"Symbol of Christianity?"

[Catholic Crusader]

...A pastor, (Bishop), 'caught up' in his LUSTS for this world CANNOT 'teach' you the TRUTH....

Oooo - I just caught that. That is wrong. We are all sinners, as were the apostles. If sin keeps us from teaching, then that would nullify this verse:

Ephesians 4:11
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers

You are wrong about that one. Remember: Sinners wrote the Bible.

 

[Imagican]

CC,

I THANK YOU for you acknowledement of EVEN the possibility of coveting BEING ABLE to BE idolotry.

As to your second post.

I was NOT refering to sin. I was refering to the LUSTS of the FLESH. We will ALL sin till the day we DIE. It is INEVITABLE that UNTIL we are COMPLETELY renewed, that we will NOT be ABLE to LIVE without sin in our lives.

But there is a 'difference' in sin being committed and LIVING IN SIN. Let me explain:

There is the possibility that one that is UTTERLY devoted to God and living THROUGH His Son to BE tempted. One such as this could be TEMPTED by a 'nude' or 'sexily dressed' or temptuous woman. That 'imagined lust' IS a 'sin' according to the word. But does one DWELL ON IT? That IS the difference.

The man that has such thoughts and simply 'let's them go' WITHOUT entertaining them IS able to live; not IN sin, but AS we have been taught and given strength to OVERCOME.

But the man that allows such to BE 'dwelt upon' until it BECOMES MORE than simple 'temptation', the man that ACTS upon such a 'temptation', HE IS LIVING IN SIN. Sin is NOT something that 'just happens' through his ignorance or weakness, he is LIVING FOR IT. He is BOWING to it's temptation and ALLOWING a 'place of importance' in his life.

The pastor, (or Bishop), that ALLOWS himself to COVET the THINGS of this world HAS submitted himself TO SIN. He has NOT ONLY been 'tempted', he has not only THOUGHT about it, but to LUST after such things puts him in a position to either DENY, or INTENTIONALLY alter his understanding.

Now, if a Pastor or Bishop were to TEACH the 'truth' involved with such issues, would NOT the congregation PLAINLY be ABLE to discern the TRUTH? And once able, would they not PURELY SEE that lusts in HIS VERY HEART?

For this REASON, the churches have fallen to their LUSTS of this world. ALL? I cannot say. But I can tell you that we have been instructed as to HOW to identify SUCH. And to MOST, they have simply been 'blinded' to this instruction for the sake of FOLLOWING the SAME example. For the 'sake of' their OWN LUSTS.

NEVER were we told that it would be 'easy' to separate ourselves from this world. And we were NEVER told that simply 'confessing Christ as Our Savior' IS such 'separation'. We have been given EXTENSIVE instruction as to HOW we ARE to 'separate ourselves'.

We were told that God would NOT 'allow' it to be TOO grevious. That He WOULD offer us the ABILITY to thwart the TEMPTATION to live FOR this world. That He WOULD strenghen us and offer that which is ABLE to edify for HIS and OUR 'sake'.

To BEAR the cross of Christ................................. Do you reacon that it was EASY for Christ to 'bear the cross'? And He KNEW what was in store for Him. Not ONLY was He falsely accused, sentenced, and put to death, but durring the entire episode He KNEW that it was 'going to happen'.

It would be hard enough for one with NO CHOICE to face such a situation. Not actually KNOWING the proceedure or whether there was a 'chance' for pardon. But imagine KNOWING your fate IF you followed it. And imagine HAVING the choice and actually CHOOSING to FACE what you MUST in order to fulfill God's Will................. WOW!!! What an amazing Son. And what an amazing Savior indeed.

It was NOT 'easy' for HIm to DO what He DID. We KNOW this for we have EVEN The Son practically BEGGING the Father FOR 'another way'. But when utterly assured and convinced that there was ''no other way'', He followed His Father's will and faced His accusers and EVEN under such stress, offered NO condemnation to those that condemned Him, but instead begged The Father to FORGIVE THEM.

Is this NOT what we have been commanded? To FOLLOW the example offered? Most likely there are FEW that HAVE ever been able and fewer still that WILL. But that we HAVE been instructed SO is without DOUBT to any that have 'read' The Word.

