why respect for Abel’s offering?

[DPMartin]

Cain's offering was rejected because of his attitude, so it follows that Abels was accepted because 1, he offered correctly, that is the first and best of his flock. and 2, of his attitude.

nope read harvest 1874's posting #4 and #6 its about the faith, and its verified buy Paul in Hebrews. God acknowledges "faith" therefore though He has no respect of person He honors "Faith" in Him and His Word. attitude isn't apart of the equation here. people can have a nice attitude toward hostiles if it means keeping the odds in their favor that they will get there paycheck or commission from a sale, don't need faith there.

attitude and faith are not the same thing. can't please God without faith no matter what your attitude.



attitude:

A posture of the body proper to, or implying, some action or mental state assumed by human beings or animals. to strike an attitude: to assume it theatrically, and not as the unstudied expression of action or passion.

Settled behavior or manner of acting, as representative of feeling or opinion.


actors can show attitude all day long in movies and tv programs, and they are actually professional liars.

faith is not the case:

Belief, trust, confidence.

1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, †of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.


your not another Christianity is representative of feeling or opinion followers are you?

 

[DPMartin]

'By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain,
by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,
God testifying of his gifts:
and by it he being dead yet speaketh.'
(Heb 11:4)

Hello @DPMartin,

Both Cain and Abel were born to fallen Adam, and bore his 'likeness', as Seth did later ( Gen,5:3), so in both therefore there was, 'no good thing' (Rom.7:18), for they would have inherited their sinful condition from Adam. So both were equally 'sinners' in God's sight. However it is obvious that the means of approaching God through the blood of a lamb, had been told them (Heb.9:22), otherwise it could not have been said of Abel, in Hebrews 11:4, that he, 'by faith' offered a better sacrifice than Cain: for faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom.10:17). They both had to have heard what God required of them, in the way of sacrifice, and Abel obviously obeyed and Cain preferred to do what was right in his own eyes. Therefore God accepted Abel's sacrifice, and not that of Cain.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

needless to say that is correct, harvest 1874 pretty much said the same in this.

 

[charity]

You probably shouldn't tell people Cain and Abel were under a "law" that would not be given for thousands of years in the future. The only law we are told of that God gave their parents was not to eat the fruit of a certain tree.

That was not what I said, @Willie T, but your interpretation of it. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Abel had Faith.

 

[Willie T]

one was a shepherd, the other plowed his own ground. And Abel comes later, in this case. It's an ancient concept, since Babylon even
repeated at the cross
these are all me

I have to admit I couldn't follow this at all. I asked my wife to try, and she could make nothing of it either. What the heck are you saying?

 

[DPMartin]

I have to admit I couldn't follow this at all. I asked my wife to try, and she could make nothing of it either. What the heck are you saying?

get use to it, its SOP for bbyrd009

 

[VictoryinJesus]

one was a shepherd, the other plowed his own ground.

"The other plowed his own ground"
Do we plow our own ground and give the fruit of increase? Or was that the problem, man can not plow his own ground? Only God can.

Ezekiel 36:9-10
[9] For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown: [10] And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded:

Ezekiel 36:33-34
[33] Thus saith the Lord God ; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded. [34] And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by.

Consider: Genesis 4:12
[12] When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

God can make what was once barren and desolate, bare increase (strength). Who makes the ground fertile? Is it not the Spirit?

 

[DPMartin]

You probably shouldn't tell people Cain and Abel were under a "law" that would not be given for thousands of years in the future. The only law we are told of that God gave their parents was not to eat the fruit of a certain tree.

in case you don't know it you still are under


Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God is the Judge of what is good and evil for His creation and the creatures therein, no exception, so if you continue to judge for yourself what is good and evil you seek to do God's job.

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

and man has been denied access to the fruits of the Tree of Life, but Jesus has restored that access hasn't He? therefore the rules are the same you don't get access to the Tree of Life and think thyself to be a judge of good and evil.

and a little insight on the trees here:


Mar 8:23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought. 24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.


therefore the Lord wanted him to see men as trees walking, and made sure we read this. hence men bare fruit, no?


so entertaining one's own judgement as what is good and evil, is against the law, or commandment. Jesus didn't eliminate the commandments or covenants He fulfilled them to the Father's satisfaction. therefore man via the Power of God's Presence is able to do the same in God's sight through Christ Jesus.

 

[bbyrd009]

I have to admit I couldn't follow this at all. I asked my wife to try, and she could make nothing of it either. What the heck are you saying?

ah, sorry. These "three" are a representation of you, and the theme is revisited over and over, with variations, to express some important point about human nature. We are "divided," so to speak, "heart, mind, and gut" is one way to express it, "soul, spirit, and body" is another, but the point is that we are each 3.
Christ commands us to pick up our cross and follow, etc

I tend to shepherd as a little kid--other younger kids, say, without even really thinking about it; it is just the Modus Operendi or whatever of a child--and then i mature and "kill" my shepherd bc plowing my own ground (my "sacrifice") seems a better way to get on in the world. And etc, with variations depending upon the lesson intended.

we seem to be on Jacob and Esau right now, a good one imo to recognize the diff in the "Christian" pov v what Scripture intends.
Were you, are you encouraged to identify with Jacob, or Esau? ("dad" would be the third here i guess; sometimes the third is occluded, and sometimes even ignored in a lesson, and we get "2" instead. "3 and 2" or "2 and 3" is even mentioned in Scripture, although i note completely absent in search, hmm
acting from "conviction" would be "all 3 in agreement," etc. But who ever hears a a sermon on this?)

 

[bbyrd009]

get use to it, its SOP for bbyrd009

ha well it is hard to generalize what other ppl already grasp, and i'd rather explain later than restate the obvious; my apologies
i thought at the time i was agreeing/verifying with him

but fwiw i'll tell you right up front that these perspectives will not fit with, um,
"getting wool from the Lamb," ok. These will not work with a literal/historical reading of Scripture, by which i do not mean to absolutely deny those, either.

strictly a way to change your perspective @ Scripture, and if it does not provide fruit then forget it for now iow

 

[Windmillcharge]

mental state assumed by human beings

A mental state held by a person can be one of faith or lack of faith.

 

[bbyrd009]

Do we plow our own ground and give the fruit of increase? Or was that the problem, man can not plow His own ground? Only God can.

i guess it depends on what that symbolizes; i've reflected on it many ways, and a dichotomy of some sort always remains.
there seems to be a right way and a wrong way to do anything, even shepherding i guess. Plowing one's own ground, spiritually speaking, means something different than like taking care of the food you will physically eat, which imo can't be a bad thing. But growing the food that you will spiritually eat might be not so good maybe.

 

[bbyrd009]

Who makes the ground fertile? Is it not the Spirit?

good Q. might be better to contemplate ground in general as being fertile--after all, who dislikes Good News--and ask what makes ground infertile? I think ground should be reckoned fertile otherwise...have to verify there though, dunno.

 

[Armadillo]

God didn't accept Abel's offering because blood was involved, He accepted his offering because of the good attitude he had in the worship of the Lord. If God accepted Abel's offering because of blood, He was being unfair to Cain. Cain's offering of just fruit from the ground came with a bad attitude and that's why God asked him "Why are you mad?", Genesis 4:6. God gave Cain a choice, before the murder of his brother, to choose life or death and he chose death, Genesis 4:7. God allowed Cain to fail.

As free people, God created us to be free, we can worship Him or not worship Him and it came with a price, Jesus paid the price, Hebrews 9:22 and just like Cain, we make a choice. We can choose life in the blood, Leviticus 17:11 or choose death, sin, crouching at the door.

 

[DPMartin]

ha well it is hard to generalize what other ppl already grasp, and i'd rather explain later than restate the obvious; my apologies
i thought at the time i was agreeing/verifying with him

but fwiw i'll tell you right up front that these perspectives will not fit with, um,
"getting wool from the Lamb," ok. These will not work with a literal/historical reading of Scripture, by which i do not mean to absolutely deny those, either.

strictly a way to change your perspective @ Scripture, and if it does not provide fruit then forget it for now iow

he's not the first on this site to think your ramblings are incoherent, and by the looks of it won't be the last.

 

[DPMartin]

A mental state held by a person can be one of faith or lack of faith.

nope, to think a thing is just that, has no bearing on faith, again, actors can think a thing a be representatives of feelings and opinions. (actors, also are known as professional liars)

though faith has bearing on what one may think at the time, faith is:
(OED)
I. Belief, trust, confidence.

1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, †of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

a mental state can be the result of one's faith, but faith isn't a mental state. it is true that faith comes by hearing, but people respond to what they are already ready to believe and trust. hence good ground rocky ground and the like in the Lord's parable.

 

[bbyrd009]

he's not the first on this site to think your ramblings are incoherent, and by the looks of it won't be the last.

i'm not interested in being coherent to the blind, so that works fine for me
Life more abundantly does not have much in common with death more abundantly i guess

 

[Willie T]

i'm not interested in being coherent to the blind, so that works fine for me
Life more abundantly does not have much in common with death more abundantly i guess

Well, this "blind guy" is trying hard to follow you. And, all I can get is that you have removed that story from the realm of physical reality, and are saying that neither Cain nor Abel ever really existed..... But rather that we were simply being told a story about ourselves and how we progress psychologically and ethically as we age, sometimes eventually deciding our ways are best.

Does this approach mean that you also feel Adam and Eve didn't really exist as two people walking around a plot of ground either?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

good Q. might be better to contemplate ground in general as being fertile--after all, who dislikes Good News--and ask what makes ground infertile? I think ground should be reckoned fertile otherwise...have to verify there though, dunno.

Consider the parable of the sower and the seed. The ground has to be fertile to take the good seed and produce life. Otherwise...there is no root and the sun burns it up or the fowls come along and eat the seed. The ground is man's heart...the Spirit has to be there for His Word (the Lord)to take root and produce. A heart of flesh not stone. God gives the increase. The Spirit of God overshadowed Mary and life was planted. A child (The Word of God) sprung forth as promised. Wasn't the Law showing, as with Cain, our own toiling and tilling could not produce strength.(Life found only in Christ.)

By the way bbyrd009...continue the babblings in an unknown tongue. If they call you mad(insane)...You have company.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, this "blind guy" is trying hard to follow you.

then you are not blind, by definition. you are seeking, not condemning. etc

 

[bbyrd009]

And, all I can get is that you have removed that story from the realm of physical reality, and are saying that neither Cain nor Abel ever really existed..... But rather that we were simply being told a story about ourselves and how we progress psychologically and ethically...

Does this approach mean that you also feel Adam and Eve didn't really exist as two people walking around a plot of ground either?

i could go a few directions here, yes imo physical terms are being used to describe spiritual things, but this does not have to mean that Cain and Abel never existed. However, we have no eye-witness accounts of them, see, they descend from mythology, truth encapsulated in parables, as with A&E.

Let's agree that regardless of what we believe, the truth will not change, right. So C&A being "real" or not is really kind of irrelevant to a seeker's purpose; C&A can only ever be a story to us, iow as real as Einstein ever was, as far as i am concerned.

examine the need for them to be "real," maybe. What fruit does this bear; or how does "Eve is the mother of all life" fit into that

they will be made no less "real" by reflecting upon them from other perspectives iow