C
Church_Militant
Guest
- Status
J
John1717
Guest
The writer is none other that John in 1 John 5:11-13!
"And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
Now please show where I have twisted Scripture!
J
John1717
Guest
Church Militant:
The fact is the Roman Catholic Church added the deuterocanonicals to the bible in response to the Reformation. They are not inspired and contain many errors.
J
John1717
Guest
I am so grateful to be a blood bought, born again follower of Jesus Christ. I do not put my trust in a church or denomination for my salvation, only Christ. I cannot praise Him enough for what He has done for me. I don’t deserve it nor can I earn it! He saved me by His grace through faith in Him alone. I will praise God forever!
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is historically inaccurate. Please show us where you got that bit of error? See the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 AD respectively.The fact is the Roman Catholic Church added the deuterocanonicals to the bible in response to the Reformation. They are not inspired and contain many errors.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Did you read the whole of the Epistle? If you did you would see that there are qualifiers.The writer is none other that John in 1 John 5:11-13!
"And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
Now please show where I have twisted Scripture!
So, it is not John who is doing the twisting, but someone who is taking the Scripture out of context to come up with yet another screwed up interpretation of Scripture. Yes, it really does seem to be rampant in the Baptist Church, and it is yet another reason why I would never contemplate going across to something that has so many errors that it is not funny.
Now if I had the time and were to find every quote pertaining to Eternal Life, and whether we have it now on earth or in Heaven, I think that I could find sufficient to prove the Baptist interpretation of Eternal Life to be totally bogus.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
OSAS alert… OSAS alert…I am so grateful to be a blood bought, born again follower of Jesus Christ. I do not put my trust in a church or denomination for my salvation, only Christ. I cannot praise Him enough for what He has done for me. I don’t deserve it nor can I earn it! He saved me by His grace through faith in Him alone. I will praise God forever!
What about the fact that the Scripture tells us that we have to be careful and to stay awake?
Maggie
F
FCEGM
Guest
In considering the life of Mary we often find among non-Catholics (and some Catholics) a judging of higher things - indeed Divine Mystery - by lower things, the ordinary working of humanity, rather than the reverse. God is Holy, and anything else that is holy is such by a special relation to God making that holy. Thus creation is not holy although it is good; it is made out of nothing and not out of the substance of God. By Mary’s womb being physically touched by the Body of God the Son, there is a special relation of her womb to God far beyond the goodness of married love, which is intended by God for intimate love of spouses and the creation of new life.
To use the now holy womb which contained the God-Man for another lower but very good purpose would be totally inappropriate, just as to use the chalice at Mass for drinking one’s soda at lunch. Why? Because it would profane what is sacred and what has only a Divine use.
The virginal birth of Christ points to a miraculous conception (that His Father by Nature is God, not a man) by the Holy Spirit (indicating the Trinity of Divine Persons); that Mary had no more children indicates Christ is different in some essential way from all other humans. If she had had other children, there would be absolutely no reason to think Jesus was any different from those siblings in His origin, i.e, that He was God the Son become Man. Thus the Perpetual Virginity safeguards the specialness of Jesus as born miraculously, which safeguards His special conception, which manifests His Eternal Pre-Existence. So there is a “logic” to the Incarnation of God as Man.
We need to understand more fully this “logic” of the Divine Incarnation. The Man Jesus is claimed to be a Divine Person, always having existed eternally with His Father, Who descended to become a man. His conception must manifest this (He can not have a human father); thus the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary and making from the flesh of Mary a Conceptus. Mary’s Virginity guarantees that He has no human father (St. Joseph being a foster father and guardian) but only a Divine Father.
Also, we must consider prayerfully the religious distinction between the sacred and the profane or ordinary. Something sacred is set apart from the ordinary only for Divine use or purpose. Mary’s womb is the sacred “chalice” containing the Divine Humanity of God the Son; her womb is to be used only for that special purpose - because of the HOLINESS of God. (Remember God in the Judeo-Christian understanding is different from His creation; and holiness is the attribute of this difference.) So there is a religious “logic” of the sacred as different from the profane, i.e., the creaturely element set apart only for divine use or purpose; therefore never for ordinary use. (Another example: the cloths used as Mass separated from ordinary use as table cloths or napkins.) It does not mean the ordinary is dirty or evil; the ordinary is good but not Divine. The sacred is taking something away from ordinary use and consecrating it for the Divine. That is why God would change the order of things for the unique Incarnation of His Divine Son.
Thus there are at least two sets of reasons for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The first is the One just mentioned: the Holiness of Mary’s womb to be used for no other purpose but a thoroughly Divine one, never to be desecrated by ordinary use or purpose. The Second is the manifesting of the Special Divine origin of her Child. If she had other children the ordinary way, of course, then why wouldn’t her first be just a human with a human father like His brothers and sisters?! He must be a unique son of Mary to manifest being a unique Son of God the Father, having no human biological father. Thus the miraculous Virginal Birth (like the Risen Body passing through the walls He will have at the Resurrection).
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Actually, you are putting trust in a denomination. You view of Christianity did not spontaneously create itself in your head complete. You were taught it from another human being who was operating out of some kind of human tradition.I am so grateful to be a blood bought, born again follower of Jesus Christ. I do not put my trust in a church or denomination for my salvation, only Christ. I cannot praise Him enough for what He has done for me. I don’t deserve it nor can I earn it! He saved me by His grace through faith in Him alone. I will praise God forever!
Scott
R
RSiscoe
Guest
If you would have lived during the days of Jesus would you really have believe in Him. Here’s a test that may help to determine it.I am so grateful to be a blood bought, born again follower of Jesus Christ. I do not put my trust in a church or denomination for my salvation, only Christ. I cannot praise Him enough for what He has done for me. I don’t deserve it nor can I earn it! He saved me by His grace through faith in Him alone. I will praise God forever!
Read John, Chapter six, starting around verse 29, or so. All of these people claimed to believe in Jesus. But then, when He gave them a “hard” teachimg, almost all of them left Him “and walked to more with Him”. Do you believe in that hard teaching of Jesus? Or are you like those who left Jesus over this teaching?
R
RSiscoe
Guest
IF you read all of the passages in that epistle which speak of “eternal life”, you will see what is meant. “Eternal life” does not mean eternal security: it is speaking of the “eternal life” of God - the indwelling Holy Ghost - that dwells within us. The indwelling Holy Ghost, which we call “sanctifying grace” is “eternal life” - the eternal life of God in us.The writer is none other that John in 1 John 5:11-13!
"And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
Now please show where I have twisted Scripture!
If you read all of the passages in that epistle that speak of Eternal life, it should become clear. Also notice that he says “if anyone hates his brother”, eternal life does not “abide in him”. This shows that eternal life is referring to something “abides” within the soul.
This “eternal life” can be lost by sin. The Bible says "if we sin willfully after coming to the knowldege of the truth, there reamains no more sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 10:26). Willful sin is incompatible with the Holy Ghost; and therefore, he who sins “falls from grace” (Glatians 5:4). That is why the Bible says “only those who endure to the end shall be saved”
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Please verify what books were in the original Vulgate of St. Jerome from the 4th century. St. Augustine also gives a list of the books of the Bible in his work called “The City of God” and he lists all of the books contained in the Catholic Bible.The fact is the Roman Catholic Church added the deuterocanonicals to the bible in response to the Reformation. They are not inspired and contain many errors.
Check it out yourself.
H
hlgomez
Guest
John 1717,
Who has the authority to say that the Deuterocanonical books contain errors?
Who has the authority also that the rest of the Books of the Bible contains no error? Was it Luther and Calvin? By what authority do they proclaim that?
Pio
M
mayra_hart
Guest
Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”
Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.
Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.
Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.
Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”
2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.
2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”
Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.
Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.
Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.
Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”
2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.
2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.
G
glow8worm
Guest
Thankyou so much!! This is what I needed!
B
Benadam
Guest
your entire enterpretation is like saying an image reflected in a carnival mirror describes a true outline of what it relflects.Now please show where I have twisted Scripture!
a more direct example though is easily demonstrated
Wait a minute, the flesh profits nothing! I thought Jesus said we must eat His flesh?
when you stoop to making the word ‘body’ in reference to Christ’s flesh refer to the same spiritual reality that the word ‘flesh’ is used for as it refers to man’s sinfull nature that is twisting the meaning of scripture. Unless you believe that sinfull flesh and the bread Christ was teaching about are one and the same spiritual reality you can’t avoid the fact that you twisted these two opposing realities into meaning the same thing.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I refuted this misinformation of yours…why didn’t you answer my statement that Luther removed 4 books from the NT? You can’t… because it’s a historical FACT.The fact is the Roman Catholic Church added the deuterocanonicals to the bible in response to the Reformation. They are not inspired and contain many errors.
The DCs were already in the OT canon from the get-go and your statement that they were added after the reformation is totally wrong and can simply be proved by a check of any unbiased church history. If someone told you we did then you need to ask them why they lied to you. You can double check that by looking it up. It’s church history.http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif
B
Benadam
Guest
There was a law connected to the use of utensils in carrying out the rituals required of the priesthood at the Jewish Temple.
Once a vessel is used for a sacred purpose it could never be used again for everyday purposes.
I mention this because of the use of the word vessel in connection to imagined limitations of Mary’s role as the mother of Jesus.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
This is an interesting point that you are making. The fact that the vessels are holy and must not be used for any other purpose only touches on some of the requirements. The High priest must remove his vestments that he used during his time in the inner sanctuary before he moves to the outer sanctuary, because these vestments are considered to be holy.
Remember that the east gate is to remain shut because God passed through it.
Maggie
M
Malachi4U
Guest
John1717,The fact is the Roman Catholic Church added the deuterocanonicals to the bible in response to the Reformation. They are not inspired and contain many errors.
There’s an old saying that you comment brings to mind,“Sometimes there are people who we think are ignorent. When they open their mouth and speak they confirm this.”
God bless,
- Status