Bible contradiction- need help

[Danno2281]

There is no such thing as predestinarianism. There is such a thing as predestination though, as you recall from reading in the verses I set forth. If you are referring to double predestinatin, well then this is the MOST CLASSIC COMEBACK EVER!!! and has nothing to do with anything as it never has been a biblical teaching. though its a good way to disregard actual biblical teaching.

IIIi never said double predestintion, you did. and that is false isn’t it. Why would God will people to hell. So this is a void comeback and because this is not even what I said.

I taught the meaning of election, and you comeback with something false and a fable as your retort. Isn’t that always the way. And so if you wish to understand predestination and election in terms of double predestination, well then you don’t fully understand do you.

However your idea of salvation is much safer and more reassuring than biblical teaching, as is quite obvious. I agree that there is much comfort in what you believe. Though unfortunately it is not biblical, but the rational of man.

God bless

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:"The essence of this heretical Predestinarianism may be expressed in these two fundamental propositions which bear to each other the relation of cause and effect:

•the absolute will of God as the sole cause of the salvation or damnation of the individual, without regard to his merits or demerits;
•as to the elect, it denies the freedom of the will under the influence of efficacious grace while it puts the reprobate under the necessity of committing sin in consequence of the absence of grace."
We freely agree on predestination, but you neglect the essential consideration of man’s free co-operation with redeeming grace; that is predestinarianism. When drawn out to its logical conclusion, it would turn God into a monster Who gave grace to some and refused it to others effectively condemning them. God desires that all men be saved (1Tim.2:3-4).

 

[Foreigner]

There is no contradiction in what was written. Neither the quotation from 2 Kings nor from 1 Maccabees says that Elijah went of his own volition, The wording is clearer in Maccabees, but the idea is the same. No man can, of his own volition, get into heaven, only be the will of God. The Greek word in John, anabaino agrees with this sense.

You like to pile it pretty high don’t you? The word anabaino suggests no such thing nor is there anything in this verse which alludes to volition.

Elijah was taken up into the heavens. He appeared on the Mountain with Jesus at the Transfiguration. The Jews expect Elijah’s return and we see this in Scripture when the Jews expect Elijah to precede the Messiah (read Matthew 17).

 

[StrawberryJam]

comparing scripture to scripture. to connect these two statements you made, just to be contrary to me, a christian, i will guide you to the meaning.

Matthew 13:15
For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Mark 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Acts 28:27
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

:yawn: only the chosen man, will have eyes to see and ears to hear and will understand and will be converted from death to life. Only the elect of God will have their sins forgiven and be converted from a dead spirit to a new resurrected spirit. Just saying you believe in God does not get you saved, that is work. And that is contrary to biblical teaching of election. This is what the bible teachus us, however I can see the comfort in your ideal of salvation, its a much safer bet isn’t it? You should trust in the word of God instead, it is more sound.

it all fits if you do the work and study, but your trying to explain doctrine like you know what your talking about?

Isn’t it a work just to believe that all things Jesus wanted to tell us are only held in the writings of men? We see the gospels, written by men who walked and saw him, and not one of them tell us he asked them to write anything down.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

Brethren it has been a while since I could find time to respond, but this is far from over. He calls me a Zealot, well if so, I wear the title proudly as a Zealot of the Church. I shall dispel your horrible Biblical scholarship and take your post piece by piece. Those weak arguments will work with a B-team Apologist but not I sir. I know even though I shall break to smithereens your non-Catholic, and horrible misunderstanding of Scripture you most likely will not turn from your Heretical stance, and we pray for you. Stay tuned CAF’ers and fellow Catholics for the reply will come til then have a happy Thanksgiving!

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

Isn’t it a work just to believe that all things Jesus wanted to tell us are only held in the writings of men? We see the gospels, written by men who walked and saw him, and not one of them tell us he asked them to write anything down.

Actually NONE of the NT writers walked or knew Jesus, this is a statement no Christian scholar will debate. For example we call Matthew, Matthew out of convenience the real author is anonymous.

