Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[elvisman]

Wow, okay.

First, Faith and Beilif is the same. I am sorry you dont recognize that. One is a verb, one is a noun. Both of these words, require work on the part of a person, And how can we acknowledge the LORD as being true if we have never seen or heard Him in person. This is a fallicy to think that YOU have faith and that YOU believe. in Actuallity, we are all incabable of coming to the LORD on His terms, and it is the faith of the LORD in us, that allows us to really believe. Even this screams of the fact that, we have absolutely no control. We can only be exposed to the word and hope that the Lord has drawn us. If you can’t recognize that, then how can you think you understand even the basic of principals.

Second, the demon in that man at the tomb, who the Lord cast into the herd of swine, as well as the myriad of other people possesed, that approached the LORD and said “what have I to do with you LORD, did you come to torment me.” This shows that even the evil recognized the authority of the LORD. SEnse the LORD is the Lamb slain before the foundations, and before the foundation there was principalites and powers, including the now cast out evil spirits, they all recognized the LORD because they had witnessed HIm before. They however elevated themselvs to the stature of the LORD, thus they were cast down. they have faith and beileif both, haveing recognized the LORDs authority, However they are not made in the image of God, so they have no salvation, only destruction at the end of time. this is why they approached Him, because the battle with Satan and the Lord happened before the foundatinos. the LORD prevailed seeing how He was slain and resurected. they acted such because they new also that having lost the battle, that they were doomed to destrction at the end of time. they asked Him if it was the alloted time for destruction, thus they kneeled on knees to Him and worshiped Him. Even the evil spirites,in everyone of those stories, bowed to Him and worshiped.

First of all, belief and faith are NOT the same thing. I have already illustrated this using the Scriptures. Oh, and by the way - they are BOTH nouns.
I will now show you by using Merriam Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:

Belief: Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Faith: 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY
b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2): complete trust
('Nuff said)

Secondly, the passage in James was speaking of all demons in general. BUT, since you affressed the Gadarene Demoniacs - nowhere does it say that they got on their knees and worshipped God - NOWHERE.

You know - for a guy who calls himself BibleAnswer - you really don’t seem to know your way around the Scriptures. You also don’t seem to understand the basics of the English language.

**No - you’re wrong on both counts, my uniformed firiend.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Thanks for your reply. My reason for asking, I have several Bible versions including the New American Catholic , the NIV, The living Bible and they all refer to the “it shall crush satan’s head” as “He (Jesus) shall crush satan’s head”. But in the “Our Sunday’s Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia” page 646 in reference to the St Catherine’s medal it states, " On the front side of the medal may be seen the Blessed Mother standing on the globe of the earth and crushing the head of the evil serpent, Satan" It then goes on to say on the other side of that medal, " woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars(ef. Rv 12:1)" is refering to Mary. But the woman in Rev 12 is not Mary, it’s about Israel and the woman in Gen 3:15 doesn’t crush satan’s head, Jesus does. My question, " How can the Catholic church claim infallible authority aren’t they are wrong in both cases?" ED O.

In practice, the boundaries of infallibility are uncertain, and the full meaning of the concept is unknown…

 

[BibleAnswer]

I hadn’t been following your conversation, but now that you have addressed me, It seems you are depending on what makes sense to your human mind. God is merciful, but God is also just. I don’t have time to find Bible verses, but the Bible does talk about God avenging the blood of the saints.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it the Roman soldiers who beat Jesus?

If it helps the Bible does not say “hell” is forever. But it does say the unsaved will be punished for their sins.

Ginger

…now, back to work…

Ginger, hi,

This is a scary topic, I personally will make this one comment then that will be it because i am not debating the most horribly humiliating human suffering ever endured for the sake of humanity by demeaning it with debate.

Romans scourged Christ. They gave Him 39 stripes. It is written in the bible that the most a person can endure is 40 stripes. This punishiment is so incredibly horrible that you or I could never fathom the pain. anyway im not debating that.

Anyway, I dont see your point. Yes the Roman beat Christ. The point of the conversation was that even God has LIMITS to his punishment, or Judgment. When it speaks of everlasting this, and forever that, it is also speaking of a time when that will cease to be,

Namely, when all of it is thrown into the Lake of Fire. THE second death.

How is this debatable I wonder? Thats why I can only endure like two days at a time on these forums. The will to battle sound doctrine is baffling. The argument is that I am just a person, …and. if you can also interpret, then so can i, and only one of us is correct obviously. the thing is, that you are debating a null point. You are trying to prove that Hell is hell, you are trying to say that a Roman beat Christ, and I read that and I think, well that has nothing to do with anything, and they completely missed an opportunity to take something of value, rather they breezed over my words I spend great care to write, because they have their own point to prove. Ha, well i need a break too.

 

[BibleAnswer]

First of all, belief and faith are NOT the same thing. I have already illustrated this using the Scriptures. Oh, and by the way - they are BOTH nouns.
I will now show you by using Merriam Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:

Belief: Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

Faith: 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY
b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises
(2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2): complete trust
('Nuff said)

Secondly, the passage in James was speaking of all demons in general. BUT, since you affressed the Gadarene Demoniacs - nowhere does it say that they got on their knees and worshipped God - NOWHERE.

You know - for a guy who calls himself BibleAnswer - you really don’t seem to know your **way around the Scriptures. You also don’t **seem to understand the basics of the English language.

**No - you’re *wrong ***on both counts, my uniformed firiend.

What are you kidding me. BELIEVING IS A VERB, IT IS A ACTION. FAITH IS A NOUN, IT IS A THING. BELIEVING AND FAITH ARE IN ESSENCE THE SAME ‘EXACT’ WORD, ONE IS A VERB, ONE IS A NOUN.

you never proved your point, you proved mine

Second, I quickly type these responses, forgive my grammar, yet your point is to bring to light a persons flaw and discredit me that way is laughable.

Third,Luke 14:7 This begins Christs discourse, he taught only in parables

14:7 So He told a parable to those who were invited
15:3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:

this whole discourse was parable my friends, you accuse me of what I wonder. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

this proves that Luke 16 is also a parable, seeing how it is part of the same conversation and the same language is used.

Finally, how can anybody misinterpret this when it clearly says many times that CHRIST ONLY SPOKE IN PARABLES. CHRIST IS THE WORD MADE FLESH JOHN 1:14. THE WORD IS HOLY, THE WORD IS SCRIPTURE. SCRIPTURE IS THE BIBLE.

Here is the proof that Christ spoke in Parables, here is the proof that your point is null:

Matt 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,
Matt 13:35 that is might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable.
Mark 5:33 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it.
Mark 5:34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

 

[LionHeart777]

Bible Answer,

Again, I think you are well intended and trust me that I can understand being zealous.

One SHOULD absolutely read their Bible, study it, know it, meditate on it, use Scripture to rebuke Satan (as Jesus did.) I am at a point in my life where I was humbled because a lot of the views that I held and I defended I came to realize were false. I used to read Protestant Theology like crazy and I had a I used to agree with a lot of the Theology of Dallas Theological Seminary, David Jeremiah, James White, RC Sproul, J. Vernon Mcgee and others. I have a suspicion that God wants me to see the value of prayer and of walking with Him, being that I had always seen the value of Scripture and I had neglected these other things.

I used to believe in OSAS. What really challenged me was when I learned that Calvin was apparently the first one to teach it, from a website. A lot of the positions I held I dropped once I learned that some of my interpretations of the Bible were at odds with those early Church fathers.

sorry if I have been unkind again or was harsh in my last post. I wish the best for you

There are 3 things that I vehemently disagree with you on and that stick out in my head. I think my last response was aimed your interpretation of Scripture that the soul is annihilated; ceases to exist.

2 others are your view on Baptism (I FORMERLY held the Baptist view), and your view of Christians not needing to assemble. If you want to pick one of these, I will be glad to discuss it with you maybe in another thread…

Right now I am taking 8 credits in college for the summer as I am working on a teaching certificate, I am a dad of a toddler, married, and work part time so my life is hectic. I don’t have a lot of time but maybe we could discuss one of these issues.

wishing you well;

Nick

Ginger,

I had a turkey sandwich today good luck w/ the move. Did you see my post a while back where I responded to you? I think you may have misunderstood me, or I didn’t make myself clear as I said.

Blessings everyone

 

[inkaneer]

Am I to think that Ginger is ignoring my last post? Let’s see, here it is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginger2
Jesus warned about man-made traditions. What were these man-made traditions Jesus spoke of? They were extra-biblical writings from Jewish Rabbis (church fathers) that interpreted and expound the law - just like Catholic extra-biblical doctrines.

