The Widow's Mites

[Invicta]

11 hours ago, wretched said:

Ah, could this be where Invicta and GP got all their theology, from books originally written during the quiet years but later labeled as reformed. The majority of the ideas dreamed up by popes and Jesuits? Hmmmm, Yup.

Dream on

No quiet years.  The wrtiings were few because the RCC destroyed  them whenever possible,  Actually it is your futurism the is Jesuit teaching.

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, asingle individual, would:

• Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
• Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
• Abolish the Christian religion.
• Deny Jesus Christ.
• Be received by the Jews.
• Pretend to be God.
• Kill the two witnesses of God.
• Conquer the world.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini De controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, (Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time), in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of antichrist into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years.  Available online in Latin.

Michael Walpole

Available Online from Google Books : A Treatise of Antichrist. Conteyning the defence of Cardinall Bellarmines arguments, which inuincibly demonstrate, that the pope is not Antichrist. Against George Downam  by Michael Christopherson priest ..., Volume 1 of 2 by the English Jesuit, Michael Walpole (1570-1624?), 1613 edition. Christopherson is a pseudonym for Walpole.

The third chapter, titled "Wherein it is shewed, that Antichrist is not yet come", (pages 49-51) discusses the protestant (Lutheran) Matthias Flacius Illyricus(1520-1575) and his Catalogue of Witnesses to the Truth who before our day cried out against the Pope (Catalogus Testium Veritatis - Basel, 1556), hisMagdeburg Centuries (Ecclesiastica Historia, 1559 - 1574), an ecclesiastical history of 13 volumes (1 volume per century) to 1298 A.D. which established from that history that the Bishop of Rome was the Antichrist, and a 1260 year spiritual reign of the papal Antichrist, proposed to be from 606 - 1866 A.D., with the Lord's judgment commencing in 1866!

 

Edited December 25, 2015 by Invicta

[Standing Firm In Christ]

There have been many false claims that Darby started the doctrine of Dispensation.  However, as Ronda rightly said earlier, there are many historical writings that place despensation centuries before Darby was even born.

[Critical Mass]

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

There have been many false claims that Darby started the doctrine of Dispensation.  However, as Ronda rightly said earlier, there are many historical writings that place despensation centuries before Darby was even born.

Darby was the first one to put it in systematic form but you are right in that it was taught in various forms long before him.

[wretched]

18 hours ago, Invicta said:

Dream on

No quiet years.  The wrtiings were few because the RCC destroyed  them whenever possible,  Actually it is your futurism the is Jesuit teaching.

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, asingle individual, would:

• Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
• Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
• Abolish the Christian religion.
• Deny Jesus Christ.
• Be received by the Jews.
• Pretend to be God.
• Kill the two witnesses of God.
• Conquer the world.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini De controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, (Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time), in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of antichrist into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years.  Available online in Latin.

Michael Walpole

Available Online from Google Books : A Treatise of Antichrist. Conteyning the defence of Cardinall Bellarmines arguments, which inuincibly demonstrate, that the pope is not Antichrist. Against George Downam  by Michael Christopherson priest ..., Volume 1 of 2 by the English Jesuit, Michael Walpole (1570-1624?), 1613 edition. Christopherson is a pseudonym for Walpole.

The third chapter, titled "Wherein it is shewed, that Antichrist is not yet come", (pages 49-51) discusses the protestant (Lutheran) Matthias Flacius Illyricus(1520-1575) and his Catalogue of Witnesses to the Truth who before our day cried out against the Pope (Catalogus Testium Veritatis - Basel, 1556), hisMagdeburg Centuries (Ecclesiastica Historia, 1559 - 1574), an ecclesiastical history of 13 volumes (1 volume per century) to 1298 A.D. which established from that history that the Bishop of Rome was the Antichrist, and a 1260 year spiritual reign of the papal Antichrist, proposed to be from 606 - 1866 A.D., with the Lord's judgment commencing in 1866!

 

Every post you prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are Invicta. Imagine how smart you could be if you hid only God's Word in your heart mediating on it day and night.

I know you and many others think studying man's word about God's Word is a form of Bible study but it is not at all. What you have done to yourself is simply hidden man's words in your heart which has twisted God's meanings in nearly every case.

This waste of a precious time has confused you to a point of no return.

[Invicta]

1 hour ago, wretched said:

Every post you prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are Invicta. Imagine how smart you could be if you hid only God's Word in your heart mediating on it day and night.

I know you and many others think studying man's word about God's Word is a form of Bible study but it is not at all. What you have done to yourself is simply hidden man's words in your heart which has twisted God's meanings in nearly every case.

This waste of a precious time has confused you to a point of no return.

I have God's word and I believe it, not what you tell me to.  

OK. Lets look at some of your precious teachings.  

