Is it possible to lose salvation?

[PinSeeker]

‘It’s is the issue. The whole issue.

Okay, we disagree. It's your whole issue, or what you perceive to be the whole issue; with that I would agree. But that's... well, the issue here <smile>

Contextually Jesus is referring to His disciples.

And we are disciples ~ followers of Jesus ~ also, so, by extension, He was speaking to us, in that what He said to them was directly applicable to us, too.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ProverbsInPink]

Run along kid, that's all you can do after you've been thoroughly exposed and humiliated. You've got a lot to learn before you can go toe to toe with me kid

Do you tire of the accusation of ,CALVINIST! From those who are unable to actually discuss Scripture and because they don't actually know it?

It's pathetic.

 

[PinSeeker]

Well based on the accounts of SCripture and the usage of the word "household" in reference to being baptized, I would suspect it is someone 12 or older.

Newborns were not members of the household of the father? They were, Ronald. They were. Again, going back to the Old Testament and circumcision, the former sign and seal of the covenant (replaced as such by baptism in the New Testament), that sign and seal was to be performed on eight-day-old infants. Isaac, from his birth to Sarah, was a member of Abraham's household.

Babies cannot be baptized for they know not what they are doing.

Knowing anything was not a prerequisite for being circumcised (Old Testament times) and is not a prerequisite for baptism (New Testament times).

Doctrine by silence is a dangerous thing.

That's totally not what I am saying, Ronald. We can know things, though, from what is not said about them, and because of their opposition to things that are explicitly said.

...the pratice shows it was for adults who were already saved.

I don't disagree with this, but the practice also shows that adults were exhorted to have their entire households circumcised (Old Testament) or baptized (New Testament). And also that this outward sign (circumcision [Old Testament] or baptism [New Testament]) was never effectual unto salvation, but inward circumcision/baptism, by the Spirit, was and is. As Paul says in Romans 2:29, true circumcision "is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit." And he also says, to each of us Christians even today in Colossians 2:11-12, "you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

Sorry but baptizing unbelievers is mere foolishness. It accomplishes absolutely nothing in the life of that person.

Ah! It accomplishes nothing in the life of that person ~ nothing to confer righteousness or salvation upon that person ~ I agree with that; but "foolishness" no. It would be foolish to think outward baptism does confer righteousness or salvation upon that person; with that I would agree. But the outward sign and seal of water baptism is analogous to even the rainbow that God made as a sign to Noah... as a promise... And all God's promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus.

As I explained- members of a household were 12-13 and above.

I know, and there is no basis for that opinion. No Scriptural basis. None.

Babies were not considered part of the household.

They were. I assume you have children... Well, maybe not, but I do. They are no longer infants, but they have always been part of my household. It was no different then.

Though they are family...

LOL! Yes, and thus members of the household. Then and now.

See Galatians where Paul speaks of teachers.

Galatians 4​

​

King James Version​

​

​

4 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

Servants were members of their households, Ronald. Servants would be included in "all who are far off," as Peter calls them in Acts 2:38.

You can say no...

But I'm not. <smile>

Still doesn't allow for Baptism. One has to believe first.

...hope they will believe after.

Ah, but it is not a blind hope, Ronald. God has promised it, and it is done by the parents in faith, which according to Hebrews 11:1 is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen," and is given by God, a gift of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:8, 1 Corinthians 12:9). So the parents are calling God on His promise, which... like all God's promises, has its 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus... so they have full confidence that God will work in the child's heart at his/her appointed time by God by the Holy Spirit, and that he/she then will believe.

And all that does not say let them be baptized. The fact Jesus says nothing about children being baptized as unbelievers also speaks volume when combined with Pauls writings and how they understood who was a member of a household.

It says, Ronald, that they are not to be excluded by anyone for any reason, that they are just as... eligible... to be children of the promise as anyone else. Regardless of age or ability. Is there anything in Scripture that gives, implicitly or explicitly, a prerequisite of any kind for one to somehow deserve baptism?

All there is, Ronald, is the exhortation and command to do it, to have it done.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ProverbsInPink]

Luke 18:15-17
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Luke 18:15-17
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

And if it were true that all babies were born sinners... Jesus would not be saying this.

