He is talking about how to recognize His coming…He relates it to birth pains…Now I know that none of this will be correct according to you …but according to the Word of God it is, and that is all I care about…I will not be standing before you come judgement day, but the Lord that I love and serve… this is the answer to 343…I did answer, but it was not complete…now it is.
This was answered too…its right here in front of you…bad you for saying that I do not answer…When I know they are there, I answer…
No, but the need to be won over to Christ is not dependent upon one’s feelings, is it?
Can you show us where you found this in Scripture?
Ok. I think you are right. Can you show where the guidelines are found in Scripture?
Have you considered the possibility that the threads were closed due to lack of charity? Had you realized that your tone and manner were offensive, and were reported to the mods? Did you know that threads are closed to prevent offensive behavior from getting worse?
That would mean that a child who died before the age of reason would not have sinned . . . curious, I guess that just another example that Paul did not mean absolutely everybody when he said “all have sinned.”
How can a mentally retarded person do something intentionally.
When I said you would not answer Randy’s question, I was referring to the question that I quoted in my post. This is the first post you answered his question, which is exactly what I was trying to get you to do.
False, Original Sin is not something you do. Paul says “all have sinned.” This implies that we’ve done something, this is talking about actual sins, not Original Sin. A verse that he talks about Original Sin is Rom 5:12. This verse starts out talking about Original Sin, then goes on to talk about actual sins, because Paull says “all men have sinned” at the end.
I agree that all of these actions are sin, and neither Jesus nor Mary did any of them.
You had not answered my posts until now, that’s what we have to do. We have to tell you guys that you didn’t address this or that post, then show them to you so you cannot hide from them any longer.
They were big indeed.
I know you meant it, and in that post I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were (still are) wrong. The word has two meanings and anyone semi educated in linguistics will tell you the same thing. You need to cling to this false notion that there is only one definition of “until” because you need your false theology to work somehow, it just doesn’t.
What are you talking about? You clicked on the same link twice. I did not put the exact same post down twice and ask you to answer them both. I gave you one link to that post and asked you to answer, you did, then you went back and clicked on the same link and act like I’m trying to pull one over on you.This was answered too…its right here in front of you…bad you for saying that I do not answer…When I know they are there, I answer…
No, Leslie, he is not. He has clearly demonstrated that there is more than one way to understand how the word “until” is used. For some reason, you are having a hard time accepting that there may be another valid way to understand the scriptures.
Indeed you have. You seem to believe that you are infallible.
If this is true, then you are just stubbornly refusing to accept that there is another way to interpret what we are reading. I am not sure which is worse…lacking the ability to understand, or having understood, lacking the humility to accept that one may be wrong.
On the contrary, you have elevated yourself above the level of the Apostles. You expect us to throw out what they taught, in favor of your own interpretations.
Paul writes “imitate me, as I imitate Christ”. If you are not able to say this, why are you here?
I think you may not realize that some of us have frequented “full gospel” and Pentecostal congregations.
This is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. I can assure you that your attitude toward Mary does not reflect the love that Christ has for her.
You are right, all we can go by is your posts. Your posts indicate a hardness of mind and heart. I am curious about what it is you want to accomplish here.
Your posts bear a striking resemblence to the ideas of Nestorius.
Are you kidding me? Now she’s adding to the dictionary, go figure. :banghead:
Yes, you can say whatever you want, but what matters is whether or not it is true, your position, as you have been shown many times, is not.
You obviously are so prejudiced that you can’t even see that the English word (I’m assuming it’s your first language) “until” has two meanings.
You don’t want me to hold the same beliefs you do?
I never said you elevated your self anyplace. I simply said that you have set down in stone (and, in your mind, authoritatively), what is correct and incorrect.
I may not know every doctrine your church teaches, but I do know that you don’t believe Mary was immaculately conceived or a perpetual virgin, and this is what I am defending.
Calm down, I didn’t attack you, I merely pointed out an observation. “[T]he tree is known by it’s fruit” [Mt 12:33], you stubbornly and purposefully deny that the word “until” has two meanings without any reason to believe so. It’s been proven to you several times over that the word “until” has two meanings, but you refuse to believe it, therefore I said you were hardened of heart. And I sincerely apologize if I offended you, that is not what I meant to do, I’m sorry.
I just showed you what you yourself had to say about Nestorianism. As you can plainly see in the link, your red words, “I am so sorry…it is not heresy, it is truth.” Then, in my post 273, I told you what you claim to be truth . . . you’re the one who said it, not me. I realize that you believe Jesus is God, this whole ordeal has been more of an instructional lesson: read up on things before you say that they are true!
You are wrong, you have not answered my post number 335. I asked you to provide your proof again and you have not, you have simply written your opinions without Scripture to back them up.
And you believe that the Holy Spirit gives you the ability to interpret Scripture correctly and authoritatively, right? What did I say wrong here?
You’ve asked me not to judge you and attack you, now I will ask that you do not tell me to read my Bible. I do read my Bible, this should be evident seeing as I have provided more Scripture than you to back up my claims.
You most definitely are not using until right. It doesn’t matter if verse 14 is “talking about UNTIL the rapture of the church,” the verse still says that we are supposed to keep the commandment until that time. If we had to apply your definition here, we would have to say that after the rapture we would have to break the commandment, that’s the point of Randy showing you this verse. We know that we are not supposed to cease keeping the commandment after Christ’s Second Coming, this proves that there are two definitions of the word "until."
So, after He comes we are not to have faith? Without faith it is impossible to please God [Heb 11:6]. So we would be with Him but not pleasing to Him? That doesn’t make sense.
What Paul is saying is not the point, the point is that we are still trying to recognize our Lord’s Second Coming, it didn’t stop after Paul wrote that verse. The past action (recognizing His Second Coming) did not and has not changed/ceased, therefore, “until” has two meanings. You say you understand what Randy and I are saying, but it sure doesn’t seem like it.
I would also add this:
I believe the three comings problem only applies to the belief in a pre-tribulation rapture, I do believe the Church teaches that we have something similar to the rapture but do not call it that, but I don’t know.
Here I meant private prayer.
And what if the Church does proclaim her that? If you are truly Catholic, you would have to reexamine your views a bit . . . I can see where the co-redemptrix people are coming from. When she is called that, they do not mean that she took away sin or anything like that, they mean that she cooperated with God’s plan of redemption, and without her “fiat” [Lk 1:38], we wouldn’t not have a redeemer at all. One should keep in mind the definition of “co-” . . .
Good distinction, thanks for that. Also, I really appreciate the Michelle Arnold quote. I HATE IT when people clap in Church and I am delighted to see her being tough on this topic.
Leslie-
I also note their is biblical precedent for this type of noun morphology. The Latin prefix co/con/com is from the Latin cum meaning with. The Greek word for with (συν -syn) also acts as a prefix. The example I have in mind is συνκληρονμοι - synkleronomoi = joint heirs. Or if we used parallel morphology - co-heirs.And what if the Church does proclaim her that? If you are truly Catholic, you would have to reexamine your views a bit . . . I can see where the co-redemptrix people are coming from. When she is called that, they do not mean that she took away sin or anything like that, they mean that she cooperated with God’s plan of redemption, and without her “fiat” [Lk 1:38], we wouldn’t not have a redeemer at all. One should keep in mind the definition of “co-” . . .
co-
Prefix
The entire third definition of “co-” is how Catholics view Mary. She is associated with the action, and she has an infinitely less share in the responsibility than Christ, but the responsibility is still there!
- with; together; joint; jointly
- in or to the same degree
3) a — one that is associated in an action with another
… b — having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility- of, relating to, or constituting the complement of an angle