Upon THIS Rock I will build my Church

[Taken]

We know from Scripture that there are THREE DIVINE PERSONS in the Godhead: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, [the first Person] and of the Son, [the second Person] and of the Holy Ghost [the third Person] (Mt 28:19).

I am simply amazed at all the errors that are being presented by people on Christian forums. I trust you will acknowledge your error and believe the truth.

That is an indepth topic.
God is so difficult for a human to comprehend His Essence;
Supreme Power, Eternal Life, Complete Knowledge of All things, Pure Goodness, Trustworthy, Just, Creator and maker or all things.....Unseen and Unheard...But yet He has devised a Way to Communicate and reveal Himself to His created mankind.

God is called by many names, titles, descriptions.... they are all thee One God...
Just as a man is called by many names, titles, descriptions...and still one man.

I understand using the term "person" is a suitable teaching method....and I also hear being taught that God in the Flesh "IS" a human man/ person, Which I find nothing in Scripture that Says thee Ever lasting Creator WAS a Created human man.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Stranger]

And, as I said - if you can't point me to the post - you NEVER had a case to begin with.
"Just shut up" is pathetic argument . . .

Suffice it to say - Peter doesn't have to "acknowledge" having God-given Authority for it to be true - just as Eve didn't "acknowledge" being "Mother of ALL the Living" and Abraham didn't "acknowledge" being "Father of a multitude of nations."

Case CLOSED.

Here, take my hand....sit down and be quiet...and let me help you.

Start with post (#95) and reread all the rest from there. It is difficult for you I know, as both your ignorance and lies are revealed, but I trust you will get through it.

But...let go of my hand please. You can do it.

Stranger

 

[epostle]

Whether or not any person in the Bible acknowledges their identity is not important. It is a stupid argument. How much of the Bible would be eliminated on the grounds that each person must explicitly state their identity? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:

"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."
INFO: Mary and the saints

 

[Taken]

...epostle gives an forthright rendition of the Catholic view.

However some pertinent Understanding is omitted...and IN brief for what requires an indepth study;

Throughout Scripture God is ascribed as HE, a male.

What came forth out of THE First "he", called a man, was A woman, a Female. Scripture reveals The Male/ man and The woman who came Forth out of the Male/ man, were BY God, called by a singular Name; Adam.
Gen. 5:2

It is a foreshadow.
From out of God, Himself, Scripture reveals, comes forth...God Himself...
Called His Word, revealed To the World, coming forth out of Mary's womb, called, Jesus, "Thee" only Son of God, that comes forth out of God.

Continue Hearing and learning.

Why was Jesus revealed coming forth from Mary's womb?

^ That is another indepth study, if anyone cares to delve into that.

Bottom line...what was in Mary's Womb, came forth out from God in Heaven, down To this Earth, entered her Womb, remained in her Womb for 9 months (according to the law of a natural man), and was then revealed To the World.

What is later revealed, by and Through Jesus' teaching...and Gods Understanding is Why Mary was Chosen to have "Thee SEED of God in HER Womb."

That Seed, THEE SEED of God, IS God Himself, Called Lord, Jesus, Christ, Power, Spirit, True Light, Son, Father, Savior, Redeemer, Word, Truth, Life, Way, Holy, Seed, Teacher, Lamb, All knowing....and many other things to be known and understood as one progresses and continues hearing and learning.

Touching on why Mary?
Why any particular person?
Why Peter?
Why Paul?
Why Abram?
Why Samuel, Jacob, David, and others expressly noted?

And WHY men Today, Whose names are Not recorded in Scripture, via the hands of men...but are recorded (not subject to being BLOTTED out) IN The Lambs Book of Life?

What IS "Their" common Link?
Bottom Line....
They All have Received "Thee SEED of God".

In their Womb? No.
In their circumcised, new HEART.
And ?
THAT SEED, thee SEED of God, RE-births a mans natural spirit (from a seed of a human, and subject to death) TO thee birth of a "spiritual spirit", from the SEED of THEE Spirit God, (never SUBJECT to death).

Mary's "natural" seed, as ALL humans have, HAD nothing whatsoever to do with Christ the Lord Jesus.

