[magprob]

Rust never sleeps

BBC NEWS | UK | Most 'do not believe in nativity'

[JoeT777]

Cain IS the literal seed of Satan.

That Cain is the seed of Satan is a perverted theological view typically held by those following Daniel Parker's teachings, reconstituted by William M. Branham in his homilies of hate. This is one of the prime biblical misinterpretations used to support religious and racial bigotry, usually of the rankest kind. It's similar view that permitted German's during WWII to hold Jews as sub-human. This heretical view is based on Eve's original sin eating from the tree knowledge of Good and Evil. As a harlot Eve allowed hereself to be seduced by a serpent, who unlike today, had human features. Prior to her temptation the erroneous theory holds that the serpent was a race of soulless human like creatures used for manual labor. God then punishes Adam and Eve; the serpent is condemned to a slithering creepy crawley creature that he is today. However, as a result of the seduction, Eve gives birth to Cain, whose blood is tainted with the serpent's evil. Henceforth, those descendants of Cain are “seed of Satan.” Thus, so goes the theory, we have the cause of sin, and we have subhuman creatures tempting and seducing the “elect”.

This and other false teachings were held as evidentiary support by the Ku Klux Klan for holding represive views; that being the seed of Cain, segregation could be biblically substantiated. Furthermore, since “evolution of mankind, when man--God brood upon the earth... And He begin to bring up birds, and the--from birds He come to different things, then chimpanzee, and from the chimpanzee to the serpent” and thus could be viewed less than human. I remember from the 60's when this philosophy spread through the south among those who opposed desegregation efforts. The only seduction is the evil enticing normal Bible believing Christians to take up apartheid against those they see as “sub-human” as a means of subjugation.

Catholic's hold that this as heretical and utter nonsense based on the clear declaration in Geneis that Eve is the offspring of Adam; And Adam knew Eve his wife; who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying: I have gotten a man through God. (Gen 4:1)

see also :
Branhamism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Serpent seed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Daniel Parker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


JoeT

[magprob]

The last man of Adams pure line was Noah. Every person on the planet today has the blood of Cain, Adam and Eve.
You are right. Hate groups have twisted it to mean that only "some" have the Gene. And of course, they are the pure ones. That is pure and utter nonsense. We all have the good seed and the bad seed within us. That is why we can be good or evil.
Everyone except Jesus Christ. Hence the virgin birth. Satan corrupted the line.

[JoeT777]

The last man of Adams pure line was Noah. Every person on the planet today has the blood of Cain, Adam and Eve.
You are right. Hate groups have twisted it to mean that only "some" have the Gene. And of course, they are the pure ones. That is pure and utter nonsense. We all have the good seed and the bad seed within us. That is why we can be good or evil.
Everyone except Jesus Christ. Hence the virgin birth. Satan corrupted the line.

Then you have no free will - when you sin - the seed made you do it - right?

[De Maria]

You assert a definitional equivalence here, but don't provide a reasoned argument.

Hm? I'm on a Christian forum providing the Word of God as support for my argument. What did you expect, Freud?

I'm not persuaded that any reasonable definition of "Church" is synonymous with the Kingdom of God.

Then if you want to have a Christian debate, show me from Scripture or from Catholic doctrine that it is not the same thing. Otherwise, you really have nothing to say on the matter.

That you would equate the two makes me think that your view of the Kingdom is impossibly narrow and restrictive.

Why does it matter? Are you Catholic or Christian?

My opinion on the matter rests on Catholic doctrine, Tradition and Scripture. Upon what do you rest yours?

[Akoue]

It seems to me that the plain meaning of the text is that, at least until after The Harvest, there is much that is outside The Church, but within The Kingdom.

This is a non sequitur; it doesn't follow from your analysis of the text.

[arcura]

Akoue
Greed,
Fred

[ordinaryguy]

This is a non sequitur; it doesn't follow from your analysis of the text.

Well, yes, it does. I'll repeat it for you:

Originally Posted by Maggie 3
38: the field is the world, and the good seed stands for the Son of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
39: and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age and the harvesters are the angels.
40: As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.
41: The Son of Man sends out his angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

This makes it pretty clear that until the end of the age, which hasn't happened yet, the weeds are included and allowed to grow within The Kingdom. So, if The Kingdom is synonymous with The Church, then The Weeds are at the present time, i.e. before the harvest, contained within The Church.

Verse 38 clearly states the field where both the tares and the good seed grow is the world, not the church. The fact that the weeds are to be removed from the Kingdom at the end of the age implies that the Kingdom of God encompasses the whole world, not just the church, and that until the end of the age, the Kingdom includes both sons of the Kingdom and sons of the evil one. Nowhere, either in the parable or in Jesus' explanation of it, is the Church even mentioned.

I really don't see the payoff for the insistence that the Kingdom is limited to the Church. If that's the case, the parable would be saying that the tares are growing within the Church, but not outside it.

[Akoue]

Do you take "the kingdom" of the Son and "the kingdom" of the Father (v.43) to be co-extensive?

[ordinaryguy]

Hm? I'm on a Christian forum providing the Word of God as support for my argument. What did you expect, Freud?

You provided neither an argument nor scriptural support. You just asserted that they are the same. No evidence, no argument, no logic, no reasoning, just smug supercilious assertion. The text you quoted,

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

is about how to behave in church, and doesn't even mention the Kingdom of God, much less establish it's equivalence to the Church.

Then if you want to have a Christian debate, show me from Scripture or from Catholic doctrine that it is not the same thing. Otherwise, you really have nothing to say on the matter.