Because if He did He would be telling everyone to act like sinners

 

[Muna]

Infants are sons and daughters, and sons and daughters are infants. They are only infants for a time, of course. But yes, even infants will eventually prophesy/testify. Absolutely. And in the case of infant baptism, parents are trusting in through faith, that God, in His time, will cause to happen. Sure.

Grace and peace to you.

Not only that, but look at John the baptist (he was a baptizer, one who baptized with water) who is specifically noted to be filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

And yet John, acknowledged (when Jesus came to be water baptized by him) that he himself needed to be baptized by Jesus

Matt 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

And we see that Jesus was also baptizing, put this way...

John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

John 3:24 For John was not yet cast into prison.

John 4:1-2 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

And so again, here is a water baptizer, who acknowledges his need to be baptized, regardless of the fact that he was filled by the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb.

Matt 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

And this was spoken by Peter among the Gentiles who had already received the Holy Ghost as John himself had

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Then commanded the same

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Meanwhile, later we see in Paul, he asks these who actually believe (and who were actually water baptized) this question

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Which was for?

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

So we have John (as newborn) who has the Holy Ghost from the womb, who himself acknowledges his need for baptism, the Gentiles who
had the Holy Ghost when they believed the gospel (but who Peter said they had need to be baptized) and the baptism itself was of repentance (as we are to repent and believe the gospel) and those who received the baptism of repentance but had not yet believed on Christ Jesus. And ofcourse with the enuch who asked if he could be baptized in water in Acts 8:36- 38 to whom Philip said you can "if thou believest with thy whole heart, thou mayest". So belief appears to proceed it in each case, in a few examples given us, as imperfect as each picture might be in establishing any exact pattern between them.

Grace and peace to you as well PinSeeker

 

[Christian Soldier]

it appears you dont know either

Another false accusation, based on your ignorance. That only proves my point, you don't know the truth so all you can do is attack the man who proclaims it to you.

The word "Satan" means false accuser, don't associate yourself with Him. He is the enemy

 

[Christian Soldier]

And if it were true that all babies were born sinners... Jesus would not be saying this.

Because if He did He would be telling everyone to act like sinners View attachment 74136

I couldn't help chiming in when I read this nonsense. The truth is babies are born sinners, why do you think God killed millions of them with a flood????.

The other problem with your theory, is that Jesus never said that babies are sinless, so your whole theory comes crashing down like a sand castle when a Tsunami hits it.

Jesus never ever claimed that babies or children were good or sinless, but foolish men believe they are. Only fools believe this, so Jesus used their foolishness to make a point, that nobody can bring their filthy stinking rags into heaven, no can they bring their baggage/sin with them. This means that you must die and nothing of the old you remains when the work of salvation is completed.

Those who enter the Kingdom of God, will enter with clean slates. Nothing of their past state will come with them. Everything of theirs will be burned up, and only those things which were done by the Holy Spirit will remain.

So Jesus was giving His audience an example which they could understand to describe something they couldn't understand.

 

[Christian Soldier]

The elect refers to the Jews.

The Jews were the elect for purpose not salvation.

But the Jews rejected the Lord Jesus, are you suggesting that God elected the Jews because they would reject the Messiah when He came. This doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Who are you saying is excluded from the world, that God does not love, and does not desire to save?


For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4


And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 1 John 2:2

I'm not saying it, but God is saying that the vast majority of the world is excluded and they are sealed for hell.

I have already explained the context of those terms "all men" and "whole world". But I will reluctantly tell you again, "ALL MEN" means all men "NOT JUST THE JEWS" and the "WHOLE WORLD" means "PEOPLE FROM EVERY TRIBE AND TONGUE" not just Israel, not only the jews.

Go back and read the surrounding context of those verses and you will see they were spoken to a Jewish audience, who didn't believe that us "Gentiles/Dogs" as they call us had a right to join Gods chosen people.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Do you tire of the accusation of ,CALVINIST! From those who are unable to actually discuss Scripture and because they don't actually know it?

It's pathetic.

We must be ready in season and out, to give a reason for the hope that is within us. It's OK, the Lord Jesus told us this would happen and He told us not to take it personally because they only hate us because we are His people and they hated Him before hey hated us.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Daniel Wallace needs work.

Just for reference, he is a Dallas Theological Seminary professor, and the textbook I quoted from is one of the main advanced Greek textbooks in most evangelical seminaries. Daniel B. Wallace

You pile hubris upon hubris - again, I'd think it was self parody, but for the fact that you seem so sincere.

