ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[Rosenritter]

Try answering your own question. But don't get bogged down by objects; stick to my words. I didn't bring up objects.

Look at that! Your answer is, it must be possible because Satan was not wicked and then one day was wicked and he chose that route as a non-wicked being. Your answer is, "I don't know how it happened, but it did so there must be a way"? Really?

Winston, the question you asked was if it could happen, not how it could happen. Given such a basic question I chose to use the mathematical proof that it clearly does happen. But regardless, the passage already answered how it happened. Did you read the text?

"Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness."

 

[Winston Smith]

Winston, the question you asked was if it could happen, not how it could happen. Given such a basic question I chose to use the mathematical proof that it clearly does happen. But regardless, the passage already answered how it happened. Did you read the text?

"Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness."

I didn't try to ask two diff. question. I can't even make sense of that first sentence...

What mathematical proof? Is your answer, then "yes, a nonfool can choose to be a fool"?

I do not understand how that passage explains "how".

 

[7djengo7]

iow when do the bread and the wine become synonymous with His body and blood.

No bread is ever synonymous with any body. No bread ever has, nor ever will, become synonymous with any body. Synonymy is a relationship that holds between things that are words; it is not a relationship that holds between things that are not words. Bread is not a word, and neither is a body a word. The word 'bread', indeed, is a word. The word 'body', indeed, is a word.

In The American Heritage Dictionary, in the entry for the noun, 'synonym', we read:

A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

The word 'bread' does not have the same or nearly the same meaning as the word 'body' in the English language. So, the two English words are not synonyms of one another.

The word 'ἄρτος' does not have the same or nearly the same meaning as the word 'σῶμα' in the Greek language. So, the two Greek words are not synonyms of one another.

 

[Rosenritter]

I didn't try to ask two diff. question. I can't even make sense of that first sentence...

What mathematical proof? Is your answer, then "yes, a nonfool can choose to be a fool"?

I do not understand how that passage explains "how".

Forgive me if my analogy wasn't clear. In my head I was thinking of a high school math problem, where a vehicle is measured at one speed at point A and another speed at point B (both within the allowed speed limit) but given the time between the two points and the distance you can prove (even graphically) that the vehicle could not have covered that distance without (illegally) speeding.

Yes, the wise can become fools. But there is some difference of meaning in the word "fool" that depends on context. For example, this passage below uses the phrase similar to Socrates "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

1 Corinthians 3:18-19 KJV
(18) Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
(19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.


As to how the wise become foolish,

1) the covering cherub in Eden was created perfect, in wisdom and brightness, and of all beings should have known the power of God (wisdom)

2) That angel tried to overthrow God (see Isaiah 14) and still is trying to fight him today, when common sense should show how absurd and impossible it would be for a created angel to overthrow one that can create or destroy with a word

3) and what facilitated this change? PRIDE. "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty" and "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness." If you want to see real stupidity in action, look for the prideful people.There's no shortage of examples on these forums even. Pride can level the smartest person to their own idiotic destruction. On the other hand, it is written, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 9:10, see also Proverbs 1:7).

Proverbs 9:8-10 KJV
(8) Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
(9) Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
(10) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

You have heard the expression, "Pride goeth before the fall?" Consider the account of Pharaoh in Exodus. Having seen all of their gods destroyed one by one, from the Nile turning to blood, days of darkness, and the death angel claiming their firstborn, what does he do when he sees the Red Sea opened? "Chase them into it!" he says. That's a very stupid decision given what he already knew about who he was dealing with. Egyptian kings were no doubt trained in military tactics. But in his arrogance and pride he considered himself equal to a god. Foolishness.

Humility leads to wisdom, pride leads to foolishness.

 

[7djengo7]

I had written,

Neither Paul, nor any other part of God's Word, teaches that the word 'bread' is a synonym for the word 'body', nor that the word 'body' is a synonym for the word 'bread'.

Your response to what I wrote, there, is:

Then we agree to disagree because I think 1st Corinthians 11:24 KJV proves you wrong.

Here is 1 Corinthians 11:24:

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Obviously, not only is Paul not using the word 'bread' in this verse as a synonym for the word 'body' (nor for any other word}, but he is not even using the word 'bread' in this verse, period. He's certainly not teaching you, nor anybody else, that the word 'bread' is a synonym for the word 'body'. If, in 1 Corinthians 11:24, Paul had wanted to use the word 'bread' as a synonym for the word 'body', then why didn't he do so? Why didn't he, instead, write:

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my [bread], which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 

[7djengo7]

Aquinas, who [sic] we know helped to flesh out 'transubstantiation.'

Indeed, since transubstantiation is not taught in the Bible, it took somebody else to fabricate it.

I gotta say, though, that the pun deserves some credit. I like it. :thumb:

 

[7djengo7]

At what point does the bread become His body?

At no point, whatsoever.

 

[7djengo7]

I asked you why you capitalized the three G's in your expression, "these Guys Got Grapes".