I already showed from scripture that they are not the same. And you really have nothing to say about whether I have anything to say on the matter.

Why does it matter?

It matters because equating the Kingdom to the Church distorts the meaning of the parable and diminishes the inclusiveness of the Kingdom of God.

Are you Catholic or Christian?

Why does it matter?

My opinion on the matter rests on Catholic doctrine, Tradition and Scripture.

You haven't supported your opinion with anything, so it's hard to tell what it rests on, except your supremely self-satisfied air of superiority.

Upon what do you rest yours?

Rational thought, careful reading, and a common sense interpretation of language.

[ordinaryguy]

Do you take "the kingdom" of the Son and "the kingdom" of the Father (v.43) to be co-extensive?

Do you take "co-extensive" to be synonymous with "synonymous"? If so, yes, I do. What does that very fine distinction have to do with whether the Kingdom is equivalent to the Church?

[Akoue]

Do you take "co-extensive" to be synonymous with "synonymous"? If so, yes, I do. What does that very fine distinction have to do with whether the Kingdom is equivalent to the Church?

Because if you do, then your earlier post wasn't a non sequitur and I was mistaken to say that it was. If you don't (and I wrongly assumed that you didn't) then it would have been a non sequitur.

[arcura]

This is an interesting discussion to me.
While I do believe that the Kingdom of God on this planet is The Church. I'd like to see more "friendly" discussion on that here.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[ordinaryguy]

I do believe that the Kingdom of God on this planet is The Church

I'd be interested to know why you believe this. Either you think that the Church includes far more than I think it does, or that the Kingdom of God includes much less.

Most of Jesus' teaching on the subject of the Kingdom of God is contained in several parables that were explicitly intended to answer the question "What is the Kingdom of God like, and to what can I compare it?" He apparently considered it a challenge to convey the fullness of the concept as he meant it, because the parables come at it from several different angles. As far as I can tell, he never mentioned the Church at all in this context.

This is why I'm so intrigued that you, JoeT777 and DeMaria are united in your insistence that the term simply refers to the Christian Church. If you can arrive at that conclusion from a careful study of these parables, I am truly amazed, but not at all persuaded.

[JoeT777]

I'd be interested to know why you believe this. Either you think that the Church includes far more than I think it does, or that the Kingdom of God includes much less.

Most of Jesus' teaching on the subject of the Kingdom of God is contained in several parables that were explicitly intended to answer the question "What is the Kingdom of God like, and to what can I compare it?" He apparently considered it a challenge to convey the fullness of the concept as he meant it, because the parables come at it from several different angles. As far as I can tell, he never mentioned the Church at all in this context.

This is why I'm so intrigued that you, JoeT777 and DeMaria are united in your insistence that the term simply refers to the Christian Church. If you can arrive at that conclusion from a careful study of these parables, I am truly amazed, but not at all persuaded.

I can't speak for De Maria, I'm sure he'll have his own say, but I believe that the Roman Catholic Church IS the earthly component of the Kingdom of God. Insofaras I know this is the teaching of the Church. That bothers you doesn't it? What do you think that might mean to the Protestant?

I'm not trying to persuade you, truth IS. I don't care what Bill Clinton says.

JoeT

[arcura]

ordinaryguy,
Please don't get me wrong.
I said the Kingdom on this world or planet.
The heavenly Kingdom of God is NOT on this planet but The Church that Jesus established with Peter as it's first leader is on this world.
It was and still is the Mother Church, the bride of Christ.
The Church struggles to help the world work to fulfull as Jesus taught us to pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
If we mortals can accomplish that then that is when we can truly say "Heaven on earth"
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[ordinaryguy]

I beleive that the Roman Catholic Church IS the the earthly component of the Kingdom of God. Insofaras I know this is the teaching of the Church. That bothers you dosn't it?

Yes, it bothers me in the same way and for the same reason that Jesus was bothered by the self-righteousness of the scribes and pharisees who considered themselves to be specially favored by God.

[ordinaryguy]

ordinaryguy,
Please don't get me wrong.
I said the Kingdom on this world or planet.
The heavenly Kingdom of God is NOT on this planet but The Church that Jesus established with Peter as it's first leader is on this world.
It was and still is the Mother Church, the bride of Christ.

Yes, but you still haven't explained why you think the Kingdom of God on this planet is identical with the Church, except that the Catholic Church says it is. If that's all the reason you need, OK, I guess. But a straightforward reading of the parables that Jesus told to explain the Kingdom of God doesn't support that conclusion.

[JoeT777]

Yes, it bothers me in the same way and for the same reason that Jesus was bothered by the self-righteousness of the scribes and pharisees who considered themselves to be specially favored by God.

Those are some strong accusations. Where did I espouse self-righteousness? I’d like to avoid it in the future. I need to know where my faults lie. When did I take unto myself righteousness?

Frankness would be appreciated.

JoeT

[ordinaryguy]

Those are some strong accusations. Where did I espouse self-righteousness? I’d like to avoid it in the future. I need to know where my faults lie. When did I take unto myself righteousness?

Frankness would be appreciated.

JoeT

The claim that the Catholic Church constitutes whole of the Kingdom of God on earth is identical in form to the claim that the Jewish tribe is God's chosen people. Jesus vehemently and repeatedly rejected the idea then, and I have no doubt that he would treat the Catholic (or any other) Church's similar claim in exactly the same way today.

The essence of his message was that the relationship between God and His children is an absolutely individual matter, and that membership in this or that group has no bearing on it whatsoever. His unsparing rejection of the idea of group favor before God got him crucified then, and if he were to come back and deliver the same message today, I have no doubt that he would meet a similar fate.