Men teaching, Mary's blood, Mary's DNA, Mary's had anything whatsoever to do with "procreating" a "HUMAN" man, revealed as Christ the Lord Jesus is False.
John 1:13

There is a great deal of difference between Knowledge Revealed....and Understanding the Knowledge Revealed.

All knowledge belongs to God.
All Understanding of Gods own Knowledge belongs to God.

The KEY is; Gods Knowledge, via His Word is Freely distributed World Wide....for every man TO elect to hear, learn.....continue hearing, learning....commit to Him, or walk away and reject Him.

Gods Understaning, IS GIVEN to individuals, BY HE HIMSELF.....TO (born again spirits of men) WHO, have become Committed TO HIM, and Received HIS SEED, and their NEW born everlasting spirit.


God Bless,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

Here, take my hand....sit down and be quiet...and let me help you.

Start with post (#95) and reread all the rest from there. It is difficult for you I know, as both your ignorance and lies are revealed, but I trust you will get through it.

But...let go of my hand please. You can do it.

Stranger

Your cowardice is blindingly clear, Stranger.

You refuse to point me to an actual post where you supposedly presented Biblical “evidence” for your moronic claim – so I did the work FOR you.

In post #98, I said:
"Peter didn't have to make any claim about his office.

Eve never claimed to be mother of ALL the living - yet she WAS (Gen 3:20).
Abraham never claimed to be the father of a multitude of nations - yet he WAS (Gen 17:5)."

In post #100 - YOU responded with the following:
"Of course Eve believed she was. See (Gen. 4:1).
Yes, Abraham did believe he was. See. (Heb. 11:17-19)."

So, I pulled up those verses and here is what I found:

Gen 4:1
Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Eve “acknowledging” her title of “Mother of ALL the living”.

Heb. 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Abraham “acknowledging” his role as “Father of a multitude of nations”.

Whether Eve or Abraham believed in their titles is NOT the issue. Scripture is SILENT about that anyway.

YOUR fallacy s that since Peter never “acknowledged” his Authority from verses like Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:19-25 that he never received it. I have PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that since neither Eve nor Abraham “acknowledged” their titles – Peter didn’t have to either.

Ergo, Peter’s Authority and Primacy does NOT depend on HIS “acknowledgement” of it but GOD’S declaring it (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:19-25).

 

[Stranger]

Your cowardice is blindingly clear, Stranger.

You refuse to point me to an actual post where you supposedly presented Biblical “evidence” for your moronic claim – so I did the work FOR you.

In post #98, I said:
"Peter didn't have to make any claim about his office.

Eve never claimed to be mother of ALL the living - yet she WAS (Gen 3:20).
Abraham never claimed to be the father of a multitude of nations - yet he WAS (Gen 17:5)."

In post #100 - YOU responded with the following:
"Of course Eve believed she was. See (Gen. 4:1).
Yes, Abraham did believe he was. See. (Heb. 11:17-19)."

So, I pulled up those verses and here is what I found:

Gen 4:1
Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Eve “acknowledging” her title of “Mother of ALL the living”.

Heb. 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Abraham “acknowledging” his role as “Father of a multitude of nations”.

Whether Eve or Abraham believed in their titles is NOT the issue. Scripture is SILENT about that anyway.

YOUR fallacy s that since Peter never “acknowledged” his Authority from verses like Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:19-25 that he never received it. I have PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that since neither Eve nor Abraham “acknowledged” their titles – Peter didn’t have to either.

Ergo, Peter’s Authority and Primacy does NOT depend on HIS “acknowledgement” of it but GOD’S declaring it (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:19-25).

Sure, you did my work. Not! It wasn't my work in the first place, it was yours. How can you call it my work. You think because you order, that someone jumps and must work. What an idiot. I did my work. Just because your too lazy to go and search it out doesn't mean I have to.

Of course Eve acknowledged her title as mother of all living. She believed that Cain was from the Lord. Though he wasn't. (1 John 3:12) He was of satan. (Gen. 4:1) "...I have gotten a man from the LORD." The phrase 'mother of all living. comes from Adam. Adam based this on the promise of (Gen. 3:15). Eve's statement was in recognition of the promise of (Gen. 3:15). Adams statement that Eve was mother of all living was in recognition of (Gen. 3:15). Eve knew she was the mother of all living. She believed God. And Adam believed God.

(Heb. 11:17-19) has everything to do with Abraham acknowledging that he would be the 'father of many nations'. That is what it says. "...he that received the promises...accounting that God was able to raise him up...." And the promises were that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Thus because knew those promises is why he was willing to slay Isaac.

Peter had no 'primacy'. As you admit, he certainly didn't act like it or voice it. And God didn't either. There is no 'apostolic succession' as I proved with the death of James....the disciple.

So, Peter didn't make a claim, because he didn't have a claim to make. Paul did have a claim to make and made it.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sure, you did my work. Not! It wasn't my work in the first place, it was yours. How can you call it my work. You think because you order, that someone jumps and must work. What an idiot. I did my work. Just because your too lazy to go and search it out doesn't mean I have to.

Of course Eve acknowledged her title as mother of all living. She believed that Cain was from the Lord. Though he wasn't. (1 John 3:12) He was of satan. (Gen. 4:1) "...I have gotten a man from the LORD." The phrase 'mother of all living. comes from Adam. Adam based this on the promise of (Gen. 3:15). Eve's statement was in recognition of the promise of (Gen. 3:15). Adams statement that Eve was mother of all living was in recognition of (Gen. 3:15). Eve knew she was the mother of all living. She believed God. And Adam believed God.

(Heb. 11:17-19) has everything to do with Abraham acknowledging that he would be the 'father of many nations'. That is what it says. "...he that received the promises...accounting that God was able to raise him up...." And the promises were that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Thus because knew those promises is why he was willing to slay Isaac.

Peter had no 'primacy'. As you admit, he certainly didn't act like it or voice it. And God didn't either. There is no 'apostolic succession' as I proved with the death of James....the disciple.

So, Peter didn't make a claim, because he didn't have a claim to make. Paul did have a claim to make and made it.

Stranger

This is what WE in the debating world refer to as “a desperate reach”.
Let’s start with Eve, since this is your most laughablereach . . .

First of all – she NEVER “acknowledged” her title as “Mother of ALL the Living”– and she certainly never “acknowledged” it in Gen. 4:1. She simply stated that she bore a child with the help of God.

As for Abraham – he NEVER “acknowledged” his title as “Father of a multitude of nations” – andcertainly not in Heb. 11:17-19. As for the “promise”God made to him – God made THREE Promises to Abraham – and Heb. 11:17-19 doesn’t specifywhich one.

Face it – you’ve LOST this argument. You tried to show that Peter is somehow “disqualified”because he didn’t “acknowledge” it. I have given you a Scriptural-SPANKING by showing you that Eve and Abraham didn’t “acknowledge” their titles either . . .

Here’s another one for ya:
When did Jacob ever “acknowledge” his title of “Israel”??

ALSO:
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah is spoken of by GOD as being the “keeper of the key” to the House of David (Isaiah. 22:22). He is mentioned NINE times in the OT. Show me ONE verse where he “acknowledges” his Authority as “keeper of the key” to the House of David . . .

 

[Stranger]

This is what WE in the debating world refer to as “a desperate reach”.
Let’s start with Eve, since this is your most laughablereach . . .

First of all – she NEVER “acknowledged” her title as “Mother of ALL the Living”– and she certainly never “acknowledged” it in Gen. 4:1. She simply stated that she bore a child with the help of God.

As for Abraham – he NEVER “acknowledged” his title as “Father of a multitude of nations” – andcertainly not in Heb. 11:17-19. As for the “promise”God made to him – God made THREE Promises to Abraham – and Heb. 11:17-19 doesn’t specifywhich one.

Face it – you’ve LOST this argument. You tried to show that Peter is somehow “disqualified”because he didn’t “acknowledge” it. I have given you a Scriptural-SPANKING by showing you that Eve and Abraham didn’t “acknowledge” their titles either . . .

Here’s another one for ya:
When did Jacob ever “acknowledge” his title of “Israel”??

ALSO:
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah is spoken of by GOD as being the “keeper of the key” to the House of David (Isaiah. 22:22). He is mentioned NINE times in the OT. Show me ONE verse where he “acknowledges” his Authority as “keeper of the key” to the House of David . . .

