Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.
My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.
I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.
It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.
I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.
Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."
“And I posit that such proof lacks not only in the case of 1 Peter, but in the entire Bible.”
I can appreciate where you are coming from; I don’t agree, but I am aware of the problems. We all live and die by our beliefs.
I was only reminding you that different people called it by different names for a long time, and that the name "Palestine" was not invented by Romans as you implied.
So you are saying that there was no Greek word for "Aramaic" in Greek in those days and the closest word to it was the Greek word for "Hebrew"???? Is that what you are claiming???????
Why would Greeks have a separate name for Aramaic? To them, the language spoken by the Hebrews was the language of the Hebrew whether it was Aramaic or not. They didn't bother to learn it and would therefore not be able to distinguish it from "other" Hebrew any more than an English-only speaking person could not distinguish Portuguese from Spanish.
So then if the languages were so nearly identical, it could reasonably be said that the Syrians were speaking Hebrew not Aramaic
The Syrians spoke (and wrote) in Syrian or Assyrian Aramaic. Hebrew Aramaic evolved over centuries into a particular separate language. Aramaic entered jewish literature by the 4th century BC.
A similar differentiation took place among Slavioc tribes with respect to their common Old Slavonic language. In the past 11000 years, the Old Slavonic differentiated into various related but separate dialects which can be understood to a greater or lesser degree among Slavic-speaking peoples. Spanish and Portuguese are another example.
Adopted words had entered the Hebrew language from Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Chaldean, etc since the days when those scriptures were written, but adopted words just like adopted children take the name and heritage of their adopting parents -- not vice versa
These are not simply "adopted" foreign words mixed in with Hebrew, but a distinct language. I already showed you that parts of the "Hebrew" bible are written in Aramaic, not in foreign words added to Hebrew.
So when Jesus read the Hebrew scroll of Isaiah no body understood him???? or did they remark that he taught as one having great authority because his Hebrew aligned perfectly with the words that he had been giving to his people since the days of Moses???
Jesus taught in Aramaic because that's what He spoke. What He read in the synagogues was Aramaic, because the Tanakh (Old Testament) used for public prayer and homilies was Targum, which was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. To untrained eyes and ears it may very well appear and even "sound" as Hebrew, but it ain't Hebrew!
[R]eligious Jews, those Jews who regarded their Mosaic heritage, and valued the Hebrew scriptures, and hung around the Temple and synagogues where those Hebrew scriptures were taught, would have spoken and understood a Hebrew closer to the original Hebrew of the scriptures -- Temple Hebrew, as you call it.
Again, this is partially correct, except that in synagogues they used Aramaic based on Targum. This is similar to Slavonic churches today using vernacular rather than the Church Slavonic. To a non-Slavic speaker, the two languages would be indistinguishable.
In Greece, there were some bishops recently who unsuccessfully pushed for the divine liturgy to be sung in modern (colloquial) Greek rather than in the Biblical (koine) Greek, arguing that the latter is pretty much unintelligible to most modern Greeks.
There is no doubt that the priests (Sadducees) in the Temple kept Biblical Hebrew alive the way eastern Churches keep their ancient languages alive. But it would be a stretch to say that they used it in a day-to-day business transactions or even writing. In Slavonic Churches, the "official language" is Church Slavonic, but only for liturgical use. No one speaks it or uses it in written correspondence.
Those Jews who kept those original Hebrew scriptures in their heart, and hung around the Temple and synagogues where they could be learned and understood and memorized were the Jews who responded to Jesus when he came and received their Messiah.
Do you always make up (even confabulate) things like this? The very people who "hung around" the temple and synagogues were usually the people who rejected Him.
Knowing the Hebrew scriptures, they recognized him as the author of those Hebrew scriptures that they had in their heart.
Do you still read and believe fairy tales?
He spoke their language and they understood his words and that language was the Hebrew of the Hebrew scriptures.
Well, that's not what the learned people say. All evidence seems to show that He spoke Aramaic and taught in Aramaic, and that a particualr Aramaic was the spoken and written language of the Jews of Pelstine of His time. He even died crying out in Aramaic, not in Hebrew.
But you are free to believe in anything your heart desires, if that's what makes you feel better. Of course you have not provided a single piece of evidence, or reference, or link, or author to back up any of these confabulations.
Ditto.
I am sorry to see you say this my FRiend.
There is abundant proof that the Scriptures are the Word of God if you wish to look at it objectively. Jesus proved he is the Son of God by his resurrection which was witnessed by hundreds. His words when written down would be the Word of God.
The fulfillment of OT prophecy in the NT is another measure of the inspired writings. There is no way so many different writers could accurately predict future events that occurred hundreds of years later if they were not being directed by God.
