[JoeT777]

Joe,
Thanks for posting that.
We should also keep in mind that when we pray The Lord's Prayer we are asking "thy kingdom come"
When Jesus taught that to his apostles The Church had not yet been established so he was teaching them to pray for it to come along later than at that time.
Now we do have The Church, the mystical body of Christ, here on earth so that part of the prayer has been answered and continues to be so
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Fred:

I must have past this without realizing I should have commented.

The Kingdom of God is, at least in part right here on earth and populated with the Church Militant, those of us here on earth, the Church suffering, those of us in purgatory, and the Church Triumphant, those of us in Heaven.

Paul's letter to the Ephesians shows that Christ intended to leave his Kingdom here on earth in the capable hands of Peter and the rest of the Apostles. The reason is clear, it's in these verses of Ephesians where we see the depth of what John saw in Revelations chapter 1, “from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father. “ (Rev 1:5,6)

Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners: but you are fellow citizens with the saints and the domestics of God: Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

These verses show the supporting elements of the Kingdom on earth, the apostles, the prophets, and Jesus Christ as the Corner stone. Even buildings today, we find the name of the owner, founder on the corner stone along with the date of completion. Some would say that Christ is the foundation on which our faith is based: and he is. But, he's the foundation in the sense of its founder, not the foundation on which the structure is bound. The Roman Church holds that Christ is the founder on which Peter the stone foundation was placed. Through God's grace, we are able to participate in the construction and occupation of the Kingdom.

In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.

This foundation is built on both Gentile and Jew; as well as the Apostles, the Prophets and its' founder Christ. A union “framed together”, because “being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread." (Cf. 1 Cor 10:17). A universal Kingdom of God of one root, bound together in spirit of the cornerstones purpose.

And so we say “And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father” inherited by default from the Jews, It was from the Sanhedrin that the power transferred given to a nation yielding the first fruit, Christ (Cf Matt 21:43). This Kingdom is fulfillment of God's promise to Moses, to build a priestly Kingdom, and a holy nation. (Ex. 19:6)

The point is, while you've been waiting for the Kingdom to come, it's been just around the corner the whole time.

JoeT

[sndbay]

Here is a simple passage from the Bible for you to think about in light of the fact that my previous post asked you for a simple agree or disagree, that is a simple yes or no answer to each of the statements.

Matthew 5:37 (King James Version)
37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I neither yea or nay to any of your questions, nor did I swear by oath. Perhaps you should review the teaching you have referenced (Matthew 5:33)

Was your goal to use the Word of God as a stumbling stone before a sister in hope that she enter temptation? Who would hope to do so to anyone?


A Prayer to be offered:

Abba I cry that you will search the hearts of those on this forum, and help us in our works of love. Destroy the evil that waits in the hearts of some, and bring instead the joy of love towards all mankind. In the spirit of our Lord and Saviour, I ask in His name for this blessing. Amen

[elscarta]

I neither yea or nay to any of your questions

That is the whole point! I asked you to state whether you agreed or disagreed with the listed points in my recent posting and instead of giving me a straight forward answer you once again wandered off on a tangent.

Why is it that you are unable to just tell me whether you agree or disagree with the listed statements?

Was your goal to use the Word of God as a stumbling stone before a sister in hope that she enter temptation?

What temptation is there in giving a straight forward opinion to the truthfulness of a statement?

Who would hope to do so to anyone?

If this appears so incredible to you then why are you accusing me of doing it? It is you who have suggested the above, not me! You do not know me and yet you judge me capable of doing such a thing!

Your accusation reveals much about how you view others who may have different opinions to you.

[sndbay]

Thread discussion

Jeremiah 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

How would you follow Christ Jesus? Why would you follow Christ? This thread could bring attention to the amazing truth of who Christ is in our daily life.

We follow Christ by loving our enemies, and praying for them which despitefully used us. We bless them that curse us, and bear a humble heart to be merciful, as our Father also is merciful.

Why we do this is because we walk in the spirit of truth. We follow Christ because He is the Rock that delivered us from the power of darkness, and redeemed us from all iniquity. Love for Christ is what Peter was revealed, and was told Christ would build the foundation of His church upon.
" Love for Christ Jesus"

[TUT317]

I would like to add to my earlier entry about,'public language' and 'private language'. There is strong support for language to make sense it needs to be public. That is it is used in a way that it is generally in keeping with the accepted meaning of the culture and the time.

