Co- Redemptrix

[Richard_oti]

i'm sure there are one or two out of a million or so believers at any one time, sure; but i guess most ppl are more in the "...that say they seek to live by faith apart from sin" category

Indeed. However, I have known more than what you represent above that have sought to do so. Now, did they continue in so doing, or did they fall away, that remains to be seen.

OTOH: Do they simply believe and adhere to the pshat reading, or do they like so many attempt to "segregate" that which should or should not apply.

 

[Richard_oti]

one who commits no sin is defined as "God" i guess

Not according to that which I listed. Since I did not include Jesus as "God", who committed no sin. Therefore that falls flat.

 

[Richard_oti]

ok, well the cultures are obviously different, and you are obviously biased there, yes? i do not willingly claim any label, but i dimly see why a Catholic might want to be called a Christian; only you won't like my understanding of why? there, either, i guess

How is that "biased"? Are not both Catholics and Protestants followers of "Christ" and therefore "Christians" according to their "understandings"? According to some that I have encountered, neither Catholics nor Protestants should be considered as "Christians" according to their "perceptions".

Since you do not willingly claim any label, are you also thus segregated, or, a different culture, from both Catholics and Protestants?

If you think that perhaps I won't like your understanding of why, I probably already know it. But there again, while there are differences, there are also similarities that can not be denied.

 

[Helen]

Well, God being providing the light for the city is made very clear since no distinction is made between God and the light. This isn't the case for the tree of life though. To me, the millennial reign, which is before the throne judgement proves that tree of life is not literally Jesus Christ. Remember, the bride of Christ rules with Jesus before new Jerusalem comes into the picture. We will already have our redeemed, glorified bodies long beforehand, when we will have conquered death. There is no tree of life present during that period. This is why I believe that Jesus Christ cannot possibly be the tree of life, it doesn't make sense. The millennial reign proves that the tree of life isn't necessarily for the saints, but for the rest of the world, or for the healing of the gentile nations, as it states.

Well I have to admit...I used to wear myself out trying to work every out so that I could understand the timeline, and who is what and what is what...then I thought..Why? I thought, well when I finally get it all nailed down nice and neatly I will probably find that I have got it all wrong anyway!!! ....So , I just gave up

Go for it.....I will "watch this space".

 

[Dcopymope]

Well I have to admit...I used to wear myself out trying to work every out so that I could understand the timeline, and who is what and what is what...then I thought..Why? I thought, well when I finally get it all nailed down nice and neatly I will probably find that I have got it all wrong anyway!!! ....So , I just gave up

Go for it.....I will "watch this space".

I only figured it out once I questioned some people who believed Jesus and the tree of life to be the same. If the tree of life is supposed to be literal/symbolic of Jesus Christ, then why have one in new Jerusalem? What is the point if Jesus IS the tree? None of them could answer that question. They didn't even know there was a tree of life in the new Jerusalem. It was only after asking this question that it started to click within me. Seeing the saints already attained their glorified bodies long beforehand proved to me that the tree of life isn't even for the saints, otherwise the tree would have been there for the saints to consume from the start. We don't need such a tree to live forever because we conquered death through the blood redemption of Jesus Christ, because he is the life. The tree is for everyone else that is NOT of the bride of Christ, which also proves what I have stated many times before of there being many, many more people present on the new earth than just the bride of Christ. The lake of fire judgement doesn't concern us, its all about everyone else that are of the gentile nations. Daniel spoke of this judgement as well, of the two resurrections detailed in Revelation 20.

(Daniel 12:1-4) "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. {2} And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. {3} And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. {4} But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."

This alone defines what it means to be saved. If you are not of the first Resurrection, then you are already in deep trouble, because those of the latter, the second Resurrection are doomed to everlasting damnation. However, he said SOME of them will, not all of them. Whoever does or does not get tossed in the lake of fire will be entirely up to God.

Judgement of the gentile nations:

(Matthew 25:31-46) "¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: {32} And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: {33} And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. {34} Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: {35} For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: {36} Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. {37} Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? {38} When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? {39} Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? {40} And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. {41} Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: {42} For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: {43} I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. {44} Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? {45} Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. {46} And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

 

[Stranger]

And AGAIN - Jesus was born of Adam because His virgin mother was.
Was HE a sinner?

Also - how do you give birth to 100% God and 100% man - yet NOT give birth to God??
This is asinine logic . . .

Jesus was not a sinner because of the virgin birth. The seed of Adam did not come into play.

Because God already existed. Mary did not give birth to God, she gave birth to the God/Man. Mary is not the mother of God, as God has no mother.

Stranger

 

[twinc]

Jesus was not a sinner because of the virgin birth. The seed of Adam did not come into play.

Because God already existed. Mary did not give birth to God, she gave birth to the God/Man. Mary is not the mother of God, as God has no mother.

Stranger

indeed the seed of Adam does not come into play for the woman was the transgressor[2Tim2:14] so all are transgressors from their mother's womb[Isa48:8} - twinc

 

[tabletalk]

Heck if I can remember all the reasons. But that has no doubt been one of them. It has been interesting the various reasons that I have been called such. For it has been from the "perspective" of those doing the calling.

So, when Galatians says:
Galatians 6:2
"Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."

And Romans 7:25 says:
"...So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." (emphasis mine)

Doesn't Paul equate Christ with God?

O.K. I won't say more, partly because I'm not equipped to argue the point and partly because you've been through this type of discussion a thousand times!

 

[Stranger]

indeed the seed of Adam does not come into play for the woman was the transgressor[2Tim2:14] so all are transgressors from their mother's womb[Isa48:8} - twinc

The seed of Adam does come into play in all being born sinners. It doesn't come in to play with the virgin birth, which was the purpose of the virgin birth.

Though Eve sinned first, the sin of the human race was not imputed to her, but to Adam.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

In other words - you don't have a verse of Scripture that supports your claim.
Par for the course . . .

obviously a negative cannot be proven, and i have asked you twice, nicely, to pls omit me from any reflections that did not include a quote of your belief, BoL

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't adhere to the doctrine of OS. Of course, you could always try and show me, or provide that illusive reference to "the fall".

As previously quoted, Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Enoch and Elijah were taken.

doesn't mean they never sinned either, though. i am more inclined to believe that they just changed their minds

 

[bbyrd009]

Since when is it a sin to be "human"? As for JtB and Mary, there is nothing written. Thus either way, it is: argumentum ex silentio or argumentum ad ignorantiam.

this does not stand in the face of abundant other Scripture, assuring us that none are perfect, and all have sinned, and that Christ is unique, etc

 

[bbyrd009]

Nor, did Mary lay down her life for that reason.

Mary, laying down her life, now? Where is this from?
and you are not clear on what "that reason" is here, at least to me, sorry

 

[bbyrd009]

Who made them equal? Isn't that just the manner in which you are currently perceiving this. Of which any "blasphemy" would only be in your own mind / perception.

"Co-redemptrix?" think i'll stick with my pov until further notice, too, ty

 

[bbyrd009]

And even if they didn't sin, that still would not make them equal. There are more factors that would need to be met in order to even bring them close.

but Scripture assures us they did sin, in many places, so then what?

 

[bbyrd009]

Caleb is attributed as following wholly.

ergo, Caleb changed his mind, not "Caleb was born sinless," at least imo

 

[bbyrd009]

Besides, it is rather fun playing the DA right now. Which means, that I am not necessarily stating what I think throughout this.

Caleb is attributed as following wholly. Before the Exodus, we do not know if there was any law for him to have transgressed, even though it is very clear there was a form in Abraham's day. Even Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean. Was Caleb without sin? We don't know. But from the time he was "delivered", he was attributed as following wholly. Of what "sin" can you attribute to one who follows wholly?

none, i would not attribute any sin to him, nor Mary, at that point in their walk.

 

[bbyrd009]

Besides, I didn't know there was a "Catholic" section here. I guess we are back to "segregation". Or, perhaps we never left such behind. Since so many "segregate" "believers" from one another.

well, the Word does that i guess, and i am not interested in condemning any Catholics, see, but neither do i discuss doctrine with them either, as my doctrine derives from Spirit, led by Scripture, and Catholics demonstrate a different understanding there, that i do not have to reap from, so have no desire to comment on, which would only offend.

i am not ever going to agree doctrinally with someone convinced that they should trust in a king and confess in the dark to ppl called father, because these deny Scripture as i understand it. Might i be in error somewhere? Certainly, so i keep an open mind even there, and judge by the fruit, wherein Catholics are put in an even worse light! imo. Or at least Roman Catholicism. So i don't judge an individual Catholic, but neither do i wish to mix cultures with them

 

[bbyrd009]

However, I have known more than what you represent above that have sought to do so.

oh, sure, millions more, all wanting to reach God their way, cloistering, or conquering, or you name it, sure.
Anything but picking up their cross, seems to me

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus was not a sinner because of the virgin birth. The seed of Adam did not come into play.

Because God already existed. Mary did not give birth to God, she gave birth to the God/Man. Mary is not the mother of God, as God has no mother.

Stranger

Your double-talk is well noted for these last several pages.
According to your inane logic, Mary gave birth to God - bur she didn't because although Jesus is God, He is NOT God when it comes to Mary.

Good luck with that heretical line of thinking . . .