Finally, the ability to perform miracles during the Apostolic Era was evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding these individuals and their close relationship to Jesus Christ, or Apostles called out by Jesus, adds to the veracity of their writings being "GOD BREATHED".
What role do you think this adoration of images and figures played in the rise of Islam?
First, no one can prove anything by "wishing it." One does not start with a desire to prove, but to discover the truth, leaving the answer to uncertainty until it is clear that it is one way or another.
There is nothing objective to this issue, but I appreciate that to many people the scriptures are "objective" based on their a priori accepted personal "truths."
Jesus proved he is the Son of God by his resurrection which was witnessed by hundreds
That "proof" is based on the scriptures "proving" scriptures. This is like me verifying that I am who I say I am. Trust me, I am. :)
The fulfillment of OT prophecy in the NT is another measure of the inspired writings
Most of these "prophesies" are concoctions of different and most often unrelated biblical verses plucked out because they suited the author's intention and written retrospectively (after the fact); others are simply read into.
There is no way so many different writers could accurately predict future events that occurred hundreds of years later if they were not being directed by God.
That might be so if there were true. Unfortunately, biblical analysis shows that it is not so.
Finally, the ability to perform miracles during the Apostolic Era was evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding these individuals and their close relationship to Jesus Christ, or Apostles called out by Jesus, adds to the veracity of their writings being "GOD BREATHED".
Biblical miracles "verified" by the Bible! Back to the scriptures being their own proof. Catholic Church claims many miracles (hundreds of people have been sainted for that reason). By your logic, you should be Catholic. There are "eyewitnesses" to Marian apparitions. There is Lourdes whose walls are studded with crutches of people who came there paralyzed and walked away from it cured!
If miracles of Jesus Christ and His Apostles were not enough to convert the whole world, what makes you think blind faith would?
People who wrote the books of the bible were moved by God (inspired by God) as one is inspired by love, sadness, joy, etc. to express one's feelings in a book,sculpture, music, poem, etc. There is nothing about being "inspired" as a proof of veracity of anything.
I am not a Muslim, so I can't answer that. To the best of my knowledge, the Muslims are iconoclasts, although some shiia Muslims sects did use pictures for a while.
I’m sure you’ll all have a great time in the echo chamber. No doubt the Jews of old held similar forums discussing those nasty prophets. Evangelism will always be sadistic because it cuts to the bone and heart of the natural man. He cannot help but feel offended because his pride is crushed by his sinfulness. Then the natural man will either fall to his knees or “kick against the goad”. Here’s my sophisticated evangelical methodology.
= =
I come from a tradition . . . family and otherwise . . . where . . . when one went to church . . . we didn’t feel we’d been to church unless at least once or twice, the Pastor’s sermon had cut a little close for comfort, or more.
And some Pastoral candidates weren’t approved because they weren’t starkly fierce enough with the Word of God—the ear tickling kind. Such didn’t go over well in these parts.
The only thing that you showed was that one Greek writer used the word "Palestine" once upon a time -- that's all -- until the Romans renamed the territory in order to try to erase the Jewish memory of it, but it didn't work.
Why would Greeks have a separate name for Aramaic?
Because they did and you know it to be true -- just like they distinguished Syria linguistically from Judea. Western Aramaic was also called "Syriac" or the Syrian tongue and Eastern Aramaic was Chaldean.
I already showed you that parts of the "Hebrew" bible are written in Aramaic, not in foreign words added to Hebrew.
Yeh --- a very small part of Daniel, that's all, so what??? Should we then conclude that the OT was written in Aramaic because of that small part. Get real --
Jesus taught in Aramaic because that's what He spoke.
So then He was the Syrian Messiah not the Jewish Messiah???
What He read in the synagogues was Aramaic, because the Tanakh (Old Testament) used for public prayer and homilies was Targum, which was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. To untrained eyes and ears it may very well appear and even "sound" as Hebrew, but it ain't Hebrew!
So then the Jews of that time with all their learned scholars didn't know the difference between the Hebrew Tanakh and the Aramaic Targums. You get more ridiculous with every stroke of the keys.
He even died crying out in Aramaic, not in Hebrew.
And yet they kept those Aramaic words that he spoke in that one instance untranslated in the Greek. Why??? Because they were the exception to the rule, rather than the rule itself. The rule was that He spoke Hebrew among the Jews, the exception was when He didn't.
Do you always make up (even confabulate) things like this? The very people who "hung around" the temple and synagogues were usually the people who rejected Him.