Daniel 9.  24 - 27.  No one who has never been taught from that before would ever conceive that there was a gap in the 70 weeks, or that knowing the city and temple were destroyed would see a future destruction, or that there was any mention of Antichrist in that passage, The fact that you continue to believe that "prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are." 

In Matt 24 ,Mark 13 and Luke 21, I have sown from the texts themselves that the tribulation was local and there is no mention of seven years tribulation there or anywhere else in scripture.In fact the only time period I see in the scripture for a tribulation is 10 days.  On another site I take issue with a reformed Baptist pastor who says that all tribulations in the scripture ore on Christians,  He is just as wrong as you are.

1 Thess 4:14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18  Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
A favourite teaching of the Brethren is that Christ is coming to the air.  When you challenge them on this, they will say that it does not say he will come to earth. But neither does it say he will not.  It does say the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, but it does not say he will return again. If someone comes from London by train and I go to meet them at the station, they are not going back again, they are coming back with me,

If you bothered to read the book in English that I inserted a link to you will see that is you that is following these doctrines of men.  

Here is another one that I mentioned.  Although the book is under the name of Juan Josefat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew.  (You won't read it but if you do and page down far enough, it is to the Holy Catholic Church he claims to be converted to.) Google has it under his real name Manuel Lacunza. The translation is by Edward Irving, forerunner of the Pentecostals and Charismatics,  His introduction to the book is no exception, spreading over more than 100 pages.  .

https://books.google.co.uk/books?d=f2pAAAAAcAAJ&dq=%22The+Coming+of+Messiah+in+Glory+and+Majesty%22+Volume+I&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Coming%20of%20Messiah%20in%20Glory%20and%20Majesty%22%20Volume%20I&f=false

That is a link to the first volume  If you can't find it you can go to Google books and search for "Manual Lacunza The coming" and it should find it. 

If you would bother to read these you will see hat it is not me that is following Jesuit teaching, but you,

 

 

 

To get back to the widow's mites.  It would seem to me that she was giving out of Love for God.  She wasn't giving a tithe,she was giving her all.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

To get back to the widow's mites.  It would seem to me that she was giving out of Love for God.  She wasn't giving a tithe,she was giving her all.

nowhere does the text say, or even imply, that the widow gave out of a love for God.

 

Had Jesus said, "This wonderful widow," you might have an argument that she gave out of love.  But, He did not.  Instead, He said, "This poor widow," indicating pity.
 

 Like this

[Pastor Scott Markle]

15 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Nowhere does the text say, or even imply, that the widow gave out of a love for God.

 Like this

 

Nowhere does the text say, or even imply, that the widow gave out of compulsion by the authority of the scribes; for there is NO terminology of compulsion anywhere in the passage.

On the other hand, the text DOES indicate that the givers, including the widow, were giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Indeed, the terminology of gift-giving IS in the passage.
 

18 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Had Jesus said, "This wonderful widow," you might have an argument that she gave out of love.  But, He did not.  Instead, He said, "This poor widow," indicating pity.

 Like this

Except that in this context the word "poor" (Greek in Mark 12:42 & 43 & Luke 21:3 - "ptochos" and Greek in Luke 21:2 -- "pentichros") does NOT indicate "pity," but rather indicates "poverty," even as the following phrases in the context also -- "she out of her want" and "she of her penury."

[Standing Firm In Christ]

"Offerings of God" is simply the inscription for the treasure box.

 

since the Temple had become a den of thieves, the receptacle was no longer for God.

 

or are you insinuating that God is in league with thieves

[Pastor Scott Markle]

24 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

"Offerings of God" is simply the inscription for the treasure box.

Earlier I asked for you to provide your historical source for this claim -- that the phrase, "offerings of God," was the inscription on the treasure box, and thus not actually our Lord Jesus Christ's assessment for the reality and motivation of the giving.  Yet although you continue to make the claim, you have NOT provided your historical source for the claim.  By not providing your historical source, you leave us to wonder if you are just making up this claim on your own.

Furthermore, your claim really does NOT erase the point of my posting above.  Before us we have two opposing positions of understanding for the widow's giving; and joined with these two opposing positions are two respectively opposing motivations, as follows:

Position #1:
a.  The purpose of our Lord -- to reveal a complimentary example of the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses."
b.  The motivation of the widow -- compulsion through the authority of the scribes (for compulsion is itself a form of motivation).

Position #2:
a.  The purpose of our Lord -- to reveal a contrasting reproof against the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses."
b.  The motivation of the widow -- free-willingness to give "unto the offerings of God," and that sacrificially.

Even so, my point above is that the motivation of compulsion lacks the support of ANY terminology of compulsion whatsoever at all in the context; whereas the motivation of free-willingness does have the support of the terminology of gift-giving right there in the Scriptural context.
 

24 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Since the Temple had become a den of thieves, the receptacle was no longer for God.

Or are you insinuating that God is in league with thieves

So then, should I answer this with your own words, as follows -- "Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21"?

Or, are we now accepting that the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) does indeed have a connection to Mark 12:38-44 and Luke 20:45 - 21:4?  If we are now accepting this, then I will respond as follows -- Since the Lord God Himself, by the report of His Holy Spirit, still viewed the temple as His Temple and His House, the receptacle for offerings was STILL for God.  Or, are you insinuating that the Lord God could not still own and work through His temple in spite of the thieves, and that the temple and its services were not still to be honored as God's own in spite of the thieves?

Edited December 26, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar and punctuation corrections

[Standing Firm In Christ]

according to the Mishnah, the receptacles were marked.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

7 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

according to the Mishnah, the receptacles were marked.

Indeed, Brother Robey, I have done research as well and am therefore quite well aware that the receptacles were marked.  However, that is NOT the point of my question.  The point of my questions is whether you can provide historical evidence that at least one of those receptacles was marked with the phrase -- "The Offerings of God."  For your argument has not simply been that they were marked.  Rather, your argument has been that at least one of them was marked with that very phrase, which you then claim is the very reason that our Lord Jesus Christ employed that phrase in Luke 21:4.

[wretched]

3 hours ago, Invicta said:

I have God's word and I believe it, not what you tell me to.  

OK. Lets look at some of your precious teachings.  

Daniel 9.  24 - 27.  No one who has never been taught from that before would ever conceive that there was a gap in the 70 weeks, or that knowing the city and temple were destroyed would see a future destruction, or that there was any mention of Antichrist in that passage, The fact that you continue to believe that "prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are." 

In Matt 24 ,Mark 13 and Luke 21, I have sown from the texts themselves that the tribulation was local and there is no mention of seven years tribulation there or anywhere else in scripture.In fact the only time period I see in the scripture for a tribulation is 10 days.  On another site I take issue with a reformed Baptist pastor who says that all tribulations in the scripture ore on Christians,  He is just as wrong as you are.

1 Thess 4:14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18  Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
A favourite teaching of the Brethren is that Christ is coming to the air.  When you challenge them on this, they will say that it does not say he will come to earth. But neither does it say he will not.  It does say the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, but it does not say he will return again. If someone comes from London by train and I go to meet them at the station, they are not going back again, they are coming back with me,

If you bothered to read the book in English that I inserted a link to you will see that is you that is following these doctrines of men.  

Here is another one that I mentioned.  Although the book is under the name of Juan Josefat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew.  (You won't read it but if you do and page down far enough, it is to the Holy Catholic Church he claims to be converted to.) Google has it under his real name Manuel Lacunza. The translation is by Edward Irving, forerunner of the Pentecostals and Charismatics,  His introduction to the book is no exception, spreading over more than 100 pages.  .

https://books.google.co.uk/books?d=f2pAAAAAcAAJ&dq=%22The+Coming+of+Messiah+in+Glory+and+Majesty%22+Volume+I&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Coming%20of%20Messiah%20in%20Glory%20and%20Majesty%22%20Volume%20I&f=false

That is a link to the first volume  If you can't find it you can go to Google books and search for "Manual Lacunza The coming" and it should find it. 

If you would bother to read these you will see hat it is not me that is following Jesuit teaching, but you,

 

 

 

To get back to the widow's mites.  It would seem to me that she was giving out of Love for God.  She wasn't giving a tithe,she was giving her all.

I know you folks think that those who dismiss reformed "theologies" are the ones skewed by men but you reference other men to make these points. It is outrageously ironic. I know reformed theologies are twisted ideas of men because it does not match my Bible remotely. Not because some men wrote about it or some "group" believed it however many hundreds of years ago.

Haven't you ever wondered that these "learned" men you quote at every turn could have been as influenced by satan as they may have been by the Spirit. Yet you still base your theology on what "they" deny or affirm.

Ditch it all and stick to your Bible only and you will never quote men again. Most important you won't be fooled by men again.

God told you that His Spirit would lead you into all truth. You don't need men's twisted histories, stick to His Word.

 

[Critical Mass]

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Earlier I asked for you to provide your historical source for this claim -- that the phrase, "offerings of God," was the inscription on the treasure box, and thus not actually our Lord Jesus Christ's assessment for the reality and motivation of the giving.  Yet although you continue to make the claim, you have NOT provided your historical source for the claim.  By not providing your historical source, you leave us to wonder if you are just making up this claim on your own.

Furthermore, your claim really does NOT erase the point of my posting above.  Before us we have two opposing positions of understanding for the widow's giving; and joined with these two opposing positions are two respectively opposing motivations, as follows:

Position #1:
a.  The purpose of our Lord -- to reveal a complimentary example of the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses."
b.  The motivation of the widow -- compulsion through the authority of the scribes (for compulsion is itself a form of motivation).

Position #2:
a.  The purpose of our Lord -- to reveal a contrasting reproof against the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses."
b.  The motivation of the widow -- free-willingness to give "unto the offerings of God," and that sacrificially.

Even so, my point above is that the motivation of compulsion lacks the support of ANY terminology of compulsion whatsoever at all in the context; whereas the motivation of free-willingness does have the support of the terminology of gift-giving right there in the Scriptural context.
 

So then, should I answer this with your own words, as follows -- "Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21"?

Or, are we now accepting that the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) does indeed have a connection to Mark 12:38-44 and Luke 20:45 - 21:4?  If we are now accepting this, then I will respond as follows -- Since the Lord God Himself, by the report of His Holy Spirit, still viewed the temple as His Temple and His House, the receptacle for offerings was STILL for God.  Or, are you insinuating that the Lord God could not still own and work through His temple in spite of the thieves, and that the temple and its services were not still to be honored as God's own in spite of the thieves?

Thus, I have said that it didn't matter what the Pharisees were doing with the money Jesus told the disciples to still obey them. Also, I agree the the Pharisees didn't blow all the money on wine and women. Most of it probably did go back into the temple.

5 hours ago, Invicta said:

I have God's word and I believe it, not what you tell me to.  

OK. Lets look at some of your precious teachings.  

Daniel 9.  24 - 27.  No one who has never been taught from that before would ever conceive that there was a gap in the 70 weeks, or that knowing the city and temple were destroyed would see a future destruction, or that there was any mention of Antichrist in that passage, The fact that you continue to believe that "prove repeatedly what a slave to man's thoughts you are." 

In Matt 24 ,Mark 13 and Luke 21, I have sown from the texts themselves that the tribulation was local and there is no mention of seven years tribulation there or anywhere else in scripture.In fact the only time period I see in the scripture for a tribulation is 10 days.  On another site I take issue with a reformed Baptist pastor who says that all tribulations in the scripture ore on Christians,  He is just as wrong as you are.

1 Thess 4:14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18  Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
A favourite teaching of the Brethren is that Christ is coming to the air.  When you challenge them on this, they will say that it does not say he will come to earth. But neither does it say he will not.  It does say the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, but it does not say he will return again. If someone comes from London by train and I go to meet them at the station, they are not going back again, they are coming back with me,

If you bothered to read the book in English that I inserted a link to you will see that is you that is following these doctrines of men.  

Here is another one that I mentioned.  Although the book is under the name of Juan Josefat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew.  (You won't read it but if you do and page down far enough, it is to the Holy Catholic Church he claims to be converted to.) Google has it under his real name Manuel Lacunza. The translation is by Edward Irving, forerunner of the Pentecostals and Charismatics,  His introduction to the book is no exception, spreading over more than 100 pages.  .

https://books.google.co.uk/books?d=f2pAAAAAcAAJ&dq=%22The+Coming+of+Messiah+in+Glory+and+Majesty%22+Volume+I&pg=PP9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Coming%20of%20Messiah%20in%20Glory%20and%20Majesty%22%20Volume%20I&f=false

That is a link to the first volume  If you can't find it you can go to Google books and search for "Manual Lacunza The coming" and it should find it. 

If you would bother to read these you will see hat it is not me that is following Jesuit teaching, but you,

 

 

 

To get back to the widow's mites.  It would seem to me that she was giving out of Love for God.  She wasn't giving a tithe,she was giving her all.

Isn't this a little off the topic of this thread? Seems you are obsessed with disproving dispensationalism and premillennialism.

[Invicta]

2 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

Thus, I have said that it didn't matter what the Pharisees were doing with the money Jesus told the disciples to still obey them. Also, I agree the the Pharisees didn't blow all the money on wine and women. Most of it probably did go back into the temple.

Isn't this a little off the topic of this thread? Seems you are obsessed with disproving dispensationalism and premillennialism.

Yes it is.  I was just replying to other's posts that is why I got back to the widows mites.

Wretched

It is nothing to do with reformed theology.  Our Church secretary is 'reformed'  and he is dispensational. Which is not surprising as he came from the Exclusive Brethren, as did his father, and grandparents before him. Anyway I have said what i need to say on the widows mites so I won't post on his thread again.

[LindaR]

18 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

Thus, I have said that it didn't matter what the Pharisees were doing with the money Jesus told the disciples to still obey them. Also, I agree the the Pharisees didn't blow all the money on wine and women. Most of it probably did go back into the temple.

Yes it did matter what the Pharisees did with the money.....and today, it still does matter what modern day Pharisees do with our money.

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Matthew 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Matthew 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

The Bible teaches us to be good stewards of our money.  Do you really believe that Jesus would tell His disciples to give their money to thieves?
Word of Faith teachers are Pharisaical...would you give your money to them?