Why did God tempt Adam and Eve?

[Kenny]

Which is where "confirmation" comes in.

ABSOLUTELY! However, this is my personal viewpoint with confirmations... it is when one does it because it is tranditional but one's heart isn't really in it... like saying "I DO" when it is only perfunctury instead of heart felt. But overall, I think it is a great thing.

It appears that I may have misunderstood you because I thought you were of the ilk that baptism was necessary for "salvation".

I was wondering where you got that from... no, in our corner we call it "The Gospel of the Thief" - No baptism, just repentance. Although, if at all possible, do it out of obedience

I actually didn't have time to look them up as I've been busy, plus apparently I've come down with a cold or the black plague or something.

Do take care of yourself... I was going to make a joke out of it but decided not to, sickness is no joke.

You gotta "thing" for horses, do ya. I wonder what Freud woulda said about that?

As for me, I've been compared to a horse alright, but only one half of its body.

ROFL... I know you don't meet people who are from the internet... but I sure hope we cross paths one day. I don't know of many people who make me chuckle, smile and laugh like you do (if I don't include my family!) And intellectually stimulating too!

 

[Kenny]

KenS, if I may say, The use of Purgatory by the Roman Catholic Church, there is no praying people out or praying for their sins to be forgiven nor can people do good works to have people taken out of Purgatory.

But Christ Jesus does speak about such a place, it is called The Great Gulf fixed in Luke 16:26--"And beside all this, between us and you there is a Great Gulf fixed: So that they which would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from here"

So you see Christ Jesus does in fact teach about such a place. That those who have died and cross over to the other side of the Great Gulf fixed can not pass back to us, neither can we pass over to them.

But there wasn't any suffering by those in Abraham's bossom so not the "Purgatory" that the Roman Catholics subscribed to. (at least as it was taught decades ago in Spain in the monastery that I went to for one year)

In our understanding, that is where those who believed were held until Jesus died for all sin.

 

[Faithofchristian]

But there wasn't any suffering by those in Abraham's bossom so not the "Purgatory" that the Roman Catholics subscribed to. (at least as it was taught decades ago in Spain in the monastery that I went to for one year)

In our understanding, that is where those who believed were held until Jesus died for all sin.

Do you have any idea what the great gulf fixed is and who goes there.

 

[Kenny]

Do you have any idea what the great gulf fixed is and who goes there.

We can go theological hear in as much, as far as I know, there isn't an explanation other than it is the Greek word chasma for chasm... used once in the NT. Jewish scholar R Jochanan says it is a wall, but regardless, all agree that one can't go to the other side

What do you think?

 

[Kenny]

OK, thanks for this, but as you might suspect, I don't buy it. I think these are theological constructs based on opinions built on the belief that Jesus was sorta in cahoots with God, which is fine for you but not me.

For me, I have respect for Jesus as a man and a great teacher, not a deity however, who's main teachings that I can relate to are faith and compassion and justice (fairness) for all. To me, all the rest is window-dressing, including rituals.

The CC definitely took your position over the centuries, minus inerrancy, but has pretty much re-looked at this and realized that those who wrote the above were "enthusiastic" believers writing decades after Jesus was martyred. What we read in those verses are peoples' opinions, which are all fine and dandy as far as they go, but the church never embraced "scriptural inerrancy".

The concept of scriptural inerrancy is pretty much a by-product of a reaction against "modernism" and is only about two centuries old. Matter of fact, Aquinas wrote that if one took the position of complete scriptural inerrancy, then one simply could not justify the view that Jesus was "the Messiah". Instead, the CC took the position that the scriptures are inerrant with the "basic teachings", but what's "basic" can be at least somewhat conjectural at times.

Anyhow, nice discussion, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you had said earlier.

Not a problem about misinterpretation...

Yes, I understand your position. The question is can you understand why I would have difficulty to hold onto the position of a Purgatory? In other words for me as a Gospel believer and with these scriptures on hand, can you see why I couldn't hold onto the position that there is a temporary place where you pay for sins that, in my position, it was considered already paid for?

It would be like the High Priest offering the goat sacrifice, laying hands on the other goat and then saying "OOPS, sorry, that isn't enough".

This is why @shunyadragon and I don't see eye to eye... whereas he would judge all things according to "certain" fathers, I would base my positions of the "grand"-fathers, ie Peter, John, Paul etc. OF COURSE, I'm right and he's wrong

 

[Faithofchristian]

We can go theological hear in as much, as far as I know, there isn't an explanation other than it is the Greek word chasma for chasm... used once in the NT. Jewish scholar R Jochanan says it is a wall, but regardless, all agree that one can't go to the other side

What do you think?