No, she said she "...have gotten a man from the LORD." (Gen. 4:1)

Abraham believed all of the promises. (Heb. 11:17) "...he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,"

Thus you have proved nothing concerning Peter.

Israel was just a change of name. Not a title. And, no one after him ever tried to claim succession. Did they.

Eliakim was given a position that was constantly in succession. So? Big deal. Peter was not given any such position.

Stranger

 

[brakelite]

First of all - there is no such thing as “Churches”. Jesus built ONE Church. He Prayed fervently for that ONE Church to remain as ONE – as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23).

Remember in the book Of acts how Philip spoke to the Ethiopian when he was in his chariot on his way home to Africa? Did you know that Ethiopian started a church in Ethiopia that survives to this day? Did you know that that church sent out missionaries to other parts of Africa where other churches sprang up in response to the gospel? Did you know that the apostle Thomas did the same work in India? And that from there missionaries went to Arabia, Afghanistan, and even as far as China, where churches were established in response to the gospel? Did you know that the same thing happened in Britain? Did you know that none of these churches had any contact with the church in Rome, nor its popes, until missionaries from Rome discovered well established churches in those countries thriving and getting on very well thankyou without Roman authority, support, or approval? Did you know that when the elders of those churches did meet with Catholic Friars and missionaries, they refused to submit to papal authority despite threats of war and persecution? Do you realise the wars between those ancient churches and Rome continued for hundreds of years, and is continuing today on these very forums by such as yourself who are so blind to spiritual reality that your bigotry and religiosity gets in the way of your common sense?
All those churches were one... One in Christ. It was the Roman church that was not one with them, or with Christ. That is why the reformers had to leave. Better to be alone and cleave to truth, than remain joined to others and suffer error.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, she said she "...have gotten a man from the LORD." (Gen. 4:1)

Abraham believed all of the promises. (Heb. 11:17) "...he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,"

Thus you have proved nothing concerning Peter.

Israel was just a change of name. Not a title. And, no one after him ever tried to claim succession. Did they.

Eliakim was given a position that was constantly in succession. So? Big deal. Peter was not given any such position.

Stranger

As to Eve and Gen 4:1 - MOST translations say, ". . . with the HELP of the Lord." Others say, ". . . FROM the Lord."
Either way is correct because this is a non-issue. We were discussing the fact that she NEVER "acknowledges" her title as "Mother of ALL the living."
Same with Abraham - he NEVER "acknowledges" his title of "Father of a multitude of nations."

As for Jacob's name change to "Israel" - it is a name AND a Title. "Israel" means "one who wrestled with God" (Gen 32:28).
Tell me - WHERE else in Scripture is Jacob referred to as "Israel". If it was a true name change - then WHY did he remain "Jacob"??

He NEVER "acknowledged" his name/Title of "Israel" - but that doesn't meant it wasn't true.
SAME goes for Simon, whose name was changed to "Peter" (Rock).

Finally - Eliakim NEVER "acknowledged" his Authority over the house of David. WHY is that??
Does that mean he had NO Authority??

Only in YOUR unschooled little mind . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Remember in the book Of acts how Philip spoke to the Ethiopian when he was in his chariot on his way home to Africa? Did you know that Ethiopian started a church in Ethiopia that survives to this day? Did you know that that church sent out missionaries to other parts of Africa where other churches sprang up in response to the gospel? Did you know that the apostle Thomas did the same work in India? And that from there missionaries went to Arabia, Afghanistan, and even as far as China, where churches were established in response to the gospel? Did you know that the same thing happened in Britain? Did you know that none of these churches had any contact with the church in Rome, nor its popes, until missionaries from Rome discovered well established churches in those countries thriving and getting on very well thankyou without Roman authority, support, or approval? Did you know that when the elders of those churches did meet with Catholic Friars and missionaries, they refused to submit to papal authority despite threats of war and persecution? Do you realise the wars between those ancient churches and Rome continued for hundreds of years, and is continuing today on these very forums by such as yourself who are so blind to spiritual reality that your bigotry and religiosity gets in the way of your common sense?
All those churches were one... One in Christ. It was the Roman church that was not one with them, or with Christ. That is why the reformers had to leave. Better to be alone and cleave to truth, than remain joined to others and suffer error.

Sooooo, let me get this straight. As a Protestant - you reject Tradition as a valid form of truth - EXCEPT for when it suits your argument. HOWEVER - when Catholics appeal to Tradition - you pass it off as fanciful myth and not much more.

What a giant hypocrisy.

Can YOU show me in the pages of Scripture where the Ethiopian Eunuch started a Church in Ethiopia and Thomas went to India??
Sola Scriptura is not MY standard for truth - but YOURS . . .

 

[brakelite]

Sooooo, let me get this straight. As a Protestant - you reject Tradition as a valid form of truth - EXCEPT for when it suits your argument. HOWEVER - when Catholics appeal to Tradition - you pass it off as fanciful myth and not much more.

What a giant hypocrisy.

Can YOU show me in the pages of Scripture where the Ethiopian Eunuch started a Church in Ethiopia and Thomas went to India??
Sola Scriptura is not MY standard for truth - but YOURS . . .

LOL you confuse tradition with history. History, often written in blood across the pages of time, is not generally translated into doctrine by protestants, (with one major exception which I shall explain later) but merely offered as evidence that some tradition, when used as a commandment of man and turned into doctrine by papalists, results in confusion, bloodshed, war, and death.
I would cite the introduction of Sunday sacredness as an example. A commandment of man turned into doctrine resulting in the persecution and deaths of Sabbath keepers wherever the Roman church claimed jurisdiction. And even used by the bishop of Reggio during the council of Trent for the sole purpise ol defending tradition in the face of Luther's claim of sola scriotura. In that battle of words, Rome won, because of Luther's rejection of the Sabbath, he practically accepted tradition over scripture. Malencthon however accepted the Sabbath, much to Luther's chagrin.
By the way, I am not defending Protestantism. They, despite their claims to the contrary, do accept tradition over scripture for the same reason Luther did. They accept Sunday sacredness despite scripture giving no sanction to it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL you confuse tradition with history. History, often written in blood across the pages of time, is not generally translated into doctrine by protestants, (with one major exception which I shall explain later) but merely offered as evidence that some tradition, when used as a commandment of man and turned into doctrine by papalists, results in confusion, bloodshed, war, and death.
I would cite the introduction of Sunday sacredness as an example. A commandment of man turned into doctrine resulting in the persecution and deaths of Sabbath keepers wherever the Roman church claimed jurisdiction. And even used by the bishop of Reggio during the council of Trent for the sole purpise ol defending tradition in the face of Luther's claim of sola scriotura. In that battle of words, Rome won, because of Luther's rejection of the Sabbath, he practically accepted tradition over scripture. Malencthon however accepted the Sabbath, much to Luther's chagrin.
By the way, I am not defending Protestantism. They, despite their claims to the contrary, do accept tradition over scripture for the same reason Luther did. They accept Sunday sacredness despite scripture giving no sanction to it.

No - I'm not confusing anything.

There is NO actual "history" of that Ethiopian Eunuch starting a Church in Ethiopia.
NOR is there and actual "history"about Thomas preaching in India.

These are TRADITIONS.

 

[Enoch111]

...NOR is there and actual "history"about Thomas preaching in India.

You may have to retract that statement.

The incredible journey

 

[Stranger]

As to Eve and Gen 4:1 - MOST translations say, ". . . with the HELP of the Lord." Others say, ". . . FROM the Lord."
Either way is correct because this is a non-issue. We were discussing the fact that she NEVER "acknowledges" her title as "Mother of ALL the living."
Same with Abraham - he NEVER "acknowledges" his title of "Father of a multitude of nations."

As for Jacob's name change to "Israel" - it is a name AND a Title. "Israel" means "one who wrestled with God" (Gen 32:28).
Tell me - WHERE else in Scripture is Jacob referred to as "Israel". If it was a true name change - then WHY did he remain "Jacob"??

He NEVER "acknowledged" his name/Title of "Israel" - but that doesn't meant it wasn't true.
SAME goes for Simon, whose name was changed to "Peter" (Rock).

Finally - Eliakim NEVER "acknowledged" his Authority over the house of David. WHY is that??
Does that mean he had NO Authority??

Only in YOUR unschooled little mind . . .

