Is it possible to lose salvation?

[RomeSweetHome]

I did not know Woodrow is not the infallible source for all things Hislop

Did you write a book on the same topic, relying on Hislop? Woodrow did, then he recanted it based on his familiarity with the history.

This is a bad faith response by you. The point is that evangelical scholars have themselves debunked Hislop as false based on the history, not that Woodrow is infallible (obviously not the argument being made).

 

[RomeSweetHome]

So according to you-simon and Joseph(very common names in Judaism) could not be Jesus half brothers as well as also being cousins. that is like saying that in a family, any time John is named it must refer to just one john- even if three are in teh family through three brothers and their wives.

Not the claim. The claim is that, based on the Gospels, we know of only one Simon in the family of Jesus--the "brother" identified in the gospels. And Hegessipus has this individual in mind given what he says about him. So based on the data, Hegessipus knows of this "brother" of Jesus to be a cousin.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Not the claim. The claim is that, based on the Gospels, we know of only one Simon in the family of Jesus--the "brother" identified in the gospels. And Hegessipus has this individual in mind given what he says about him. So based on the data, Hegessipus knows of this "brother" of Jesus to be a cousin.

Simon Peter or someone not mentioned in the gospels?

 

[MonoBiblical]

Respectfully, I'm not sure I follow your point. Are you drawing a distinction between (1) Joseph and Mary never consummating (a point it sounds like you agree with) and (2) the idea of in partu virginity (the idea that Mary was miraculously preserved physically through childbirth) (which, it sounds like, is what you take issue with)?

Right now, I am focused on the former, as that is what I understand to be modern evangelicals' issue with the dogma.

Number 1 is plausible, and number 2 is myth.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Good grief . . .

In Jewish culture two children of the SAME parents NEVER given the SAME name (Mary). I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE Biblical example of tis.

Mary’s adelphe in this verse is some other relation – but NOT a uterine sister.
Do some actual HOMEWORK . . .

Well as I do not believe what you are saying, I can't find an example, but Mary sister is the fourth person at the cross, and though her name is not mentioned it is Salome. Even your vaunted roman scholars place the comma after Mary's sister and not after Mary, wife of cleophas, that makes it a fourth person.

Let me know when YOU have proven the contrary.
Because so far, you've FAQILED . .

I didn't prove it- the bible did! And if FAQILED means proven- I agree!

Obviously, Einstein . . .

MY argument is that the word “UNTIL” was used anyway – showing that it doe NOT always mean that something occurred AFTER . . .

Well on that I agree. As is proven by Michal when death ended her barrenness for death forbade her from getting pregnant.

Now prove empirically that Jospeh did not have intercourse with Mary.

In Michals case death ended her barren state (death does that 100%) In Jospeh and Mary's case, the normal, natural usual and customary understanding is that Jospeh did not do something until something happened, then with no barriers, He proceeded to do it.
Tell you what, tomorrow at Mass, go to 100 people at random and ask them what this phrase means, " John did not have sex with his wife until after the baby was born (we have to modify it vor humanly they had to have sex to conceive) See what happens and learn something. Jesus did not write to intellectuals and deep philosophers, but to ordinary people, who understand words and their use in ordinary ways!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, no witnesses wrote it down; and writing was not common among the gentiles, thus the real Israel disappeared without a trace, except the New Testament.

And nobody talked about either??
That’s quite an unbiblical fairytale you’ve concocted.

Jesus promised He would return – ONCE, not twice . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You proved it was a bunch of generic nouns, congratulations. And now you need to deny Peter having a biological son. This should be interesting.

Which is never mentioned in Scripture or ANY other extrabiblical document.

Really – what color is the sky in your make-believe world??

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Eastern Orthodox would disagree.

But that’s NOT who you were talking about.

I believer you numbered them at twenty-four Catholic Churches . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mary's "permanent" [virginity] is not taught, nor is a virgin birth, but a virgin conception is. The trinity is not taught in the Greek ever, but Tyndale and others have not been corrected for their historic mistakes. In fact, Modern Rome embraces these mistakes.

As I educated you before – the word, “Trinity” is not in the Bible – but the teaching the Triune Godhead is absolutely taught . . .

The Son is God
Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 4:7, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 14:9, John 20:28, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13

The Son is a Man
1 Tim. 2:5, John 1:1, John 1:14, Mark 14:62, John 3:13, Luke 19:10, Matt. 8:20, Mark 10:45, Luke 5:24, Matt. 26:64, Matt. 20:28

The Holy Spirit is God
John 14:16-18, Luke 12:10, 2 Cor. 3:17, 2 Cor. 13:5, John 14:23, Acts 5:3-4

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Your ignorance is astounding . . .

First of all – there is only ONE Catholic Church. There are over 20 Liturgical Rites who are ALL in FULL communion with each other. The differences are only cultural – NOT doctrinal.

I think that one of the reasons you are so angry is because you are so confused . .

Not confused. And their are many Baptist churches who are one with each other. So?

