Results 21 - 40 of 233
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: There Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25722 | ||
Hi Lisa, The numbered texts below are taken from the revised Catholic Catechism (1997). 1035. "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of MORTAL SIN descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.'[Cf. DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG # 12.] The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." 1496. "The spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance are: - reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers grace; - reconciliation with the Church; - remission of the eternal punishment incurred by MORTAL sins; - remission, at least in part, of temporal punishments resulting from sin; - peace and serenity of conscience, and spiritual consolation; - an increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle. " 1457. "According to the Church's command, 'after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.'[Cf. CIC, Can. 989; Council of Trent (1551): DS 1683; DS 1708.] Anyone who is aware of having committed a MORTAL SIN must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.[Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1647; 1661; CIC, can. 916; CCEO, can.] Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.[Cf. CIC, can. 914.]" 1854. "Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between MORTAL and VENIAL SIN, already evident in Scripture,[Cf. 1Jn 16-17 .] became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience." [[Do you know what biblical reference they refer to above 1John 16-17? If you do, I'd appreciate being told.]] [[Mine - a repeat. James 2:10 "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."]] 1857. "For a SIN to be MORTAL, three conditions must together be met: 'MORTAL SIN is SIN whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.'[RP 17 # 12.]" 1858. "Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.'[Mk 10:19 .] The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger." 1863. "Venial SIN weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial SIN disposes us little by little to commit MORTAL SIN. However venial SIN does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. 'Venial SIN does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.'[John Paul II, RP 17 # 9.] While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call 'light': if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.[St. Augustine, In ep. Jo. 1, 6: PL 35, 1982.]" 2484. "The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial SIN, it becomes MORTAL when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity. " [[See James 2:10]] One of the "mortal" sins is intentionally missing mass on Sunday Lisa. We were taught that as children and young adults too. Even as adults we needed to "confess" to the priest if we had missed mass or be forever doomed to hell. And you seem to be under the impression that we ex-Catholics each knew only one "priest" during our Catholic experience. I can't speak for others, but I was very close friends with several. I have learned under a total of probably at least 10 priests over the years, possibly more. And they all taught the same thing... even the younger ones. And the reason for that I assume is that they all learned from the same teachings. God bless. |
||||||
22 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25717 | ||
Actually I usually try to look at and understand the other person's position, even if I do disagree with them. I have not made this apparent in my postings though, or it would not have surprised you. But anyway, in this paticular case... I do disagree. Your interpretation sounds so close, but it does change the context of the verse in my opinion. You said: "Let no man therefore judge you in your feasting and fasting on the feast days, or the new moons, or the ceremonial sabbath days: Although I think "feasting and fasting" could be a pretty good understanding of "eating and drinking", I do think it strays far away from the context after that. Paul clearly states either "or" or "and" between "regards to eating and drinking" AND "in respect to festivals, etc.". That is a first clue that he did not mean people were not to be judged only for the "eating and drinking" that was done on certain days. So I believe that Paul meant what he said. Men were not to judge others concerning ALL of those things: eating, drinking, festivals, new moons, sabbaths. But one of the reasons I think Paul said what he meant when he used the "or" or "and" in respect to the festivals etc.... is completely explained in the remainder of Paul's statement in verse 17. Again... I wish you could understand why I keep bringing that up. One part of the sentence is only that -- one part. One part of a whole thought on Paul's part. In order to put the first part in context, we must at least include the second part of his thought. You said: 17 These (i.e., the feasting and fasting) are a shadow of things to come; rather let the Church decide such matters." It was not just the feasting and fasting (eating and drinking) that were a shadow of things to come. It was ALL of those things he'd mentioned. The point though is that verse 17 explains what all those things have in common. "WHICH ARE a shadow of things to come, but the substance (body) is of Christ". Oviously Paul and the early Christians knew by this time that the eating and drinking (communion?), festivals, new moons, and the Sabbaths were all to be fullfilled in/through Christ Jesus... whether during His first coming to begin His church, or His second, when He would finish what He'd started. I think all Paul was saying is that "all those things" are a shadow of what is coming to and will be shown within the body of believers (body of Christ). I don't believe the "body" is the one to make decisions for the "body". I believe the "head" is to make decisions for the "body". If Christ is our head, we will be led by His Spirit, not by man or man's decisions. I'm not sure I'm making myself understandable. But I don't know of any other way to say it, other than to quote Paul in Col. 2:16-17. :) God bless. |