 

[Danno2281]

Actually NONE of the NT writers walked or knew Jesus, this is a statement no Christian scholar will debate. For example we call Matthew, Matthew out of convenience the real author is anonymous.

I have no SSL following my name, but I am something of a scripture scholar, and I would certainly debate your assertion. John (“We have seen His glory”), the disciple whom Jesus loved, wrote the fourth gospel, Peter, author of both 1&2 Peter, certainly knew Him (and, yes, he most certainly did write 2 Peter). Actually only Luke and Paul can be said with certainty not to have walked Him.

 

[grace_singh]

well, you could argue that Elijah didn’t go up into heaven- He was carried there by a whirlwind prepared by God.

Jesus on the other hand, being God, had the ability to go up into heaven and to descend to the earth from heaven of His own will.

Elijah on the other hand, being a mere man, could not do this, and so was taken into heaven by God in a whirlwind.

 

[grace_singh]

Actually NONE of the NT writers walked or knew Jesus, this is a statement no Christian scholar will debate. For example we call Matthew, Matthew out of convenience the real author is anonymous.

what about John’s Gospel and his three epistles, as well as the two epistles of Peter and the epistle of James?

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

what about John’s Gospel and his three epistles, as well as the two epistles of Peter and the epistle of James?

I re-iterate none of the NT GOSPEL writers actually knew Jesus Christ, this assertion is made in Catholic Bibles so the fact that my fellow Catholic seriously questions that claim is really a mysetery, as the Church has always taught this to be the case. I refer you to the New American Bible St. Joseph edition it has a wonderful introduction to each NT Book.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

I have no SSL following my name, but I am something of a scripture scholar, and I would certainly debate your assertion. John (“We have seen His glory”), the disciple whom Jesus loved, wrote the fourth gospel, Peter, author of both 1&2 Peter, certainly knew Him (and, yes, he most certainly did write 2 Peter). Actually only Luke and Paul can be said with certainty not to have walked Him.

False the author of Matthew is anonymous. You will see this in Catholic Bible introductions.

 

[grace_singh]

so the Catholic Church teaches that the epistles of Peter were not written by the Apostle Peter, even though this is what they claim, and that John’s Gospel was not written by the “beloved disciple” even though the text of the Gospel says as much (John 21:24)?

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

However I should have clarified, this as the NT Gospel writers which is what my response was to the previous post, I re-read and thought you knew this, apologies on that.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

The person whom I was addressing was talking about the Gospels you need to start reading EVERY POST.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

so the Catholic Church teaches that the epistles of Peter were not written by the Apostle Peter, even though this is what they claim, and that John’s Gospel was not written by the “beloved disciple” even though the text of the Gospel says as much (John 21:24)?

That verse certainly does not mean it was written by John it is the Gospel according to John, so that is a weak attempt at fooling oneself the meaning of that verse.

 

[tmancath]

2 Kings 2: 11

1 Maccabees 2:58

VERSUS

John 3:13

examine these verses from the Haydock Bible Commentary

2 Kings 2:11

Ver. 11. Horses. Angels assumed these forms, (Grotius) or a cloud, resembling a fiery chariot and horses, was impelled by a strong wind, under their guidance. (Tostat) (Menochius) (Salien, the year before Christ 914.) — As the name of Elias is very like Helios, “the sun,” some have supposed that hey have the same meaning: (Sedulius, pasc. 1.) but the Hebrew term signifies, “He is my God.” The pagans have taken occasion from this history to represent the sun drawn in a fiery chariot, by horses composed of the same element.

    Animosos ignibus illis,

    Quos in pectore habent, quos ore & naribus efflant. (Ovid, Metam. xii.) (Calmet)

— Heaven; (see ver. 1.) where he lives free from all disturbance. (Tirinus) — It is a constant, that he will come again before the last judgment; as his representative, John the Baptist, announced the first appearance of our Redeemer. (St. Gregory, hom. 7. in Ev.) Of this the Jews were convinced. (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho) See Malachias iv. 5.