Now, do reacon that Christ could have 'fallen in LOVE' with 'this world' and THEN faced HIS commission? IMPOSSIBLE. For IF He had ALLOWED Himself to FALL IN LOVE with this world and ALL that is in it, then He would NEVER have 'chosen the cross'. He would have LEARNED to love NOT ONLY THIS WORLD, but HIMSELF above those that He DIED for.

Think about it folks.

(oh, and I type so much for I have 'so much to say')?

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

So when you say "LIVING IN SIN" do you mean people who just continue sinning with no intent of changing, like, say, homosexual couples who live together?

 

[Imagican]

So when you say "LIVING IN SIN" do you mean people who just continue sinning with no intent of changing, like, say, homosexual couples who live together?

That MAY very well be an example. I cannot JUDGE the heart of HS's, but The Word offers that 'sodomites' will not be tollerated without suffering.

But in a sense, that is exactly what I meant.

We will ALL suffer 'anger' at times. We will ALL 'fail to SEE' the 'one in need'. We will ALL catch ourselves 'lying' to one another and EVEN ourselves and God Himself. These are NOT necessarily brought on by a 'living IN sin'. These can VERY WELL BE a product of the FLESH that we will ALWAYS possess in this life. And the EXTENT or 'degree' to which these things AFFECT our walk is determined of the INTENT in one's HEART upon committing them. There ARE INDEED 'sins that are NOT unto death'.

But there are MANY that are LIVING in sin that Profess to BE living FOR Christ. For these, their understanding IS darkened and their ability to discern is twisted. And what's even MORE outrageous: Many ARE able to discern but care NOT to admit it. Lying to themselves and others while PRETENDING to BE that which they are most certainly NOT.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Hmmm. Well, such a person, by my beliefs, would be in a persistant state of mortal sin, and technically speaking, damned.

But I think they could still teach the truth. I mean, if such a person came up to you and said "Thou shalt not commit adultery", would he not be speaking the truth?

See, we have had a few real bad priests recently. But, when they celebrated Mass, the sacraments the people received were still valid. This falls under the teaching of "Ex opere operato", a Latin theological expression meaning literally "from the work having been worked" and with the specific meaning "by the very fact of the action's being performed." It refers to the idea that the sacraments work just because they are administered, regardless of the status of the performerâ€â€that is, they actually confer grace, not as the result of the good standing of the celebrant, or activity on the part of the recipient, but by the power and promise of God.

 

[Imagican]

Interesting point. If it is 'indeed' valid in 'truth'. Can't say one way or the other 'myself'.

But we have been offered information concerning the ONLY valid means of BEING a 'Bishop'. And the words of Paul EXpressly state that a 'Bishop MUST BE 'blameless'. PERFECT? I doubt that this is what is refered to in these words. But BLAMELESS so far as 'adultery', stealing, fornication, etc.... In other words, one that IS 'Spirit filled', rather one LIVIING for this world.

Now, how do we determine this? Well, one way is through the OBVIOUS: observation. IF we KNOW that this individual that would 'take' such a 'position' IS living in 'sin', then IT'S obvious that they are NOT living the life required to BE a 'Bishop'. And, once we are given such evidence, we would be utterly FOOLISH to accept such a 'one' AS a 'Bishop'. Even our 'deacons' are required to be of a 'certain standard' as well.

Not only are WE able to suffer from one that is NOT 'living in Christ', but the one that professes to DO so, in order to be accepted BY us, this individual is OBVIOUSLY going to suffer an EVEN greater punishment for the 'deception'.

A certain 'truth' to God being able to use the wicked as well as the 'righteous' in the principle that you offered. For it is REALLY up to US to be ABLE to discern the TRUTH regardless of the TEACHER.

MEC

 

[Rick W]

God can use the wicked alright.
The high priests performed a divine act by crucifying Christ. The disciples didn't even want Him to go to Jerusalem and I seriously doubt the disciples could have done what was necessary even if they knew why it had to be done. Heck, He even told them why and how but I still don't think they could have fulfilled the prophesy even if they understood clearly.
Thing is, the motivation will be judged and their motivation was far from the truth.