I know:

Speech:	Verb
Tense:	Present
Voice:	Active
Mood:	Indicative
Person:	1st Person
Number:	Singular

Definition of "Present"
Represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense. Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are termed "historical presents," and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the reader were there watching the event occur. Some English translations render such historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to remain in the present.

In what follows, starting here, I'm not even sure what your point is because it is garbled. But you seem to be trying to argue that Mary used the present tense (I know not a man) simply to speak of her past conduct (I did not know a man). How does this make any sense of the text in its context? Gabriel told Mary about something that would happen in her future (you will conceive), and Mary acts surprised as to how that could happen and responds - according to what I think is your point - incoherently and illogically simply by speaking to the fact that she hadn't in the past been physically intimate with a man? You've reviled others for bad hermeutics, yet here you make nonsense out of the plain text. Mary's answer - I know not a man - makes sense in response to Gabriel's future tense message to her only if Mary's answer has future tense significance. And as I noted before, one "quite common" usage of the present tense in Koine--according to evangelical advanced Greek textbooks--is to refer to past, present, and future action (like "i fast" and "I tithe" in Luke 18 - a point you completely ignored) of the person, in the sense that the person is speaking of their customary/habitual action or practice that they intend to continue in the future.

Now look at this verse:
Hebrews 10:14
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. "He hath perfected:

Speech:	Verb
Tense:	Perfect
Voice:	Active
Mood:	Indicative
Person:	3rd Person
Number:	Singular

Definition of "Perfect"
In Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI ("It is finished!") is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely "It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time." Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above.

Again, hard to make sense of your point. But you seem to be arguing that if Mary had said "I have not known a man"--perfect tense--somehow she would have made it clearer that she never intended to, either. Read that sentence again - what sense does that make? And usually - again, as advanced grammars like Wallace, and even basic ones like Mounce, will tell you - the perfect tense ordinarily speaks of past, completed action with present consequences, but doesn't necessarily speak to the future ("I have made the cake" means I did so and it is now ready; it doesn't mean I will make a cake again in the future). I have no idea where you are getting this idea that the Koine perfect tense always (?) speaks of "once for all time" action.

You either mixed up Wallaces definitions or he doesn't know Greek well. Mary if she spoke of staying a virgin would have used the perfect! And the mood would have probably been
subjunctive meaning it continues on.

Again, what?

 

[RomeSweetHome]

The Catholic Church based in rome has long done tyrannical things. I have not offered conjecture on MARY'S VIRGINITY BUT SIMPLE BIBLICAL STATEMENTRS WITHOUT HAVING TO TORTURE WORD MEANINGS LIKE YOU AND BOL HAVE.

See my last comment about Luke 1. Who is torturing the meaning of the text (I ask rhetorically)? At best, you've picked and chosen scripture selectively ("until"! "brothers"!) and then forced your acontextual and ahistorical reading onto your preferred passages; while then trying to wave away the whole counsel of scripture, including passages that foreclose your acontextual and ahistorical reading of your preferred passages. In doing so, you strain at gnats and swallow camels

If it "tortures" the meaning of adelphos so much to recognize it can speak of relatives beyond biological siblings, why do we see it used that way in the LXX? Or in contemporaneous sources like Josephus? Why do Strong and McClintock, in their ten-ish volume theological encyclopedia, recognize non-biological-sibling kin as the *second* possible usage of adelphos (similar for adelphe)? Why does Liddell Scott Jones, a lexicon spanning classical greek sources, recognize the same: LSJ Lexicon (LSJ.js v.1.0.3)

ἀδελφός

ἀδελφός [ᾰ], ( ἀ - copul., δελφύς, Arist. HA 510b13; cf. ἀγάστωρ) properly,
A
son of the same mother :
A.I
as Subst., ἀδελφός, ὁ, voc. ἄδελφε; Ep., Ion., and Lyr. ἀδελφεός (gen. -ειοῦ in Hom. is for -εόο), Cret. ἀδελφιός, ἀδευφιός, Leg.Gort. 2.21, Mon.Ant. 18.319:— brother, Hom., etc.; ἀδελφοί brother and sister, E. El. 536; so of the Ptolemies, θεοὶ ἀδελφοί Herod. 1.30, OGI 50.2 (iii B. C.), etc.; ἀπʼ ἀμφοτέρων ἀδελφεός Hdt. 7.97 : prov., χαλεποὶ πόλεμοι ἀδελφῶν E. Fr. 975 : metaph., ἀ. γέγονα σειρήνων LXX Jb. 30.29.
A.I.2
kinsman, ib. Ge. 13.8, al.; tribesman, Ex. 2.11, al.

If it tortures the meaning so much, why is the evidence we have from the earliest days of Christianity that these were non biological siblings of Jesus? Why would the earliest written history of the Jerusalem church we have extant identify one of these "brothers" as a cousin? If it tortures the meaning so much, why did Ignatius (50-115 AD or so) and Polycarp (70-150 AD or do)--both of whom were probably discipled in the faith directly by John the apostle, who would've known firsthand; and both of whom lived as Christians and served as leaders alongside some of these "brothers"--believe that Mary didn't have other children?

You keep reciting your favorite lexicons as if they dispel all this evidence, and otherwise adopt the ostrich defense. You can try to run from the truth by doing that, but ultimately you can't hide from it.

Well here are strongs and Thayers Greek, no cousins here . You muyst be using a different Strongs!

Same James Strong, from his larger theological encyclopedia, is what I linked to previously. Had you bothered to click, you could've seen for yourself.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Yes standard law calls for the eldest son to pass on His widowed mother to the next in line, but it also demands for a kinsman redeemer to come forth to care for the widow! According to your hypothesis there were four nephews of Mary who would have been bound to act as kinsman redeemer.

Not to overlook this--

Setting aside that it seems you're overplaying the scope of kinsman redeemership to pull a bit of sleight of hand here to try to wave this passage away (a preliminary review of the relevant OT passages in Leviticus and Ruth suggests, but I'd need to look more closely there and the Mishnaic sources to say for sure); regardless, you're ignoring the fundamental point of the text. Jesus gave the beloved disciple to Mary to be her son; and vice versa. As St. Hilary of Poitiers put it, if the brothers had been Mary's biological sons, "she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate [i.e., left without a son]. (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).”

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Well I have three grammatic sources for Koine to refer to. I use Scripture and the historic record.

Then why do you steadfastly ignore both scripture and the historical record on this topic? (See my other comments)

There were four as all transdlators concurred when they added the comma after sister then adding Mary the wife of clophas. If the translators wanted it to be the cousin of Mary, they would have placed the comma after Mary, and not after sister. Then wife of clophas would be the descriptive of the wife of cleop0has and not of Marys "sister".

This is really garbled, but trying to make sense of it--

What? After berating others for being ungrammatical and setting yourself up as some kind of Koine authority, is your argument on this really now not what the Greek text says but rather where certain English translators put a comma?

For one, your point doesn’t make sense regardless because that's exactly where you should put the comma if "Mary of Clopas" is a postpositive adjective describing who is Jesus's mother's "sister" (You also seem to be trying to read back into the greek text where an English comma should go, which is too confused to respond to)

Further, you have not responded to *what the Greek text says,* particularly how the author uses "kai."

And you have yet to establish by anything more than possibility using OT scriptures that sister and brother mean cousin or second tier relatives in the NT.

Again, what? Given you examples spanning the Koine period. Given you the overwhelming data from history/Christian understanding. Given you secondary linguistic sources recognizing this usage. And even given you an NT example, right here in John 19, that you appear to have no viable response to, given your latest response here.

Stop ignoring the facts.

 

[RomeSweetHome]

Well we do not know if they were speaking aramaic or Hebrew. Being in Jerusalem they were most likely Hebrew. but they knew who lived there. Remember Matthew was the gospel writers to a Jewish audience and the scholarly consensus is that Matthre originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew or aramaic.

And this is ultimately beside the point. But really just underscores your deep confusion coexisting simultaneously somehow with your professed proficiency.

Whether Hebrew or Aramaic, in either language, their respective terms for "brother" were (even more?) undisputedly used to speak of other kin as well. (Strong's Hebrew: 251. אָח (ach) -- brother, brothers, relativeszzz ; Bad Aramaic Made Easy). So whether Hebrew or Aramaic, transliterating would lead to using adelphos for a term unquestionably had a broader semantic range than mere biological sibling. And this underscores a point the early church fathers recognized (Jerome, for example, in his work against Helvidius), even if we're not talking about instances of transliteration - that the use of "brothers" by the NT Greek authors was influenced by the Semitic range of the word they were familiar with.

