Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Marvelloustime]

Oh i have long made myself very clear. SO clear even a kindergardner
WOULD HAVE KNOWN
BELIEVE ON JESUS THE CHRIST or face the lake of fire for rejecting HIM .
Its darn clear what i have long been saying .
I dont offer up false hope and cuymbia love to this people .
I OFFER UP THE LOVE OF GOD , JESUS CHRIST , HIS GOSPEL of YE MUST BELEIVE in HIM .
Most however just use the gospel as a means to feel saved and yet they just go with this ecumincial harlots flow .
AM i saying that those who hear the gospel and do not believe on HIM will be damned . YOU BET I AM .
But dont t hink i said it first . Look at what JESUS told even the jews who failed to beleive on him . wasnt good taken . wasnt good .

@amigo de christo

 

[Marvelloustime]

Just remember i never pointed to another gospel by giving out false hope to a lost world .
ALL who reject CHRIST will wail .
And yes of course they will be damned . I dont care if its the most friendly give you my shirt off my back
grandma that did more to give food to the poor , SHE GONNA ROAST in damnation IF SHE BELIEVED NOT JESUS IS the CHRIST .
Many have already heard the lovely name of JESUS and yet will not BELIEVE ON HIM . they gonna roast taken .
I dont give out false love and make it seem like somehow someone who heard the gospel of JESUS
yet rejected HIM as CHRIST ,as the SON OF GOD , yet still did many good works , somehow knew GOD . THEY DID NOT
NONE is righteous taken . THERE IS NONE who is GOOD according to GOD , there is NONE
who is not under death and darkness . Time to offer up the ONLY NAME I KNOW saves
and remind all , even shaking the dust off upon those who reject , of their damanation for rejecting him .
I dont live in a cuymbia good feelings world taken that offers up some kind of hope
ASIDE from THE DIRE NEED TO BELIEVE ON JESUS . that hope is all vain . JESUS preaching TIME .

@amigo de christo

 

[Marvelloustime]

Not true . For he who Beleives in me shall never die . You know what i meant by perish my friend .
Your twisting things . They will be damned .
The body is not what i spoke about , its the soul my friend .
HE who beleives on Christ is born of GOD and shall not perish but has eternal life .
Man cannot save himself . GOD has chosen how to save .
By the preaching of the gospel to save them THAT BELEIVE .
You might not like that , but TRUTH is the TRUTH .
Never buy the lie of inclusivity and that which is of interfaith which is of anti christ .
For they sell a lie unto this people .
You seem to try and imply things by how you skirted around and tried to make what i meant by perish
seem as something that occurs to all .
And i have to admit , when i seen what you did , it was very very troublesome .
SO what it is you truly desire to beleive .
IS IT the gospel that saves , or is it the big end time broad path of unbeleif and that in the end all will be well for humanity .
Because i tell us all that all who rejected the testimony THE FATHER GAVE of the SON
do call GOD a liar . but john said it first and before HE said it JESUS had said it .
We might want to beleive in a big fairy tale ending , BUT NO SUCH ending exists .
The only ones who have a good end ARE THE SHEEP who BELIEVED ON CHRIST JESUS .
And JESUS made that real clear . e

@amigo de christo

 

[amigo de christo]

Amen!

“… whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (Jhn 11:26, KJV)

To the trenches my friend .
Its become clearer and clearer . many are now headed into inclusivism .
On this path they will come full force against the last of the saints who did not conform .

 

[Marvelloustime]

To the trenches my friend .
Its become clearer and clearer . many are now headed into inclusivism .
On this path they will come full force against the last of the saints who did not conform .

@amigo de christo

 

[Taken]

@amigo de christo

Very interesting, you think it sad, I recognize you only tell half the truth…but you yourself have no interest in the whole truth, while constantly telling people to read the Bible.

 

[Taken]

@amigo de christo BELIEVE ON JESUS THE CHRIST or face the lake of fire for rejecting HIM .

@Marvelloustime

God Saves (After mortal Death) those who Believe IN God.

God Saves (After mortal Death) those who Believe in Gods Word.

God Saves (After mortal Death) those who Believe in Gods Word, Jesus.

God GAVE “SOME” to Christ the Lord Jesus/ (and THOSE, are They The Lamb of God Saves and Keeps Saved by His Authority and Power.)

Christ the Lord Jesus Saves (Before mortal Death) those who Believe “AND Heartfully Confess” Jesus IS the Christ, Son of the living God.

All mortal Bodies Shall Die.

Souls are Saved or Not.

Spirit of man is Quickened (Born Again), by the SEED of God, who IS Christ, who IS also the Power of God.

They “Saved” by Christ The Lord Jesus, ARE Raptured, (whole…Body, soul, spirit…) Wait with their Lord in the clouds…Before the Great Terrible Judgements of Tribulations that SHALL be sent upon the whole Earth.

They who Believed in Jesus at the time of their mortal Death…. God Shall Save their Soul, Raise their Saved soul up to Heaven and Raise their Body in the First Resurrection…

How come you didn’t know… God Also Saves whom He will and Christ Jesus Saves Whom God Gave Him?

Are you still sad?

 

[KUWN]

As you have cited so many early church fathers, maybe you should rely on them when they inserted punctuation and paragraphs and chapter headings and verse numbers.

Actually, the early church fathers did not insert punctuation, paragraphs, chapter headings and verse numbers. This happened much later.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well here is the quote you used and intentionally misquoted from AI:

Brother
The term "adelphos" is a Greek word that means "brother". It is used in the New Testament to refer to siblings and can also imply a broader sense of kinship among believers. The word is derived from the Greek roots meaning "from the womb," indicating a close familial relationship.

That kinship is related to believers. Stop l;ying!

LYING??
Here is a snapshot of what Google AI says about the word, “Adelphos”:

People who LOSE an argument ALWAYS accuse their victorious opponent of "lying" . . .

WOW! you tried to rebuke me for your false thought of me using modern english and here you are using wiki and AI!

Ummmm, I ALSO defeated you using BibleStudyTools.com and Strong’s Greek Lexion.

All YOU’VE given me are worthless denials – as usual . . .

But I am glad you listed the bible study tools to prove my point! Maybe you should read it!

Huh??

I refuted your point and proved MINE.

BibleStudyTools.com lists the following definitions:
a. Having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
b. Any fellow or man
c. A fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection

You LOSE . . .

Context determines which of the definitions is to be used and the context of the Luke passage is immediate family, nor fellow Jews, or any generic person, or fellow Christians.

Thank you for showing that teh Greek Experts I rely proved me right!

Yup – context IS important – and the context here is NOT immediate family.

In ALL THREEE Gospels where this incident is mentions – they ALL refer to “his mother and his brothers”. Why is it then that the parents are never mentioned?? In most verses where familiar person are discussed they usually mention one of both parents:

- Mark 10:35 “Then James and John, sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus and said…”
- John 21:2 “… the sons of Zebedee,…”
- Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 “… James son of Alphaeus …”
- Mark 15:21 “… Simon of Cyrene was ‘the father of Alexander and Rufus’".

Finally, according to the rock-solid evidence I have presented from scholarly sources such as Strong’s Greek Lexicon – ANY one of the following is not only possible, but probable:
- “Jesus’s mother and his relatives stood outside . . .”
- “Jesus’s mother and his Aunt’s stepchildren stood outside . . .”
- “Jesus’s mother and his cousins, twice removed stood outside . . .”
- “Jesus’s mother and his friends the he grew up with stood outside . . .”

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, you just used an example that is entirely different than the Kai in Rev. 12. Either you really are ignorant or insidiously deceptive in misusing grammar.

And the rest of your complaint is simply coming from one, who does not rely on koine Greek experts to help understand the construct of Scripture.

As you have cited so many early church fathers, maybe you should rely on them when they inserted punctuation and paragraphs and chapter headings and verse numbers.

And I am referring to Greek grammar and the rules of translation from Greek to English, tyr it sometime

Rev. 11:19 begins a narrative about what is being talked about in Rev. 12. YOU would have us believe that it is simply a random statement.

Rev. 11:19; 12:1
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

This narrative is about the Ark in Heaven. It’s NOT about two different things. Otherwise, verse 19 is pointless.

All this is a diversion on your part anyway because you cannot address all of the oother verses about the Ark that point to Mary . . .

 

[Taken]

Actually, the early church fathers did not insert punctuation, paragraphs, chapter headings and verse numbers. This happened much later.

True. Chapters, Verses, Numbers, Punctuations, for ease to read, study, reference.
Side note;
I located a diary of a g+ uncle from the US Civil War days… written in a little book, in pencil, no capital letters, except on names, no punctuation marks. That was hard to read, and got a bit confusing when he would say “brother”, because his five brothers were all in the war. Figured it out and Typed a copy with punctuation marks. Ended up with 137 typed pages.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Actually, the early church fathers did not insert punctuation, paragraphs, chapter headings and verse numbers. This happened much later.

Well the Massorites added them to teh Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (punctuation marks) but the Vulgate contained punctuation.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

People who LOSE an argument ALWAYS accuse their victorious opponent of "lying" . . .

And the co-pilot AI said differently as I cited! So AI can't make its mind up. And no I wasn't lying.

But as the times of Jesus did not rely on AI, adelphos was always familial brethren genetically. if they wanted and ubcle or cousin they would have said "syngenes" as I showed you from Koine.Greek speaking scholars.

And you still have to provide even a bare scintilla of evidence that Hames, Joses, si9mon and Judah should be cousins when synopsis, and syngenes were well known terms.

Huh??

I refuted your point and proved MINE.

BibleStudyTools.com lists the following definitions:
a. Having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
b. Any fellow or man
c. A fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection

Show me cousin or uncle or nephew or neice or aunt here. It doesn't appear! It means any person, another believer, same national heritage or cose family tie! Maybe you need to look up the meaning of refute. It doesn't mean prove anothers point as you did!

Finally, according to the rock-solid evidence I have presented from scholarly sources such as Strong’s Greek Lexicon – ANY one of the following is not only possible, but probable:
- “Jesus’s mother and his relatives stood outside . . .”
- “Jesus’s mother and his Aunt’s stepchildren stood outside . . .”
- “Jesus’s mother and his cousins, twice removed stood outside . . .”
- “Jesus’s mother and his friends the he grew up with stood outside . . .”

Now show them actual. Just because something may or may nlot be possible- doesn't make it actual. Look up possible, it does not say actual.

Yup – context IS important – and the context here is NOT immediate family.

In ALL THREEE Gospels where this incident is mentions – they ALL refer to “his mother and his brothers”. Why is it then that the parents are never mentioned?? In most verses where familiar person are discussed they usually mention one of both parents:

- Mark 10:35 “Then James and John, sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus and said…”
- John 21:2 “… the sons of Zebedee,…”
- Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 “… James son of Alphaeus …”
- Mark 15:21 “… Simon of Cyrene was ‘the father of Alexander and Rufus’".

Wow! Grasping at straws much? so now you make a doctrine out of air because Mary and Joseph are not mentioned by name but by direct inference? Are you really that desperate to try to prove anunprovable point?

Listen I read teh book by staples and have seen all your flimsy and ethereal arguments. If Mary was as important as the Catholic church has made her to be, considering how they made Jesus and so many others very very important in the inspired word, you would think God would have been more direct and explicit in saying so.

Not having to p[rove her ever-virginity by referencing the closed eastern gate as a very vague inference that because Jesus was pushed out of Mary's vagina, her vagina, like the easter gate was closed to men, thus making Mary ever virgin. I ell you what, you make even the Watchtower with all their hyper-fanciful reinterpretations look weak compared to the silliness you posted.

 

[Dennis Gannon]

Today's "churches" are easy to get into, say a prayer = your are a Christian. Answer Yes to 4 questions = you are a Christian. The churches want as many as pew sitters as possible (for the sake of profits $$$$), so they open the doors wide. See the parable of the sower, only 1 was sown on good ground. But the churches say the other 3 were Christians also, and lost their salvation.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Rev. 11:19 begins a narrative about what is being talked about in Rev. 12. YOU would have us believe that it is simply a random statement.

Rev. 11:19; 12:1
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

This narrative is about the Ark in Heaven. It’s NOT about two different things. Otherwise, verse 19 is pointless.

All this is a diversion on your part anyway because you cannot address all of the oother verses about the Ark that point to Mary . . .

No, I would not have you believe it. But ZI do expect you to believe it because of the Greek construct and Greek grammar used in writing it. As well as even romanists ending 11 before going on to twelve to intro a new thought. Seriously you need to go back to primary school to learn basic grammar all over again , Sheesh!

I have addressed your other vague possible vague references to the ark being Mary, and I showed you why they failed! You and other romanists have to allegorize and reinterpret Scripture to make Mary be the new Ark and the New Eve (oops she wasn't the new Adams bride).
And the Queen of Heaven.

I have given ytou scripture and yo have to reject it because you have lost the ability to see it literally without the rose colored glasses of Romanism in these areas.

But Mary is but a side issue. The biggest issue and problem you carry is teh false belief that you could lose your salvation because of sin. IOW you by believing this do not andcannot believe Jesus suffered and paid the price for all you sin.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Today's "churches" are easy to get into, say a prayer = your are a Christian. Answer Yes to 4 questions = you are a Christian. The churches want as many as pew sitters as possible (for the sake of profits $$$$), so they open the doors wide. See the parable of the sower, only 1 was sown on good ground. But the churches say the other 3 were Christians also, and lost their salvation.

Come to mine! Every one is welcome to come in and hear the gospel. but if you wish to be a member it takes alot more than just saying a prayer.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And the co-pilot AI said differently as I cited! So AI can't make its mind up. And no I wasn't lying.

But as the times of Jesus did not rely on AI, adelphos was always familial brethren genetically. if they wanted and ubcle or cousin they would have said "syngenes" as I showed you from Koine.Greek speaking scholars.

And you still have to provide even a bare scintilla of evidence that Hames, Joses, si9mon and Judah should be cousins when synopsis, and syngenes were well known terms.

DEAD WRONG, as usual.

As I educated you earlier – the word “Adelphos” and all its variants is used 344 times in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

This means that the MAJORITY of verses that uses “Adelphos” and its variants does not and CANNOT mean “uterine siblings”. Verses like Matt. 7:4, Luke 22:32, John 21:23, Acts 1:15, Acts 2:37, Acts 3:17 and DOZENS of others are NOT talking about siblings or even family relations.

ENOUGH with this asinine argument. I’ve presented MORE than enough scholarly and textual evidence . . .

Show me cousin or uncle or nephew or neice or aunt here. It doesn't appear! It means any person, another believer, same national heritage or cose family tie! Maybe you need to look up the meaning of refute. It doesn't mean prove anothers point as you did!

b. ANY fellow or man.
What part of “ANY” don’t you understand??

It’s the SAME for the Hebrew word for “Brother”, which is “'ach”. This also can be used for cousin, relative, neighbor, etc. THIS is why the Septuagint translates “Ach” with “Adelphos”.

Face it already - you have LOST this argument . . .

Now show them actual. Just because something may or may nlot be possible- doesn't make it actual. Look up possible, it does not say actual.

Okay – the ACTUAL verse says:
“Jesus’s mother and his ADELPHOI stood outside . . .”

As I have repeatedly educated you – Adelphoi can mean ALL of those things.
And as I keep having to remind you - the NT wasn’t written in 21st century English. It was written in 1st century Kone GREEK.

Just accept your defeat and take it like a man . . .

Wow! Grasping at straws much? so now you make a doctrine out of air because Mary and Joseph are not mentioned by name but by direct inference? Are you really that desperate to try to prove anunprovable point?

Listen I read teh book by staples and have seen all your flimsy and ethereal arguments. If Mary was as important as the Catholic church has made her to be, considering how they made Jesus and so many others very very important in the inspired word, you would think God would have been more direct and explicit in saying so.

Not having to p[rove her ever-virginity by referencing the closed eastern gate as a very vague inference that because Jesus was pushed out of Mary's vagina, her vagina, like the easter gate was closed to men, thus making Mary ever virgin. I ell you what, you make even the Watchtower with all their hyper-fanciful reinterpretations look weak compared to the silliness you posted.

This, coming from a person who holds to Sola Scriptura – a 16th century Protestant invention that isn’t even inferred in the Bible. Making doctrines “out of air” is YOUR favorite pastime . . .

And not only did the Early Church Fathers UNANIMOUSLY believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity – so did ALL of your Protestant Fathers . . .

Martin Luther
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Luther’s Works, editors. Jaroslav Pelikan [vols. 1-30] & Helmut T. Lehmann [vols. 31-55], St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House [vols. 1-30]; Philadelphia: Fortress Press [vols. 31-55]), 1955, vol. 22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539] )

John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, 215; on Matthew 13:55)

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )

Huldreich Zwingli
God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels – it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .’Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. (G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, 88-89, 395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522)

Heinrich Bullinger
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’ (in Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined edition of volumes. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol. 2, 14-15)

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. (“Letter to a Roman Catholic,” quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495)

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I would not have you believe it. But ZI do expect you to believe it because of the Greek construct and Greek grammar used in writing it. As well as even romanists ending 11 before going on to twelve to intro a new thought. Seriously you need to go back to primary school to learn basic grammar all over again , Sheesh!

WRONG again.

Rev. 11:19 makes NO sense without Rev. 12:1.
v. 19 introduces the subject of v. 1.

I have addressed your other vague possible vague references to the ark being Mary, and I showed you why they failed! You and other romanists have to allegorize and reinterpret Scripture to make Mary be the new Ark and the New Eve (oops she wasn't the new Adams bride).
And the Queen of Heaven.

No – you just gave me the usual cowardly denials with ZERO evidence.

Anyway - I never mentioned the New Eve or Queen of Heaven. That’s just more diversion and deflection on YOUR part . . .

I have given ytou scripture and yo have to reject it because you have lost the ability to see it literally without the rose colored glasses of Romanism in these areas.

You have given me NOTHING but empty denials.

But Mary is but a side issue. The biggest issue and problem you carry is teh false belief that you could lose your salvation because of sin. IOW you by believing this do not andcannot believe Jesus suffered and paid the price for all you sin.

So, by that idiotic logic, YOU should never pray for anybody again - NOR should you ask them to pray for YOU. We don’t ask anything from Mary and the saints in Heaven but intercession.

It has nothing to do with not believing in Jesus. If it weren’t for the Catholic church – NOBODY would have even heard of Jesus – including YOU . . .

 

[Michiah-Imla]

And the co-pilot AI said differently as I cited! So AI can't make its mind up. And no I wasn't lying.

DEAD WRONG, as usual.

ENOUGH with this asinine argument

I have repeatedly educated you

Making doctrines “out of air” is YOUR favorite pastime . . .

 

[Taken]

Didja know (in Catholic speak) calling someone WRONG … makes the caller RIGHT?