That's a unique way of putting it and yes I would have to agree.
That once a person die's and cross over to the other side of the wall, there is no coming back across the wall.

Nor can we which are alive communicate with those on the other side of the wall
Nor those on the other side of the wall communicate with us on this side of the wall.
Therefore there is a Great Gulf Fixed.

Those corp's body's that haved died returns back to the earth and their spirit returns back to God in the Spiritual Realm, World.
To where it was, before coming here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It does not change anything to substitute imperfect for fallible, because in the context of human nature.

The problem is your disagreeing with all the references I have provided. Like @KenS, and @Faithofchristian I consider it constructing your own theology apart from the the references I cited.

I haven't read any of the references you cited or your earlier posts. I believe you were responding to a fresh post I added to the thread.

Fallible works just as well. Fallible people cannot by definition create an infallible utopia and need the transformative power of Jesus Christ.

 

[metis]

But once they die, you can not pass over to them nor can they pass over to here.

Between us and those that haved died there's a great gulf fixed between us and them
That no one here can pass over to them nor can they pass from there to here.

But that's not what the early church believed as they felt that the "gulf", as you put it, was porous, thus the words coined later: "the communion of saints".

Stop and think about this for a second. If a "saint" has already been accepted into heaven, can that saint maybe have a role in maybe helping you? Angels supposedly can. God supposedly can. Do you believe Jesus can? Do you believe you can pray and ask help from Jesus and the heavenly hosts? Do you believe it may be possible that God could have a saint or an angel take you "under his/her wing"? If not, what's that based on?

Now, I'm not saying that the Catholic teaching on this is correct, especially since I'm neither Catholic nor Christian. Nor am I trying to convince you that the Catholic belief is correct, but what I am trying to show you is that their belief does have some logical foundation to it, including what we know the early church believed in. It is actually your point of view that's historically different, although that certainly doesn't mean that you're wrong.

 

[metis]

It would be like the High Priest offering the goat sacrifice, laying hands on the other goat and then saying "OOPS, sorry, that isn't enough".

Except the Temple sacrifices were not believed to forgive all sins. In your concordance, look up "forgive" and it's variations as found in the Tanakh, and you'll see that most verses do not refer to the Temple sacrifices at all. The concept of a "one size fits all" approach in regards to forgiveness isn't found in the Tanakh.

Also, there is no precedence in Torah for salvation by faith alone, especially since the vast majority of Commandments deal with actions to be taken or not taken. A belief that all one has to do is to have a p.c. belief about whatever simply is lacking.

And then when we go to the gospels, the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats stand out as calls to action, not just some sort of p.c. belief. And notice with the latter that even though the "Goats" believe about Jesus but are condemned because they don't believe enough in Jesus to follow "the law of love".

This is why Luther's "salvation by faith alone" I believe is a bogus teaching.

Now, did I just open another can of worms?


BTW, thanks for the wish of healing as I'm feeling quite a bit better today-- proof that a "saint" with a medical background has bridged the "Gulf" to help me!

 

[metis]

I will address this in another thread, but if you can cite any changes in the doctrine of the Roman Church in Vatican II, please cite with references.

I already gave you one with how the church has embraced the ToE as long as one believes that God was behind it all. This is not exactly a minor change

One thing that really pissed off the conservative bishops was the end of the Latin Mass changed to have the Mass in the native language. Today the Latin Mass is back as optional.

That's not what the current issues with these bishops is about.

Anyhow, if you decide to start a new thread on VII, please let me know as I may miss the thread otherwise.

 

[Kenny]

LOL.. you DID open the can of worms because all I asked was if you understood why, as a Gospel believer, I couldn't subscribe to Purgatory... not whether you agreed with the position.

But since you opened the can

Except the Temple sacrifices were not believed to forgive all sins. In your concordance, look up "forgive" and it's variations as found in the Tanakh, and you'll see that most verses do not refer to the Temple sacrifices at all. The concept of a "one size fits all" approach in regards to forgiveness isn't found in the Tanakh.

Ahhh... the benefit of a more perfect sacrifice!

Also, there is no precedence in Torah for salvation by faith alone, especially since the vast majority of Commandments deal with actions to be taken or not taken. A belief that all one has to do is to have a p.c. belief about whatever simply is lacking.