/edit
OK, the Jewish higher ups didn't actually do the deed but ya'll know what I mean.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

God can use the wicked alright.
The high priests performed a divine act by crucifying Christ. The disciples didn't even want Him to go to Jerusalem and I seriously doubt the disciples could have done what was necessary even if they knew why it had to be done. Heck, He even told them why and how but I still don't think they could have fulfilled the prophesy even if they understood clearly.
Thing is, the motivation will be judged and their motivation was far from the truth.

/edit
OK, the Jewish higher ups didn't actually do the deed but ya'll know what I mean.

And don't forget how Caiaphas prophesied even though he was a bad high priest:

John 11: 49-51: ...Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation...

 

[Imagican]

I would question this as 'prophecy'. What was THOUGHT at the time was that Christ was going to cause problems with the Romans. That it was He how was speaking of 'being free' and others 'believing' that He was their 'New King' from God that would 'put down their enemies' with an 'iron fist'. The religious leaders were TERRIFIED that there may well be a 'rebelion' offered by Christ and those that followed Him resulting in Rome sending an army to destroy the people.

That the statement NOW appears that he KNEW that Christ MUST die for Salvation is questionable indeed. For, even knowing that a man must die for the salvation of others, would YOU BE THE ONE to KILL HIm?

My point:

The religious order of the time DID NOT 'believe' that Jesus WAS the 'Christ'. They looked at Him NO DIFFERENT than they had MANY MANY others who had produced followers through 'different' teaching that went 'against' that offered by THEM. Their motivation was MORE of 'self-preservation' than the FULFILLMENT of God's will. Did God USE these? Possibly. But it may well have simply been an INEVITABLE conclusion to a situation created by 'Christ simply BEING here' and teaching what He taught.

It wouldn't take actual INTERVENTION to be able to SEE what the 'end result' would be when the rabinical societies 'power, and control' were threatened. That they would 'fight back' is the 'natural' course that such a 'show down' would result. It is questionable as to whether or not God Himself would even NEED to 'darken their hearts' in order for them to TAKE the 'inevitable course' that would become manifest.

Who knows? but that Caiaphas was DELIBERATELY attempting to fulfill God's will CONCIOUSLY is unlikely. His desire was to 'squash' this; in his perception, 'up-start' in order to KEEP Rome from becoming aggressive and bringing destruction upon the people, (mainly themselves and the LOSS of Power that would result).

MEC
MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I would question this as 'prophecy'...

Ah, now you are doing what you said I was doing earlier: Denying the plain text of the verse:

John 11: 49-51: ...Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation...

 

[Imagican]

I would question this as 'prophecy'...

Ah, now you are doing what you said I was doing earlier: Denying the plain text of the verse:

John 11: 49-51: ...Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation...

I ask this:

WHO was Caiphas SPEAKING to? The 'followers' of Christ, or OTHERS such as HIMSELF?
The 'whole nation perishing' was in reference to the 'people' being DESTROYED by ROME. It had NO bearing on 'religion'. This was purely a 'political' response to the current situation. That it was PRUDENT to have this man 'put to death' rather than bring down the Roman Empire against the people for a possibly suspected 'revolt'.

I already offered that it IS possible that this WAS a 'direct' intervention by God. However, I do NOT believe that it was EVEN NECESSARY. And the REASON that Caiphas was willing to 'give up' this man to be 'put to death' had NOTHING to do with Salvation from HIS UNDERSTANDING. He nor those that 'chose' this route EVEN BELIEVED that Christ WAS the TRUE Messiah.

I have offer NOTHING of denial of what is offered in these words. Just a 'deeper' appreciation for the TIME and PURPOSE of those that opposed the ministry of Christ. The religious order of the time had created quite a 'comfy' environment of acceptance and importance BY the people that they had 'following their teachings'. The prestige and power that they exercised had allowed them to live very exclusive lives and they didn't want ANYTHING to jeopardize it. These were the motivation behind their desire to 'sacrifice' on such as, this 'Jesus', that was little more than a thorn in their side, BUT the political implications of 'bringing down the wrath of Rome' against them, this was NOT to even be considered in their little sphere of existence and prominence.

CC, the LAST thing that those that were 'abusing' their 'station' wanted was THE MESSIAH. Their written word predicted his coming, but those that WERE IN POWER so far as the 'religion' was concerned wanted NO PART in a Savior durring THEIR lifetimes.

God's intervention in the hearts or decisions is questionable for the simple fact that OFTEN God need do NOTHING to let the darkened hearts of men to LEAD them in 'a particular direction'. That there may be prophetic offerings of such just goes to show HE IS able to PLAINLY SEE the direction the life of man WILL take without allowing HIS LIGHT into their hearts and minds.

I KNOW that 'left UNCHECKED', ANY 'system of leadership' offered by man upon his fellow man WILL inevitably lead to corruption. It doesn't take direct intervention by God for man to allow the world to influence his direction and ultimately arrive at a particular conclusion. Darkness ONLY perpetuates ITSELF and leads to ONE conclusion.

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

God can use the wicked alright.
The high priests performed a divine act by crucifying Christ. The disciples didn't even want Him to go to Jerusalem and I seriously doubt the disciples could have done what was necessary even if they knew why it had to be done. Heck, He even told them why and how but I still don't think they could have fulfilled the prophesy even if they understood clearly.
Thing is, the motivation will be judged and their motivation was far from the truth.

/edit
OK, the Jewish higher ups didn't actually do the deed but ya'll know what I mean.

And don't forget how Caiaphas prophesied even though he was a bad high priest:

John 11: 49-51: ...Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation...

I agree. CC, your pointing that out supports what Potluck said. God used Nebuchadnezzar
in a similar way and was eventually glorified by Nebuchadnezzar himself! Remember, they were Nebuchadnezzar's prophetic dreams, not Daniel's; Daniel just interpreted them.

MEC, this didn't have to turn out to be a debate over who Caiphas was speaking to, or about. That wasn't the point of the previous posts. Lets not strive where strife wasn't intended; that usually causes a thread to be locked. Plus, none of this has anything to do with the title of the topic at all.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I don't mean to be contentious, but don't you lock these threads a little too quickly? I mean, a little arguing is okay, as long as it doesn't get nasty, isn't it?

 

[Vic C.]

I'm a believer in a preemptive strike. :-D Shock and awe, brother. 8-)

Actually, when a thread goes 5,6,7 pages+, that can't really be considered too quickly. More times than not, threads don't redeem themselves.

 

[turnorburn]

Just change the name "The I Agree To Disagree" thread :wink:

 

[Imagican]

I was NOT attempting to BE contentious. I was simply pointing out that there are MANY things that 'work' for the 'good' that are NOT directly influenced by God Himself. Some are, some aren't. Some are simply the 'nature' of man that 'ends up' working out in a 'specific WAY' without direct intervention. Right or wrong? Who's to say.

But I agree that this has little to do with 'symbolism'. But considering the MASSIVE objection that I have MOSTLY received over the TOPIC of the thread, i figured that ANYTHING offered would be 'better accepted' than the 'truth' concerning symbolism in Christianity.

And Vic, YOU know that I am NOT one to be UNABLE to find humor in the offerings of others and NOT beyond the offering of it myself at times. Forgive me for a 'dry sense of humor'.

MEC

 

[turnorburn]

"Shock And Awe" Please don't take offense with this picture, I didn't take it, but if you would or could explain this symbol on the seat back. I'm aware of its meaning in the occult but what is it doing here?

After you reply I'll write its occult definition, O.k.? good*

In His Service,
turnorburn

 

[biblecatholic]

"Shock And Awe" Please don't take offense with this picture, I didn't take it, but if you would or could explain this symbol on the seat back. I'm aware of its meaning in the occult but what is it doing here?

After you reply I'll write its occult definition, O.k.? good*

In His Service,
turnorburn

You attempt to make connections....you don't even have the slightest knowledge about the "occult"... you are someone who thinks he's chasing the devil but ends up doing his work for him

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Frankly, I think whoever designed the chair had some goofy idea of modern artwork. I must admit, it does look sort of bad. I don't think the pope inspects the chairs he sits in when he visits foreign countries though. Do you think he brought his own chair?

Then again, it could have something to do with Peter who was crucified upside down:

 

[turnorburn]

Rather than stir up a hornets nest I'll not write the occult definition, "surprise" :wink: