Questions about when people get "saved"

[James817]

MT1926:

listening to the Apostles teachings. LISTENS IS THE KEY HERE. He doesn’t say by reading and interpreting, by yourself,

Again, a bit presumptuous. I’ve never given you any private interpretation to any verse of scripture. Everything I have said is shared by millions within my circle and beyond

We have done the same, and we’ve quoted many sources in the past who have the same opinion. Why then is there a divergence in opinions?

 

[tgGodsway]

job is to not believe this statement until I test the Spirit telling you this (1 John 4). I’m sure you would agree I should do this. I mean I’m sure you wouldn’t want me following the Spirit of the anti-Christ.

"Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in flesh IS OF GOD… The spirit of anti-christ is incapable of such a confession that Jesus is God come in flesh.
I’ve already forgotten why I brought it up in the first place MT. You amaze me with some of the things you say.

 

[tgGodsway]

Because just like the John 3 passage where born of water for the RCC… means water baptism. Whoever came up with that blunder doesn’t know how to make a good interpretation of scripture. Period.

If I cannot prove born of water is an expression symbolizing natural birth, then I’d rather not conclude anything on that verse at all. It is better to have no opinion than the wrong opinion.

But there is one thing I definitely will NOT do, and that is to read-into the passage words that aren’t actually there on the page, like baptism.

It kind of reminds me of the recent debate where, somehow the word “brother” means cousin or relative, because of a Jewish custom that somehow should be applied to the Matt. 1 passage, but not so much the other parts of the N,T. …just the passages dealing with Mary’s children.

These kind of issues tell me something is seriously wrong with that. You quote people in history but most of them are too far removed to bring any historical or spiritual accuracy to the table. The further out you go, the less people will know or understand what the Apostolic circle was all about. But of course, they are the experts.

 

[MT1926]

Again, a bit presumptuous. I’ve never given you any private interpretation to any verse of scripture. Everything I have said is shared by millions within my circle and beyond

And everything I have said is shared by BILLIONS for 2000 years. So what’s your point?

 

[MT1926]

O come on MT. You are little nit picky here. It is one thing for John to teach them it is quite another for the Holy Spirit to open their eyes to this revelation. God uses John but without the Spirit John would be useless.

I never said John wasn’t guided by the Spirit. I said your claim that you are being guided by the Spirit doesn’t stand up to the test. Especially, when it contradicts 2000 years of Apostolic teaching.

To pass the test you need to prove your interpretation lines up with what John actually taught. Not with what you think he meant.

Why is me asking for proof such an amazing thing to you. Why do you believe you have the right to preach and teach without ever having to support your opinions with facts?

 

[tgGodsway]

contradicts 2000 years of Apostolic teaching.

Your view was not shared in the first century church but my interpretations of the apostolic church are right on man.

 

[tgGodsway]

Why is me asking for proof such an amazing thing

It isn’t the asking for proof amazes me. It is the way you think in general.

 

[MT1926]

Your view was not shared in the first century church but my interpretations of the apostolic church are right on man.

Once again your opinion. PROVE IT!

We didn’t even have a Bible in the first century

 

[MT1926]

It isn’t the asking for proof amazes me. It is the way you think in general.

It’s pretty obvious that the asking for proof doesn’t amaze you, because you keep avoiding the topic. You keep focusing in on the things I say, instead of proving your own point.

What’s wrong with the way I think? Are you saying I’m not being guided by the Spirit. Once again you make these outlandish claims yet provide no evidence. You refuse to prove you are guided by the Spirit yet claim I am not. Do rules not apply to you once you have the Spirit?

You make these claims that your position has been around since the beginning. Even before the Catholic Church, yet provide no evidence? Am I just suppose to take your word for it. I thought you posted we are to test the Spirits. I put you to the test and you ignore it and change the subject. In my world refusing to be tested is the same as admitting you won’t because you know you will fail the test.

Earlier in our conversation you said…

Please understand something here. I have at least 6 or 7 people tracking what I say on this site, not to mention the officials who run it. Everyone wants detailed answers, as if I work here.

No we just want evidence. We just want proof. Haven’t you wondered why all of your conversations turn out like this one is? You come here with the assumption that we Catholics blindly follow the Catholic Church like a dumb herd of cattle. You think we will be an easy target and will easily be convinced to buy what you are selling. Well we don’t buy it. We don’t blindly follow the Church. We read and know our scripture here. We see the meaning and logic behind what the Catholic Church teaches. We understand where this teaching comes from and why.