REPLY: But is extra Biblical doctrines the same as man made traditions? Scripture records that Jesus told the Apostles that He did not teach them everything. In fact He told them there were some things they could not bear to hear [John 16:12]. But He also told them He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth [John 16:13]. You will notice that this promise is not made to all of Jesus’ followers but only to the eleven Apostles after the Last Supper and before Jesus’ arrest. Notice also that early in this same discourse Jesus tells the Apostles that the Comfortor [Holy Spirit] whom He will send would remain with them forever [John 14:16]. So what can we conclude from this? Well one thing is that the protestant claim of believers being led by the Spirit into all truth is unbiblical. This promise was made only to a few men who comprised the heirarchy of the church Jesus established. This is further proved to be correct by the more than 40,000 protestant denominations that the Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary, a noted protestant minister mill, estimates exists world wide. They can’t all have the Holy Spirit leading them into all truth or else they would be the same denomination. The question is do any of them have the truth? But I digress.

This then is what empowers the Apostles to think they can determine doctrine by a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit without consulting scripture. And they will do so as I pointed out earlier by ordaining bishops, priests and deacons to serve the needs of a growing church. They will celebrate the New Covenant on the first day of the week not the Jewish Sabbath. They will break the commands of the Old Testament and institute new ones. Their immediate successors will grapple with theological questions such as the canon of the New Testament, the Trinity, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the natures of Christ, the Theotokos rather than Christokos and they will do so knowing and claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Remember John 14:16 where Jesus said the Holy Spirit would remain with them, the Apostles, forever? Later the successors of the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit would define doctrines precisely. Doctrines such as Transsubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Papal infallibility would be formally defined to remove any ambiguity and we can be assured of their truth because we have the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit be with His church forever and would lead His church into all truth. His church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would never succumb to the forces of hell but prevail over it.

None of this can be said of anyone of the 40,000 protestant denominations. First, none of them have the 2,000 year history needed to be Apostolic. Second, none of them claim any church authority. Third, lacking Apostolicity none of them can make an even halfway decent claim that their leaders are led by the Holy Spirit. Fourth, they can’t agree on basic doctrine settled by the early church long before any of them were invented. Here I am specifically referring to Baptism. Is it necessary? Does it save? Adult or infant? Sacrament or ordinance? Trinitarian or Jesus only? The church is supposed to be catholic [small “c”] meaning universal but protestants are anything but universal. Protestantism keeps fracturing and dividing like an amoeba on Cialis. Unless the Second Coming occurs to stop it there will be as many protestant denominations as there are protestants. But what else could you expect in a belief system where private interpretation of scripture makes everyone their own pope?

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, hi,

This is a scary topic, I personally will make this one comment then that will be it because i am not debating the most horribly humiliating human suffering ever endured for the sake of humanity by demeaning it with debate.

Romans scourged Christ. They gave Him 39 stripes. It is written in the bible that the most a person can endure is 40 stripes. This punishiment is so incredibly horrible that you or I could never fathom the pain. anyway im not debating that.

Anyway, I dont see your point. Yes the Roman beat Christ. The point of the conversation was that even God has LIMITS to his punishment, or Judgment. When it speaks of everlasting this, and forever that, it is also speaking of a time when that will cease to be,

Namely, when all of it is thrown into the Lake of Fire. THE second death.

How is this debatable I wonder? Thats why I can only endure like two days at a time on these forums. The will to battle sound doctrine is baffling. The argument is that I am just a person, …and. if you can also interpret, then so can i, and only one of us is correct obviously. the thing is, that you are debating a null point. You are trying to prove that Hell is hell, you are trying to say that a Roman beat Christ, and I read that and I think, well that has nothing to do with anything, and they completely missed an opportunity to take something of value, rather they breezed over my words I spend great care to write, because they have their own point to prove. Ha, well i need a break too.

I was pointing out that Romans were not ZJews , so they did not follow Jewish Law, so they would not have been “careful” not to exceed God’s Law for beating someone.

I was not disagreeing with the number, only the reference to God’s Law as the reason.

Have a nice weekend. I won’t be online again til probably Monday.

 

[holy_moly]

Is this a trick question? Who is the author of Scripture? Isn’t it God? Who founded the Church? I would say God (I bet you would agree with that, but correct me if I’m wrong). So God founded the Church and authored the Scriptures, and He knows the end from the beginning, so I would say they came about at the same time. It did take a bit longer for the Scriptures to be recorded and recognized, but God is the author, not the Church!

I would also point out that nobody asked Jesus what he was referring to every time He said “It is written…” The Old Testament canon was set and in place before Jesus was born, and this is what the early Church was founded on and used until the New Testament was completed (and recognized).

BTW - I believe the Old Testament is just as valid today as it was when Jesus said, “It is written…”

Yes, God is the author of Sacred Scripture & the Church is the keeper & interpreter

 

[holy_moly]

Am I to think that Ginger is ignoring my last post? Let’s see, here it is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginger2
Jesus warned about man-made traditions. What were these man-made traditions Jesus spoke of? They were extra-biblical writings from Jewish Rabbis (church fathers) that interpreted and expound the law - just like Catholic extra-biblical doctrines.

REPLY: But is extra Biblical doctrines the same as man made traditions? Scripture records that Jesus told the Apostles that He did not teach them everything. In fact He told them there were some things they could not bear to hear [John 16:12]. But He also told them He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth [John 16:13]. You will notice that this promise is not made to all of Jesus’ followers but only to the eleven Apostles after the Last Supper and before Jesus’ arrest. Notice also that early in this same discourse Jesus tells the Apostles that the Comfortor [Holy Spirit] whom He will send would remain with them forever [John 14:16]. So what can we conclude from this? Well one thing is that the protestant claim of believers being led by the Spirit into all truth is unbiblical. This promise was made only to a few men who comprised the heirarchy of the church Jesus established. This is further proved to be correct by the more than 40,000 protestant denominations that the Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary, a noted protestant minister mill, estimates exists world wide. They can’t all have the Holy Spirit leading them into all truth or else they would be the same denomination. The question is do any of them have the truth? But I digress.

This then is what empowers the Apostles to think they can determine doctrine by a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit without consulting scripture. And they will do so as I pointed out earlier by ordaining bishops, priests and deacons to serve the needs of a growing church. They will celebrate the New Covenant on the first day of the week not the Jewish Sabbath. They will break the commands of the Old Testament and institute new ones. Their immediate successors will grapple with theological questions such as the canon of the New Testament, the Trinity, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the natures of Christ, the Theotokos rather than Christokos and they will do so knowing and claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Remember John 14:16 where Jesus said the Holy Spirit would remain with them, the Apostles, forever? Later the successors of the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit would define doctrines precisely. Doctrines such as Transsubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Papal infallibility would be formally defined to remove any ambiguity and we can be assured of their truth because we have the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit be with His church forever and would lead His church into all truth. His church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would never succumb to the forces of hell but prevail over it.

None of this can be said of anyone of the 40,000 protestant denominations. First, none of them have the 2,000 year history needed to be Apostolic. Second, none of them claim any church authority. Third, lacking Apostolicity none of them can make an even halfway decent claim that their leaders are led by the Holy Spirit. Fourth, they can’t agree on basic doctrine settled by the early church long before any of them were invented. Here I am specifically referring to Baptism. Is it necessary? Does it save? Adult or infant? Sacrament or ordinance? Trinitarian or Jesus only? The church is supposed to be catholic [small “c”] meaning universal but protestants are anything but universal. Protestantism keeps fracturing and dividing like an amoeba on Cialis. Unless the Second Coming occurs to stop it there will be as many protestant denominations as there are protestants. But what else could you expect in a belief system where private interpretation of scripture makes everyone their own pope?

Good explanation for the beginning of Apostolic succession:thumbsup:

 

[LionHeart777]

I used to read Protestant Theology like crazy and I had a I used to agree with a lot of the Theology of Dallas Theological Seminary, David Jeremiah, James White, RC Sproul, J. Vernon Mcgee and others. I have a suspicion that God wants me to see the value of prayer and of walking with Him, being that I had always seen the value of Scripture and I had neglected these other things.

I reread what I wrote and wanted to mention that I wasn’t implying that these men don’t (didn’t) pray or don’t (didn’t) have a relationship with God.

 

[holy_moly]

The answer to that question is in the Holy Scriptures.

First:
If one person has an interpretation that contradicts Scripture, that interpretation is wrong.

And we know it is wrong because it contradicts the Holy Scriptures.

Isn’t this a circular argument Ginger? Upon whose authority are these kind of decisions made? In our government, we have a Supreme Court to guard & interpret (supposedly ) the constitution. Jesus entrusted sacred scripture to his church, which has faithfully fulfilled it’s mission the past 2000 years… I prefer this authority to the faith de jour of protestantism…

 

[elvisman]

What are you kidding me. BELIEVING IS A VERB, IT IS A ACTION. FAITH IS A NOUN, IT IS A THING. BELIEVING AND FAITH ARE IN ESSENCE THE SAME ‘EXACT’ WORD, ONE IS A VERB, ONE IS A NOUN.

you never proved your point, you proved mine

Second, I quickly type these responses, forgive my grammar, yet your point is to bring to light a persons flaw and discredit me that way is laughable.

Third,Luke 14:7 This begins Christs discourse, he taught only in parables

14:7 So He told a parable to those who were invited
15:3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:

this whole discourse was parable my friends, you accuse me of what I wonder. DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

this proves that Luke 16 is also a parable, seeing how it is part of the same conversation and the same language is used.

Finally, how can anybody misinterpret this when it clearly says many times that CHRIST ONLY SPOKE IN PARABLES. CHRIST IS THE WORD MADE FLESH JOHN 1:14. THE WORD IS HOLY, THE WORD IS SCRIPTURE. SCRIPTURE IS THE BIBLE.

Here is the proof that Christ spoke in Parables, here is the proof that your point is null:

Matt 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,
Matt 13:35 that is might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable.
Mark 5:33 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it.
Mark 5:34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

Belief and faith are both nouns - unless you know better than Merriam Webster. I proved it to you by copying and pasting from the dictionary.

Secondly, I wasn’t making fun of your typos. Everybody makes them. I was pointing out that you don’t have a command of the English language becfause you keep insisting that these faith is a noun and belief is a verb.

Lastly - as I educated Tanner on the subject - Parables or not, Jesus didn’t teach “half-truths”. He could only, can only and will only speak the FULL TRUTH.
Boy - some of you anti-Catholics have REAL issues with the truth.

 

[holy_moly]

Good response,

In truth though you have this backwards, there are quite a few quotes teaching us that God spoke in such a way lest people HEAR AND BELIEVE AND BE BAPTISED IN THE SPIRIT AND BE SAVED.

this is by no means decietful, rather like i said, it is a trap, for the true believer to constanstly study to discern the truth from the fiction.

I thought satan was the eceiver & trap setter BibleAnswer Can you be more specific, like cite a supporting scripture?

 

[PJM]

=BibleAnswer -Ginger, hi,

This is a scary topic, I personally will make this one comment then that will be it because i am not debating the most horribly humiliating human suffering ever endured for the sake of humanity by demeaning it with debate.

***Not at all lessening the degree of love demonistrated in this act of willinfgSacrifice, I respectfully suggest that this act was NOT thee zenith of God’s love for us.

---

What could be greater, more humilatng, more debasing? [Mt. 26:26-28; Mk. 14:22-24; Lk. 22:19-2;1 Cor. 11: 23-26 and all of John chapter 6; but especially verses 40-60].******

In this daily repeated Sacrifice Jesus Christ, True God, and true Man, in His now Glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, willingly becomes inanimate objects [God becomming man was awesome, but God becomming BREAD and WINE? WOW!]

Why would God who is “perfect love” do such a thing? Well because He IS PERFECT LOVE is part of the answer.

When Jesus hung on the cross for our Redemption [please not I did not say “Salvation”] He was filled with regret. No not for what He had done, not for what He had accomplished, but for what jesus failed to do! And what is that you ask?

The purpose of God becoming man, suffering and dying the most painful and hedious death known at the time and then rising from the dead was NOT ONLY to Redeem us. No Christ also wanted as much as His Godly Nature would allow, to actually be our Savior! God our Creator gives each of us a mind, intellect and freewill and well as our soul’s. These gifts are given for a very specific reason. To know, love and serve God in this life so we can be with Him in heaven.

---

1 Jn. 1:8 “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

2 Peter 2: 4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; ***

Eph. 1: 12 we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Because man is naturally sinful and sin seperates us from our personal relationship with Christ, man needs all the grace that is available and possible. Catholics through the Seven Sacraments [Baptism we have in common] and is necessary for salvation [Jn.3:5], but only Catholics have Jesus, not a sign, not a symbol BUT Jesus in Catholic Holy Communion. We also have the Sacrament of KNOWN forgiveness of sin [Jn.20:20-23; 1Jn.5:16-19] also necessary and the Sacrament odf a Happy Death, which like Baptism has the power to remove not only all sin, but even the latent effects of sin.

Christ endures complete and total abasement, complete rejection, indescribable humiliation to prove that He is Perfect Love, to give us graces more than sufficient to accept Salvation on His TERMS, and to do everything He can do that His Divine nature allows to lead us to Salvation! What an awesome God we have

---

Also see Isaian 43: 7 and 21]***

The reason Jesus died filled with regret is that He knew exactly how many men. women and children; past, present and furture would reject Him, would refuse to do what is necessary to cooperate with His plan for our personal Salvation.

We are able to avoid sin and the near occassion of sin, NOT ON OUR OWN merits, BUT on the Merits of Christ and the grace of God.

Romans scourged Christ. They gave Him 39 stripes. It is written in the bible that the most a person can endure is 40 stripes. This punishiment is so incredibly horrible that you or I could never fathom the pain. anyway im not debating that.

Thee Church Fathers, some who witnessed the even claim that hatred [and a bribe to kill Jesus in the scouraging] claim He endured far more than the “usual” punishment of 39 stripes.

God loves us this much:thumbsup: If someone were to reject each of His sacrifices, Becomming Man, Dying on the Cross and Becoming our food, would not that person have chosen Eternal hell? Would that not be in line with an all Just and Fair God? YES! it would!

 

[holy_moly]

Do you follow Harold Camping? You sound like someone who might. I’m geussing you’re not in a Church, nor are you under the authority of any Pastor. If this is true (and I hope it isn’t), you need to repent of this heresy, find a good, Bible-believing Church, and submit to the authority of a Pastor. BTW - submitting to a Pastor does NOT mean you accept everything he says without question! Be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to be sure what is being taught is correct!

Isn’t this just a wee bit of a contradiction, submit, but don’t accept

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Cachonga
Do you follow Harold Camping? You sound like someone who might. I’m geussing you’re not in a Church, nor are you under the authority of any Pastor. If this is true (and I hope it isn’t), you need to repent of this heresy, find a good, Bible-believing Church, and submit to the authority of a Pastor. BTW - submitting to a Pastor does NOT mean you accept everything he says without question! Be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to be sure what is being taught is correct!

***Friend, why not just bypass the pastor and seek you’re own understanding of the bible. After all that is precisely what the pastor is doing.

Here is option two:God Himself gave the task of Biblical interperiation to His Catholic Church, and Gives His Church the Holy Spirit to insre that what She teaches is THEE Truth. No other church, no other organization can truthfully make this claim.

So one can continue in blissful ignorance, or seek thee truth where it actually can be found on all matters of Faith and Morals.

John 16:* “12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14* He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. “**

***Mt. 16:19 19 I [Jesus] will give you [St, Peter and my Church] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, *** ***That friend is clear and applies to all!

Love and prayers***

 

[estesbob]

Isn’t this just a wee bit of a contradiction, submit, but don’t accept

You submit until he says something you dont like at which point you either try to have him fired, move to a denomination that says things you like or start your own.

 

[inkaneer]

Am I to think that Ginger is ignoring my last post? Let’s see, here it is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginger2
Jesus warned about man-made traditions. What were these man-made traditions Jesus spoke of? They were extra-biblical writings from Jewish Rabbis (church fathers) that interpreted and expound the law - just like Catholic extra-biblical doctrines.

