God proves

[DPMartin]

Men don’t prove God (no matter how you look at the word prove) God proves men. God doesn’t have to prove men to be in error, it’s a given that men are in error. So what is it that God values that He would take the time and invest in proving men?

 

[WoundedIcon]

His personal existence and meticulous loving care and power! I only converted because I had a “Paul experience”. I was 15, minding my own psuedo-new age/agnostic business and BAM God shows me a whole day of my life in advance in a dream, even others’ thoughts and sights! And then He proved it when my friends all confirmed what I shouldn’t have known, directly to me and (without my knowing I was present) to others!

I wasn’t seeking, I didn’t care about Him, and I didn’t know much except the very basics. But He wanted me so badly that HE made it happen

Of course, now Satan hates my guts and my life has mostly been a living Hell. It’s the price such favored souls pay, but God has a purpose in His plan for all the pain so I accept it.

 

[Bearontherun]

His personal existence and meticulous loving care and power! I only converted because I had a “Paul experience”. I was 15, minding my own psuedo-new age/agnostic business and BAM God shows me a whole day of my life in advance in a dream, even others’ thoughts and sights! And then He proved it when my friends all confirmed what I shouldn’t have known, directly to me and (without my knowing I was present) to others!

I wasn’t seeking, I didn’t care about Him, and I didn’t know much except the very basics. But He wanted me so badly that HE made it happen

Of course, now Satan hates my guts and my life has mostly been a living Hell. It’s the price such favored souls pay, but God has a purpose in His plan for all the pain so I accept it.

What an amazing testimony! Thanks for sharing.

God is love and is infinitely loving. This love is creative and so out of love He created us with the purpose of loving Him and being loved by Him. I think that is part of why we were made. He is expressing His creativity as an outpouring of love. God’s mysteries are so deep that we can not even begin to understand them. That is how I see it.

Maybe I have drifted the topic a bit. Sorry if that is the case.

 

[DPMartin]

His personal existence and meticulous loving care and power! I only converted because I had a “Paul experience”. I was 15, minding my own psuedo-new age/agnostic business and BAM God shows me a whole day of my life in advance in a dream, even others’ thoughts and sights! And then He proved it when my friends all confirmed what I shouldn’t have known, directly to me and (without my knowing I was present) to others!

I wasn’t seeking, I didn’t care about Him, and I didn’t know much except the very basics. But He wanted me so badly that HE made it happen

Of course, now Satan hates my guts and my life has mostly been a living Hell. It’s the price such favored souls pay, but God has a purpose in His plan for all the pain so I accept it.

WoundedIcon
thanks for the reply
Sooo what does that got to do with what is it that God values, that He would take the time and invest in proving men?

 

[Katholish]

Men don’t prove God (no matter how you look at the word prove) God proves men. God doesn’t have to prove men to be in error, it’s a given that men are in error. So what is it that God values that He would take the time and invest in proving men?

Logically, this paragraph doesn’t make sense. When you prove, you prove “something”. That “something” has be provable by nature. You might be able to prove that God exists, but the phrase “proving god” is meaningless, as is “proving man”. You can’t prove a living being, you can only prove something about that being, i.e. that it exists, that it is rational, etc.

If you are talking about proving God’s existence, then man certainly can do that. Talking about God proving man’s existence, doesn’t, however, make sense.

 

[DPMartin]

Logically, this paragraph doesn’t make sense. When you prove, you prove “something”. That “something” has be provable by nature. You might be able to prove that God exists, but the phrase “proving god” is meaningless, as is “proving man”. You can’t prove a living being, you can only prove something about that being, i.e. that it exists, that it is rational, etc.

If you are talking about proving God’s existence, then man certainly can do that. Talking about God proving man’s existence, doesn’t, however, make sense.

Katholish
thanks for the reply

Then you are saying this don’t make sense in your view.

Ex:20:20: And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

The world view of what is proved, and required to be proved, isn’t necessarily the Lord God’s view of what is to be proved.

