I'd argue that Jesus would be a capitalist, in regard of his parable of the talent and the parable of the vineyard workers - distribution of talents according to each one's ABILITY, and disposition of personal property by personal decision.
Was Mary Sinless?
- Thread starter randyk
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What's really flawed is your naivete about human nature. Socialism never works because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Socialism in essence is a collectivist system, in such a system, wherever it takes place, power and wealth are highly concentrated, which results in Judas at the top. The bible respects the right of private property, socialism is from the devil.
Then you think everyone puts on incorruptible if everyone in the lake of fire will always be "still there" after being thrown snarling in the lake of fire.
Scripture on says their worm never dies, but you add "and neither do they." My dog never stops being my dog if I die. People just start referring him to 'was my dog' after I die. In the case of the worm, the phrase is illustrative of it continuing to feed until there is no more to feed on.
No I did not infer it was only found in the KJV, I asked if you were a KJV only person because of your seeming reluctance to look at anything else.
Yes you did, post#1329
Quote:
"The human spirit God breathed into Adam was perfect but the spirit we received, by procreation, from Adam was affected by sin, deadening it to the things of the Spirit."
The scripture is clear that flesh gives birth to flesh only, it does not give birth to soul or spirit.
Yes and I have challenged you on this as only God generates a human spirit and to believe we have one at birth must logically follow that God generates imperfect human spirits or that the Lord of Life generates death.
Yes and only the man who is born again has that understanding because he is no longer spiritually dead but alive. Those who have no human spirit, who are still dead in their sin, cannot know God or His ways because they are spiritually discerned. Spiritual understanding requires both the Holy Spirit and a human spirit. It is the main function of the human spirit to translate spiritual things which, is why we MUST be born anew.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural (psychikos meaning unspiritual/unbelieving) man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
If they were not born again then they could not write scripture for it would have been foolish to them and unknowable.
Can you sit there with a straight face, reading the Psalms of David and tell me he did not know the Lord?
Every believer is born again from the time of Adam's repentance onwards. If it were not so, no-one would have known the Lord.
What we have been given in the Church age is far more than a human spirit and the Law.
I fully understand the human nature. There are multiple highly flawed economic systems, one is called Socialism, as you rightly point out. Another is called Capitalism. But all economic systems are based on a human created fallacy commonly called "money", which is a human means of keeping score in a game invented by flawed humans and therefore inherently flawed. But in the socialist format, when ideally followed as indicated in Acts, the benefits are evenly distributed to all according to individual needs, unless you feel that the system set up by the Apostles, and apparently approved of by God,was flawed.
Part of the problem is the definitions of the various "isms".
Socialism is the control of production by the state. Communism is the control of production collectively, so that there is no private ownership and everything is distributed equally.
Both systems require a controlling body to distribute wealth. Since such bodies are controlled by flawed humans, the results are grim. There has never been a successful communist nation. Both systems make no allowance for human nature and motivation. Both systems therefore rely on force or coercion to work.
Capitalism is the control of the economy by individuals or corporations. The means and distribution or production is also controlled privately.
There is no pure expression of any of the three systems. And they are all open to abuse.
The difference with God's economic system is that it is not by coercion. It is based on giving according to the individual's ability to another's need. It is voluntary, in spite of the badgering by some money obsessed pastors.
Both systems require a controlling body to distribute wealth. Since such bodies are controlled by flawed humans, the results are grim. There has never been a successful communist nation. Both systems make no allowance for human nature and motivation. Both systems therefore rely on force or coercion to work.
Capitalism is the control of the economy by individuals or corporations. The means and distribution or production is also controlled privately.
There is no pure expression of any of the three systems. And they are all open to abuse.
The difference with God's economic system is that it is not by coercion. It is based on giving according to the individual's ability to another's need. It is voluntary, in spite of the badgering by some money obsessed pastors.
As an aside, the early church did not have massive building programs and a large professional staff to pay. Paul encouraged believers to give, but it was not through manipulation and false promises of great riches.
Money is not inherently evil. Lord Jesus said that it is the love of money that is the root of evil. And yes, there is way too much of that.
Money was not invented by man.
Man simply invented ways to present money to others.
For it was God who created gold, silver, and precious stones, so that man could utilize them for the system God had decreed for man to live by while living in this created world.
. . . . .
Good point, I believe that scripture implies that gold was created to be pavement and precious stones to be walls. Humans are the ones who have decided that gold, silver and precious stones have some intrinsic value. If one looks at history, it is humans who have created the concept of money, the value I see in gold, silver and precious stones has nothing to do with financial value, given today's culture I will not casually part with any, but the intrinsic value I see in them has nothing to do with dollars.
I posted, erroneously, "you" spin instead of your spin, should have spell checked. Your doesn't include your teacher. Oh yeah, you never answered the question, by the way. In case you forgot, Job 32:8
When you die nothing on earth is yours, it WAS yours, as in " WAS my( his) dog" as you stated. If you were still alive THEN he would still be your dog. The worm, who never dies, is still theirs, who are still there. If you have money, a house, car, etc., etc. when you die it is no longer yours. " And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, if any MAN worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of THEIR torment ascendeth up FOR EVER AND EVER: and they have NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Rev. 14: 3-11. If the torment stopped so would the smoke of it.
1) You did not ask if I were a KJV only person, you wrongly assumed I was. 2) The spirit given THROUGH (instead of by, as I posted erroneously) procreation was affected, deadened, by Adam's sin. God gave everything needed, through procreation, for us to be everything He created us to be. And acorn has within itself everything it needs to be an oak tree but the ground where it gets the nutrients needed to foster growth. The seed of man has everything it needs inside itself and the ground where it gets it's nutrients from is the womb. Everything in nature works this way, seed form. I noticed that you went to the second part of the scripture I gave without addressing the first, which is " But there IS A spirit in man:" Was he talking about only saved man? I don't read, before Jesus, of anyone being saved, born again. I never said that David or Moses or Elijah etc., didn't know the Lord, they were all righteous, but not born again. Every one has to travel that Roman road of Romans 10: 9-10,13 in order to be saved. The only time that could occur was when Christ " ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto man." Eph 4:8 Those captives, IMHO, were the old testament believers in God and His promise, who were held in Abraham's bosom (Paradise), which was under the earth, until Christs' blood was poured out on the mercy seat and He released them, including Paradise, by "having the keys of hell and of death." Rev. 1:18. Paradise is now in heaven awaiting all the redeemed to inhabit the places Christ is preparing for us. I have more to say, but not now.
Found some notes from one of the church members and will only post what it says...
We need the context to discern Job 32:8.
Job 32:7-8
7~~I thought, 'Age should have its say.
Advanced years should teach wisdom.
8~~But it is the breath/spirit {ruwach} in man . . .
and the breath/inspiration {nushamah} of the Almighty
that gives them understanding.
9~~It is not only the old who are wise,
nor only the aged who understand
'the Light of bible doctrine'/judgment {mishpat}.
From what I understand from what you said?
"God gave everything needed, through procreation, for us to be everything He created us to be. And acorn has within itself everything it needs to be an oak tree but the ground where it gets the nutrients needed to foster growth. The seed of man has everything it needs inside itself and the ground where it gets it's nutrients from is the womb. Everything in nature works this way, seed form."
It is actually the ovum that gets fertilized.
You have it reversed, being the sperm getting fertilized.
The females' ovum can produce a clone.
But, never a male's sperm.
Google it: The females' ovum can produce a clone.
Also note:
A male's sperm cannot produce a clone because cloning requires a complete set of genetic material from both a sperm and an egg, and sperm alone cannot develop into a full organism without the egg's contribution. Cloning involves creating an embryo that must then develop in a suitable environment, such as a surrogate mother.
I believe it explains itself. Elihu thought he was to young and not wise enough for the conversation but realized it was not age but God could inspire his spirit to give him enough understanding. The point being that he already had a spirit and wasn't born again. God, who is Spirit, connects with and inspires our spirit, not our soul.
God doesn't clone so I don't know how you got there. So you are saying that without sperm human life can be produced? Sperm fertilizes eggs and the ovum contains genetic material for fertilization of the sperm, look it up.
I guess question marks don't mean it's a question to you? I assumed nothing but took a guess and asked you to confirm or deny by means of the question mark. post#1355
Quote: Let me guess .. KJV Only?
Flesh gives birth to what again? Again, not a single verse to back up your claim that the material can produce the immaterial. It states clearly that the Spirit gives birth to spirit and that the spirit is given by God not by some other means. Yet, you constantly ignore this and insist biology is the means of acquiring a spirit.
Did you not read the scripture I gave you? If you are not born again, ie. still spiritually dead in your sins, you cannot know God or His ways yet you have these spiritually dead people writing scripture. You have them in a state where comprehension of the kingdom of God is impossible but being inspired by the Holy Spirit. What's more the 1Cor.2:14 scripture contrasts the natural man which would be one who, at the very least, walks by means of the flesh, to the spiritual man who, at the very least, is alive spiritually to God being able to do the exact same thing.
Then why tell Nicodemus before He died something that would make no sense to him but expect him to understand? No-one was expecting Jesus to die not even those He told repeatedly.
John 3:10
Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?
Might be better if you didn't. I don't think you understand what it means to be spiritual.
The point is he had to be born again in order to have a spirit otherwise he would have had no understanding of spiritual matters. You cannot spiritually discern something without the Holy Spirit's input and your own spirit making you alive to God.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
How do you think they could write scripture or speak of the things of God when they cannot receive things from the Spirit?
Save this debate for another day with another guy plz. The historical in Acts 2 was a desperate situation, the early church was excommunicated as a radical sect, they couldn't do business as normal, they had no choice but to pool their resources in their own church community for survival. It was a desperate measure, not the norm, and it had NOTHING to do with capitalism. Your mention of capitalism is nothing but "what-aboutism" aiming for distraction.