REPLY: But is extra Biblical doctrines the same as man made traditions? Scripture records that Jesus told the Apostles that He did not teach them everything. In fact He told them there were some things they could not bear to hear [John 16:12]. But He also told them He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth [John 16:13]. You will notice that this promise is not made to all of Jesus’ followers but only to the eleven Apostles after the Last Supper and before Jesus’ arrest. Notice also that early in this same discourse Jesus tells the Apostles that the Comfortor [Holy Spirit] whom He will send would remain with them forever [John 14:16]. So what can we conclude from this? Well one thing is that the protestant claim of believers being led by the Spirit into all truth is unbiblical. This promise was made only to a few men who comprised the heirarchy of the church Jesus established. This is further proved to be correct by the more than 40,000 protestant denominations that the Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary, a noted protestant minister mill, estimates exists world wide. They can’t all have the Holy Spirit leading them into all truth or else they would be the same denomination. The question is do any of them have the truth? But I digress.

This then is what empowers the Apostles to think they can determine doctrine by a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit without consulting scripture. And they will do so as I pointed out earlier by ordaining bishops, priests and deacons to serve the needs of a growing church. They will celebrate the New Covenant on the first day of the week not the Jewish Sabbath. They will break the commands of the Old Testament and institute new ones. Their immediate successors will grapple with theological questions such as the canon of the New Testament, the Trinity, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the natures of Christ, the Theotokos rather than Christokos and they will do so knowing and claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Remember John 14:16 where Jesus said the Holy Spirit would remain with them, the Apostles, forever? Later the successors of the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit would define doctrines precisely. Doctrines such as Transsubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Papal infallibility would be formally defined to remove any ambiguity and we can be assured of their truth because we have the promise of Jesus that the Holy Spirit be with His church forever and would lead His church into all truth. His church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would never succumb to the forces of hell but prevail over it.

None of this can be said of anyone of the 40,000 protestant denominations. First, none of them have the 2,000 year history needed to be Apostolic. Second, none of them claim any church authority. Third, lacking Apostolicity none of them can make an even halfway decent claim that their leaders are led by the Holy Spirit. Fourth, they can’t agree on basic doctrine settled by the early church long before any of them were invented. Here I am specifically referring to Baptism. Is it necessary? Does it save? Adult or infant? Sacrament or ordinance? Trinitarian or Jesus only? The church is supposed to be catholic [small “c”] meaning universal but protestants are anything but universal. Protestantism keeps fracturing and dividing like an amoeba on Cialis. Unless the Second Coming occurs to stop it there will be as many protestant denominations as there are protestants. But what else could you expect in a belief system where private interpretation of scripture makes everyone their own pope?

No response by Ginger yet? Maybe doing research. I’ll check again in a few days.

 

[PJM]

=inkaneer;5525579]No response by Ginger yet? Maybe doing research. I’ll check again in a few days.

***You]re responce was factual, informitive and charitable.

VERY WELL DONE

Thank youI]***

 

[balric99]

Here is abit of info that I have come across you might chew on. It is just something I found while digging on the subject.

BROTHERS, LORD’S—Jesus’ half-brothers, sons of Mary and Joseph. In *1 Corinthians 9:*5

Paul mentions in passing the ministry of “the brothers of the Lord.” Also, in ***Galatians 1:19, /**I]

Paul calls James “the Lord’s brother.” The Gospels list four brothers in all—“James, Joses (or Joseph, nasb, neb, niv, rsv), Simon, and Judas” ***(Matt. 13:55), ***in addition to unnamed sisters.

Some have questioned whether “brothers” should be understood in a literal sense. Those who argue that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life take the word brothers to refer either to sons of Joseph by a prior marriage or to cousins of Jesus, but there is no biblical or theological reason to constrain this stretch of credulity. Both of these possibilities are unlikely.
The Gospels do not suggest that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The designation of Jesus as Mary’s “firstborn Son” implies that she had other sons as well ***(Matt. 1:25). ***

No evidence supports “sons of Joseph” theory, and no New Testament confirms the possibility they were Jesus’ cousins. Other words in the Greek language are generally used to indicate “cousin” ***(Col. 4:10), ***“sister’s son” (Acts 23:16), or the more general “relatives”
(Mark 6:4). The Gospels would not likely have called these four the “Lord’s brothers” if, in fact, they were really cousins.

Finally, the incident recorded in ***Matthew 12:46-50 ***is decisive. Here, as elsewhere (Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; Acts 1:14),

Jesus’ mother is mentioned along with His brothers as if they were all in one family. Jesus grew up in a typical family of the time. This formed part of His training as one who was fully human as well as fully divine.

Hayford, J. W., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1995. Hayford’s Bible handbook. Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville*