ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[Idolater]

Well said. So who's right?

2 Peter 2:1-3 KJV
(1) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
(2) And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
(3) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

2 Timothy 2:17-18 KJV
(17) And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
(18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

If you believe the New Testament, serious error was setting in before the Apostles died...

I agree. There's overlap between 1st John and Ignatius, both mentioning the error of Christ only being an apparition, not really coming in the flesh. Ignatius writes that due to their error, these people did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist either, because they didn't believe that He came in the flesh in the first place, so of course, He's not really present in the Eucharist either.

and that doesn't even acknowledge the Catholic church as a legitimate representation.

I don't know what this means. I do know that the Catholic Church is the Christian tradition started by Christ.

The gospel account of the last supper doesn't resemble the Eucharist ceremony.

The bread and cup, and the words spoken, do resemble the Eucharist.

"Is" as in metaphor perhaps, but I haven't seen you offer any thing scriptural other than obvious metaphor. Should you be able to show where the scripture says "The bread is no longer bread" or "the wine is no longer wine" then you would have evidence for "transubstantiation." That evidence seems to be lacking save for that alleged tradition.

I see the evidence that you're looking for in Scripture, but I understand that you don't agree with my reading. So we're back to this being, for you, the Church making a fatal error, sometime within or immediately following the Apostolic era. And it's fatal, because we adore the Eucharist, which is worship---if Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, then we're all idolaters, and the Church was all idolatrous until the Reformation.

 

[Idolater]

"Meaning" can "mean" symbolism or equivalence.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meaning



https://www.dictionary.com/browse/meaning




Let's not get lost over basic word meanings. I think it's obvious that "meaning" is not always literal, not that it ought to be affecting this question anyway.

'Meaning' connotes things other than simply denotation, such as connotation, but it always denotes denotation, signifying, yes symbolism, equivalence, yes. They're all synonyms. Meaning is more than, but never less than, denotation. It's very simple and basic, I am not lost, and I'm not getting anybody lost over basic word meanings, this is convergent and not divergent; clarifying and demystifying.

 

[Rosenritter]

Or, it is.
I think you said 'preterism.'
Yeah. And Revelation 12:1-2 KJV is Mary, too.

By that interpretation, what wilderness did Mary flee to and when did a flood come after Mary?

Revelation 12:6 KJV
(6) And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Revelation 12:14-17 KJV
(14) And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
(15) And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
(16) And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
(17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[Idolater]

By that interpretation, what wilderness did Mary flee to and when did a flood come after Mary?

idk.

Revelation 12:6 KJV
(6) And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Revelation 12:14-17 KJV
(14) And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
(15) And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
(16) And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
(17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Did Mary give birth to Christ? Revelation 12:5 KJV

 

[Rosenritter]

I agree. There's overlap between 1st John and Ignatius, both mentioning the error of Christ only being an apparition, not really coming in the flesh. Ignatius writes that due to their error, these people did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist either, because they didn't believe that He came in the flesh in the first place, so of course, He's not really present in the Eucharist either.

I suppose that if one didn't believe Christ was real in the first place, it would naturally follow that one wouldn't believe Christ was real in any sense, certainly not real in the sense of being magically transmogrified into a literal wafer. But isn't that beside the point? Those that belief in Christ in the very real sense also disbelieve that he is literally kept in a box.

I don't know what this means. I do know that the Catholic Church is the Christian tradition started by Christ.

It just meant that the point still stands on its own with or without accepting the Catholic church as being legitimate. No, I do not accept the Catholic church as being the tradition started by Christ. Built by men and put into power by the Roman empire... but not by Christ.

The bread and cup, and the words spoken, do resemble the Eucharist.

More accurate to say that the Eucharist resembles the bread and the cup and the words spoken. Which is supposed to resemble which?

I see the evidence that you're looking for in Scripture, but I understand that you don't agree with my reading. So we're back to this being, for you, the Church making a fatal error, sometime within or immediately following the Apostolic era. And it's fatal, because we adore the Eucharist, which is worship---if Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, then we're all idolaters, and the Church was all idolatrous until the Reformation.

Did the Catholic church stop adoring the Eucharist after the Reformation (that is, wouldn't they still be idolatrous by that measure?) No, you shouldn't worship or adore an item or an object. Do you remember a brasen serpent later known as Nehushtan?

2 Kings 18:3-4 KJV
(3) And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
(4) He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

There would have been nothing wrong with preserving that serpent as a memorial, as a symbol to remind themselves of what they had learned, as an object lesson... but when they started to adore it it became idolatry. Our God today is the same today and yesterday: he didn't hate idolatry then and suddenly desire it now.

Then yes, if it is as you describe then that is a fatal error. Perhaps not so fatal that it cannot be forgiven through Christ's blood, but it is specifically against what God has warned us about and that level of superstition would keep you from seeing God as he intends himself to be known.

1 John 5:20-21 KJV
(20) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
(21) Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

 

[Rosenritter]

idk.
Did Mary give birth to Christ? Revelation 12:5 KJV

And so did Israel: thus my question of how Mary could be construed to have fled into a wilderness for that specific length of time or to have been pursued by a flood.

 

[7djengo7]

Stuff going down your gullet into your gut. Wanna hear some synonyms for the alternate end of that process?

I see. In other words, it is quite clear that you are incapable of distinguishing nouns from verbs.

 

[7djengo7]

I had written:

But, it would appear, from the fact that you associate the number of the beast with Nero, that you are a preterist in regard to John's Apocalypse. Years ago, I was a preterist, myself, for a while. What ultimately made me realize that preterism is a sham is carefully reading Kenneth L. Gentry's interesting books in advocacy of preterism.

Your reaction to what I wrote, there, was:

Call it whatever you like.

Not knowing what, if anything, you were talking about, I asked you:

In "Call it whatever you like", to what are you referring by the word 'it'?

Your reaction to what I wrote, there, was:

I think you said 'preterism.'

You're right! Good eye! I did say the word 'preterism'! So what, though? I have no clue as to what, if anything, you are referring by the word 'it', when you tell me to "Call it whatever you like." What, exactly, are you telling me to "call...whatever like"?

 

[7djengo7]

Did Mary give birth to Christ? Revelation 12:5 KJV

Yeah. But, what, if anything, does that question have to do with Revelation 12:5?

 

[7djengo7]

And Revelation 12:1-2 KJV is Mary, too.

A passage of Scripture IS Mary? Really?! Your hypocrisy is astounding!

 

[7djengo7]

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?

According to Idolater, a passage of Scripture is literally Mary:

Yeah. And Revelation 12:1-2 KJV is Mary, too.

 

[7djengo7]

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.

You are saying, here, that all the "scriptures that talk about the Eucharist" are ambiguous, at best. You are, thus, admitting that, from just reading those texts, you cannot conclude that they are to be taken literally--though you profess to take them literally, anyway. Of course, not everybody agrees, with you, that the texts to which you refer are ambiguous.

Definitive declaration that it is a metaphor, requires something outside the text being read into it, to clarify the ambiguity.

If all the "scriptures that talk about the Eucharist" are ambiguous, at best, as you claim they are, then, also:

Definitive declaration that they are NOT metaphor requires something outside the text being read into them, to clarify the ambiguity.

And thus, you must subject those texts to eisegesis to assure yourself that they are to be interpreted the way you want them to be interpreted; whereas, those who know that those texts aren't ambiguous, and that those texts are to be taken metaphorically, have no need of such eisegesis.

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.

And, the un-Scriptural traditions you revere are that "something outside the text" that you read into Scripture.

 

[ttruscott]

How can a nonfool choose foolishness?

If we consider that somehow in some life we chose sin from innocence then all foolishness arises from non-foolishness due to giving into a sinful desire.

James 1:13-15
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

 

[MennoSota]

If we consider that somehow in some life we chose sin from innocence then all foolishness arises from non-foolishness due to giving into a sinful desire.

James 1:13-15
13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Your basic premise is utterly wrong. Thus your consideration is utterly wrong.
You have run down the rabbit hole. Get out or perish.

 

[7djengo7]

Your basic premise is utterly wrong. Thus your consideration is utterly wrong.
You have run down the rabbit hole. Get out or perish.

Hey, MennoSota. Haven't seen you in a while. How's it going?

 

[Winston Smith]

If we consider that somehow in some life we chose sin from innocence then all foolishness arises from non-foolishness due to giving into a sinful desire.

James 1:13-15
[FONT=&]13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.[/FONT]

Yer gonna have to speak more plainly.

Lord, what a hard question, huh.

 

[MennoSota]

God died for the elect, not for the world.

Isaiah 35:8-10
And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Way of Holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it. It shall belong to those who walk on the way; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray. No lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it; they shall not be found there, but the redeemed shall walk there. And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

 

[MennoSota]

Matthew 1:21
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus,
for he will save his people
from their sins.”

 

[Rosenritter]

God died for the elect, not for the world.

Isaiah 35:8-10
And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Way of Holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it. It shall belong to those who walk on the way; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray. No lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it; they shall not be found there, but the redeemed shall walk there. And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

I'll send John a text and have him correct the gospel.

John 3:16 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[ttruscott]

I'll send John a text and have him correct the gospel.

John 3:16 KJV
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

But those who have never believed are condemned already- John 3:18 These verses MUST be reconciled, not ignored.