Do you always reject those Greek scriptures, like this:
"For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words" [John 5:46-47]
Moses' writings were in Hebrew, the same language of the words of Jesus. But I'm sure that's all Greek to you --
***I’m struck by the similtude of the sin of the calf and the temples of Rome. Like the Israelites, the Romanists set up their graven images and altars performing their ritualistic dances while the mediator, Christ, is in conference with Yahweh.
Even sadder, when reform is enacted to put away the graven images the people hearts remain cold to repentance and decry the loss of their graven images.***
Many Protestants don’t understand icons whatsoever, their beginning, their purposes and their effectiveness.
Christians were largely recruited from the lower class Jewish and Gentile populations who were illiterate. Having written Scripture was fine for the temples and for the priestly class, but over 95% of the population was illiterate. Icons were developed in the first century in order to remind the people of the faith, prayers, etc.
The icons are not ‘graven images’ of gods and objects of worship. They are reminders of Christ and Christianity. They are not necessary, and no good Catholic will claim that. But they are nice, and 2000 years of Church history affirms their utility.
***And thus they do not commit the blasphmous error of believing themselves to be “another Christ.”***
Try reading the book Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis first published in 1418.
Our former senior pastor cut right to the chase and he didn’t mince words. Sometimes it was downright uncomfortable but we knew he loved us enough to tell us the truth. Some even left the church because he was so direct, but our lives were changed because he spoke truth into them. He will always be my spiritual father and dear friend.
Anger, bitterness and unforgiveness cause all sorts of emotional and physical problems. It just ain’t worth it.
Deeper pockets, Dr. E.
Philip Jenkins (an ex Catholic), in Pedophiles and Priests writes that: Notwithstanding the difficulties that such data comparisons hold, the available information on clergy sexual misconduct shows that the problem is bigger among Protestant clergy. For example, the most cited survey of sexual problems among the Protestant clergy shows that 10 percent have been involved in sexual misconduct and “about two or three percent” are “pedophiles.” With regard to the “pedophile” problem, the figure for the Catholic clergy, drawn from the most authoritative studies, ranges between .2 percent to 1.7 percent. Yet we hear precious little about these comparative statistics. *
Deeper pockets. Abuse and inappropriate sexual contact is much higher in Protestant denominations that freely allow married clergy than in the Catholic Church.
Which denomination do you give your Sunday offering to? There may be more than meets the eye there, as well.
***I could be in confession and he would at once tell me what I needed to confess and who was impeding me, who I needed to avoid in charity and for my own sake, and how much more I needed to pray.***
Interesting. Maybe you’re just very transparent. :)
I’ve not run across this experience before, at least not that I’m aware.
I’m sure wmfights didn’t mean that you could wish it into existence. IMHO he meant if you were OPEN to it.
***Now by comparison, every study I’ve been shown of “Protestant” abuse included volunteers and laypersons, something the John Jay Study did not cover among Catholic parishes; if we exclude them from the “Protestant” studies (to create a “pastor vs priest” apple-to-apple comparison), we arrive at a roughly 1% abuse rate for all “Protestant” pastors, or (in other words) at least a four times greater likelihood that any given Catholic priest will be a sexual predator as compared to any given “Protestant” pastor. ***
With true apples to apples, we need to include all those individuals that are ordained or otherwise commissioned into a position of authority with the church.
***Some independent churches have statistics that are far, far higher than the Catholic average of 4%. But we’re not the ones who consider them “Protestant” - it’s Catholics that insist on applying that label to them.***
I agree that individual churches have individual abuse rates. I find that interesting regarding the relative level of ‘free will’. I had always thought that the stricter and more insular the sect, the greater the child abuse is likely to be, but I hadn’t considered free will as a contributor. I’d like to look further.
Oh. The Protestants are self identified. They are the ones who split from the Catholic Church, and then began the furious process of further splitting. Where are the roots? If they are in the Protestant Reformation, then the sects are Protestants.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
***As a rule if you find abuse in the nonRC churches it’s usually heterosexual in nature, whereas in the RCC it’s usually homosexual. Whether this is because of the required celibacy, or a subculture that has developed within the clergy I’m not sure. The former probably is a casual factor in the latter.***
A number of homosexuals in the past have entered the priesthood as a result of understanding the sinfulness of the practice. This tips the scales somewhat.
But there was not sufficient supervision of some priests, who gave in to their desires. Also, some priests, sheltered in a religious world almost completely until finishing in seminary, may be somewhat less developed and unable to adjust as easily to the outside world. Sufficient supervision and guidance would have handled all but a handful of incidents.
Jesus spent most of preaching time instructing us on love. He ALSO mentioned violence a handful of times.
We understand His words. But we also understand His instructions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.