57 Years Mormon

[jcrichton]

Hi, Lemuel!

I know. But if we are to Follow Jesus, it is Jesus’ Command that we abound in Justice/virtue more so than those who stand against Him and His Divinity.

Since my intent did not take hold and it was implied that I hurt them in using such terms, it behooves me to Make Peace. Perhaps in emulating and Obeying Christ we can help them reason themselves out of their errors.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Rebecca!

Wow… and I thought that the Jehovah Witnesses were confused and following contrived theologies…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steve-b]

I’m brand new here. I started RCIA last Sunday. I’m very excited about my journey. I left the Mormon church after 57 years of faithful activity. I still study Mormonism a lot, but not because I believe in it, but because I’m just fascinated at how they were ever able to, and still continue to pull off such a hoax.

I look forward to joining in your discussions.

Prayers ascending for your journey

 

[Lemuel]

I should learn from your example. I tend to be less patient and kind. They still have their teeth in many of my family members. Only a few have seen the truth.

 

[jcrichton]

I can fully understand… but I always look for comparisons… I once worked with a few people whose whole vocabulary was made up of profanities and debasing others… after a few days one of the most vocal fellows said to me “you know, I have never heard you curse, why is that?” This opened up a venue to talk to him about Sacred Scriptures and the Catholic Faith… they eventually self-corrected and would hush down whenever gossip was being used…

We can Love others to submission (Christ’s); yet, you are still in the hurt portion of this experience… so you may have to practice, practice, practice!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[RebeccaJ]

What happened to the OP, who is now anon? Is this a new board functionality or glitch?

 

[gazelam]

What happened to the OP, who is now anon? Is this a new board functionality or glitch?

Is seems to me that the old jaygunther/anon82300119 is now the new Lemuel. I can’t know for sure without Lemuel confirming, but the opinions of both are very very similar. That’s my Mormon sophistry 2 cents worth…

 

[Lemuel]

Perhaps he didn’t want to go by his real name, as many here choose to do. Perhaps you should respect that.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I have very similar opinions to a lot of former Mormons. I’ve never been Mormon. So your point is?

 

[tgGodsway]

Where in the bible are you getting this idea of first grace? Which apostle taught this and where is it stated and meant to be a first grace, implying a 2nd?

 

[tgGodsway]

hee hee… this is funny jcrichton.

There are millions of professing Christians around the world, some of them have given their lives for the gospel’s sake, and others live in third world countries risking their lives to promote the gospel. And none of them answer to Roman Catholicism. But they do answer to their Lord and King, Jesus Christ the head of His Universal Church.

 

[tgGodsway]

Mt 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

 

[De_Maria]

Where in the bible are you getting this idea of first grace?

Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Faith, the first grace.

James 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

When we pray, God gives us more grace.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

When we need it, God gives us more grace.

Which apostle taught this and where is it stated and meant to be a first grace, implying a 2nd?

They all taught it. As did Jesus Christ. But you haven’t understood the Teachings of Jesus Christ, therefore you don’t understand the most elementary of Biblical truths. Answer to prayer is grace. Everytime God answers your prayer, you receive another grace. Faith is grace. Faith is the first grace that one receives on the way of Justification.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I hope that helps.

 

[De_Maria]

@Hope1960
To other faithful Catholics here…that last paragraph, is It true? I thought Jesus was Mary’s only child.

tgGodsway1h Hope1960
Mt 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

Actually, you’re reading the word “till” with temporal and cultural blinders.

Until Then

Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)

 

[tgGodsway]

Thank you De_Maria but by the scriptures you used on this point, you still did not make your point. You say I don’t understand the most elementary truths, yet your own line of reasoning to prove your point is lacking.

I agree that God gives more grace. Paul said " … where sin abounds, grace abounds more…" Ro.5:20, but on the more narrow point, where is the idea of FIRST grace? None of the verses you used addressed this specific point and you know it. It’s kind of like the issue of Jesus being the “first-born.” It automatically implies there is a second born to which the scripture validates. But in this case, a first grace also implies a second grace, but the language is not patterned anywhere in scripture.

But maybe it is not worth discussing anyway. forget about it.

 

[De_Maria]

Thank you De_Maria but by the scriptures you used on this point, you still did not make your point. You say I don’t understand the most elementary truths, yet your own line of reasoning to prove your point is lacking.

I agree that God gives more grace. Paul said " … where sin abounds, grace abounds more…" Ro.5:20,

Ok.

but on the more narrow point, where is the idea of FIRST grace? None of the verses you used addressed this specific point and you know it.

Well, I think you proved it above. If you believe that God gives “more” grace, then you agree that God gave an “initial” portion.

It’s kind of like the issue of Jesus being the “first-born.” It automatically implies there is a second born to which the scripture validates.

On the contrary, you simply are the Scripture out of the context of Jewish idioms. First born simply means the one that opened the womb. There is no implication of a second child.

Nor is a second born anywhere validated in Scripture, since all the “sons” of Mary can be traced to the other Mary. And all the “adelphoi” of the Lord can be traced to the Apostles and disciples, who are simply “close friends”. Which is another sense in which adelphoi was commonly used.

But in this case, a first grace also implies a second grace, but the language is not patterned anywhere in scripture.

There is no cultural term of “first grace” used by the Jews. Nor do I remember using the term, but I don’t feel like looking it up. I remember using the term, “initial” and “prevenient”. But that’s neither here nor there.

The fact is that you have proved the truth of the matter but simply want to reject the truth because you want to reject the truth of Catholicism.

But maybe it is not worth discussing anyway. forget about it.

It’s worth it. And whenever you’re ready, we can start the discussion again.

 

[dallas_r]

Welcome! I’m praying for the Blessed Virgin to strengthen and guide you on your Catholic faith journey. God bless you!

 

[fredystairs]

On the contrary, you simply are the Scripture out of the context of Jewish idioms. First born simply means the one that opened the womb. There is no implication of a second child.

I concur. A few years ago they found a ossuary in the Middle East with the inscription that the woman who’s bones were enclosed had died giving birth to her “first born.” Unless one believes that this woman was resurrected, she had no further children.

 

[tgGodsway]

I noticed how you like to declare what I want to do without actually knowing. I have no intention of rejecting the truth of Catholicism if Catholicism is found in the truth. In other words, Catholicism is not the root of truth. It may bear truth or not. But truth has never originated from the Roman Catholic Church. It originated from the founders and framers of the Apostolic Church. But I really don’t want to go down that road again…

You assume I am on this site to overthrow or contradict anything Catholic. No I am not. I take time on this site to expound the scriptures in light of any doctrine or tradition. The term “first born” can be used as an idiom if you want it to, but the one who opened the womb, did so first.

But this Matthew 1 passage is not rocket science. The term can be compared with other uses throughout scripture and it implies the exact same thing. The context of Matthew 1:25 was all about his earthly and human family where Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary UNTIL she brought forth her FIRST BORN Son. Implying two things: (1) Joseph did have sexual relations with his wife Mary which was and is the normal thing Jewish coupled did, but unto UNTIL her first Son came. (2) A second born was implied. The word firstborn in Mt. 1:25 is a compound word where it’s root meaning is simply: foremost or first begotten. Matthew goes on later in his gospel to name the rest of Mary’s family, excluding Joseph.

The notion that these other children were brothers and sisters in the spiritual family of God, or that they were cousins, is highly unconvincing to any un-bias student of scripture because of the context in which they rest.

But, again, I don’t want to rehash this. I know it doesn’t really matter to you anyway. It has already been decreed as a revelation from God.

 

[De_Maria]

I noticed how you like to declare what I want to do without actually knowing. I have no intention of rejecting the truth of Catholicism …But I really don’t want to go down that road again…

The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So say the Scriptures (1 Tim 3:15).

You assume I am on this site to overthrow or contradict anything Catholic. No I am not. I take time on this site to expound the scriptures in light of any doctrine or tradition. The term “first born” can be used as an idiom if you want it to, but the one who opened the womb, did so first.

The point here is that the New Testament was written 2000 years ago in a language that you don’t understand in a culture that you aren’t familiar with. And apparently, you don’t care to consider any of that. You want to interpret the Word in your fashion, regardless of how the authors meant it to be understood.

And, to them, the term “firstborn” had nothing to do with how many children were born.

But this Matthew 1 passage is not rocket science. The term can be compared with other uses throughout scripture and it implies the exact same thing. The context of Matthew 1:25 was all about his earthly and human family where Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary UNTIL she brought forth her FIRST BORN Son…

Again, even today, if you speak to Jews, they use the word “until” differently than do we. You want to insist that it must mean what you claim. But it doesn’t. You just want to read into Scripture, your misunderstanding.

The notion that these other children were brothers and sisters in the spiritual family of God, or that they were cousins, is highly unconvincing to any un-bias student of scripture because of the context in which they rest.

You’re not an un-biased student of Scripture. You are highly biased in the protestant traditions.

But, again, I don’t want to rehash this.

If you keep bringing them up, we’re going to rehash it.

I know it doesn’t really matter to you anyway. It has already been decreed as a revelation from God.

By the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and selected the books of the Old Testament to produce the Bible. Whether you like it or not.