Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- 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.
no problem 👍🏻 In many of Pauls epistles he is giving his audience a history lesson, a more obvious example is in 1 Corinthians where Paul says:
“1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”
1 Corinthians 10:1-5
Paul reveals to is us, reading 2000 years later, that the Corinthians, being Dorians Greeks, were descended from the ancient Israelites, although at that time, it was common knowledge that the Greeks were the Israelite dispersion, explained just by Jewish historian Josephus, but the Pharisees reveal this in thrir concern of Jesus going to the uncircumcised Greeks in John 7:35:
“The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?”
“1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”
1 Corinthians 10:1-5
Paul reveals to is us, reading 2000 years later, that the Corinthians, being Dorians Greeks, were descended from the ancient Israelites, although at that time, it was common knowledge that the Greeks were the Israelite dispersion, explained just by Jewish historian Josephus, but the Pharisees reveal this in thrir concern of Jesus going to the uncircumcised Greeks in John 7:35:
“The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?”
no problem 👍🏻 In many of Pauls epistles he is giving his audience a history lesson, a more obvious example is in 1 Corinthians where Paul says:
“1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”
1 Corinthians 10:1-5
Paul reveals to is us, reading 2000 years later, that the Corinthians, being Dorians Greeks, were descended from the ancient Israelites, although at that time, it was common knowledge that the Greeks were the Israelite dispersion, explained just by Jewish historian Josephus, but the Pharisees reveal this in thrir concern of Jesus going to the uncircumcised Greeks in John 7:35:
“The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?”
Among the Roman citizens were Isrselites of the dispersion which to them, the gospel made sense, them being the “other flock” Jesus spoke about, “sheep who hear his voice” and Paul being the minister unto the nations, who no doubt was using the OT prophets as a witness to the ministry of Jesus and the foretold “good news” that God was calling back his “divorced bride” I tend to believe that this ministering called out to “sheep” whereas to them that were perishing it was non sense.
There is also historical evidence that points to the Roman origin through the line of Zerah, i will post those sources in another post. In the epistles of Paul, as i used 1 Corinthians 10 as an example, he frequently links his readers back to ancient Israelites but something to consider is his use of the word “brethren” which in our time is a common word of salutation which usually does not confirm a familial connection but in Pauls time this was not a term used loosely.
Brethren / the greek Adelphos
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός
ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);
but more importantly, as used by a Hebrew
2. according to a Hebrew use of אָח (Exodus 2:11; Exodus 4:18, etc.), hardly to be met with in secular authors, having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, countryman
When reading Paul,in context, i believe that his usage of words are very intentional, for instance if he chooses the word “brethren - adelphos” as a Hebrew, his audience have a common father, a national kinship and even though he makes more direct connections of kinship, such as 1 Corinthians 10, i interpret his use of the word “brethren - adelphos” to describe fellow Israelites and of the “nations” the dispersion of many that God promised Abraham
“1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”
1 Corinthians 10:1-5
Paul reveals to is us, reading 2000 years later, that the Corinthians, being Dorians Greeks, were descended from the ancient Israelites, although at that time, it was common knowledge that the Greeks were the Israelite dispersion, explained just by Jewish historian Josephus, but the Pharisees reveal this in thrir concern of Jesus going to the uncircumcised Greeks in John 7:35:
“The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?”
Among the Roman citizens were Isrselites of the dispersion which to them, the gospel made sense, them being the “other flock” Jesus spoke about, “sheep who hear his voice” and Paul being the minister unto the nations, who no doubt was using the OT prophets as a witness to the ministry of Jesus and the foretold “good news” that God was calling back his “divorced bride” I tend to believe that this ministering called out to “sheep” whereas to them that were perishing it was non sense.
There is also historical evidence that points to the Roman origin through the line of Zerah, i will post those sources in another post. In the epistles of Paul, as i used 1 Corinthians 10 as an example, he frequently links his readers back to ancient Israelites but something to consider is his use of the word “brethren” which in our time is a common word of salutation which usually does not confirm a familial connection but in Pauls time this was not a term used loosely.
Brethren / the greek Adelphos
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός
ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);
but more importantly, as used by a Hebrew
2. according to a Hebrew use of אָח (Exodus 2:11; Exodus 4:18, etc.), hardly to be met with in secular authors, having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, countryman
When reading Paul,in context, i believe that his usage of words are very intentional, for instance if he chooses the word “brethren - adelphos” as a Hebrew, his audience have a common father, a national kinship and even though he makes more direct connections of kinship, such as 1 Corinthians 10, i interpret his use of the word “brethren - adelphos” to describe fellow Israelites and of the “nations” the dispersion of many that God promised Abraham
Mr. Thompson, sir, did you get a chance to read and digest my 8850 which I beamed up to you early this morning? In Pink's argument he cited Prov 16:9 to support his claims. This passage reads:
Prov 16:9
9 In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines [or directs] his steps.
NIV
But there are several other similar passages that teach this truth, and this is what I want to share now to add more support to Pink's premise.
Prov 16:1
1 To man belong the plans of the heart,
but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
NIV
Prov 19:21
21 Many are the plans in a man's heart,
but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.
NIV
Prov 21:1
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.
NIV
Prov 21:30
30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan
that can succeed against the LORD.
NIV
Jer 10:23
23 I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own;
it is not for man to direct his steps.
NIV
Isa 46:10
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
NIV
And then this final one that ends with an important rhetorical question and is a kissing cousin text for Jer 10:23:
Prov 20:24
24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD.
How then can anyone understand his own way?
NIV
You might recall that I have on several occasions quoted a very well known Shakespeare passage that I wholeheartedly agree with because it accords beautifully with these passages I just quoted, especially with Jeremiah and this last one!
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
I wonder if the great Bard, who wasn't particularly religious from what I read about him, knew just how biblical he waxed when he wrote that? After all, if "all the men and women [are] merely players", then who did the Bard believe was running the production? Who was the Direrctor? The playwright? Who was the "man behind the curtain"? Who owned the stage on which we actors play our parts?
The Sovereignty of God as the active King and Ruler of this Universe on the one hand and the Moral Responsibility of Helpless, Powerless, Pathetic enslaved men on the other can never be completely understood. But so what!? I can't understand the Trinity, or the Incarnation, or the Hypostatic Union, or the width, length, breadth or height of God's infinite love toward his people, OR why or how God could ever love a miserable wretch like me -- but that doesn't prevent me from believing in these, and other great incompensible truths, as well. But some of us are so arrogant and proud that we keep inventing clever ways to make the scriptures above disappear from our minds. Most of us prefer to suppress those kinds of passages because they don't fit in with our wordly, carnal presuppositions. They just don't fit in with how we mere mortals reason!
But as for you, Mr. Thomposn, just remember what Pink said in his article and supported with scripture: Judas owned his sin! Judas knew he betrayed innocent blood -- even though God directed his steps to do so! Judas knew his own self-deceived heart well enough to admit to his guilt!
And Pink probes deeper into this mystery in the last queston he tackles if you're up to the challenge. If you are, I'll post it here.
Prov 16:9
9 In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines [or directs] his steps.
NIV
But there are several other similar passages that teach this truth, and this is what I want to share now to add more support to Pink's premise.
Prov 16:1
1 To man belong the plans of the heart,
but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.
NIV
Prov 19:21
21 Many are the plans in a man's heart,
but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.
NIV
Prov 21:1
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.
NIV
Prov 21:30
30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan
that can succeed against the LORD.
NIV
Jer 10:23
23 I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own;
it is not for man to direct his steps.
NIV
Isa 46:10
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
NIV
And then this final one that ends with an important rhetorical question and is a kissing cousin text for Jer 10:23:
Prov 20:24
24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD.
How then can anyone understand his own way?
NIV
You might recall that I have on several occasions quoted a very well known Shakespeare passage that I wholeheartedly agree with because it accords beautifully with these passages I just quoted, especially with Jeremiah and this last one!
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
I wonder if the great Bard, who wasn't particularly religious from what I read about him, knew just how biblical he waxed when he wrote that? After all, if "all the men and women [are] merely players", then who did the Bard believe was running the production? Who was the Direrctor? The playwright? Who was the "man behind the curtain"? Who owned the stage on which we actors play our parts?
The Sovereignty of God as the active King and Ruler of this Universe on the one hand and the Moral Responsibility of Helpless, Powerless, Pathetic enslaved men on the other can never be completely understood. But so what!? I can't understand the Trinity, or the Incarnation, or the Hypostatic Union, or the width, length, breadth or height of God's infinite love toward his people, OR why or how God could ever love a miserable wretch like me -- but that doesn't prevent me from believing in these, and other great incompensible truths, as well. But some of us are so arrogant and proud that we keep inventing clever ways to make the scriptures above disappear from our minds. Most of us prefer to suppress those kinds of passages because they don't fit in with our wordly, carnal presuppositions. They just don't fit in with how we mere mortals reason!
But as for you, Mr. Thomposn, just remember what Pink said in his article and supported with scripture: Judas owned his sin! Judas knew he betrayed innocent blood -- even though God directed his steps to do so! Judas knew his own self-deceived heart well enough to admit to his guilt!
And Pink probes deeper into this mystery in the last queston he tackles if you're up to the challenge. If you are, I'll post it here.
There is no error in my Death Analogy. After all, Natrual Man is filled with natural understanding and zero spiritual understanding. And his natural understanding can appropriate fragments of spiritual truth here and there -- but he can't make sense out of it because basically he doesn't want to. The Natural Man's mind is always at enmity with God! And this is logical because the Natrual Man is the Seed of the Serpent.
Talking about which...how are you coming along with the question I asked you in my 8881? Shirley, the post-Fall narrative is not above your pay grade, is it? As Biden has famously said, |"C'mon, man...!
Talking about which...how are you coming along with the question I asked you in my 8881? Shirley, the post-Fall narrative is not above your pay grade, is it? As Biden has famously said, |"C'mon, man...!
You just earlier dismissed parabolic comparisons between physical things and spiritual thing as foolish, saying we should compare spiritual only with spiritual. But now, when you do it, you are claiming it reveals the depth of your wisdom and insight. You appear to be setting your pants on fire at both ends.
Pink is wrong about prophecy making known what will be, as if prophecy is a decree of what will inevitably happen regardless of what anyone may do. A quick survey of scripture will uncover mant times where what God prophesied did not occur as predicted or decreed. God qualifies His prophecies with the disclaimer that, if he prophesies evil against some person or nation, and that person or nation changes course away from the behaviour that earned the threatened evil, God will not do the evil he prophesied He would do. Based on this qualification given by God Himself, Judas could have not betrayed Jesus. Had He not betrayed Jesus, God could have easily shepheted the evil wills of others to crucufy Jesus. And God could have fulfilled the thirty pieces of silver prophecy so other way through Judas or some other person.
I accidentally hit the send button before finishing my last post and just missed the 5 min deadline to edit. Here is the corrected reply.
"Pink is wrong about prophecy making known what will be, as if prophecy is a decree of what will inevitably happen regardless of what anyone may do. A quick survey of scripture will uncover many times where what God prophesied did not occur as predicted or decreed. God qualifies His prophecies with the disclaimer that, if he prophesies evil against some person or nation, and that person or nation changes course away from the behaviour that earned the threatened evil, God will not do the evil he prophesied He would do. Based on this qualification given by God Himself, Judas could have not betrayed Jesus. Had He not betrayed Jesus, God could have easily shepherded the evil wills of others to crucify Jesus. And God could have fulfilled the thirty pieces of silver prophecy some other way through Judas or some other person."
"Pink is wrong about prophecy making known what will be, as if prophecy is a decree of what will inevitably happen regardless of what anyone may do. A quick survey of scripture will uncover many times where what God prophesied did not occur as predicted or decreed. God qualifies His prophecies with the disclaimer that, if he prophesies evil against some person or nation, and that person or nation changes course away from the behaviour that earned the threatened evil, God will not do the evil he prophesied He would do. Based on this qualification given by God Himself, Judas could have not betrayed Jesus. Had He not betrayed Jesus, God could have easily shepherded the evil wills of others to crucify Jesus. And God could have fulfilled the thirty pieces of silver prophecy some other way through Judas or some other person."
So, it is possible to imitate Jesus and Paul without them taking over our bodies and behaving like themselves through us. Now, what would be the next question a person trying to imitate Christ outwardly, without Christ within might ask?
And I disagree. Not every act a child does to outwardly imitate his parents must be self-centred. That is an opinion you gravitate to because of your distorted view of anthropology.
And I disagree. Not every act a child does to outwardly imitate his parents must be self-centred. That is an opinion you gravitate to because of your distorted view of anthropology.
Was that a "No". to my question, asking whether you mean -
No one walking in the Spirit insists on his own preferences, but is subjecting his choices to the choices of the Holy Spirit. Trusting God...walking by faith... is a choice... to lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways to acknowledge Him...to accept the choices of the Holy Spirit as better than your own preferences when those two conflict ?
I am married and that does not mean that I don't keep on making decisions about how to work out my relationship with my wife? Maybe your marriage is different.
No one walking in the Spirit insists on his own preferences, but is subjecting his choices to the choices of the Holy Spirit. Trusting God...walking by faith... is a choice... to lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways to acknowledge Him...to accept the choices of the Holy Spirit as better than your own preferences when those two conflict ?
I am married and that does not mean that I don't keep on making decisions about how to work out my relationship with my wife? Maybe your marriage is different.
-
1
- Show all