||||||
23 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25697 | ||
Lisa, Norrie was correct in her explanation of purgatory, mortal, and venial sins. I think the big difference between what you have been taught and what we were taught is not Vatican II, but in that we were taught the whole catechism basically word for word... whereas you seem to have been taught concepts instead. Perhaps you should study the catechism of the Catholic Church so you will know what it's doctrines and dogmas actually are. Then make a decision as to whether or not you agree with it's teachings. Since you are already reading the Bible, you will have something to compare one with the other too. Excerpt from the updated Catholic Catechism (1997)Where Bible references are given, please Lisa check them out too so you will see how they compare with the Catholic teaching they refer to: 1031. "The Church gives the name PURGATORY to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.[Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.] The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on PURGATORY especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:[Cf. 1 Cor 3:15 ; 1 Pet 1:7 .] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.[St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31 .] " [[My own Bible reference concerning the above doctrine. Please check out 1Peter 1:3-12, and 1Cor. 3:2-17, as the above reference verses do not teach a cleansing fire after our physical death. And Matt. 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, EVERY sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven men."]] 1472. "To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called PURGATORY. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.[Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]" [[My Bible reference. James 2:10 "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (Specifically as the Catholic Catechism states that "mortal" sins are the breaking of any one of the Ten Commandments.) And Matt. 12:31 again. There is only ONE unforgivable sin.]] 1475. "In the communion of saints, 'a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in PURGATORY and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.'[Indulgentiarum doctrina, 5.] In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin." [[My reference. Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement..." There is no cleansing period in-between physical death and the judgment.]] 1498. "Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in PURGATORY. " [[RCC's meaning of "indulgence" is "remission of temporal or purgatorial punishment still due for a sin after the guilt has been forgiven". Reference verse. Matthew 26:28 "For this is My blood of the covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Remission means forgiveness.) And Hebrews 10:18 "Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin." Jesus does it all, as we both know.]] I will send a new post with the Catholic Cathechism teachings about Mortal and Venial Sins. Please read that one also, Lisa. God bless. |
||||||
24 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25605 | ||
Brian, You said: First, Catholics do not require other Catholics to define whether we are Roman Catholic, etc. Catholic means universal and we accept and respect each other, without question. I would hope Lisa does not dignify your question with an answer. I think you are attempting to admonish me wrongly, Brian. LisaMarie mentioned that we all assumed she was "Roman Catholic", because we had never asked to find out what she was. I will copy and paste her remarks. LisaMarie said: "I think I'm also past due for pointing out that not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. The proper term being CCC, Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not RCC, Roman Catholic Catechism. Roman, Byzantine, Greek, (But not Greek Orthodox.) I believe 7 branches in all founded by apostles who set out to spread the word of God. Just about everyone responding here assumed that when I said Catholic, I meant Roman. No one ever asked." So I asked. And if LisaMarie finds it acceptable to imply that someone should ask, I think it would be nice if she would "dignify" the asker with a reply. God bless. |
||||||
25 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25602 | ||
Hello Brian, You said: "Next, today when people are learning, they can go to a Bible class, or a bookstore, and gain an education. When the Catholic Church was carving out Christianity, they were preaching to people who lived in caves and huts, and no concept of a written language." The Catholic Church did not carve out Christianity Brian. I'm not picking words here, but it was God through Christ that is building His church. God's church is people who believe Him. People who learn from Him -- from His Holy Spirit. [Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.] Concerning the written language... during Abraham's day there were libraries and schools. And that was about 2,000 BC! Archeologists have discovered sites in Ur, Lagash, Nippur, Sippar (which means "Book Town"), and every important city in Babylonia during the approximate time of Abraham -- with schools, temples, libraries with thousands of books; Dictionaries, Grammars, Reference Works, Encyclopedias, Official Annuls, works on Mathematics, Astronomy, Geography, Religion and Politics. In Ur, also in the stratum of Abraham's day, they uncovered 150 school Exercise Tablets, with Mathematical, Medical, Historical texts, and one large tablet in parallel columns with a Complete Conjugation of the Sumerian verb and its equivalent in Semitic. And in Canaan, near Hebron, city of Abraham, was a town called "Kiriath-Sepher", which means "scribe-town". And did you know that in Rome during the days of Christ... people had running water and public bath houses? Even