Concerning Eve, your phrase, 'with the help of the Lord' should be in italics in any translation it is used as indicating it is there just to help and not part of original construction. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown agree that it is better rendered 'from' or 'with the help of the Lord'. But they also say that the Queen Elizabeth Bible rendered it according to the same way it is used in (Haggai 2:5). "According to the word that I covenanted with you" And so they (QEB) rendered (Gen. 4:1) "According to the Lords word or promise" in their margin. (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A Commentary, Eerdman's, vol. 1, p. 66) They note it is also translated without the phrase altogether. "I have gotten a man--Jehovah"

On the web site Genesis 4:1 And Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man," she said. there are several commentaries listed. (Ellicotts Commentary for English Readers) says: "...It is inconceivable that eth should have here a different meaning from that which it has in Gen. 1:1....So also here, 'I have gotten a man eth Jehovah.' 'even Jehovah' The objection that this implies too advanced a knowledge of Messianic ideas is unfounded....But Eve had received the promise that her seed should crush the head of her enemy, and to this promise her words referred...."

From the same web site listed above is the Pulpit Commentary. This commentary lists some objections to the phrase, "I have gotten a man--the LORD". But goes on to say, "But whichever view be adopted of the construction of the language, it is obvious that Eve's utterance was the dictate of faith. In Cains birth she recognized the earnest and guarantee of the promised seed...."


Concerning Abraham I have already proved your error.

As I said, Israel was a change of name. Jacob already knew he had the birthtright Big deal. It would have consequences as to the name of the nation. Peters name change did nothing. The Church is not called Peterites as Israel is called Israelites. You have nothing.

Concerning Eliakim, as I said before he was given a position that already existed, and there would be successors afterward. He simply functioned in his position. See (Is. 37:2) Peter, however, never did function in the position that Rome has given him. He never exercised any primacy over the Church.

Stranger

 

[ScottA]

And after 3 attempts at trying to explain to you that Jesus didn't "give" the Holy Spirit Authority - I'm beginning to understand why you're so confused.

Jesus gave PETER Authority. the Holy Spirit is God and doesn't get Authority fro Jesus.
Allow me to educate you on the Trinity:
The Father is God.
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God.

ONE Being manifested in Three distinct Persons.

The Father is not the Son or the holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

There ends the lesson.

Your idea of authority is upside down, and therefore shall be overturned.

Had you the love of Christ, you might have been spared.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You may have to retract that statement.

The incredible journey

Ummmm, did you actually R*E*A*D your little link??

Although the historicity of the legend is unprovable, the modern St Thomas Christians - as they still call themselves - regard this tradition as more than a myth: it is an article of faith which underpins religious beliefs, identity and their place in Indian society. It is a tradition they go to extraordinary lengths to preserve and to propagate - not least by establishing what is almost certainly Christianity's only troupe of dancing nuns.

AGAIN - this is NOT a matter of history – but Tradition and legend . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your idea of authority is upside down, and therefore shall be overturned.

Had you the love of Christ, you might have been spared.

Only because YOU consider Scripture to be “upside down” . . .
(Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23)

 

[BreadOfLife]

Concerning Eve, your phrase, 'with the help of the Lord' should be in italics in any translation it is used as indicating it is there just to help and not part of original construction. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown agree that it is better rendered 'from' or 'with the help of the Lord'. But they also say that the Queen Elizabeth Bible rendered it according to the same way it is used in (Haggai 2:5). "According to the word that I covenanted with you" And so they (QEB) rendered (Gen. 4:1) "According to the Lords word or promise" in their margin. (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A Commentary, Eerdman's, vol. 1, p. 66) They note it is also translated without the phrase altogether. "I have gotten a man--Jehovah"

On the web site Genesis 4:1 And Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man," she said. there are several commentaries listed. (Ellicotts Commentary for English Readers) says: "...It is inconceivable that eth should have here a different meaning from that which it has in Gen. 1:1....So also here, 'I have gotten a man eth Jehovah.' 'even Jehovah' The objection that this implies too advanced a knowledge of Messianic ideas is unfounded....But Eve had received the promise that her seed should crush the head of her enemy, and to this promise her words referred...."

From the same web site listed above is the Pulpit Commentary. This commentary lists some objections to the phrase, "I have gotten a man--the LORD". But goes on to say, "But whichever view be adopted of the construction of the language, it is obvious that Eve's utterance was the dictate of faith. In Cains birth she recognized the earnest and guarantee of the promised seed...."


