How can a nonfool choose foolishness?
You can be identified as the one that chose foolishly and dealt with accordingly, but you can't be faulted for being a fool (as Jesus called them)?
ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
How can a nonfool choose foolishness?
You can be identified as the one that chose foolishly and dealt with accordingly, but you can't be faulted for being a fool (as Jesus called them)?
Rosenritter
New member
A prophet is someone who speaks in the name of the Lord. Although you might be used to thinking of "prophet" as one who speaks a prophecy of future events, this would also reply to anyone who claims to speak on God's behalf for teaching, doctrine, reinterpretation, and so forth. Doesn't the Pope claim to be Christ's vicar on earth, and claim authority derived from and the same as the previous Pope? That would make him a "prophet" in the biblical sense of the word.
We already have a God's word in the form of scripture. If a Catholic priest (or anyone, really) speaks in agreement with scripture then I would also be in agreement, as he isn't speaking his own words but is already affirmed by what I know is true. Any authentic prophet will not contradict the word we are already given.
Rosenritter
New member
Everyone can be faulted for their fault.
Yes, the one that did the crime can be pointed out and said to be the one that did it. Not arguing that. And we need to put them in a cage away from the rest of us so they don't do harm, to be sure. Not arguing that.
The question is, at what point does a nonfool choose to be a fool? Jesus said the fool has said in his heart there is no God. When was that fool a nonfool that chose to be a fool? See the problem? By def. a nonfool can't choose to be a fool b/c only a fool can do that. You said it yourself, we do the best with what we have. Was Jesus a real guy or something people made up? I honestly do not know. If Jesus turns out to be real, how can I be faulted for not having w/e it takes to have seen it? Thanks.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You seemed to me to be saying that you do not receive/accept any bishops today because of sins that bishops have committed. I'm still curious about this question that I don't think you answered:
If anyone who sins is proven then and there to be an inauthentic pastor, then are there Any authentic pastors, and have there ever been?
In your opinion.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Neither Paul, nor any other part of God's Word, teaches that the word 'bread' is a synonym for the word 'body', nor that the word 'body' is a synonym for the word 'bread'.
Now, you have been understandably silent, in post #284, as to the Thomas Aquinas quote contained in the quote which I displayed in post #283:
"As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, "This bread is my body," but "This is my body" (Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5)."
Like Christ, Paul, and the rest of Scripture, even Aquinas, here, clearly didn't agree with your asinine, and false, claim that the words 'bread' and 'body' are synonyms of one another. But, you have just claimed that "the Catholics and the Orthodox are telling me they're synonyms." So, now, why don't you just quote for us the exact statement(s) given by Rome's Magisterium in which (as you claim) Rome is telling you that the words 'bread' and 'body' are synonyms of one another? Quote, and give us the bibliographical documentation necessary to refer to it, ourselves.
Remember your meltdown when I asked you for ancient historical documentation to back up your claim that early Christians were accused of cannibalizing somebody named 'Chrestus'. Remember how you had nothing rational, whatsoever, to say in response to that simple request. Well, your claim
was false, as regards your asinine, and (also) false, claim that early Christians were accused of cannibalizing somebody named 'Chrestus'. Instead of academically meeting my challenge, you had to turn around and say that, when you had claimed that early Christians were accused of cannibalizing someone by the name of 'Chrestus'
So, obviously, there's no reason, whatsoever, for anybody to take you seriously, here, when you say that somebody has told you that the words 'bread' and 'body' are synonyms of one another.
Um, OK.
Wait a second, there. Why'd you capitalize the three initial G's in that silly expression? They kinda resemble three instances of the numeral 6, don't they? Capital G and numeral 6 look quite similar as glyphs: "these Guys Got Grapes"/"these 6uys 6ot 6rapes". Are you trying to hint at an association between Rome and the number, 666?
Rosenritter
New member
There are lots of different types of foolishness. Thank you: it helps to define the intended context. In this case I would disagree with a previous poster that said that everyone innately knows that God exists and who that God is. For example, I have a two year old and I don't think she understands complex concepts right now. But let's consider another case:
Someone else has a two year old child who is taught (in their innocence and their youth) that there is no God. Instead they are told fantastic tales like "the universe created itself from a nothingness the size of a dot" and "all living things evolved from rocks" and other similar beliefs. A person who grows up in this background has been programmed (or brainwashed) with foolishness engineered by others. It is difficult to fault a child for being foolish (after all, their role is to learn from their parents in obedience) but adults start to face choices. So what does this (now become) adult do when faced with choices? If assumed beliefs are confronted, is it evaluated and considered against evidence, or is it simply mocked?
I would think that it is quite evident that someone can defy or forsake wisdom into foolishness.
If Jesus was invented then the Romans wouldn't have lost hold over their empire over the failure to produce a body of a fictitious person... and it is also unlikely that their own hired historian Josephus would have made reference to Jesus.
Rosenritter
New member
No, I reject the bishops that teach in opposition to (and because of that opposition) to scripture. But to be fair I would agree with any teachings that do agree with scripture.
So...you agree with Reformed theology then...good to know.
Rosenritter
New member
Ah, you make a funny joke! I started to answer seriously there because I assumed that was from Idolater. Peace.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And when they do, they're being a fool, not a nonfool.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Then we agree to disagree because I think 1st Corinthians 11:24 KJV proves you wrong.
It looks like you're sniffing for when the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of the Lord, especially since you're quoting Aquinas, who we know helped to flesh out 'transubstantiation.' iow when do the bread and the wine become synonymous with His body and blood. Is this the point you're making/trying to make? At what point does the bread become His body? Then I can provide you the proper bishops' teachings.
I don't remember any 'meltdown,' I remember you picking at something that wasn't in any way substantive to whether or not Christ's Real Presence is in the Eucharist. I remember saying that we don't need what Pagans said about it, to prove what the Church believed. And I remember admitting/granting/conceding that my memory was wrong.
Bald assertion.
I wasn't being serious with you, that was true, and I did cop to a defective memory on the matter.
Yeah, unless that 'somebody' is Paul, e.g. 1st Corinthians 11:24 KJV.
Alliteration.
No. I wasn't invoking Nero.
Rosenritter
New member
Foolish is as foolish does, righteous is as righteous does, wicked is as wicked does. Ultimately it is the end of a matter that matters, not the in between.
Ezekiel 33:11-12 KJV
(11) Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
(12) Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
Rosenritter
New member
7djengo7 said:
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 KJV
(24) And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
(25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
That's called a "symbol" ... not a "synonym." I suggest reaffirming the literal definition of the word "proof." A "proof" leaves no other viable options for the thing being considered.
The bread was a symbol of his body, the cup was a symbol of the new testament in his blood. The bread was not literally his body and the cup was not literally a new testament in blood.
As proof... his body was present at the time, and his blood had not yet been shed to form that covenant... and a cup is not a covenant (those are two different classes of things.)
I don't know what that means.
Was there a time when the wicked person was not wicked but decided to be wicked (making that decision as a non wicked person)?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So your position is that it was a metaphor. If the word 'symbol,' or any other words that might indicate a metaphor, appeared anywhere in any scriptures that talk about the Eucharist, then your case has been aptly made. But as it stands, without such direct evidence within any texts, we are left with at best, ambiguity. Definitive declaration that it is a metaphor, requires something outside the text being read into it, to clarify the ambiguity. And as I've mentioned, the two ancientest and largest Christian traditions are on the other side of that position, and history shows that the Church has always believed against it being a metaphor. So that's where things stand, and we take our respective sides.
We agree to disagree.
Rosenritter
New member
If an object is currently moving was there a time when it was not moving and started moving as a non-moving object? I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this style of question.
Ezekiel 28:15-17 KJV
(15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
(16) By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
(17) Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
See the example of the covering cherub that sinned in Eden above (also known as the serpent, Satan, and the devil.) He was perfect in the day that he was created. He was not initially wicked; yet this being is currently the textbook definition of wickedness. Was there a time when this perfect created cherub was not wicked and then chose wickedness? Surely there is: the dots cannot connect between the two without crossing that line.
Rosenritter
New member
Genesis 49:9 KJV
(9) Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
Some things are obvious metaphors. Do you believe that Judah is actually a lion's whelp? That this son was literally the child of a lion? The contention that the bread that Jesus passed out was literally his flesh is absurd. The burden of proof lies with your position, to establish that this otherwise absurd contention is actually strictly laid out and defined.
I might agree that we disagree; that does not mean that I agree to disagree. Bread is not flesh, and a cup is not a covenant. If you have any biblical evidence that might that might establish otherwise please show it now.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17 KJV
(16) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
(17) For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Regardess, see the above reference where the bread is defined in the context of metaphor. The bread is the communion of the body of Christ, just as we ourselves are one bread.
Are we literally bread?
Try answering your own question. But don't get bogged down by objects; stick to my words. I didn't bring up objects.
Look at that! Your answer is, it must be possible because Satan was not wicked and then one day was wicked and he chose that route as a non-wicked being. Your answer is, "I don't know how it happened, but it did so there must be a way"? Really?