Jerusalem during the time of King David had aquaducts that brought water into the city to fill the wells from underground. Early Christians were not "cavemen", nor primitives who lived in "huts". Each community used the resources that were available to them to build houses, temples, stadiums, stores, palaces, etc. In fact many times great cedars and marble blocks were shipped (in a boat) from one country to another... and each ship usually had written manifestos for their cargo. They've found bills, and receipts, and all kinds of things in the strata for that time period. Not only in Rome and Israel, but also Egypt, Babylon, etc. Even though in Jesus' day everyone did not have the elitist training that Paul and other scholars had... the remainder of the apostles --- who were basically common folk --- could apparently write... and write quite well as we see in the gospels and epistles. Certainly if they could, then surely others during the next few hundred years could also. The dumbing down occurred during the dark ages (late 400's-1100's AD). It is a time that gradually got bleaker over the years for the common people due to severe oppression from those in power over them. Schools were not permitted because the rulers knew that with knowledge, comes power -- and those in power didn't want to be usurped. I won't go any further with this thread, but that is the juxt of the matter as to why many people couldn't read during those years. Another point is that the Bible was not available to them even if they could have read it. But there too... if anyone believed God... they could not so easily be duped into doing whatever they were told. Ignorance is bliss... but only to those who want to control the ignorant. It was during the Reformation that public schools were built, and Bibles were translated into common languages, with the intent that people should learn to read so they could read the Bible for themselves. You said: "Let's look at Christian theology. Every Christian religion today is built upon the theological principles defined by the Catholic Church over the past 2,000 years." Actually Brian, I think the principles were defined long before the Catholic Church became involved. It was God who defined those principles in His inspired Word - the Holy Bible. And it is God's "teachings" that should be taught. I think I have said this on here before, but I will say it again because you may not know my stance on this. I thoroughly believe that the only "doctrine" that should be used AS "doctrine" for a Christian denomination -- is the Word of God. Nothing added and nothing taken away. The Lord even set up a plan to keep false understandings of His Word out of His church. And by the way, His Church is not Catholic, or Methodist, or Baptist, nor any other denomination. God's church is people who believe Him. It is universal only in the sense that God has saved people all over the planet. God bless. |
||||||
26 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25582 | ||
Honestly dconklin... to me "or" makes more sense than "and". But I think I understand where you are coming from. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Do you understand that verse to be speaking of ONE thing, as opposed to multiple things? For instance if "and" is used, then a person could understand that verse to be saying "let no man judge you in [the singular event of] eating, drinking, a festival i.e. new moon, sabbath" because "and" could give one the idea that those things are all joined together into one event. Whereas "or" would separate them, and suggest that Paul was saying "let no one judge you in any one of these things". Is that why you think "and" makes more sense? |
||||||
27 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25581 | ||
Hi Lisa, You said: I also read last night that the actual "Hebrew Canon" was put together after the Christian one. I found that kinda curious. Prior to our Bible, they were only interested in a scroll of The Law. Unless I misunderstand what you're talking about, the Hebrew Canon (laws or body of laws of a church) was written by Moses, with the exception of the few verses at the close of Deuteronomy which give an account of his death. It was possibly written in archaic Hebrew (although some say Aramaic, which is very similar to Hebrew from what I understand) on clay tablets, leather or papyrus. Papyrus was commonly used in Egypt in those days, and it is possible that the first five books of the law were written on that if Moses had the forethought (or inspiration from the Lord) to take some along when the Exodus occurred. And clay tablets would be very heavy to haul around... but they definitely had the manpower and animal power to do so. But personally I think leather is a more practical expectation. For those forty years in the wilderness, they would have had a ready supply at hand. Just my thoughts on it since I don't know which they were written on. :) If the original was written on leather or papyrus, they wore out with use and were replaced with new copies. If clay, they apparently wore out or broke too, since archeologists have found MANY fragments of such. Again, unless I'm mistaken the "scroll of the Law" that you mentioned, was usually made of leather, because it generally lasted much longer than papyrus. The entire Old Testament (which included the Torah [law] was translated into Greek and called the Septuagint, made in the 3rd century BC, and was in common use during Jesus day. The gospels (memoirs of the apostles) and the epistles (letters) were first "gathered together" by Eusebius during the reign of Constantine. This was in the early 300's AD, and the bibles were printed on vellum (a fine parchment - [animal skin, prepared as a surface for writing]). These were possibly the original Sinaitic or the Vatican Manuscripts. During the time of Jesus, it was still the custom that letters were scrolled [rolled] and sealed to be delivered to the addressee. From what I've read that is possibly the form used by the apostles who wrote the original