In this thread there appears to be a large amount of disagreement as to what a world/words mean. Why the disagreement? It appears as though,'language has gone on a holiday'.

For example, if I asked someone to give me a definition of the word ,'passion' They might consult a home dictionary and come up with the answer, (1) Intense sexual love (2) Any strong emotion (3) great enthusiasm... Sorry, wrong on all three.

My fault, I neglected to mention that I meant 'passion' as used in the 17th century, not the 21st century
Sorry about the confusion.

[elscarta]

Sndbay, once again, instead of answering questions with straight forward answers you duck and weave around the issue.

This time your last post implies that we have gone off thread. Let me explain to you how everything that I have posted is relevant to the original thread.

You asked How and Why would you follow Christ. The answer to these two questions is found in the Bible. Therefore it is important to be able to interpret the Bible correctly to determine the answers to your questions and this is where the problems start.

The Bible has and is interpreted by many different people in many different ways. This is evident by the vast number of Christian denominations in the world, and if you look closely at what each says you would find that the differences are not small and insignificant but are major and contradictory.

You have stated in a previous post that

there is no different denominations in those that walk in the Spirit of truth.

This implies that you believe that not everyone is walking in the Spirit of Truth, which leads to the question of how to determine which of the many different denominations is walking in the Spirit of Truth.

You have also stated that

The result of interpretation for everyone is given from the Holy Spirit, and therefore the will of God.

It is the words which I bolded in the above quote that all my posts have been about. Since there is only One Truth, they imply that God wills people to not believe in the Truth but to believe in a falsehood.

My example regarding transubstantiation illustrated this point:

If transubstantiation is true then those who believe it is false believe in a falsehood, otherwise if transubstantiation is false then those who believe it is true believe in a falsehood. Either way there is a group of people who believe in a falsehood.

God does not will a person to believe in a falsehood for this goes against the very nature of God which is Truth.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life.

The logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that what some people interpret the Bible to mean, no matter how sincere they may think they are in that belief, is NOT the truth as God would have us know but is a lie propagated by the father of all lies Satan.

Your postings imply that you believe that you have the true interpretation of the Bible and others who disagree with you follow man's doctrine, but if you ask those others they in turn would say just as vehemently as you do that they have the true interpretation of the Bible and that you are the one who is wrong.

The only way to resolve this is to appeal to a higher authority, Jesus understood this and that is why He built His Church on Peter and promised that Satan will never overcome His Church and gave Peter authority to proclaim what is the Truth.

Matthew 16:18-19
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Now Peter is no longer around, so we cannot appeal to him directly, but the Church which Jesus built on him still exists. There is only one church that can claim an uninterrupted link to Peter and that is the Catholic Church!

Some argue that Jesus did not give this authority to the Church, but this implies that He has left His Church, since the time of Peter's death, without a final authority to turn to. Jesus knew that today, we need a final authority to turn to as much as the early Church did!

So the solution in deciding who is correct in their interpretation of scripture is to look at what the Catholic Church says is the Truth about it.

[TUT317]

Hello elscarta,

I am interested in your conclusion. You say, 'The logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that what people interpret the Bible to mean, no matter how sincere they may think they are in that belief, it is NOT the truth as God would have us know but it is a lie propagated by the father of all lies Satan'

My question is how does a sincere belief end up being a propagated lie? I would have thought that a sincere belief is just a sincere belief. It may well turn out that it is a false sincere belief but that is irrelevant.

Consider this hypothetical and give me your response.

Fred Smith said in 1650 that,' Reason is a slave of the passions' (reference to my earlier post). I am going to debate this statement with a friend. It just so happens that I know that the word 'passion' has a different meaning in 1650 as to what it means today. My friend assumes that 'passions' must be the modern understanding of the word.

Clearly this debate will go nowhere because we will be talking at cross purposes. We both have a sincere belief in what we are arguing for. BUT, makes no sense to say that because my friend is wrong he was influenced by an evil outside agency.

[TUT317]

Elscarta, sorry for breaking my question into two parts but I want to make a distinction between,'private language' and 'public language'. The above hypothetical is what I believe to be an example of public language.

I would like to also deal with private language arguments.