 

[Marymog]

My faith doesn't pray to the dead. My faith doesn't reverse Mary as co-redemptrix. Your pope denied that about her,btw My faith teaches I am Saved by God's grace through faith.And we are sealed by the Holy Spirit forever. Which means no Purgatory. Because our Sins are forgiven.
Our faith and Salvation isn't conditional

So no, RCC faith and practices have nothing to do with my faith or any Protestant practices.

Hey we have something in common..........Catholics don't pray to the dead either.

Yes, we are saved by God's grace thru faith IF you don't sin and fall from grace, IF you profess with your mouth (Romans 9), IF you are baptized (Mark 16) IF you stand firm until the end (Mark 10), IF you repent (Acts 2), IF you do good works (Romans 2).

So IF your men have taught you that you are "sealed by the Holy Spirit forever" by the Grace of God and you have Faith only.........They lied to you.

But I am just rambling on about Scripture.........You know all this already (?)

 

[BreadOfLife]

How wrong you are again! But you forget that Jesus came to baptize people with the Holy Spirit, not in water! Even 1 peter shows you wrong! For the Baptism that saves is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the moment one places their trust in teh death and resurrection of Jesus as the full payment for their sin debt- which you do not believe in that.
Well go ask some and learn instead of bloviating useless info.

Well you use a more modern Cathoic encyclopedia. But the old usage of it was to condemn and set a person aside from god- that means a loss of salvation!

In the Roman Catholic Church an anathema is not merely a symbolic protest. Here is the definition of “anathema” from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment." Whereupon all the assistants respond: "Fiat, fiat, fiat." The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church. The promulgation of the anathema with such solemnity is well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha. (Emphasis mine.)

Go learn what your own sect teaches.

WRONG.

The Church has ALWAYS used the term, “Anathema” as a temporary condition. There is NO Catholic teaching which holds that the Church can condemn a person’s soul to Hell – and there NEVER has been. We'vw ALWAYS believed that this power is reserved for GOD alone . . .

You vomit out these idiotic statements because you refuse to do your homework.
Probably because you’re wind up converting . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Take it up with the bible.

Luke 2:48
When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

Yet, if your mother and husband – who was NOT your biological father said that to YOU – you wouldn’t have a problem with it. You ONLY have a problem because of your hatred for Catholics.

ALL Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). If YOU think that Mary “forgot” that God was the Father of Jesus – then you actually believe that He chose a disobedient idiot to be the Mother of the Son.

Even worse - you believe that God made a miistake . . .
I’m not ignoring anything.

Again the Greek word uios proves biology. You are just wrong and ignoring prima scriptura.

It is a general term that could mean MANY thigs – including:
a) generally used of the offspring of men
b) term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and mortality
c) those who revere God as their father, the pious worshippers of God,

Tekna is more related anything born by a surrounding material, and is used in this context. You are simply wrong with this comparison.

No – I simply proved to you – and rather successfully, I might add – that “son” and “Father” have multiple Scriptural meanings. They are NOT pigeon-holed into strictly familial roles.

Yes, his name was Jesus, but Immanuel is just a call line and not a name. But you evidently don't understand what I wrote.

WRQING.
“Immanuel” is a TITLE – not a “call line”, whatever that means . . .

No, it is because I don't tolerate losers who cannot admit they are wrong. You think I am angry because I am using my free speech to destroy your worthless arguments.

The “Loser” of an argument is usually the one who resorts to using ad hominem attacks whenbacked intoa corner - like YOU do . . .

 

[ProverbsInPink]

Hey we have something in common..........Catholics don't pray to the dead either.

Yes,you do.

Yes, we are saved by God's grace thru faith IF you don't sin and fall from grace, IF you profess with your mouth (Romans 9), IF you are baptized (Mark 16) IF you stand firm until the end (Mark 10), IF you repent (Acts 2), IF you do good works (Romans 2).

Yes,we know. Your men taught you that you can lose your salvation.

Which is why you have last rites. When dying or even after.
And then,there's purgatory to look forward to.

So IF your men have taught you that you are "sealed by the Holy Spirit forever" by the Grace of God and you have Faith only.........They lied to you.

Nope,no lies here. As I said,I'm not Catholic.

But I am just rambling on about Scripture.........You know all this already (?)

I know the truth if God in Christ