epistles (letters). You said: The Hebrews rejected all Greek writings because they didn't see the Gentiles as people of God. No possible way he would send the Holy Spirit unto them! Since their law was also written in Greek several hundred years before Christ, we know they did not reject Gentiles because of the Greek writings. They rejected the Messiah and therefore rejected his teachings which just happened to be written in Greek. You said: The entire New Testament is written in Greek. Of course the Hebrews, not believing in Jesus, reject all the New Testament as well. It's my understanding that the Jews believe in the man Jesus, but do not believe He was/is the Messiah. And this reminds me that in Acts 10, Peter was given a vision which he did not fully understand... until the Spirit informed him that he should go to meet Cornelius. And in 10:28 Peter said "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean..." So if it had not been for the Lord's instruction to Peter personally, he probably would have been one of "those of the circumcision who believed" and "were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentile" believers. God bless. |
||||||
28 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25558 | ||
Since Tim already answered the second part of your post, I will comment on only the first part. You said: You believe the Catholic church contradicts the teachings of Jesus? You are incorrect. Since it has already been shown that the teachings of the Catholic Church do contradict some of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles (as you yourself have stated in regards to Mary, and also concerning Jesus being the ONLY means of salvation), all I can do is wonder why you now make a statement like that. Lisa, I'm certainly willing to discuss pure scripture. Which verse or verses would you like to discuss first? Your choice. God bless. |
||||||
29 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25496 | ||
Martha, You said: I could never leave him, not even if I had a thousand Roman soldiers after me. I'm sure you feel the same way. Yes, I do. And it's a very safe and secure place to be... no matter how many Roman soldiers come at us. :) It truly did amaze me at first, that I was willing to give up anything and anyone to follow the Lord. I'd never had a conviction so strong before... it made me realize what Jesus meant in Matthew 10:34-39. In His love, |
||||||
30 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25479 | ||
Here's one that appears to be church sanctioned as of 1997. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm This on-line Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church includes the corrections promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 8 September 1997. These corrections to the English text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church were made to harmonize it with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II on the same date. For details of the corrections, see the editio typica modifications to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When you go to that site, click on the picture of the Catechism book. Then scroll down and click on "Article 9 - I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church", and you will find what I've copy and pasted below. PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH CHAPTER THREE I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT ARTICLE 9 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH" 748 "Christ is the light of humanity; and it is, accordingly, the heart-felt desire of this sacred Council, being gathered together in the Holy Spirit, that, by proclaiming his Gospel to every creature, it may bring to all men that light of Christ which shines out visibly from the Church."135 These words open the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. By choosing this starting point, the Council demonstrates that the article of faith about the Church depends entirely on the articles concerning Christ Jesus. The Church has no other light than Christ's; according to a favorite image of the Church Fathers, the Church is like the moon, all its light reflected from the sun. 749 The article concerning the Church also depends entirely on the article about the Holy Spirit, which immediately precedes it. "Indeed, having shown that the Spirit is the source and giver of all holiness, we now confess that it is he who has endowed the Church with holiness."136 The Church is, in a phrase used by the Fathers, the place "where the Spirit flourishes."137 750 To believe that the Church is "holy" and "catholic," and that she is "one" and "apostolic" (as the Nicene Creed adds), is inseparable from belief in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the Apostles' Creed we profess "one Holy Church" (Credo . . . Ecclesiam), and not to believe in the Church, so as not to confuse God with his works and to attribute clearly to God's goodness all the gifts he has bestowed on his Church.138 Then check out http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#III You may want to read from line 830-848 to get a better understanding of what the Catholic Catechism teaches as far as what/who the Catholic Church is, which also states what I've copied below. "Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 Do you find this catechism book satisfactory? And just for the record, that last sentence up there "they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it", is saying that I'm not saved because I left the Catholic Church. Did you catch that? |
||||||
31 | Is this the 'Complete Christian'? | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25465 | ||