Concerning Abraham I have already proved your error.

As I said, Israel was a change of name. Jacob already knew he had the birthtright Big deal. It would have consequences as to the name of the nation. Peters name change did nothing. The Church is not called Peterites as Israel is called Israelites. You have nothing.

Concerning Eliakim, as I said before he was given a position that already existed, and there would be successors afterward. He simply functioned in his position. See (Is. 37:2) Peter, however, never did function in the position that Rome has given him. He never exercised any primacy over the Church.

Stranger

Nice try – but NO cigar.
I see that you did some homework – unfortunately, it was on the WRONG subject.

NOBODY is disputing that Eve had a child. NOBODY is disputing the prophecy in Gen. 3:15.
YOUR problem is that Eve NEVER “acknowledged” her title of “Mother of ALL the living”. She simply exclaimed her joy after giving birth to her first child (Gen. 4:1).
STRIKE ONE . . .

As for Abraham – you STILL haven’t presented a single verse that shows him“acknowledging” his TITLE of “Father of a multitude of nations – not ONE. Praising God for his generalpromises is not “acknowledging” a TITLE.
STRIKE TWO . . .

Regarding Jacob – I asked you to provide a later verse when he is called “Israel”. If you can’t - then you must recognize the fact that his name is also a TITLE.

Finally, as to Eliakim your response is cowardly.
I didn’t ask you whether or not his Authority was successive. I asked you to provide a single verse showing him “acknowledging”his Authority because you demanded a verse showing Peter doing the same.

In typical fashion, you have simply spouted more of your patented hypocrisy.
STRIKE THREE – you’re OUT.

 

[Stranger]

Nice try – but NO cigar.
I see that you did some homework – unfortunately, it was on the WRONG subject.

NOBODY is disputing that Eve had a child. NOBODY is disputing the prophecy in Gen. 3:15.
YOUR problem is that Eve NEVER “acknowledged” her title of “Mother of ALL the living”. She simply exclaimed her joy after giving birth to her first child (Gen. 4:1).
STRIKE ONE . . .

As for Abraham – you STILL haven’t presented a single verse that shows him“acknowledging” his TITLE of “Father of a multitude of nations – not ONE. Praising God for his generalpromises is not “acknowledging” a TITLE.
STRIKE TWO . . .

Regarding Jacob – I asked you to provide a later verse when he is called “Israel”. If you can’t - then you must recognize the fact that his name is also a TITLE.

Finally, as to Eliakim your response is cowardly.
I didn’t ask you whether or not his Authority was successive. I asked you to provide a single verse showing him “acknowledging”his Authority because you demanded a verse showing Peter doing the same.

In typical fashion, you have simply spouted more of your patented hypocrisy.
STRIKE THREE – you’re OUT.

I Always do the homework.

Please pay attention. Or, quit trying to hide. The information I gave showed that the commentators said Eve was acknowledging the Lords promise that from her would come the promised seed to destroy the serpent. (Gen. 3:15) This is what Adam was alluding to when he called Eve the 'mother of all living'. You do recognize that the term 'mother of all living' comes from Adam, not God. Both Adam and Eve were speaking in reference to (Gen. 3:15).

You are really twisting the Scriptures now. Concerning Abraham (Heb. 11:17-19) doesn't say anything about Abraham praising God. It says, "...he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead;..." Again, pay attention, or quit hiding. Abraham believed the promises which is why he was willing to offer up Isaac. And the promises involved Abraham as the father of many nations. So you see, Abraham recognized and acted on the promises God had gave him.

Concerning Jacob's name changed to Israel. Big deal. His name was changed to Israel. We have a whole nation today called Israel as a result. We have no one called the nation of Peter. Do we. Is anyone called Peterites? Anyone?

I gave you a verse where Eliakim was acting in the authority of his position. (Is. 37:2) Thus he acknowledged the authority that was given. A blind man can see that.

Peter never did act on the authority that Rome declares him to have and to be the successors of . Face it, the pope and the papacy are usurpers over the Christians of the Roman church. The Roman church is full of Christians, but they have over them a ruling class straight out of hell.

Stranger