John 3:13

Ver. 13. No man hath ascended—but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven. These words, divers times repeated by our Saviour, in their literal and obvious sense, shew that Christ was in heaven, and had a being before he was born of the Virgin Mary, against the Cerinthians, &c. That he descended from heaven: that when he was made man, and conversed with men on earth, he was at the same time in heaven. Some Socinians give us here their groundless fancy, that Jesus after his baptism took a journey to heaven, and returned again before his death. Nor yet would this make him in heaven, when he spoke this to his disciples. (Witham)

 

[grace_singh]

That verse certainly does not mean it was written by John it is the Gospel according to John, so that is a weak attempt at fooling oneself the meaning of that verse.

but the Gospel is attributed to John from the earliest days of the Christian faith, and the “beloved disciple” himself speaks from the text, says that he has written these things (that one is reading in the text of the Gospel), and that his testimony is true.

do you also not believe that I and II Peter were penned by Peter (even though his greeting is right there in the first lines), or that James was written by James the Just, a relation of Jesus and traditionally held to be one of the 70 disciples (and hence an eye-witness to His ministry?)

 

[Danno2281]

False the author of Matthew is anonymous. You will see this in Catholic Bible introductions.

Do you realize how foolish that statement is? Effectively you have said that since we don’t know for sure who wrote the gospel, we know for certain that Matthew did not. “We don’t have any idea who shot the sherrif, therefore Jesse James certainly did not.” You might say that including Mt among the writings of those who walked with Christ cannot be proved, but you cannot call it a false asertion unless you can prove that it is not true. There is compelling evidence for Matthew’s authorship in Aramaic. You have an even greater task in trying to prove that Mark and John did not walk with Him.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

but the Gospel is attributed to John from the earliest days of the Christian faith, and the “beloved disciple” himself speaks from the text, says that he has written these things (that one is reading in the text of the Gospel), and that his testimony is true.

do you also not believe that I and II Peter were penned by Peter (even though his greeting is right there in the first lines), or that James was written by James the Just, a relation of Jesus and traditionally held to be one of the 70 disciples (and hence an eye-witness to His ministry?)

Firstly you are flat wrong. Secondly this is proof you do not read. I never claimed that about 1 and 2 Peter but the Gospels, do you know what you are even posting? And you are a Protestant so your knowledge of the “early Church” obviously is extremely limited or you would still be united as One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and you’ve cited no source, so you fail.

 

[grace_singh]

Verum, here is what you actually posted in the previous page :

Actually NONE of the NT writers walked or knew Jesus, this is a statement no Christian scholar will debate.

so if that is true, than you have to argue that Peter did not write I and II Peter, and that James the Just did not write James, nor did John write I or II or III John, or the Gospel of John.

so i am refuting the statement of your quoted above, which as it takes into scope the entire NT also includes Gospels and epistles.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

Do you realize how foolish that statement is? Effectively you have said that since we don’t know for sure who wrote the gospel, we know for certain that Matthew did not. “We don’t have any idea who shot the sherrif, therefore Jesse James certainly did not.” You might say that including Mt among the writings of those who walked with Christ cannot be proved, but you cannot call it a false asertion unless you can prove that it is not true. There is compelling evidence for Matthew’s authorship in Aramaic. You have an even greater task in trying to prove that Mark and John did not walk with Him.

I quote from the St. Joseph edition: “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable beacuse the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark(almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this) and is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.”

There I give you proof and cite a source and surely the scholars who put together St. Joseph Edition know more about Scripture than do you as a self proclaimed Scriptural Scholar. You have the tag of “Catholic” perhaps you should start posting like one. The Church is infallible. This is the last I will say of this as I have proven you wrong. Your sheriff analogy was interesting though, but hardly holds the same weight as the St. Joseph Edition Biblical scholars. My next posts must the address the Heretic who believes in the false doctrine of dispensationalism, God bless.