There are those who say that their interpretation of scripture can be proven by appealing to a higher authority. Others will say that their interpretation is correct because it is given to them through their intellect.

I would argue that both are examples of private language arguments. It is impossible to go into great detail about private language arguments because of the problem of space. However, I would argue that both positions are a little like buying 12 copies of the SAME morning paper and claiming that; (A) you know what has happened in the world. (B) you have checked the accuracy of the reports because you have read it from 11 other sources.

I would appreciate your opinion on this as well.

[elscarta]

Hi Tut,
Firstly can you correct your post by adding the bolded word "some" as without it the meaning of my statement becomes absolute for all interpretations, not just those which are false!:eek:

I am interested in your conclusion. You say, 'The logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that what some people interpret the Bible to mean, no matter how sincere they may think they are in that belief, it is NOT the truth as God would have us know but it is a lie propagated by the father of all lies Satan'

My question is how does a sincere belief end up being a propagated lie? I would have thought that a sincere belief is just a sincere belief. It may well turn out that it is a false sincere belief but that is irrelevant.

When dealing with absolute Truth, i.e. the Word of God, then it is not irrevelant if a sincere belief is false!

Consider this hypothetical and give me your response.

Fred Smith said in 1650 that,' Reason is a slave of the passions' (reference to my earlier post). I am going to debate this statement with a friend. It just so happens that I know that the word 'passion' has a different meaning in 1650 as to what it means today. My friend assumes that 'passions' must be the modern understanding of the word.

Clearly this debate will go nowhere because we will be talking at cross purposes. We both have a sincere belief in what we are arguing for. BUT, makes no sense to say that because my friend is wrong he was influenced by an evil outside agency.

Tut, you are comparing apples with oranges. Surely you understand that Satan is anti-God not anti-Fred Smith!:p Satan does not care whether anyone agrees with Fred Smith or not or whether they have the correct meaning of the word passion but he has a vested interest in seeing that the Word of God is misunderstood.

Now I am not saying that those who sincerely believe in a falsehood in regards to the Word of God will not go to Heaven, only God can be the judge of that, but it is not irrelevant that it is a falsehood. Satan may have lost the battle for that person's soul but by progagating that falsehood he gains the souls of countless others who look at Christianity and see a divided group who hold opposing views on just about everything and decide that there is no such thing as God and Truth.

[elscarta]

There are those who say that their interpretation of scripture can be proven by appealing to a higher authority. Others will say that their interpretation is correct because it is given to them through their intellect.

I would argue that both are examples of private language arguments. It is impossible to go into great detail about private language arguments because of the problem of space. However, I would argue that both positions are a little like buying 12 copies of the SAME morning paper and claiming that; (A) you know what has happened in the world. (B) you have checked the accuracy of the reports because you have read it from 11 other sources.

Tut, I think that I understand what you mean by private language arguments but I disagree that you can apply this to Scripture.

I do not know what your beliefs are but I start from the premise that God exists and that the Bible is the Word of God. From this it is obvious that the Bible is unlike any other piece of writing. Given its supernatural origin, our interpretation of scripture is therefore influenced by the supernatural and as such cannot be treated like any ordinary piece of writing.

The second group who say that their interpretation is correct because it is given to them through their intellect are obviously delusional as they are implying that they understand completely the influence of the supernatural upon themselves!

The first group who say that their interpretation of scripture can be proven by appealing to a higher authority are correct only if the higher authority to which they appeal is God, since scripture is His Word. Now God does not usually speak directly to us,

Jesus understood this and that is why He built His Church on Peter and promised that Satan will never overcome His Church and gave Peter authority to proclaim what is the Truth.

Matthew 16:18-19
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Now Peter is no longer around, so we cannot appeal to him directly, but the Church which Jesus built on him still exists. There is only one church that can claim an uninterrupted link to Peter and that is the Catholic Church!

Some argue that Jesus did not give this authority to the Church, but this implies that He has left His Church, since the time of Peter's death, without a final authority to turn to. Jesus knew that today, we need a final authority to turn to as much as the early Church did!

So the solution in deciding who is correct in their interpretation of scripture is to look at what the Catholic Church says is the Truth about it.

If the first group appeal to any other authority then they run the risk that their interpretaion may be a falsehood.

