The Christian Downfall ---The Error Of Balaam

[revsdd]

You keep asking unsafe to explain ,what I take to be that what Christ has told her.

That is NOT what she claimed, airclean. This whole thing began with Post #23. She made references to Cain's sacrifice being rejected because it was not a blood sacrifice, and to Cain being without faith. Then she quoted Hebrews 11:4, which makes no such claim. She then referenced the People's Commentary which INTERPRETS Hebrews 11:4 as saying that. She then claims to believe God's Word, but offers no Scripture reference to back up her claims. Only the People's Commentary, which I submit is not Christ, and therefore is not what Christ told her. She's been asked repeatedly since to cite the Scriptures which support her claim. She has repeatedly failed to do so. Instead, she has cited commentaries, videos, sermons, websites, etc. Everything except the Scriptural support for her claim. She has also added two more points (that God gave Cain and Abel instructions for making proper sacrifices before this incident, and that Cain and Abel were making sin offerings.) Again, she has refused repeated requests to cite the Scriptures which support her claims.

I submit that her repeated refusal to cite Scripture to support her claim is evidence that she in fact knows of no such scripture and that she has therefore been caught in a lie, claiming that Scripture teaches something that Scripture does not teach. That, by definition, makes her a false teacher who must be held accountable for her false teaching about the witness of Scripture. I submit further that her refusal to admit that her positions have no direct scriptural support combined with a refusal to admit even the possibility that her interpretation could be wrong is evidence of both pride and arrogance, which are significant spiritual problems.

If she can cite Scripture specifically supporting her claims, or admit that she was in error about there being scriptural support for her claims, and that her claims could, therefore, be mistaken, then this will be over.

Will she do any of that?

 

[revjohn]

Airclean---Please note were I inboldend and underline. In the passage and verse this is talking of Abels offering. So you see John I have know Idea what your talking about.

It is encouraging to note that now you are interested in having a conversation rather than presuming to know what I mean or intend.

The passage I quote (Genesis 4: 3-5) discusses both offerings presented by Cain and Abel.

The description of Cain's offering is fairly sparse "some of the fruits of the soil." That is it. That is all we get about what Cain brought.

The description of Abel's offering is fleshed out a bit more "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock."

The words "fat" and "firstborn" are words which are used to indicate "best" and they are words which are also used to describe the best of the fruit of the earth with the notable exception that firstborn when applied to the fruits of the earth becomes "firstfruits."

What the text tells us, and I would argue it tells us very explicitly, is that Cain brought some of his crops while Abel brought the best part of his flock.

If we study the use of the term first fruits in scripture we find the term used 32 times. Almost half of those references (15) are found in the books tradition attributes to Moses. Most telling of which is the following verse:

Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord

I would argue that this command by God alone should be enough to prove that the fruits of the soil can be a worthy offering.

Cain brought fruit of the soil but he did not bring firstfruits. That is the problem. Cain did not offer the best. It is not about the nature of the offering it is about the quality of the offering.

The notion that the fruits of the soil are not worthy enough to be an offering because the ground is cursed is an ignorant reading of scripture. The ground is cursed but the fruits are not.

The notion that Cain's offering was rejected because it was not a blood sacrifice is also an ignorant reading of scripture. Cain is not rejected for bringing the fruit of the soil he is rejected because he does not bring the firstfruits; his offering is rejected because he did not bring his best.

 

[revjohn]

AIRCLEAN---You keep asking unsafe to explain ,what I take to be that what Christ has told her.

I am becoming embarrassed for you. I cannot fathom why you are unable to read what is happening in this thread.

We are not asking her to explain what Christ may have told her.

We are asking her for the scripture references she claims clearly point out the following:
1) That Cain had no faith
2) That Cain's offering was rejected because it was not a blood sacrifice.
3) That God had instructed both Cain and Abel in what was the right sacrifice/offering to bring.
4) That the offerings both Cain and Abel were bringing were sin offerings.

That is what is going on.

Unsafe refuses to provide the scriptures she has claimed were clear on all four of these points.

That is what is going on.

Anything beyond that is the product of your imagination

 

[Redbaron]

Wow. Just..... wow.

 

[blackbelt1961]

the word of God is the measuring stick, not what we hear or read through someone else s interpretation,

Rev Steven, Rev John

you both have amazing patience that which i don't have at times

 

[Neo]

the word of God is the measuring stick, not what we hear or read through someone else's interpretation

So you agree that "the word" goes deeper than the dead letter?

 

[blackbelt1961]

So you agree that "the word" goes deeper than the dead letter?

what do you consider the word and what do you consider the dead letters?

 

[Neo]

what do you consider the word and what do you consider the dead letters?

The dead letters are the words written in the Bible. The Word is the Spirit behind those words. The Word is the AUM of the Universe. The Word is the causal vibration of Life Itself.

 

[Mystic]

When the Israelites neglect compassion and social justice, the OT God disdains their sacrifice system with remarks like , "Do you think I get thirsty or hungry? Eat and drink the sacrifices yourselves!" God often insists that He prefers obedience and justice to sacrifices. But in Jeremiah 7:21-23, God lifts the veil on His true perspective and proclaims something far more radical: "In the day when I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them about burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: "Obey my voice, and I shall be your God, and You shall be my people; and walk only in the way that I command you." Here God seems to be saying something like this: I never really wanted your system of sacrifices in the first place, but you were not culturally ready for a religion without sacrifices. So I accomodated my revelations to what you were ready to hear as a word from God and chose to reveal my will within the system of sacrifices that you--not I-seem to need.

 

[blackbelt1961]

The dead letters are the words written in the Bible. The Word is the Spirit behind those words. The Word is the AUM of the Universe. The Word is the causal vibration of Life Itself.

not sure where you get that from in scripture, the bible says this about the word

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

i see nothing dead in the bible except for sacrificial animals and some dead characters

 

[Neo]

not sure where you get that from in scripture, the bible says this about the word

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

i see nothing dead in the bible except for sacrificial animals and some dead characters

The Bible has many levels to it. Reading it literally, word for word, can diminish the life and spirit behind the true meaning. We need to be wise as serpents.

 

[blackbelt1961]

The Bible has many levels to it. Reading it literally, word for word, can diminish the life and spirit behind the true meaning. We need to be wise as serpents.

So the wise serpent tells you the word is dead ?

 

[Neo]

So the wise serpent tells you the word is dead ?

Sure, whatever bb.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Sure, whatever bb.

Well if its not scripture saying the word is dead ? where you getting this stuff from ?

 

[Neo]

Well if its not scripture saying the word is dead ? where you getting this stuff from ?

f you don't understand the true meaning of scripture, e.g. by taking what should be read symbolically as literal, then the words themselves begin to lose their meaning and begin to become "dead" in relation to their real meaning.

I don't need scripture to tell me this, it's basic logic. Why are you so antagonistic?

 

[Delightful Life]

f you don't understand the true meaning of scripture, e.g. by taking what should be read symbolically as literal, then the words themselves begin to lose their meaning and begin to become "dead" in relation to their real meaning.

I don't need scripture to tell me this, it's basic logic. Why are you so antagonistic?

Whoah, you're reading antagonism in his words??? Are you feeling alright?

 

[revjohn]

If you don't understand the true meaning of scripture, e.g. by taking what should be read symbolically as literal, then the words themselves begin to lose their meaning and begin to become "dead" in relation to their real meaning.

I notice this statement is predicated by the word "If" meaning that there is a possibility of understanding.

I would also go so far to say that if you believe a proper understanding of scripture means all of it must be read symbolically then what is going on is actually closer to misunderstanding than it is understanding.

I'm not sure why the "dead letter" slur is necessary so far in this thread. As a matter of fact I find that to be more hostile than blackbelt1961 declaring the Word of God to be a measuring stick. The problem so far has been a decided lack of literal, as in, this scripture is alleged to exist and the challenge to display it all takes place on the literal level right? The scripture either exists or it doesn't exist. If the scriptures actually do exist they belong to what most Christians would identify as word of God. If the scriptures don't then what is being dealt with is interpretation which is, at best, commentary about the word of God and not the word of God itself.

So far the scripture promised has not been delivered so there can be no discussion on how literally or symbolically such phantom scripture is being applied.

 

[Neo]

The words themselves do not save nor do they contain some magical quality, like many priests think the original latin words do. The "magic" and the measuring stick exists in the understanding of the words and in the application of that understanding.

Blackbelts quote: "the word of God is the measuring stick, not what we hear or read through someone else's interpretation" suggested to me that it was the spirit of the understanding that mattered and not simply the words or someone else's interpretation of those words.

 

[revsdd]

The dead letters are the words written in the Bible. The Word is the Spirit behind those words. The Word is the AUM of the Universe. The Word is the causal vibration of Life Itself.

I understand what you're saying but your position is way too extreme for me. Yes, there is a layer of interpretation and u derstanding necessary in reading Scripture (which has been at the heart of what's going on in this thread.) Even Jesus acknowledged that by condensing the Law of Moses (which took most of 5 books to reveal) into 2 commandments. There is the letter and there is the spirit. There is, you might say, the written word and the revealed word. Revelation didn't end with the compilation of the Bible, and as soon as we move away from a literal understanding of the word into interpretation, we're entering the realm of the revealed word, which to some extent becomes subjective - because we obviously disagree on interpretation on many points. However, I do not agree that the words written in the Bible are "dead letters." The very fact that they demand interpretation (even from those who deny vehemently that they interpret them) is the surest sign that they are far from dead letters. The heart of the one reading them might be "dead" in a sense - unreached and untouched - but that does not render the letters "dead."

 

[revsdd]

I don't need scripture to tell me this, it's basic logic. Why are you so antagonistic?

By the way, I agree with the sentiment expressed by a revjohn and Inannawhimsey. It's actually you sounding antagonistic here, not blackbelt.