Yes... "love does cover a multidude of sins..". oops, that's in the Tanakh and you said it isn't supposed to be there. (hmmm... no actions there)
"Happy are those whose sins are not counted against them"... hmmm... no actions there
"Abraham believed God and it was reckoned as righteousness." oops, no actions there
"How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity,"... ahhh.... the beauty of love

BUT,

Faith should still have a work to it but it is by grace.

That's why we are of the faith of Abraham and not that of Moses.

And then when we go to the gospels, the Sermon On the Mount and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats stand out as calls to action, not just some sort of p.c. belief. And notice with the latter that even though the "Goats" believe about Jesus but are condemned because they don't believe enough in Jesus to follow "the law of love".

Did you really read about the goats who said "I did this and I did that in your name"? Hmmmm... I guess it is more about the heart that just the actions.

This is why Luther's "salvation by faith alone" I believe is a bogus teaching.

Don't get me wrong... there is a work of faith, but it always comes AFTER we believe.

BTW, thanks for the wish of healing as I'm feeling quite a bit better today-- proof that a "saint" with a medical background has bridged the "Gulf" to help me!

Love em doctors... its the bill that comes afterward that hurts a little

 

[shunyadragon]

I already gave you one with how the church has embraced the ToE as long as one believes that God was behind it all. This is not exactly a minor change.

It is not a change in the doctrine and dogma of the Catechism of the Roman Church.

One correction, the Roman Church does not 'endorse' ToE, but allows personal choice between special evolution and ToE. It does of course rejects what they call 'atheistic evolution.'

That's not what the current issues with these bishops is about.

What is issue?

Anyhow, if you decide to start a new thread on VII, please let me know as I may miss the thread otherwise.

I will let you know.

 

[Faithofchristian]

But that's not what the early church believed as they felt that the "gulf", as you put it, was porous, thus the words coined later: "the communion of saints".

Stop and think about this for a second. If a "saint" has already been accepted into heaven, can that saint maybe have a role in maybe helping you? Angels supposedly can. God supposedly can. Do you believe Jesus can? Do you believe you can pray and ask help from Jesus and the heavenly hosts? Do you believe it may be possible that God could have a saint or an angel take you "under his/her wing"? If not, what's that based on?

Now, I'm not saying that the Catholic teaching on this is correct, especially since I'm neither Catholic nor Christian. Nor am I trying to convince you that the Catholic belief is correct, but what I am trying to show you is that their belief does have some logical foundation to it, including what we know the early church believed in. It is actually your point of view that's historically different, although that certainly doesn't mean that you're wrong.

If I may so say, what the early church believed does not line up to what Christ Jesus has said.
That when I or you die and cross over into the Great Gulf Fixed, there is no communicating with those back here or those here communicating with those on the other side of the Great Gulf Fixed.

That's why there is a Great Gulf Fixed, between us and them.

If I may say, that when you bring what the early church taught, You should make sure first to see if it lines up to what Christ Jesus taught.

But that's not what the early church believed as they felt that the "gulf", as you put it, was porous, thus the words coined later: "the communion of saints".

Stop and think about this for a second. If a "saint" has already been accepted into heaven, can that saint maybe have a role in maybe helping you? Angels supposedly can. God supposedly can. Do you believe Jesus can? Do you believe you can pray and ask help from Jesus and the heavenly hosts? Do you believe it may be possible that God could have a saint or an angel take you "under his/her wing"? If not, what's that based on?

Now, I'm not saying that the Catholic teaching on this is correct, especially since I'm neither Catholic nor Christian. Nor am I trying to convince you that the Catholic belief is correct, but what I am trying to show you is that their belief does have some logical foundation to it, including what we know the early church believed in. It is actually your point of view that's historically different, although that certainly doesn't mean that you're wrong.

 

[metis]

Yes... "love does cover a multidude of sins..". oops, that's in the Tanakh and you said it isn't supposed to be there. (hmmm... no actions there)...

Nice skirting around the point since the above doesn't go against what I posted, which was that the Temple sacrifices were not for the forgiveness of all sins.

Here's the 613 Commandments, so check and see how many of them relate to actions we are to do or not do, versus just having a p.c. belief: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Matter of fact, check through that list and see if there's any statement that says that one p.c. belief forgives all sins.

Did you really read about the goats who said "I did this and I did that in your name"? Hmmmm... I guess it is more about the heart that just the actions.

OK, let's check this out:
Matt 25[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
[35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
[36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
[37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
[40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
[44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
[45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Please notice the underlined part, along with what they were lacking in regards to their behavior, not their belief. Also, you might want to reread the Parable of the Talents earlier in the same chapter and see who and what Jesus condemns there.

Don't get me wrong... there is a work of faith, but it always comes AFTER we believe.

No argument from me-- which is why I'm doomed.

Love em doctors... its the bill that comes afterward that hurts a little

That's why the call where I'm at "the golden years".

 

[metis]

It is not a change in the doctrine and dogma of the Catechism of the Roman Church.

Oh, but it is as the church did walk away from a more literalistic viewpoint as found in the Creation narratives, and this change is also found in the V-II documents..

What is issue?

The current issues really don't deal with the Latin mass but with the conservative bishops feeling that PF is going too much in a "worldly" direction. "America" magazine has had some articles dealing with this that you can probably access on-line.

I will let you know.

Thanks.

BTW, if you were to be Jewish, you'd really see some significant changes that very much affects us that has occurred within the church.

 

[metis]

If I may so say, what the early church believed does not line up to what Christ Jesus has said.
That when I or you die and cross over into the Great Gulf Fixed, there is no communicating with those back here or those here communicating with those on the other side of the Great Gulf Fixed.

Can you quote Jesus whereas he supposedly said that this was not possible?

If I may say, that when you bring what the early church taught, You should make sure first to see if it lines up to what Christ Jesus taught.

Paul refers to some of the traditions that are to continue to be followed that were being passed on to "the Way", so not everything Jesus said and did are likely to be found in the gospels.

Jesus' ministry was roughly for three years, so I think we can agree that what we find him saying in the gospels, which probably amounts to maybe a couple of dozen teachings, are not likely to be the only things he said and taught. This is why Christian theologians also look at what traditions came out of the church because they may include some beliefs that are not directly found in the scriptures or were maybe just hinted at.

The scriptures are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Can you quote Jesus whereas he supposedly said that this was not possible?

Paul refers to some of the traditions that are to continue to be followed that were being passed on to "the Way", so not everything Jesus said and did are likely to be found in the gospels.

Jesus' ministry was roughly for three years, so I think we can agree that what we find him saying in the gospels, which probably amounts to maybe a couple of dozen teachings, are not likely to be the only things he said and taught. This is why Christian theologians also look at what traditions came out of the church because they may include some beliefs that are not directly found in the scriptures or were maybe just hinted at.

The scriptures are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.

Yeah, sure here it is,
Luke 16:26--"And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: So that they which would pass from here to you can not; Neither can they pass to us,
That would come from there"

Therefore those that haved died, can not pass from there to us, Neither can we pass from here to them. Between us and them is a Great Gulf Fixed.
Therefore neither one can pass to each other.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Bible states Christ was to be crucified before the foundations of the world.

' . . . was to be crucified before the foundations of the world.'

Where was this predicted?

 

[jhwatts]

Yeah, sure here it is,
Luke 16:26--"And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: So that they which would pass from here to you can not; Neither can they pass to us,
That would come from there"

Therefore those that haved died, can not pass from there to us, Neither can we pass from here to them. Between us and them is a Great Gulf Fixed.
Therefore neither one can pass to each other.

Samuel did when Saul used the witch of Endor to summons him from the dead.

 

[Kenny]

Nice skirting around the point since the above doesn't go against what I posted, which was that the Temple sacrifices were not for the forgiveness of all sins.

Matter of fact, check through that list and see if there's any statement that says that one p.c. belief forgives all sins.

Lev 16:21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task.


As far as below... granted that works are important... but it is still believe first...

Matt 7 (before yours) that is worth about one farthing..
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Plenty of works... even in His name... but the heart wasn't there.

Believer first actions follow

OK, let's check this out:
Matt 25[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
[35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
[36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
[37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
[40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
[44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
[45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Please notice the underlined part, along with what they were lacking in regards to their behavior, not their belief. Also, you might want to reread the Parable of the Talents earlier in the same chapter and see who and what Jesus condemns there.

LOL... yes... yes... actions are important...

I look at it this way. (my parable).. a horse is pulling a carriage. The horse represents salvation and the carriage is the carriage load of good works. One doesn't put the carriage before the horse (works don't get you saved) but if you are saved, you better have a carriage load of works

That's your position welded with mine.

John 3:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Notice... believe first resulting in deeds.

LOL... I'm just glad I'm not God. He will ultimately have the best viewpoint!

That's why the call where I'm at "the golden years".

The doctors call you the "golden boy" because after they see you, they buy gold!