If God proving men, is illogical to you “Roman Catholic” then maybe you should back up and punt and see and understand what the Lord would have you see and understand.

 

[You]

Katholish
thanks for the reply

Then you are saying this don’t make sense in your view.

Ex:20:20: And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

The world view of what is proved, and required to be proved, isn’t necessarily the Lord God’s view of what is to be proved.

If God proving men, is illogical to you “Roman Catholic” then maybe you should back up and punt and see and understand what the Lord would have you see and understand.

[16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is his. [18] And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off, [19] Saying to Moses: Speak thou to us, and we will hear: let not the Lord speak to us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said to the people: Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin.

I may be wrong but I think Moses may be saying to the people that God is testing them [proving them] with the ultimate aim of preventing, helping/keeping them from sinning.

[by the bye the triple asterisk is an automatic feature of this forum; the original word is in the Douay Rheims Bible]

 

[DPMartin]

[16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is his. [18] And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off, [19] Saying to Moses: Speak thou to us, and we will hear: let not the Lord speak to us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said to the people: Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin.

I may be wrong but I think Moses may be saying to the people that God is testing them [proving them] with the ultimate aim of preventing, helping/keeping them from sinning.

[by the bye the triple asterisk is an automatic feature of this forum; the original word is in the Douay Rheims Bible]

You
thanks for the reply

Well it could be in this sense of the word prove: To find out, learn, or know by experience; to have experience of, to experience, ‘go through’, suffer; also with compl., to find by experience (a person or thing) to be (something). In as the Lord did with Abraham.

Gen:22:12: And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

And so does the Lord God do with all His chosen.

Or it could be in the sense of to make trial of, put to the test; to try the genuineness or qualities of; to try, test. arch. exc. in technical uses. Isn’t the genuineness or qualities of, tested by fire?

Mt:3:11: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

if you notice the next thing that happens after the people agreed that Moses do the talking with the Almighty.

Ex:20:21: And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

A curious thing that the people would stand a far off, and Moses drew near to where God was.

 

[You]

You
thanks for the reply

Well it could be in this sense of the word prove: To find out, learn, or know by experience; to have experience of, to experience, ‘go through’, suffer; also with compl., to find by experience (a person or thing) to be (something). In as the Lord did with Abraham.

Gen:22:12: And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

And so does the Lord God do with all His chosen.

Or it could be in the sense of to make trial of, put to the test; to try the genuineness or qualities of; to try, test. arch. exc. in technical uses. Isn’t the genuineness or qualities of, tested by fire?

Mt:3:11: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

if you notice the next thing that happens after the people agreed that Moses do the talking with the Almighty.

Ex:20:21: And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

A curious thing that the people would stand a far off, and Moses drew near to where God was.

Yes, curious indeed. It seems to be the way with Him to choose an intermediary to act between Himself and the people of His in general. As another example;

“Melchizedek was the king of Salem in Genesis 14:18-19 who offered bread and wine as a sacrifice and blessed Abram. In Psalm 110 it is prophesied that the Messiah will be “a priest forever after the order * of Melchizedek,” a prophecy that found fulfillment in the Last Supper. In the book of Hebrews (chapters 5-7), the author reflects on how Christ has fulfilled the Melchizedekian foreshadow.”
And of course Christ subsequently commands the Apostles to continue to offer this bread and wine, or body and blood; so the Apostles act as Melchizedek themselves and as Christ Himself at the consecration of the bread and wine. Melchizedek, Christ, and the Apostles and the Apostles successors all acting intermediaries between God and Gods people.*

 

[fhansen]

Katholish
thanks for the reply

Then you are saying this don’t make sense in your view.

Ex:20:20: And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

The world view of what is proved, and required to be proved, isn’t necessarily the Lord God’s view of what is to be proved.

If God proving men, is illogical to you “Roman Catholic” then maybe you should back up and punt and see and understand what the Lord would have you see and understand.

Sounds to me you could stand dismounting yourself and, perhaps, get a modern bible. You shouldn’t fault someone for not understanding God when He’s speaking in middle English.