[De Maria]

How would you follow Christ Jesus?

Obediently.

Why would you follow Christ?

Because I am convinced that He is God.

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=elscarta;2070989



Tut, you are comparing apples with oranges. Surely you understand that Satan is anti-God not anti-Fred Smith!:p Satan does not care whether anyone agrees with Fred Smith or not or whether they have the correct meaning of the word passion but he has a vested interest in seeing that the Word of God is misunderstood.

Hi elscarta,

Apologies for misquoting you earlier. I can assure you that it wasn't intentional.

The following is about Descartes 'Evil Demon argument' It is a though experiment put forward by Descartes to develop his ideas of God through what he terms .'clear and distinct ideas' I don't necessarily agree with Descartes and I think the private language argument undermines Descartes position However, this is not the main point.

For Descartes God is a supreme being and therefore must be the source of all truth. The Evil Demon is also a supreme being and is the source of all lies and deception.

The Evil Demon is very much interested in Fred Smith in exactly the same way as God is interested in Fred Smith, but for totally different reasons. The Evil Demon wants to deceive Fred Smith IN ALL MATTERS, NOT JUST THEOLOGY. Why? Because the Evil Demon's deception is without limitations. In exactly the same way as God's love is without limitations.Basically the Evil Demon wants to make sure that Fred Smith does not arrive at "the truth" through some other means.

Fred Smith could easily be seen as Descartes in this experiment.

Descartes thinks that the idea of a perfect being could only have come from a perfect being. Therefore Descartes reasoned, there must be a God who created him, and who has implanted in him the idea of a perfect being who's nature is not to deceive. For Descartes this knowledge will allow him to perceive," the truth". If we have certain knowledge of God then this will rule out the possibility that he is being deceived.

I think you would want to say that Descartes is delusional . Was Descartes delusional? I guess that's up to those who read his works.

[sndbay]

Obediently.

Hello DeMaria, First let me say, it is nice to see you here on the Christian forum. I've often hoped we would hear from you again.

Back to the discussion, The influence for each answer is hopefully to take in consideration the reference of what was writtten as Prophecies Addressed to Jews. Then determine why we or they would follow Christ. And how would they or we follow HIM.

The Lord spoke of man being cursed to trust man in (Jeremiah 17:5). And an added fact, that for man to reach out to man, would be putting their heart away from the Lord. This being said, how then would it be safe to put our faith in Christ Jesus, who was a man? How could we trust HIM? I would like very much to bring out the reality of what brings us forward to being converted as Christians.

I believe in what is written as the spirit of truth, and God revealed and inspired every word for good reason. And I trust every word of what God has said was meant to be acknowledge as truth.

So what further truth was revealed and inspired that is written, that does permit us to trust in Jesus. How were the Jews to know, that they do remain obedient to God's word, by trusting in this man Jesus?

Because I am convinced that He is God.

Also referenced was (Jeremiah 17:10)how our Lord searches the hearts of man to give accordingly. The assurance of our Lord being all knowing in power to our daily intentions of right or wrong.

So what convinces us of this belief?

The sharing of your studies concerning God's Word and the OT could give a better undertanding of what brought the increase of faith, and what converted the Christian.

[sndbay]

So what further truth was revealed and inspired that is written, that does permit us to trust in Jesus. How were the Jews to know, that they do remain obedient to God's word, by trusting in this man Jesus?

This is what I would offer as further revealed and inspired truth spoken by our Lord concerning the Prophecies Addressed to Jews.

Jeremaih 33:14-15-16-17-18 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

Note that our Lord says the priests which were the Levites in that period of time, would not want a man put before HIM offering meat or sacrifice continually. The Lord planned to stop what was taking place, to bring a Lord of righteousness, a branch of righteousness, who would execute judgement,and righteousness.

The need for sacrifices would be abolished because this Lord of righteousness would deliver them from sin and unrighteousness.

[elscarta]

Back to the discussion, The influence for each answer is hopefully to take in consideration the reference of what was writtten as Prophecies Addressed to Jews. Then determine why we or they would follow Christ. And how would they or we follow HIM.

Once again Sndbay I will ask you how do we determine the true meaning of what is written in scripture?

[elscarta]

I think you would want to say that Descartes is delusional . Was Descartes delusional?. I guess that's up to those who read his works.

Actually Descartes was only foolish in his belief that reason can determine "the truth" (since he did not know any better), but anyone today who believes that is delusional (since they should know better). The difference is that today we have Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which states

"that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from given assumptions cannot in general provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. There will always be truth that lies beyond, that cannot be reached from a finite collection of axioms"

Paul Davies "The Mind of God"

[sndbay]

Once again Sndbay I will ask you how do we determine the true meaning of what is written in scripture?

By the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and by offering the evidence of scripture that will further encourage the truth.

We know it is written that when you change the glory of God that is uncorruptible into being the image of a man which is corruptible, then God gives those up to the unclean lust of their own hearts. And when changing the truth of God into a lie, and instead serve to worship the act of what they created other then the Creator is unrighteous.
(Romans 1:21-1:25)

God Does Promise

Romans 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.


Your question has shown for a second time to be off the thread, and does not show respect to the thread questions. Can you not answer the thread question?

[TUT317]

Hello elscarta,
I can see that you and sndbay still have unfinished business so I will make this may last entry if you like.

I don't know Godel's Incomplete Theorem . Does it mean that the premise or axiom used for a deductive process in mathematics or logic is self-evidently true? I am thinking of Descartes ' We cannot think of a being which cannot not exist' Anyway, You seem to agree that Descartes would be delusional if he had knowledge of the theorem and still held onto his belief.

The only reason I have drawn on Descartes arguments is to put forward three possibilities in relation to the question of determining the true meaning of scripture.

The possibilities are:-

(A) The Evil Demon deceives people only in matters of scripture. That is, incorrect interpretation of scripture ( As I understand the arguments so far this is your position).

(B) The Evil Demon deceives all people in all matters all of the time. He is a universal deceiver ( Could be described as Descartes position).

(C) The Evil Demon does not involve himself in any matters of language. Misunderstanding of scripture is the result of any number of problems that can arise whenever language is involved (my position).

We can rule out (B) because we both agree that knowledge of God cannot come through the intellect.( I am not completely convinced this is true, but I will go along with you).

You position seems to be that true knowledge of the scriptures comes from reading the 'correct account'.
My question is how do we DETERMINE if an account is true unless it is first process by the intellect. When we appeal to the 'correct higher authority', are we not using our intellect to determine what is being said to us?

Given this we are back at position (C).

[paraclete]

Hello, Tut, can I ask why you have become the Devil's advocate? Scripture says he is the deceiver, there is no qualification regarding the nature of the deceipt. He is the father of lies, such a description tells you he will deceive you no matter what language you speak or how good your understanding might be, in fact, the more intelligent and reasoning you are the greater the opportunity for deception.

The greatest deception so far is that he doesn't exist, or that he is limited in the way he will deceive us. We are now at the point where we are deceived into to thinking we rule this planet, that we have the ability to alter atmospheric conditions, that our efforts can somehow undo the mechanism God has placed in motion. We have the ability to destroy ourselves and we are being deceived into doing it

[TUT317]

Hello, Tut, can I ask why you have become the Devil's advocate? Scripture says he is the deceiver, there is no qualification regarding the nature of the deceipt. he is the father of lies, such a description tells you he will deceive you no matter what language you speak or how good your understanding might be, in fact, the more intelligent and reasoning you are the greater the opportunity for deception.

The greatest deception so far is that he doesn't exist, or that he is limited in the way he will deceive us. We are now at the point where we are deceived into to thinking we rule this planet, that we have the ability to alter atmospheric conditions, that our efforts can somehow undo the mechanism God has placed in motion. We have the ability to destroy ourselves and we are being deceived into doing it

Hello paraclete,

In regards to your first paragraph. Actually, that is not my position, it's Descartes. In fact, I generally disagree with Descartes philosophy. The reason I introduced it was to point out that the Evil Demon is limited in the way he can deceive us (your second paragraph).

It is difficult to sum up in a few sentences but I go along the Bouwsma's criticism of Descartes which says that it would be logically impossible for Descartes to be deceived on every single issue. If universal deception were a reality then he would have no understanding of the word deception.

I would suggests because you recognize we are being deceived into thinking we are universally deceived suggests there is no universal deception. If there were such a thing as universal deception then we would simply think we rule the planet and no other possible alternative would come to mind.