The Catholic Church doesn’t take one verse of scripture and say yep this is it. No they expect more from their members. We need to put it all together into one continual story. Both Old and New Testament. Every mass they bring together an OT reading with a Psalm and an Epistle and tie it all together with the Gospel. It’s in depth it’s detailed. You can say the Church has upped the bar for us Catholics. We are use to this here at CAF. We want the where’s, the when’s and the why’s. Just saying this passage says this or omits this word therefor it’s gotta be this, isn’t enough for us here.

The train is moving fast my friend. If you want to get on board you need to run a little faster and up your game. Opinions and accusations don’t count in this world, we want the FACTS.

God Bless

PS. I admit that was a bit of a rant. Since I already admitted that you can concentrate on the questions I asked instead of ignoring it and saying I am ranting.

 

[Reuben_J]

We heard you. You are supposed to be the smart one in understanding the Bible.

So you said, born of the water in John 3 symbolizes natural birth because human being made up of 98 percent water.

You said Jesus had brothers because the Gospel says so. History and cultural consideration do not figure when understand such verses, such as Jesus entrusted her mother to John instead of his ‘brothers’.

So you are teaching us scripture here. Good. All we want is for you to prove your assertion. That’s surely not asking too much.

 

[James817]

I’m of the opinion that the brothers of Jesus were stepbrothers.

As for the water baptism reference, it has appeared in Christian Tradition for over 2000 years.

From Augustine on the Gospel of John:
It is the Spirit that speaks, whereas he understands carnally; he knew of no birth save one, that from Adam and Eve; from God and the Church he knows of none. But do you so understand the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus did the birth of the flesh; for as the entrance into the womb cannot be repeated, so neither can baptism.

As if He said, You understand me to speak of a carnal birth; but a man must be born of water and of the Spirit, if he is to enter into the kingdom of God. If to obtain the temporal inheritance of his human father, a man must be born of the womb of his mother; to obtain the eternal inheritance of his heavenly Father, he must be born of the womb of the Church. And since man consists of two parts, body and soul, the mode even of this latter birth is twofold; water the visible part cleansing the body; the Spirit by His invisible cooperation, changing the invisible soul.

You say we are quoting people who are “too far removed.” Are you not your self “too far removed?”

 

[tgGodsway]

As for the water baptism reference, it has appeared in Christian Tradition for over 2000 years

NO… maybe for most of Christian Tradition, but not the apostolic circle. When John was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit said you must be born of water…

Baptism was, and is, a completely different Greek word used here in the passage. Words should matter. These kind of issues seem to come up often as if they do not matter. John 3 becomes not a interpretation issue, but a translation issue. Tradition has translated by imposing the word, and the meaning behind the word, from born of, … to baptized in…

These are huge blunders by the RCC

 

[tgGodsway]

You say we are quoting people who are “too far removed.” Are you not your self “too far removed?”

I am the one who fights to get RC believers to pay attention to the words of the apostolic circle instead of people who did not know them, or even people once, twice, or three times removed, but in most cases centuries removed from the apostles. How is that far removed from the apostolic Church? It’s not.

 

[tgGodsway]

We heard you. You are supposed to be the smart one in understanding the Bible.

This is a claim that has never come out of my mouth. I am a student here and have said so in this site. Just because I have objections, doesn’t mean my approach is arrogant or know it all. It is not.

 

[tgGodsway]

So you said, born of the water in John 3 symbolizes natural birth because human being made up of 98 percent water.

No… I said this is the best answer. In my opinion it makes the best sense. I have also said, I would rather not conclude on it since born of water doesn’t actually say the words physically born, or naturally born. It would be better to not conclude then to impose other words that the Holy Spirit did not use.

As far as the 98 percent water, yeah… your right, I’m not a biologist, or a scientist… but I have heard this saying many times by many people. Perhaps it is just tradition.

 

[tgGodsway]

You said Jesus had brothers because the Gospel says so. History and cultural consideration do not figure when understand such verses, such as Jesus entrusted her mother to John instead of his ‘brothers’.

Well… does the gospel say so? … secular history, or Jewish culture may play a part, but when most of the N.T. uses this Greek word for brother, (meaning brother), while the passage about Mary’s children becomes an exception, even though it is the exact same Greek word. But because the RCC says it means “relative” instead, and despite the pattern found in scripture, we are all suppose to lay down and be stupid . … naaaa. …

 

[tgGodsway]

You know what. I can put the information out there and say there it is!.. as I did with the argument over Jesus brothers, verses the tradition that says relatives. But only the Holy Spirit can cause you to accept what is on the page. I can not prove it, because I am not the Holy Spirit in your heart. Only He can make these truths real to you.

 

[MT1926]

NO… maybe for most of Christian Tradition, but not the apostolic circle. When John was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit said you must be born of water…

Once again, this is your opinion, show us the evidence. I can’t believe this is such a difficult task. You honestly can’t see that you are the one interpreting John’s words and saying see this is what he said? Therefore, it is what was believed by the Apostles? Seriously, you can’t see that?

And how could something be believed for over 1500 years, that was wrong, then all of the sudden someone realized it was wrong?

Tradition has translated by imposing the word, and the meaning behind the word, from born of, … to baptized in…

These are huge blunders by the RCC

This statement is a huge blunder of an assumption on your part. We don’t say Baptize in water and spirit.

Every argument you use against Baptism is an argument against yourself. You do the exact same thing the only difference is your tradition reads born of, then you drop the word water, then you convert the word Spirit to believe.

Believe is a completely different Greek word used here in the passage. The only reason you see believe is because some man in your tradition told you to.

I’m just trying to show you that your arguments are empty, because the exact same argument can be used against you. That’s why we want the evidence, which you refuse to give

 

[MT1926]

I am the one who fights to get RC believers to pay attention to the words of the apostolic circle instead of people who did not know them, or even people once, twice, or three times removed, but in most cases centuries removed from the apostles. How is that far removed from the apostolic Church? It’s not.

Your fighting to get us to pay attention to your interpretation of those words. We compare your words to the words of men who were the disciples of the Apostles. Why would I believe your words over theirs? It’s a simple question, don’t you believe we deserve and explanation?

 

[MT1926]

Well… does the gospel say so? … we are all suppose to lay down and be stupid . … naaaa. …

I see what you are saying here. But I think you have your argument wrong. It isn’t about the word brother not meaning brother. The argument is that there was no word for cousin. So the word brother could mean cousin or relative or even spiritual brother.

I just wanted to point out that this is why your arguments are so weak.

You stated…**

but when most of the N.T. uses this Greek word for brother, (meaning brother), while the passage about Mary’s children becomes an exception, even though it is the exact same Greek word.

You are arguing that The word adelphous means brother in other parts of scripture. Yes we agree. However, you are claiming we are laying down and stupid if we don’t believe that it also means brother in the passage about Mary.

Can you see the stupidity of your argument???

You used the word “MOST” in your argument.

The word most means many or much. It doesn’t mean all. In your argument you’ve already admitted that their are exceptions to the rule. You’ve already admitted that adelphous doesn’t mean brother every time it is used in the Bible.

Wouldn’t you actually be the one who is laying down and being stupid for blindly following what you were told, without weighing all other aspects of the Bible as well as historical and cultural facts of the day?

Feel free to look this up on your own, in the Jewish encyclopedia, if you don’t believe me.

After betrothal the parties were regarded as man and wife; and the act could be dissolved only by death or by a formal bill of divorce. If the woman proved unfaithful during the period of betrothal she was treated as an adulteress, and her punishment (that of stoning; Deut. xxii. 23, 24; Sanh. 66b) was considered to be much more severe than that (strangulation) inflicted upon the unfaithful married woman (Deut. xxii. 22; Sanh. 52b). The parties were not, however, entitled to conjugal rights, nor were they bound by the obligations of married life (see Husband and Wife).

Mary and Joseph were betrothed.

Mary was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Even though it was an act of God it was not Joseph’s child so under the law she was considered an adulteress. That’s why scripture tells us Joseph was going to divorce her quietly.

Under the law Joseph had one other option he could keep her as his wife, but had to give up his conjugal rights.

Joseph was a righteous man. He would have never broken the Mosaic laws.

Not to mention. Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Can you honestly say you would have no problem using Jesus entrance to the world to satisfy your sexual pleasure?

Dude come on think about it. If Jesus came to diner at my house I don’t think I would ever wash the wine glass he drank from, let alone use it as my own.