From AI:

Not all Catholic denominations are in full communion with one another. The Catholic Church recognizes different levels of communion, including full, partial, and no communion.

But even if they are all of full communion with each other- so? They are merely sects within Christendom. Not all Catholics are saved like not all protestants are saved. Denominations mean nothg to jesus, but whether one has been born again or not.

I never claimed that I could prove it. Neither have YOU proven the contrary.

MY evidence that she remained a virgin is simply stronger than YOURS that she didn’t . . .

Keep telling yourself that. It is obvious that implication, possibilities, hypotheticals and other meanings weigh more to you than common sense words and passages.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That is a lie, because you know the concepts are not the same.

Like I said - it’s BOTH.
Mary’s intention to remain a virgin is implicit in her conversation with the Angel:

Luke 1:34
Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I DO NOT know a man?”

Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations.
She didn’t say “How can this be, since I HAVE NOT known a man?”
She said “How can this be, since I DO NOT know a man?”

She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I DO NOT know”, as opposed to “I HAVE NOT known”, is clear evidence that she had NO intention of having marital relations.

As for the “brothers” (adelphoi) of Jesus – the Gospels make it clear that they were NOT uterine siblings: (Matt. 10:3, Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25)

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am still catching up on recent posts, but has there been any meaningful response to this, on the historical point about the formation and scope of the canon?

Nope.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

He doesn’t “define” it, as YOU say. Nicodemus was STILL puzzled. Jesus was talking about supernatural, spiritual birth – NOT about physical birth.

Why do you think John’s Gospel is so fixated on Baptism for the first THREE chapters?? What does Jesus DO after conversing with Nicodemus?? He goes out with His disciples to BAPTIZE (John 3:22).

Fixated? WOW! a few mentions and you call it fixated! He was fixated on Jesus.

And if you learned Jewish culture at all, you would know why Nicodemus was puzzled. Not because og baptism, but because Jews could be born again up to six times and Nicodemus was born again 5/5. The sixth was reserved for being anointed king.

If your reading skills were up to par, you would see Nicodemus is puzzled about being born again as He could not think of a way He could be born again anymore.

Jesus does define it. Water is flesh birth, Being born again is of the Spirit. sorry you lose grammatically, exegetically eisegetically, historically and rationally.

 

[MonoBiblical]

And nobody talked about either??
That’s quite an unbiblical fairytale you’ve concocted.

Jesus promised He would return – ONCE, not twice . . .

He isn't coming back again.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I missed this earlier, but exactly. It reminds me of the old adage about how a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get out of bed (or something to that effect, think it was Churchill). Hislop peddled flat out misinformation that seeped its way even to this day into modern antiCatholic propaganda. And even though evangelical scholars themselves have walked away from his work because of its falsehood, the folks in the pews still have their worldview shaped by that propaganda.

Reminds one of Holocaust deniers.
ALL of the evidence is there in the open - but the LIE is more interesting . . .

John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Which is never mentioned in Scripture or ANY other extrabiblical document.

1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
5:13 Ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου

 

[MonoBiblical]

Like I said - it’s BOTH.

Virgins can't masturbate.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

YOU made the following false claim:
"also the baptism a believer must go through is dunking in water."

NOWHERE does the Bible make this claim. All YOU gave me was a general definition.
In fact, in Ezekiel's prophecy about Baptism, he states:

Ezek. 36:25-28
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

In the Early Church document, the Didache (Doctrines of the Twelve Apostles), written while they were STILL alive, we read the following:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism​

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. ​

Well your redefining words is still sharp! The very word Baptizmo- is to dunk!

And your Ezekiel passage is a false connection to Baptism. Shows your desperation.

It is a prophecy for Israel! And it is god who sprinkles and the water but the new birth regenerates them and allows them to livew in the land of Gods promise. So sad you have to pluck so low.

And I do not care a whit about the didache.

The pretended vicars of Jesus at Trent pronounced anathemas that never came from god. IT is a man made teaching. Baptism is necessary for a believer, but baptism does not make one a believer and born again, it is a post regeneration event.

And FYI, the word baptizmo in teh culture could only be understood one way- dunkin- like the donut!

 

[MonoBiblical]

As for the “brothers” (adelphoi) of Jesus – the Gospels make it clear that they were NOT uterine siblings: (Matt. 10:3, Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25)

They only thought that they were Jesus' brothers. Your prooftext is worthless.

 

[MonoBiblical]

As I educated you before – the word, “Trinity” is not in the Bible – but the teaching the Triune Godhead is absolutely taught . . .

The Son is God
Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 4:7, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 14:9, John 20:28, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13

The Son is a Man
1 Tim. 2:5, John 1:1, John 1:14, Mark 14:62, John 3:13, Luke 19:10, Matt. 8:20, Mark 10:45, Luke 5:24, Matt. 26:64, Matt. 20:28

The Holy Spirit is God
John 14:16-18, Luke 12:10, 2 Cor. 3:17, 2 Cor. 13:5, John 14:23, Acts 5:3-4

YAWN...... English proves nothing