 

[DPMartin]

Yes, curious indeed. It seems to be the way with Him to choose an intermediary to act between Himself and the people of His in general. As another example;

“Melchizedek was the king of Salem in Genesis 14:18-19 who offered bread and wine as a sacrifice and blessed Abram. In Psalm 110 it is prophesied that the Messiah will be “a priest forever after the order * of Melchizedek,” a prophecy that found fulfillment in the Last Supper. In the book of Hebrews (chapters 5-7), the author reflects on how Christ has fulfilled the Melchizedekian foreshadow.”
And of course Christ subsequently commands the Apostles to continue to offer this bread and wine, or body and blood; so the Apostles act as Melchizedek themselves and as Christ Himself at the consecration of the bread and wine. Melchizedek, Christ, and the Apostles and the Apostles successors all acting intermediaries between God and Gods people.*

You
thanks for the reply

Well I see your point as in the subject of a intermediaries, but I’m not so sure on that, though Jesus is the intermediary acceptable before God. It doesn’t say Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine, it says:

Gen:14:18: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

So Melchizedek sacrificing the bread and the wine is inaccurate. Brought forth and sacrificing is two different things. Also a little side note: in Jewish Rabbinical circles Shem son of Noah is Melchizedek and Salem is now Jerusalem.

But there is no doubt that the Lord chooses out some to be closer to Him then others. Such as the Apostles. The Lord in the case of the OT and the days of Moses, would tell Moses to tell the Children of Israel this or that, also after Aaron was anointed there were cases were the Lord would tell Aaron and or Moses and Aaron. In the days of the Prophets there was still a High Priest, and still a King, but the Lord wasn’t talking to them, was He? So in those days nether King nor Priest was a intermediary, because they were corrupt and did not hear the Voice of the Lord. What Jesus fulfilled in this is He is the only intermediary necessary, in one’s relationship with God, therefore incorruptible, of which no one may interfere or stand between a man and the Living God. Which was true in the first place, Abraham, Enoch, Noah, so one and so forth needed no intermediary, only the Mercy Grace and Truth of God.

 

[DPMartin]

Sounds to me you could stand dismounting yourself and, perhaps, get a modern bible. You shouldn’t fault someone for not understanding God when He’s speaking in middle English.

I’m sorry, was I talking to you?

The individual I was talking to says he is a Student of Systematic Theology at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College, and yet doesn’t see how it’s logical that God proves men. When most of the Bible if not all the Bible is about God proving men. Its SOP when the Lord God has an relationship with His People.

I guess you don’t see that there is some concern there, just what are they teaching in Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College.

 

[fhansen]

I’m sorry, was I talking to you?

The individual I was talking to says he is a Student of Systematic Theology at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College, and yet doesn’t see how it’s logical that God proves men. When most of the Bible if not all the Bible is about God proving men. Its SOP when the Lord God has an relationship with His People.

I guess you don’t see that there is some concern there, just what are they teaching in Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College.

Well, you seemed to have effectively left my point unaddressed altogether, but, since the post in question wasn’t directed to me, you’re right, we don’t need to communicate about it at all.

 

[You]

You
thanks for the reply

Well I see your point as in the subject of a intermediaries, but I’m not so sure on that, though Jesus is the intermediary acceptable before God. It doesn’t say Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine, it says:

Gen:14:18: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

So Melchizedek sacrificing the bread and the wine is inaccurate. Brought forth and sacrificing is two different things. Also a little side note: in Jewish Rabbinical circles Shem son of Noah is Melchizedek and Salem is now Jerusalem.

But there is no doubt that the Lord chooses out some to be closer to Him then others. Such as the Apostles. The Lord in the case of the OT and the days of Moses, would tell Moses to tell the Children of Israel this or that, also after Aaron was anointed there were cases were the Lord would tell Aaron and or Moses and Aaron. In the days of the Prophets there was still a High Priest, and still a King, but the Lord wasn’t talking to them, was He? So in those days nether King nor Priest was a intermediary, because they were corrupt and did not hear the Voice of the Lord. What Jesus fulfilled in this is He is the only intermediary necessary, in one’s relationship with God, therefore incorruptible, of which no one may interfere or stand between a man and the Living God. Which was true in the first place, Abraham, Enoch, Noah, so one and so forth needed no intermediary, only the Mercy Grace and Truth of God.

I’m not sure why you said ‘sacrificing bread and wine’. I mean what did bread and wine ever do to deserve being sacrificed. Bread and wine was offered as a sacrifice, not sacrificed.
1 For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was.
5 So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest: but he that said unto him: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

6 As he saith also in another place: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.

7 Who in the days of his flesh, with a strong cry and tears, offering up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death, was heard for his reverence. 8 And whereas indeed he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered: 9 And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation. 10 Called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech.

So you have to have, first of all, a man ‘called by God’ not one who appoints himself;
This man offers prayers and sacrifice on behalf of the people;
Then, you have Melchisedech, who was such a man who offered bread and wine as a sacrifice with his prayers and supplications for the people;
Then you have Christ Himself called by God and told by Him that He was a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech;
That is, one who would offer bread and wine as sacrifice with his prayers for the people;
Then you have Christ actually offering bread and wine as a sacrifice calling the bread and wine His own Body and Blood which He would sacrifice for many and making the bread and wine so, ‘This is My body…’;
Why would Christ use bread and wine, And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.’ - It is both the bread and wine after the manner of Melchisedech and it is turned into his body, His body which was given as His sacrifice to save many.
So the bread and wine become at the moment of consecration His sacrifice, His body and blood.
*For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. *1 Corinthians 11:29
Then you have Christ telling the Apostles to ‘do this in memory of Me…’;
Then you have the Apostles gathering on the first day of the week to do just that, offer bread and wine as a sacrifice, Christ’s real body and blood.
It does seem to me curious, as you say, that God would choose this way of doing things, but there is nothing wrong with that - perhaps it is even like a continuation of the test you mentioned before, with Moses. The people were given that test to keep them safe, and Moses was the man chosen to meet with God on their behalf.
Christ gave the men He chose the job of meeting God on behalf of His people, the Apostles, and they continued to offer the sacrifice Christ told them to offer - they too were to be priests for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech;
but you can also be a hermit if you wish and just pray yourself and God; though, one must keep in mind 1 Corinthians 11:29 and
Luke 22:19 and
Matthew 26:26 and
1 Corinthians 11:24 - to, Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. and importantly -
*For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. *

 

[DPMartin]

Well, you seemed to have effectively left my point unaddressed altogether, but, since the post in question wasn’t directed to me, you’re right, we don’t need to communicate about it at all.

fhansen
thanks for the reply

look I’m sorry and apologize for being blunt and out of order. But the truth is my friend that modern English changes and changes a lot, yearly up dates of modern dictionaries verify that, but if one is limited to English then it might be wise to stick to the King’s English with something like KJV and the OED where the definitions don’t have the habit of changing. If you consider it is possible that the upper echelon of the Catholic Church likes to stay with Latin, it’s probably for the same reasons. When speaking to one another in reference to Scripture there is no discrepancy of meaning of words. If you get a modern English Bible then your going to need and up date or up grade, to the newer uses of words.

 

[DPMartin]

I’m not sure why you said ‘sacrificing bread and wine’. I mean what did bread and wine ever do to deserve being sacrificed. Bread and wine was offered as a sacrifice, not sacrificed.

So you have to have, first of all, a man ‘called by God’ not one who appoints himself;
This man offers prayers and sacrifice on behalf of the people;
Then, you have Melchisedech, who was such a man who offered bread and wine as a sacrifice with his prayers and supplications for the people;
Then you have Christ Himself called by God and told by Him that He was a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech;
That is, one who would offer bread and wine as sacrifice with his prayers for the people;
Then you have Christ actually offering bread and wine as a sacrifice calling the bread and wine His own Body and Blood which He would sacrifice for many and making the bread and wine so, ‘This is My body…’;
Why would Christ use bread and wine, And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.’ - It is both the bread and wine after the manner of Melchisedech and it is turned into his body, His body which was given as His sacrifice to save many.
So the bread and wine become at the moment of consecration His sacrifice, His body and blood.
*For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. *1 Corinthians 11:29
Then you have Christ telling the Apostles to ‘do this in memory of Me…’;
Then you have the Apostles gathering on the first day of the week to do just that, offer bread and wine as a sacrifice, Christ’s real body and blood.
It does seem to me curious, as you say, that God would choose this way of doing things, but there is nothing wrong with that - perhaps it is even like a continuation of the test you mentioned before, with Moses. The people were given that test to keep them safe, and Moses was the man chosen to meet with God on their behalf.
Christ gave the men He chose the job of meeting God on behalf of His people, the Apostles, and they continued to offer the sacrifice Christ told them to offer - they too were to be priests for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech;
but you can also be a hermit if you wish and just pray yourself and God; though, one must keep in mind 1 Corinthians 11:29 and
Luke 22:19 and
Matthew 26:26 and
1 Corinthians 11:24 - to, Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. and importantly -
*For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. *

You
thanks for the reply

I sorry my friend but I do believe in your posting #9 that you said that Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine when he went to see Abraham(“who offered bread and wine as a sacrifice and blessed Abram.”). I didn’t say Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine. I quoted KJV Gen:14:18 in posting #11 (“Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine”) who brought forth to Abram the bread and the wine, this doesn’t mean Sacrificed my friend. Jesus Sacrificed His Body and the Life of His Body (the Blood) bringing forth, to us the Bread (Bread of Life) and the Life of His Body that is in the Blood, hence wine, hence the Cup of Life and Blessing. The Bread of Life and the

In your quote of Heb:5 it doesn’t say anywhere that the bread and wine is, or was sacrificed.

For in Him Jesus Christ there is no guilt there is no shame and there is no blame. But he toke and or bore the blame for our separation from God “sin” hence removing the guilt and covering our shame. With Adam the bread is first mentioned and he must till the ground because of his guilt, with Noah wine is first mentioned and shame is uncovered and covered. The second time wine and bread is mentioned in scripture is when Melchizedek brings forth the bread and the wine. And Melchizedek king of what is now Jerusalem and Priest of the Most High God, is what Jesus fulfilled. Isn’t He King of the Jews? Then He is King in Jerusalem, is He the Only Way to know the Living God? Then He is the High Priest of the Living and Most High God. Who brought forth to us His People the Bread of Life and the Cup of Life and Blessing that is is eternal. You must understand He also fulfilled all of Scripture and is the fulfillment thereof, to God the Father’s satisfaction, in mankind.

To plainly state; the relationship in God the Father and the Son of God in the Holy Spirit was never sacrificed. The relationship in God the Father and the Son of God in the Holy Spirit was brought forth to the sons of men that they may have the power to become sons of God and be in that same relationship with God the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, in the trust in His Word, Jesus Son of God, in the expectation of the fulfillment of His Word, Jesus Son of God. In us.

Therefore what is expected of us is loyalty to His Word, for The Father is Loyal, Faithful to His Word, His Son, in the Fulfillment thereof in His Presence. And look not to guilt shame or blame in others for Jesus didn’t look for the guilt He forgave, and accused not. Jesus didn’t look to shame He covered it. And He didn’t look to blame He toke it. And this relationship only requires Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

 

[You]

You
thanks for the reply

I sorry my friend but I do believe in your posting #9 that you said that Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine when he went to see Abraham(“who offered bread and wine as a sacrifice and blessed Abram.”). I didn’t say Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine. I quoted KJV Gen:14:18 in posting #11 (“Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine”) who brought forth to Abram the bread and the wine, this doesn’t mean Sacrificed my friend. .

But why have you left out the rest of the sentence?
But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,**
The latter part of the sentence explains the reason why he brought forth bread and wine, he was the priest of the most high God,
It is the function of the priest to offer sacrifices to God and clearly this passage says by reason of the latter part of the sentence that Melchisedech was acting in his capacity as the priest of the most high God.

 

[DPMartin]

Originally Posted by DPMartin
You
thanks for the reply

I sorry my friend but I do believe in your posting #9 that you said that Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine when he went to see Abraham(“who offered bread and wine as a sacrifice and blessed Abram.”). I didn’t say Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine. I quoted KJV Gen:14:18 in posting #11 (“Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine”) who brought forth to Abram the bread and the wine, this doesn’t mean Sacrificed my friend. .

But why have you left out the rest of the sentence?
But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,**
The latter part of the sentence explains the reason why he brought forth bread and wine, he was the priest of the most high God,
It is the function of the priest to offer sacrifices to God and clearly this passage says by reason of the latter part of the sentence that Melchisedech was acting in his capacity as the priest of the most high God.

Come on now, this in ref. To what was stated. The quote of Gen:14:18 is in posting #11. If you debate tactics are going to be deceptive and dishonest, then why bother?

 

[You]

Come on now, this in ref. To what was stated. The quote of Gen:14:18 is in posting #11. If you debate tactics are going to be deceptive and dishonest, then why bother?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DPMartin
You
thanks for the reply

I sorry my friend but I do believe in your posting #9 that you said that Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine when he went to see Abraham(“who offered bread and wine as a sacrifice and blessed Abram.”). I didn’t say Melchizedek sacrificed the bread and the wine. I quoted KJV Gen:14:18 in posting #11 (“Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine”) who brought forth to Abram the bread and the wine, this doesn’t mean Sacrificed my friend. .

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
But why have you left out the rest of the sentence?
But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,
The latter part of the sentence explains the reason why he brought forth bread and wine, he was the priest of the most high God,
It is the function of the priest to offer sacrifices to God and clearly this passage says by reason of the latter part of the sentence that Melchisedech was acting in his capacity as the priest of the most high God.

Come on now, this in ref. To what was stated. The quote of Gen:14:18 is in posting #11. If you debate tactics are going to be deceptive and dishonest, then why bother?

Now you are avoiding the question.

I said originally that, and it was a quote, that bread and wine were offered as a sacrifice; then you said I said that he sacrificed bread and wine. To my mind these are two different statements, the first as I have mentioned is justified by the full structure of the sentence which you left out; as for the second it is a comical way of saying something and was not the way I said it.

 

[Katholish]

Katholish
thanks for the reply

Then you are saying this don’t make sense in your view.

Ex:20:20: And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

The world view of what is proved, and required to be proved, isn’t necessarily the Lord God’s view of what is to be proved.

If God proving men, is illogical to you “Roman Catholic” then maybe you should back up and punt and see and understand what the Lord would have you see and understand.

I think the term “prove” is a very unfortunate translation there. The term used is actually nacah in the Hebrew, which more accurately, at least in this context, should be translated as “to test”. The NKJV makes this change, but even the old KJV (I don’t know which translation you are using so I am just picking the most common non-Catholic one), tranlsates nacah as “tempt” in other passages.

The reason that “prove” makes a poor translation is that in the English language, it generally always means some kind of demonstration. You cannot demonstrate a person. It renders the phrase meaningless. If I asked you to “prove tree” what would you say? What does that even mean? Quite simply nothing. You can prove something about a tree but you cannot “prove tree”.

The individual I was talking to says he is a Student of Systematic Theology at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College, and yet doesn’t see how it’s logical that God proves men. When most of the Bible if not all the Bible is about God proving men. Its SOP when the Lord God has an relationship with His People.

I guess you don’t see that there is some concern there, just what are they teaching in Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College.

That seemed unnecessarily hostile, especially since it seems the debate is over the definition of “prove” in the English language rather than any theological difference.