Hi Norrie, The apostles didn't know Jesus would die until it happened. They didn't know Jesus would rise again either until it happened... so would Mary have known before hand? I keep thinking of the time Jesus taught at the Temple, while Joseph and Mary were heading home to Nazareth and after finding him Mary asked Jesus why He'd done that to them because they were beside themselves trying to find Him. Jesus reply was "Why is it that you sought Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" (Luke 2:49). Luke 2:50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. I think that last verse is saying that Mary didn't understand exactly who Jesus was or she would have expected Him to be about His FATHER's business. And taking this a step further: if Mary did not realize exactly who Jesus was, or how God's salvation was to come through Jesus, then would she have known He was going to die on the cross before it happened? Or would she have been as in-the-dark about it as the apostles were until He died and rose again? Let me know what you think. |
||||||
32 | Is this the 'Complete Christian'? | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25457 | ||
You said: When I said she knew he had to die, I was speaking about her pain at the time of his persecution. At the foot of his cross. Her acceptance of God's will. No where in the bible does it say anything about her crying or carrying on. You are right. It doesn't say "Mary wept or carried on". It is very much implied though. Luke 23:27-29 And there followed Him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed ("kopto" to beat the breast in grief; wail, lament, mourn) and lamented ("threneo" mourn, lament) Him. But Jesus, turning to them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep ("klaio" wail aloud, sob) for Me, but weep for yourselves and your children. For indeed the days are coming..." John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother. and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Mary was one of those who "followed" Jesus, and I assume one of the "daughters of Jerusalem" that Jesus referred to just before He died.(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!) When she and Joseph presented Jesus in the Temple, she was told by Simeon that a "sword would pierce through her own soul". I would expect that it would have almost broken Mary's heart to watch her son die on that cross. Lisa, do you think Mary was too "strong" to weep or mourn the persecution and death of her son? Or that His pain would not have effected her since she had heard His gospel of life? In John 20:9 it states that the apostles did not yet know He would rise from the dead, and no where does it say that Mary did either. These are my reasons for thinking that Mary wept and mourned her son's death. Could you explain your reasons for thinking otherwise? |
||||||
33 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25446 | ||
I know what you mean. I used to ask why, "if there is only ONE way to the Father"... then "why does the church teach other means of salvation". Such as works, purgatory, praying to Mary and the saints. Either there is ONE way, or there is NOT ONE way. And since the Bible teaches "one way", and those teachings (apostolic teachings) are what the Catholic Church claims to base their religion on... then the Church's whole teaching should agree with the apostolic teachings. Did that make sense? :) |
||||||
34 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25443 | ||
I say, "Thank the Lord that they did not know where the Lord allowed Martha to go"... or they might have stopped her from learning from God's Word!!! And from experience... the confusion within the Church does cause confusion for young people. People act out what they believe, and in Martha's case it seems the many priests had different "beliefs" which in turn became different actions. The thing that I found the most dangerous as an adult, with children of my own, was that they thought if a priest said something -- then it had to be true because he would never lie. Early as possible, I got a Bible into each of my children's hands so they could find out what GOD had to say, rather than taking the word of me or anyone else. |
||||||
35 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25442 | ||
Hello Martha, You mention several similarities with my own childhood into adulthood. My Catholic mother sent me to a one-week Methodist Bible camp for several summers where they taught Bible and only Bible. I'm not sure they still do though. We were from a small town -- about 90 percent Catholic, and the priest and Catholic townspeople turned on her with a vengeance for letting me go there. Actually threatened her in a variety of ways... but I won't get into that. I think what hit me the hardest was not even the difference in the teachings during those camp days, but the response of the Catholics who claimed to love all people during mass on Sunday, but could hate with such a vengeance when someone did not do as they said to do. I'm not saying all Catholics are like that, but it was that part of the EXPERIENCE that put the most CONFUSION in my mind as a child. The major change for me came when I began to read the Bible as an adult. I had taught CCD in the RCC for several years, and was a CCD teacher when I began reading God's Word. At that point I was so convicted that if the Catechism teachings differed from the Bible, I realized I could not teach it. I let my Religous Education Supervisor know why I could not teach the Catholic doctrine, and she understood and allowed me to teach Bible. Several of the children (different ages -different years) came to know Jesus as their Savior during those years. :) And wonderfully, their faith impacted the beliefs of their parents as they too began reading Bible. Almost like the domino effect in reverse! :) My all Catholic family and friends tolerated me when I was a Bible believing Catholic, but when I left the Church everything changed. When they realized that I was not "coming back" to the RCC, well... to put it mildly, I had to find all new friends. :) The response was very similar to the earlier situation 20 to 25 years earlier. It really saddened my heart, but during those days I found the Lord truly was sufficient for me. After much prayer and years later, the Lord has given me some members of my "family" back though. My mother and two sisters have come to know the Lord Jesus. It's amazing sometimes how the Lord works, but I especially praise Him for His saving works!!! God's WORD truly does change hearts! God bless you. |
||||||
36 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25432 | ||
Can I still reply to you in the "neutral zone"? :) You said: When I try to explain what is actually taught I get "But..." But that's not what he said, but that's not what she said. Who are they? BUT ( joking here ) there are two things not taken into account in your statement. 1) "what is TAUGHT" by who? Isn't that why scripture has been provided to show that Jesus and the apostles "TAUGHT" something totally different at times? 2) And sometimes we (I) have mentioned something someone else has said, simply because it explains much better than just "giving my opinion" concerning things you have stated. Example: You say the Church teaches THIS, but the Church says it teaches THAT. If I make statements that are incorrect, I would certainly HOPE that someone would show me the difference. Are you trying to say that you prefer to believe what you believe, even if it disagrees with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles? ... and also believe that the Catholic Church Cathechism teaches things it does not teach? I hope you will clarify this for me. God bless. |
||||||
37 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25429 | ||
I should have done this in the beginning, but I didn't. So here is the meaning for "kai" from Strong's Concordance. Please note that "kai" can be translated either "and" or "or". KAI means: and, also, both, but, even, for, if, indeed, likewise, moreover, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yea, yet. So which biblical scholars have claimed that it should be or can only be translated as "and" rather than "or"? And when (approximate year) did these scholars come to this conclusion? Tyndale was the first man to tranlate the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek texts into English. Cloverdale's Bible was taken from Dutch and Latin sources. Roger's Bible was almost wholly copied from Tyndales. And the "Great Bible" was a compilation from Tyndale, Rogers, and Cloverdale. And the Geneva Bible was mainly based on Tyndale's, but with strongly Calvinistic notes. The original KJV in 1611 was extremely similar to Tyndale's translation (1525), even though the 1611 KJV was a revision, it was solely based on Tyndale's work. The KJV of today is an Americanized version of the 1611 KJV. Below is the type of "difference" between Tyndale's Bible, the 1611 KJV, and today's KJV. Tyndale's Bible - Hebrews 11:1: Fayth is a sure confidence off thynges which are hoped for, and a certayntie off thynges which are not sene. 1611 KJV - Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the euidence of things not seen. Americanized KJV - Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. And I would also like to note that the original Greek manuscripts that Tyndale used to translate to English, are shown to have used the Greek word "e" which (just like the word "kai") in Col. 2:16, can be translated either "and" or "or". So it would seem that regardless of which original "text" the scholars used to translate into English -- it comes down to their interpretation or understanding of the actual verse, as to whether they translate either of those Greek words to "and" or "or". So which Bible interpretation do you use that states "and" in Col. 2:16?? ... and when and who authored that version? I'm just curious here. Btw, I didn't check into the "KJV only" articles. I checked into each particular Bible to get the information. I didn't want a biased view. Thanks for encouraging me to do so. God bless. |
||||||
38 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25260 | ||
From what I gathered, the "Dialogue" occurred while Justin was living in Ephesus. The Jewish Rabbi was sent to him by people at Corinth, and he brought along with him other Jews to hear Justin's answers to their questions. The First Apology... didn't say anything about where he was writing from, but as I said it could have been either. Have you read the "continued" posts? Do you have an opinion concerning Justin's understanding about the Sabbath? |
||||||
39 | what is the true worship day sun. or sat | Col 2:16 | There | 25223 | ||
Perhaps I'm missing something, but how do we now "know with a fair degree of certainty" that Paul used the word "kai"? I'm afraid I still don't understand where you got that from. :) It's late... maybe I need sleep. You said: The mss used as the base for the KJV (not a strict translation but more of an updating of previous English translations) were few in number and not representative of all that is out there today. How many English translations were there before the King James? That is what you're saying isn't it? Since the oldest manuscripts do disagree minutely, how have you decided which one is the "right" one? :) God bless you. PS I know it was Greek, LOL ... and I should have written "kai"! I sure wasn't thinking very well when I wrote that other post. :) Possibly not this one either... please bear with me though, okay? |
||||||
40 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25219 | ||
I think I understand Lisa. I (we) generally ask questions and then end up discussing the differences in our particular understanding of certain biblical verses. Most of the time it makes a person think about things they may not have considered. And as for me, I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, so anything that adamantly disagrees with the Word is incorrect. You are right about that. And I don't think saying "but" means that we (or me in particular) aren't listening. It simply means that your understanding is not the only understanding... and someone has other considerations to add to the discussion. If I've offended you by asking for scripture to back up certain of your beliefs, I truly am sorry. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [12] >> |