Alliteration.

Is that what alliteration is? Capitalizing the initials of two or more consecutive words that aren't proper nouns in a sentence or phrase?

I wasn't invoking Nero.

Neither was I. But, it would appear, from the fact that you associate the number of the beast with Nero, that you are a preterist in regard to John's Apocalypse. Years ago, I was a preterist, myself, for a while. What ultimately made me realize that preterism is a sham is carefully reading Kenneth L. Gentry's interesting books in advocacy of preterism.

Now, in speaking of the Apostle Peter, you have said:

He wrote from 'Babylon,' which was code for Rome. He was right to disguise his location, since his life was endangered.

Would you say, then, that the name 'Babylon', in the Apocalypse, also is "code for Rome"? For instance, in Revelation 18:2, we read:

And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Would you say that "Babylon the great", here, is "code for Rome"?

 

[Winston Smith]

Pride (not to mention giving into it) would seem to make one less than perfect.

 

[Idolater]

Genesis 49:9 KJV
(9) Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?

Some things are obvious metaphors. Do you believe that Judah is actually a lion's whelp? That this son was literally the child of a lion? The contention that the bread that Jesus passed out was literally his flesh is absurd. The burden of proof lies with your position, to establish that this otherwise absurd contention is actually strictly laid out and defined.

If you make Church history out to be "without form, and void," and examine the Scripture while holding up your hand to history, blocking your view of it, iow with blinders on, with tunnel vision, then you're likely to conjure up/conjecture any number of conclusions and opinions that are at odds with what the historical Church practiced, lived, believed, and taught.

The Last Supper was the institutionalizing of the Eucharist, where Christ taught His future Apostles that His body and blood were to be offered, making his sacrifice upon the altar of the cross (which was still future at the Last Supper) ever-present, as His Church celebrated the Eucharist, in remembrance of Him.

I might agree that we disagree; that does not mean that I agree to disagree. Bread is not flesh, and a cup is not a covenant. If you have any biblical evidence that might that might establish otherwise please show it now.

The second half of chapter six in John's Gospel is a discourse on the Eucharist, in part directed at those in John 6:52 KJV and John 6:60 KJV.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 KJV
(16) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
(17) For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Regardess, see the above reference where the bread is defined in the context of metaphor. The bread is the communion of the body of Christ, just as we ourselves are one bread.

Are we literally bread?

If the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord, then when the Church partakes of the altar, each member is in communion with each other in a more distinct and profound way, than if the bread and wine are just bread and wine. The Church consumes Christ. It is this way in particular in which the Church is in communion, commonly united, in Him.

Every Christian who rejects that Christ's Real Presence is in the Eucharist, either implicitly or explicitly therefore must also believe that the earliest Church somehow plunged into serious error, right away after the Apostles died.

 

[Idolater]

No bread is ever synonymous with any body. No bread ever has, nor ever will, become synonymous with any body. Synonymy is a relationship that holds between things that are words; it is not a relationship that holds between things that are not words. Bread is not a word, and neither is a body a word. The word 'bread', indeed, is a word. The word 'body', indeed, is a word.

In The American Heritage Dictionary, in the entry for the noun, 'synonym', we read:



The word 'bread' does not have the same or nearly the same meaning as the word 'body' in the English language. So, the two English words are not synonyms of one another.

The word 'ἄρτος' does not have the same or nearly the same meaning as the word 'σῶμα' in the Greek language. So, the two Greek words are not synonyms of one another.

What does the word 'meaning' mean? I submit that 'meaning' means, first of all, 'denotation,' and that synonyms are two or more different words that denote the same thing(s).

And in the Church's doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, both "bread" and "body" denote the same thing. So in the Eucharist, which is the context of 1st Corinthians 11:24 KJV, they are synonyms.

 

[Idolater]

I had written,


Your response to what I wrote, there, is:



Here is 1 Corinthians 11:24:



Obviously, not only is Paul not using the word 'bread' in this verse as a synonym for the word 'body' (nor for any other word}, but he is not even using the word 'bread' in this verse, period.

You're right. 1st Corinthians 11:23-24 KJV

He's certainly not teaching you, nor anybody else, that the word 'bread' is a synonym for the word 'body'.

That's your contention.

If, in 1 Corinthians 11:24, Paul had wanted to use the word 'bread' as a synonym for the word 'body', then why didn't he do so? Why didn't he, instead, write:

We know what the Church took him to mean.

 

[Idolater]

At what point does the bread become His body?

At no point, whatsoever.

Bald assertion.

 

[Idolater]

I asked you why you capitalized the three G's in your expression, "these Guys Got Grapes".


Is that what alliteration is? Capitalizing the initials of two or more consecutive words that aren't proper nouns in a sentence or phrase?

Alliteration is why I capitalized the three Gs.

Neither was I. But, it would appear, from the fact that you associate the number of the beast with Nero, that you are a preterist in regard to John's Apocalypse. Years ago, I was a preterist, myself, for a while. What ultimately made me realize that preterism is a sham is carefully reading Kenneth L. Gentry's interesting books in advocacy of preterism.

Call it whatever you like.

Now, in speaking of the Apostle Peter, you have said:



Would you say, then, that the name 'Babylon', in the Apocalypse, also is "code for Rome"? For instance, in Revelation 18:2, we read:



Would you say that "Babylon the great", here, is "code for Rome"?

Could be.

 

[7djengo7]

Alliteration is why I capitalized the three Gs.

You don't need to capitalize any letter(s) to write an alliteration, so that can't be why you capitalized the three G's.

Call it whatever you like.

In "Call it whatever you like", to what are you referring by the word 'it'?

Could be.

You don't know whether, in Revelation, "Babylon the great" is code for Rome, but you know that, in Revelation, 666 is code for Nero, eh?

 

[7djengo7]

What does the word 'meaning' mean? I submit that 'meaning' means, first of all, 'denotation,' and that synonyms are two or more different words that denote the same thing(s).

How about the verb, 'eat'? What thing(s) would you say the verb, 'eat', denotes? The verb, 'consume', is a synonym of the verb, 'eat', is it not? What thing(s) would you say are denoted by both of the verbs, 'eat' and 'consume'?

 

[Rosenritter]

Every Christian who rejects that Christ's Real Presence is in the Eucharist, either implicitly or explicitly therefore must also believe that the earliest Church somehow plunged into serious error, right away after the Apostles died.

Well said. So who's right?

2 Peter 2:1-3 KJV
(1) But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
(2) And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
(3) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

2 Timothy 2:17-18 KJV
(17) And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
(18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

If you believe the New Testament, serious error was setting in before the Apostles died... and that doesn't even acknowledge the Catholic church as a legitimate representation.

If you make Church history out to be "without form, and void," and examine the Scripture while holding up your hand to history, blocking your view of it, iow with blinders on, with tunnel vision, then you're likely to conjure up/conjecture any number of conclusions and opinions that are at odds with what the historical Church practiced, lived, believed, and taught.

The Last Supper was the institutionalizing of the Eucharist, where Christ taught His future Apostles that His body and blood were to be offered, making his sacrifice upon the altar of the cross (which was still future at the Last Supper) ever-present, as His Church celebrated the Eucharist, in remembrance of Him.

The gospel account of the last supper doesn't resemble the Eucharist ceremony.

The second half of chapter six in John's Gospel is a discourse on the Eucharist, in part directed at those in John 6:52 KJV and John 6:60 KJV. If the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord, then when the Church partakes of the altar, each member is in communion with each other in a more distinct and profound way, than if the bread and wine are just bread and wine. The Church consumes Christ. It is this way in particular in which the Church is in communion, commonly united, in Him.

"Is" as in metaphor perhaps, but I haven't seen you offer any thing scriptural other than obvious metaphor. Should you be able to show where the scripture says "The bread is no longer bread" or "the wine is no longer wine" then you would have evidence for "transubstantiation." That evidence seems to be lacking save for that alleged tradition.

 

[Rosenritter]

What does the word 'meaning' mean? I submit that 'meaning' means, first of all, 'denotation,' and that synonyms are two or more different words that denote the same thing(s).

And in the Church's doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, both "bread" and "body" denote the same thing. So in the Eucharist, which is the context of 1st Corinthians 11:24 KJV, they are synonyms.

"Meaning" can "mean" symbolism or equivalence.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meaning

meaning

noun UK ​ /ˈmiː.nɪŋ/ US ​ /ˈmiː.nɪŋ/
meaning noun (OF WORD/WRITING/SIGN, ETC.)
​
The meaning of something is what it expresses or represents:


The word "flight" has two different meanings: a plane journey, and the act of running away.


The meaning of his gesture was clear.
His novels often have (a) hidden meaning.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/meaning

meaning

noun
what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import:
the three meanings of a word.
the end, purpose, or significance of something:
What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?

Let's not get lost over basic word meanings. I think it's obvious that "meaning" is not always literal, not that it ought to be affecting this question anyway.

 

[Idolater]

You don't need to capitalize any letter(s) to write an alliteration, so that can't be why you capitalized the three G's.

Or, it is.

In "Call it whatever you like", to what are you referring by the word 'it'?

I think you said 'preterism.'

You don't know whether, in Revelation, "Babylon the great" is code for Rome, but you know that, in Revelation, 666 is code for Nero, eh?

Yeah. And Revelation 12:1-2 KJV is Mary, too.

 

[Idolater]

How about the verb, 'eat'? What thing(s) would you say the verb, 'eat', denotes? The verb, 'consume', is a synonym of the verb, 'eat', is it not? What thing(s) would you say are denoted by both of the verbs, 'eat' and 'consume'?

Stuff going down your gullet into your gut. Wanna hear some synonyms for the alternate end of that process?