:04:09 PM
|
My experience in all of this job related stuff
is that if you are not good at baby sitting then a middle management
job will continue to be a head ache for you. It sounds like there is
something that the other people are seeing in you where you are failing.
The only kind of job that a type A personality will thrive in is being
self employed. Maybe you should try some kind of trade where you are
working with your hands ... or if your not good at that ... then some
kind of teaching job... where you can control the curriculum. I know
there is a niche for you some where... its just asking for wisdom and
then pursuing jobs that are not going to be trouble for you at this
point. You may be able to keep trying and failing until you get the rite
situation... or you may be better at a job where you can keep your
mouth shut and make money.
|
5061
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 03:55:00 PM
|
Ok
this is going to be short .. eating something fir lunch no pun
intended ... but this whole concept in the understanding of grace and
how it relates to atonement and the meta physical working as to how God
has revealed Himself through the cross ... as a message of grace ... is
related to blameworthiness and the act of the will in its causes and
effects ... is like trying to explain in a method of this substitution
toward us... as not bringing in a secret scheme to change how God is
seen as to how we view ourselves. So there is need for further
explanation.. I know... understand or clear as mud?
Reminds me of something Socrates said:
Now,
to tell what sort of thing the soul is would require an absolutely
superhuman and lengthy narrative; but an account of what it is like will
be briefer and within the range of human capability. Let us then take
the latter course.
(Phaedrus, 246)
I suppose
my suggestion would be similar: To try to "explain in a method of this
substitution toward us" would require an absolutely superhuman and
lengthy narrative; but an account of what it is LIKE will be briefer and
within the range of human capability. In other words, try to tell me
what this difficult thing you are trying to explain is like. Do what
Jesus often did: Give me a simple metaphor to which i can compare this
difficult idea. Help me see what you see by way of example.
Well
something that comes to mind as a start would be that at the time sin
was committed in the garden then either God could have made His Son the
offspring of Eve and died for the sins of the ot saints and the whole
world... it would have been the best argument for the just consequence
of mans sin and Christ crucifixion. It would have been swift punishment.
I mean if that was the main focus of the atonement. Now then since all
of this transpired in the events of history then God had a plan and
purpose that was much bigger than simply blaming man and crucifying His
Son because of that sin.
|
 Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5062
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 03:44:54 PM
|
Maybe
since you are presenting the doctrine... that we can get some of the
original teaching so ...its my habit over the yrs here to present a
teaching in the form of a book ... many books... that is mainly my
position... i mean if you have this Unitarian mentality i am sure there
are teachers that you ascribe to. Plus you got the catholic ency...
totally free and i think i will introduce the teaching in order to make a
more clear distinction. As you know... or if you havent seen... if an
idea is slanted or false as to the doctrines of grace i can give you the
Truth. I am not sure what you are saying... i guess i am asking you to
present the truth... i mean some of your questions are so open ended
that ... well... i understand you are playing the question man...
Socrates ... i like that too... ok whats next?Is it a question or a
statement of fact.... i think the Socratic form is stating facts as well
as questions?
The thing about books is that they suffer from the same defect from which photographs suffer. Don't you agree?
It
depends upon the approach in the contents of the book....if its
exegesis of the text ....along with a pastoral encouragement and
experiential truth then the book has some weight. The revealed things
are for us and our children. In other words if i were given the choice
between a contaminated piece of bread or a steak that had bacteria ..
you know what would be worth my time. The main things are plain and
understandable. No one could be saved otherwise.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5066
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 01:39:19 PM
|
First
of all ... i believe you are trying to put the focus on the things of
salvation and take it away from the Person of Christ.
Please explain what gave you that idea.
Soc...
let me go back over the other thread... maybe my accusation about you
... i mean .. i really dont know what your theology is....
calvinistic... semi plagianism or plagianism... can you explain if you
believe that you are in the middle .. and its a mystery... which then
that lack of preciseness will define to me your position.... or what i
think you are Wesleyan... or a mixture of Unitarianism with two line....
i mean... i can look at a teaching and dissect the points of
difference... which i invite you to share the catholic ency. over the
teaching of the Eucharist. My intention is to get to the entire teaching
at some point. As i am a bit different because i believe that
anything less than the solas is a kind of idol worship. ...self... the
thing... theological dualism.... etc.
I think you
misunderstand my position. My position is that i don't have a
position. I'm simply trying out different ideas to see what fits the
truth because i'm uncertain of what the truth is. At the moment i'm
suggesting that Jesus was pointing out the fact that unless the human
race kills Him, there would be no chance for its redemption. That's
what He might have meant when He said that they would eat His flesh and
drink His blood. At least, that's what those words meant in the Old
Testament--words that would have been familiar to His audience who was
hearing much preaching about the coming savior who would eat the flesh
and drink the blood of (or defeat) the Roman occupiers.
Is
it your intention to move to the idea of the Eucharist being immolated
in practice? I mean.... its really not us who crucified Him... The
Father was pleased to crush the Son... and the Son was pleased to do the
Fathers will... with perfect worthiness... there really was nothing to
prove for Himself in the presence of the Father in light of His
substitution for us.... He did it strickly for us...Soc... its the wrong
focus.... its like arguing from the lesser for the sake of the
greater.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5067
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: The Eucharist : William Webster
|
on: May 03, 2009, 01:26:58 PM
|
First
of all ... i believe you are trying to put the focus on the things of
salvation and take it away from the Person of Christ.
Please explain what gave you that idea.
Soc...
let me go back over the other thread... maybe my accusation about you
... i mean .. i really dont know what your theology is....
calvinistic... semi plagianism or plagianism... can you explain if you
believe that you are in the middle .. and its a mystery... which then
that lack of preciseness will define to me your position.... or what i
think you are Wesleyan... or a mixture of Unitarianism with two line....
i mean... i can look at a teaching and dissect the points of
difference... which i invite you to share the catholic ency. over the
teaching of the Eucharist. My intention is to get to the entire teaching
at some point. As i am a bit different because i believe that
anything less than the solas is a kind of idol worship. ...self... the
thing... theological dualism.... etc.
|
|
|
|
5076
|
Members Only / Purgatory / Re: Church or not the Church..debate # ?
|
on: May 01, 2009, 07:50:20 PM
|
These arguments on whether we should condemn
all churches or a few.... what the proper amount of programs should
be... if the church is teaching legalism.... if church buildings are
inherently evil.... the difference between small churches and big
ones.... all the bad experiences we have encountered... etc ... All of
this in my opinion is like arguing over whether the drapes in the church
should be green or blue. The truth is that the doctrinal approach is
what defines the kind of church as to how effective it will be in the
growth and the closeness to the spirit of encouragement that will become
the mark of the function of its members. People do not naturally just
fall in line or get along in a church. Thats why communication as to the
incorporation of a testimonial epistemology is not going to produce
agreements on the direction of a church should take. Everyone comes with
a spiritual experience as a way to find some kind of unity, solidarity
... and encouragement... but that is not going to create the fundamental
source of agreement. We can be encouraged in the Spirit but we also can
give our opinions about our experience for as they are as different as
the kinds of colors in creation.And in the end they are very
undependable as the changing of the wind. The only way we are going
to have a strong and sure foundation of unity is by the agreement of
doctrine. Christian unity is Christ likeness. Christ likeness is formed
in us as we grow in Christ. We grow in Christ as we are being changed
into Christ. We are changed into Christ by His revelation to us. Our
focus is on Christ through His word. At some point we must find our
unity in our corporate understanding of Christ. Just like you eat your
food and you grow... you study the doctrines and you grow. Now then the
only real and deepening of the experience of unity is through the
matured understanding of Christ and the agreement we have with one
another about Christ. Christ is the head of the church. We fix our
thoughts on Christ because He is the Son of God who rules over His
church. We learn how to treat one another when we have a proper view of
the work of Christ as He came as our brother and teaches us to get along
like a heavenly family since He is our apostle and high priest.There
are visible things and there is practical problems that arise with our
being in this world. Our problem is not to have our practical problems
fixed first but to learn how to get along in the family of God. Then by
our relation to our big brother we will treat each other as our
brothers. I am rambling but this Hebrews focus i am in is really
awesome.
|
5082
|
Members Only / Purgatory / Re: Church or not the Church..debate # ?
|
on: May 01, 2009, 12:09:22 PM
|
|
Calvin says that we are an idol
factory.....now how can a christian manufacture idols when he hasnt made
one out of wood and stone? He can love something so much that he is
like whatever he loves. In other words a person can imagine something
that makes them think feel and act like a machine.That is ... idolatry
is putting something before God so that your desires do not center of
Christ. Just because you have religious activities does not mean your
heart is going to change. That is why a good thing can become an idol.
Most of the OT is filled with physical things that were part of the
worship of Gods people. The problems were not related to the practice of
the usage of these things that were required in the worship of God...
the problem was that they began to worship the physical things in place
of God.
Thats why God declared that He was tired of their
offerings.... those things that were required to worship God... they
were a stench in His nostrils. Why because their desires were set on
other idols in their private worship and they were bringing their sinful
practices into the worship of God. God knows their hearts... only the
remnant was seeking God for God in the sense that the idols were
imaginary but not the love for other gods and not for those things that
were required. Thats why when David danced in His ephod in the middle of
Israel as they were bringing the ark of the covenant back into
Jerusalem that it was acceptable worship because God loves a heart that
is panting after Him... so that Davids heart was not divided while he
was dancing before the Lord. Over and over there were only one thing
repeated throughout the Psalms..... I hate idols... and even i hate
those who worship idols.... it is the center of the expression of anger
that leads to all kinds of evil in a society. That is why in any society
church or secular ... this is very serious because it determines the
kinds of relationships that one is going to encounter.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment