Essenaut
Member
If I end up in hell, God is a liar for saying he'd save me for believing in him, and calling on him.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[__ Prayer __] I'm beginning to hate God
- Thread starter Essenaut
- Start date
If I end up in hell, God is a liar for saying he'd save me for believing in him, and calling on him.
Northman
Member
It was a long overdue question. I did not expect a yes or a no from anyone that has any say at all.
How can they share truth if they are blind? Sorta like Saul, totally educated and could probably talk miles a minute around you just before having you killed in full confidence, then he became Paul and the truth was revealed. The law and prophets point to Christ. If they can't get that part, they are running on their own steam when talking about anything else.
I guess when I see people in whatever pseudo-authority they have stand up and and with their words give credence to religious opinions of those without the Spirit, I call that promoting.
stovebolts
Member
I understand, really, I do.
As Christian's, we have the freedom to claim truth from where ever we find it, and Paul quotes truth 3 times from pagans, so we have apostolic examples of doing this.
It's dangerous when we use broad strokes of the brush for painting pictures, and while many are blind, truth is still there. Even Caphis spoke truth when he prophesied about the death of Jesus, even though he was not aware that he was doing so. As Christian's, we have the Spirit to see these things, and although there are some things we will and should reject from them, there is also an abundance of truth to be gleaned.
Truthfrees
Member
God doesn't lie - you are saved by doing these things
the instructions/laws God gives us on how to live on earth is to help our lives run smoothly and help us be blessed to be a blessing to others
when we ignore God's instructions/laws we make our own life hell on earth - even if we are saved - 1 Corinthians 3:15
continuing to pray for you
God bless you my friend
Razeontherock
Member
Al Goldstein is hardly a representative of Jews. Surely you recognize that? The article you linked doesn't say anything Billy Joel hadn't already said in Only The Good Die Young.
Northman
Member
This I totally understand. The eyes the Spirit has given me allow me(as I'm sure with a great many others if not everyone) to see God at work in real time in the world. Sometimes even the most unlikely prospect spouts something you know wasn't "just them", as with Caphis.
My main point was that when their is effort put in, as in someone is actually giving opinion or attempting to discern the Word, it's always fail if they do not have Christ. To me all Jewish commentary fall under this and are about as worthy to read as Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist commentary.
As far as this is concerned, you wouldn't consider doing this actively(by that I mean attending synagogue/mosque/ingestion of Spiritless reading materials) to be a leavening of sorts? It just seems that as soon as any of this stuff is entertained to the point of people knowing you do any of it, the term "above reproach" leaves you.
stovebolts
Member
I have the complete commentary of the Torah by Ramban and have found it very helpful. Adam Clarke mirrors much of what Ramban says at times much in the same way C.S. Lewis mirrors G.K. Chesterton.
I wouldn't point a young Christian to Jewish resources until they were securely grounded in the faith.
As with any commentary, we have to be careful, even if it is labelled as Christian commentary.
KevinK
Member
My point when I said you were halfway there is that, to be fully in the Lord, you must "die to self". This is the meaning of being "born again". I think most people here have been through this.
Given all you have gone through, doesn't it make sense to renounce your current life, which is full of misery anyway, and reclaim your true life with the Lord? We weren't meant to seek happiness on earth; our true happiness is on the other side.
Given all you have gone through, doesn't it make sense to renounce your current life, which is full of misery anyway, and reclaim your true life with the Lord? We weren't meant to seek happiness on earth; our true happiness is on the other side.
brujaq
Member
Acts 10:34 1 Corinthians 10:13 John 5:7-8 What are you planning on doing about it , we all go through it friend
Philippians 2:12 .. If your are a Christian then you are blessed .. Life is real and the hits keep coming from the world , we have a race to run and you must do it , pray for wisdom in earnest and wait on the Lord, but don't blow it by throwing a tantrum tomorrow .. James 1:7-9 All born again Christians agree that God is good but we also learn we can't serve two masters or else we will be miserable .. May the Lord Jesus give you your hearts desire ...
Last edited:
You are not alone, brother. Paul had plenty of reasons to blame God for calamity in his life. Take a look at 2 Corinthians 11:16-33 or Joseph who was sold into slavery, falsely accused of sexual assault, and imprisoned. Or, David, whose psalms reveal his feelings and hopes and faithfulness to God. Finally, how about Jesus who was falsely accused of blasphemy, imprisoned, ridiculed, mocked, slapped, spit upon, severely beaten, and hung on a cross until dead.
Rather than blaming God, maybe you should be running to Him, seeking Him and His counsel. One thing in common with all of these I mentioned above is their loyalty and faithfulness to God. Jesus said we will face trials and tribulations (John 16:33). The question is, will you trust Him to help you through it? God will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. See 1 Corinthians 10:13.
Have faith!
Razeontherock
Member
This is sound. I feel the same pertains to OT / NT. Once the baby Christian is rooted and grounded in the sincere milk of the Word, a little OT (Psalms Proverbs) is not going to hurt a thing but will continue to develop the "lens" of seeing Christ throughout the rest of the OT as intended. This in turn strengthens the understanding of the NT to the point that our heart won't be hardened by reading Moses.
There's an important balance!
stovebolts
Member
Absolutly.
I really enjoy Adam Clark, and was surprised to see the parallels with Jewish writings. This tells me he spent some time with Jewish literature, and he brings out Christ in the OT like no other commentator I've read.
That being said. When I studied Exodus in depth years ago, Adam Clark missed a few inho that Ramban brought out beautifully. However, because of the grounding Adam Clark helped me to achieve in the OT, I was able to see Christ in the writings of Ramban. It was awesome.
Northman
Member
I guess we will just chalk it up to just having different standards.
There is something confusing me though. What do you mean by "we"? Is it common practice where you are/in your church/in your culture for believers to point other believers to commentaries? I mean I've read some of them but would never point any believer to reading them. Where Adam Clarke specifically is concerned someone reading his stuff is not going to be able to come away from it without picking up things they really shouldn't. His whole idea of the Catholic church being the antichrist(granted that was a common theme after England split and speaks more to indoctrination than anything), the idea that Jesus had to earn his divinity and wasn't part of the trinity until he worked for it, not to mention pretty much everything he said about the rosetta stone all turned out to be absolutely wrong.
stovebolts
Member
I understand.
By we, I mean everyone, even you should take caution when reading any commentary from any source. For example, Coffman pretty much repeats Clark with his views on the Catholic church the way you have described. Both commentators are considered Christian commentary.
In this case, Clark is the primary source and Coffman the secondary since he is riding on Clark's tail coat. But if Clark were to be secondary, who layed the foundation he built his house on? I think you already know this because you mentioned it above. Hence, we are influenced by our society.
Now then, I do not ascribe to those views, (RCC is the anti Christ) and those views are not tolerated on this site. But that does not mean that everything Clark wrote was wrong, so where Clark got it right, we can embrace those truths, and we should with any commentary from any author.
Here is the problem the way I see it.
If I give you commentary on Genesis, and you agree then you will more than likely share those thoughts. However, if I start my commentary by telling you Pope John Paul wrote the Theology of the Body, and this is what he said about Genesis... you may reject those truths simply because they are related to the Pope.
We see right away then that the same message can be rejected or accepted not by its content, but rather by who is speaking it.
Why is this?
Razeontherock
Member
Poisoning the well, a logical fallacy. We're all susceptible to it. I think it's contemptible that it's not only allowed in the legal profession, but a mainstay: " undermining the opponent's credibility," they call it.
Vicious stuff.
stovebolts
Member
Sad, isnt it.
We notice in Genesis 2 that Adam calls Eve bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. In Genesis 3 they are hiding their differences from one another, thus highlighting their differences. Adam then refers to Eve as essentially, "that woman you put here with me".
Not much has changed, has it?
Northman
Member
Of course not everything he said was wrong, or you could say not everything he said was right. That's pretty much standard for everyone, though not equally. The only thing I would say would be that from the beginning, that if the author is not a believer then why bother? If the Holy Spirit isn't required to reveal God then we could just listen to what anyone says about Him.
Well I'm not a Catholic or anything, but yes I understand there are more than a few reasons for one to reject the thoughts of another. The only time I would outright reject and simply not listen(as in take in, digest, think on) is when someone isn't a believer. As has been revealed in just a short conversation, not that you or I didn't know it before, what some people consider great men have been wrong. I'd expect someone who isn't a believer to be even more off base.
Northman
Member
What amazes me is when people poison their own wells.
It's good to get to know people. Most of the time I sit and watch conversations here just to see who says what. It is very apparent that some people can't control themselves when it comes to speech, they just blurt out whatever. Usually watching for fact based conversations(not the opinion kind) tells me who and who not to listen to. I mean you can have someone write a history poem and get lots of stuff wrong in it, as in things that aren't open to speculation. Or you can have someone give statistical facts about another person that are only correct in the mind of who is giving them. Of course the list goes on. If people are as careless with scripture as they are with regular things, they really shouldn't be listened to at all and they only have themselves to blame. This is not an uncommon thing here. Not saying it's worse on this site than anywhere else, just that lots of people in general BS and don't even know it most of the time.