12 reasons why hell is not eternal conscious torment
- Thread starter Classic Rider
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I understand enough of it, as I was raised RC and taught catechism. It is a MIS-conception. Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, but NOT when she became pregnant with Jesus' first sibling. So far I have not seen ANYTHING significant from him or you.brakelite said:
Pure, mindless, demonic, crap.brakelite said:
And, no, I'm not a "Roman" Catholic.
But I am very distressed by the ease with which the devil is able to seduce people who call themselves "Christian" to devote so much of their time and effort to slandering their brothers and sisters in the RCC. Apparently they are convinced that they are much holier than any Catholic believer in Jesus Christ ever was and that God has specifically called them to spread lies and slander against their fellow believers in the RCC.
IMO, That obsession with (or possession by) "what's wrong with" the Roman Catholic Church is good evidence of a need for an exorcism or intervention by a mental health professional for the obsessive -compulsive behavior which gives them such obvious pleasure.
The modern RCC and its 109 acre "state" is not the same organization which alone stood as a force to unify the hundreds of warring states of Europe which emerged after the fall of the Roman Empire and as the preserver of the Trinitarian faith against the Arian Germans who dominated Gaul. Had not Clovis I been converted to the Roman Catholic faith, western Christianity might well be Arian today.
And the responsibility for the wars which resulted from the rebellion of the German states against the Church (AKA: "Protestant Reformation") lies with both parties. They were wars which used religion as an excuse to garner political power, rather like we see with ISIS today. And, like ISIS, the Protestants see themselves as totally justified in waging wars that cost millions of lives of people who were told they were killing Catholics for Jesus.
And if you need a real example of the combination of church and state, look to Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell. Look to English history and see with what consistency monarchs (and Cromwell) persecuted and slaughtered those whose religion did not conform to that of the monarch's.
The obsession with alleged crimes of the pope is irrational and demonic. And yet that demonically induced hatred against Christian brothers is encouraged by a plethora of Protestant ministers from their pulpits and even taught in their Bible colleges and seminaries. (Much to the delight of the devil)
The devil is well aware that "no kingdom divided against itself will stand" and he has successfully divided the kingdom of God into thousands of sects and encouraged the insane vilification of the RCC. I'm sure Satan is delighted every time some pastor or "Holy Ghost filled believer" goes on a rant about "them damn KATH-licks" and slanders the church which Jesus established. And the moral states of Europe and the USA provide a perfect demonstration of the kingdom of God being unable to stand against the onslaught of paganism in our cultures because we're too busy fighting amongst ourselves and inventing new denominations to convert the pagans who see exactly ZERO "Christian love" exhibited by obsessed Catholic-bashers.
And then you have the temerity to make excuses for yourselves. Do you imagine that God is buying your excuses for slandering His servants?
Who told you to accuse your brother? Was it the Holy Spirit or Satan, the accuser of the brethren?
Exactly whose advocate are you when you accuse others of not being a holy as you?
Who is encouraging you to divide the kingdom of God?
Those are rhetorical questions.
Tit 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.
A Christian who slanders the RCC, is a divisive person.
I'm at the "Have nothing to do with you" point.
I appreciate that honest assessment.Butch5 said:
The fact is I have no love for the work of Satan.
Trying to make a clear separation in a forum format of that work from the people who do his bidding is a challenge.
I am attempting to focus attention on the behavior and to get people to realize what they are doing when they attack other Christians.
There is no inquisition in process today.
Cromwell is not ruling England.
No one is burning witches in Salem.
But we are loosing our civilization to paganism and Islam while Satan keeps Jesus' Church divided.
So I'm a bit concerned.
I understand that, but I don't think acting in like kind is going to do much good. There are those who are not going to be swayed, period. I have met them. People have their traditions and they simply aren't going to let them go. Honestly, at this point I think only God can correct it.JimParker said:
Well, they can't say they no one told them.Butch5 said:
Whether anyone repents of his slanders, well............that's above my pay grade.
Remember Paul told the Corinthians,JimParker said:
17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse.
18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.
19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. (1Co 11:17-19 NKJ)
Stan, I realize you understand what the doctrine superficially means. What I am endeavoring to convince you of is that there is a deeper significance of the doctrine where it impacts on the human nature of Christ. The apostle John said that antichrist would deny Christ came in the flesh. All I can do is repeat what Keeth said...do a study on the meaning of the NT term 'flesh'...perhaps a good place to start would be Romans 8 with particular emphasis on verse 3. The doctrine of the immaculate conception completely nullifies this verse and thus fulfils the statement of John regarding the denial of Jesus coming in the flesh.StanJ said:
So there are two meanings to the doctrine? Maybe you should spell it out and not be so vague like Keeth has been. There is NOTHING valid in the doctrine at all. Why would I study something I already have and know is wrong? Romans 8 is about the NC vs OC, so I have no idea how you can see this RCC doctrine, that came centuries later, nullifying what Paul teaches? I have no problem with 1 John 4:2, and that spirit was IN the Pharisees at that very time. It has been around ever since, and doesn't just exist in a particular RCC doctrine, which I don't really see anyway. Where do you see this RCC doctrine in question is from the spirit of the anti-Christ?brakelite said:
I am impressed with your historical narrative, it is pretty much as it was. I agree that after Constantine departed and through the 4th to the 6th centuries the political power of the bishop of Rome held great influence in those years and impacted the history of Europe to such an extent that modern Europe is very much the result of that influence. Hence the reason why the Vatican holds such store by claiming Europe as her own baby so to speak. I think the Catholic historian Cardinal Manning summed it all up very well.JimParker said:
Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire. The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.” (Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862)
However, there is something you must remember. The church in Rome was not the only church. The gospel had spread much further than Rome. It had, as you rightly point out, already been corrupted in some places by Arianism, but elsewhere was preserved in its apostolic purity. From China to Britain, from Ethiopia to Scandinavia, throughout the kingdoms along the great caravan trade routes that connected them all, the gospel had made a huge impact wherever it was shared. Great churches developed, and none of them until well into the 6th century and onward, had anything to do with Rome. They did not recognize Rome as the spiritual or temporal leader of Christendom, they did not submit to the authority of the pontiffs, and they did not at first succumb to the paganized corruptions that so embedded themselves into Catholic tradition.
And all this history meets every single criteria, without exception, with which the scriptures characterize the Antichrist. Should we be silent upon such convincing evidence? Evidence it seems you are already well versed with? Perhaps you are unaware of the connection between history and prophecy. For your sake, and others who may also be unmindful of the imprt of these matters, allow me to offer a little detail.
Daniel 7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.....
....19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;
20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;....
....24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Manning has clearly given an excellent summary of history which directly correlates with the prophecies of Daniel . While attributing the fall of Rome to God and the rise of the papacy to Him also, Manning seems oblivious to the fact that he is revealing the perfect fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel. That when Rome fell, the ten nations arose, three were subdued, and the ultimate victor was the papacy! It was the papacy itself that the empire of Rome was restraining. It was the papacy that arose after the establishment of the ten horns. It was the papacy that had a major role in the subjugation of the 3 horns because being Arian in belief they were directly opposed to the rule of the pontiffs. It will be the papacy that will still be here at the second coming. Therefore it is the papacy which perfectly fulfils the criteria demanded of it in order to be identified as the Antichrist. And that my friends are precisely the reasons all non-Roman Bible commentators from the time of the 6th century on were almost unanimous in identifying the papacy as the man of sin. The power who entered the church (the temple of God) and by claiming the power to forgive sin, and shut out of heaven whom he will, and claiming universal spiritual and temporal authority over all the earth, thus claiming the prerogatives of God, “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”
* The ten kings who vied for power as the Roman Empire disintegrated before them and from which 7 nations of modern Europe can trace their descent are known by most historians as being the Anglo-Saxons (Britain), the Allamanni (Germany), the Franks (France), the Lombards (first around the Danube then Italy), Visigoths (Spain), Burgundians (Burgundy/Switzerland)) and the Suevi (Portugal).
These seven of the ten Barbarian kingdoms were converted to Christianity and submitted to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. However, three of the kingdoms converted to Christianity but embraced the heretical teachings of Arius. Arius (who was presbyter in Alexandria around the year 320 A. D.) taught that ‘Christ was created out of nothing as the first and greatest of all creatures’, very similar to Jehovah Witness teachings of today. The teachings of Arius were condemned in two great church councils, Nicea (325 A. D.) and Constantinople (381 A. D.). These three Arian kingdoms were a threat to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome [later called the Pope]. To make a long story short, these three kingdoms eventually were uprooted by the imperial power acting under the influence of the Bishop of Rome. The Ostrogoths (originally from Yugoslavia), by order of the emperor, dealt the heretical Heruli a devastating defeat in 493 A. D.
The Pope had requested the emperor to do something about the unorthodox Heruli. In response, the emperor sent Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths to do battle with Odoacer, king of the Heruli. Odoacer was slain by Theodoric and the Heruli disappeared from history. Then the Vandals were crushed (in 534 A. D.) by Belisarius, general of emperor Justinian’s armies. But there was one remaining horn which needed to be uprooted, and it was the most formidable of all: the Ostrogoths. After the Ostrogoths conquered the Heruli, they became extremely powerful. They were also Arians, so the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] implored Justinian to uproot the Ostrogoths. There were several battles between Belisarius and the Ostrogoths. The decisive battle, however, was in February of the year 538. The armies of Justinian, as well as the ravages of disease, decimated the armies of the Ostrogoths, they were expelled from Rome and eventually,after a short-lived resurgence, disappeared from the historical scene in Europe.
The first and perhaps most telling of the characteristics identifying the papacy as the little horn is in fact the politcal history of its rising which you kindly volunteered Jim.
The little horn arises from the fourth beast (Daniel 7:8). The fourth beast represents Rome, so the little horn must be a Roman power.
Remember the image of Daniel 2? The legs were of iron, but the feet were of iron and clay. What does the clay represent? We know the iron represents pagan Rome. In fact, throughout history Rome has been recognised as the ‘Iron Kingdom’ or Empire. But what of the clay that is in union with the iron, but unable to cleave to one another?
The Bible is its own best expositor, so we shall go to the word of God to find our answer.
Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
Jer 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
So according to the above evidence, we see that clay represents God’s people, or His church. Therefore we can justifiably conclude that the feet of the image in Daniel 2, made of iron and clay, is a union of church and state. We see also in the text of Daniel 2 that the clay is miry clay. Miry clay is unworkable. It cannot be shaped by the potter into anything useful; it is fit only to be discarded. It may have begun its life as suitable clay for the fashioning of the potter, but became miry. This is therefore signifying the apostasy Paul spoke of that would take place after he had gone and before Christ comes. Thus it is an apostate church in union with the Roman power.
There are at least 8 or 9 further characteristics equally as powerful and directly pointing to the Roman church...I will offer these later...in the meantime I ask all who are reading this to seriously and prayerfully consider the evidence.
StanJ said:
No Stan, there are not two meanings to the doctrine...read carefully...there is a deeper significance which you aren't considering, and by your own words, can't be bothered studying. So be it.StanJ said:
Please Stan, stop being so close-minded, we are not trying to deceive you or destroy your faith or hurt you in any way...there is no need to be so defensive. What would be better? Us spelling it out for you word by word or you, through a little study, finding it out for yourself? We've both given you numerous clues, yet you still say things like "there is nothing valid in the doctrine at all", and "Why would I study something I already have and know is wrong?". Far out Stan, we know its wrong too, we aren't trying to convince you otherwise!
Think about the relationship between Romans 8:3 and 1 John 4:3. Study the deeper meaning of the word flesh not just the superficial. Then relate what you have found to the immaculate conception idea and how that impacts the human nature of Christ.
Let me give you another clue. Christ is the second Adam yes? (1 Cor. 15:22,45.) Now a question for you to ask yourself. Did Christ come in the likeness of the fallen Adam or the unfallen Adam?
Think about the relationship between Romans 8:3 and 1 John 4:3. Study the deeper meaning of the word flesh not just the superficial. Then relate what you have found to the immaculate conception idea and how that impacts the human nature of Christ.
Let me give you another clue. Christ is the second Adam yes? (1 Cor. 15:22,45.) Now a question for you to ask yourself. Did Christ come in the likeness of the fallen Adam or the unfallen Adam?
Who is WE brakelite? It's been pretty clear for a long time that YOU have nothing to teach me and neither does Keeth. If you can't make your own point from scripture succinctly then please stop with these type of condescending and supercilious posts...I'm not interested. This kind of response arises from people of your ilk when you are constantly being equivocal or obfuscative and DON'T come right out and say what it is you want to say. Are you afraid of taking an actual position on something that you may not be able to double talk your way out of? It may help you if you actually READ what I post slowly and carefully.brakelite said:
Flesh is flesh and there is no need to go any deeper than what Paul and John clearly teach. IF you think you have some deeper or clearer revelation from God, then share it and support it, but stop being sanctimonious about it.
Was Adam flesh when he was created by God? Was he flesh before he condescended to Eve's suggestion to a snack? Yes, he was flesh. He could be touched, seen, smelt, and heard. Flesh.
Was he flesh after he snacked? Of course. but Stan, is it that mode of flesh that Paul speaks of when he equates being carnally minded with walking in the flesh? Was Adam carnally minded when he first stood up and met his Creator? Did Jesus come in the likeness of the Adam that stood innocent before his Creator, or did Jesus come in the likeness of the Adam that stood guilty before the peach tree? The doctrine of the immaculate conception demands that Jesus came in the likeness of the innocent Adam. Yet Romans 8:3 says otherwise. And John tells us who it is that teaches that Jesus came in the likeness of the innocent Adam The Adam that was not Carnal. The Adam that was not yet sinful flesh. Romans 8:3 teaches clearly that Jesus came in the likeness of fallen man. He could be tempted, and was, in all points just as we are, yet did not yield one bit to those temptations. Yet He could have sinned if He had decided so. Jesus, in His humanity but by walking in the spirit and ignoring that inbuilt hereditary weakness so common to man, proved to man that it was possible to walk without sin. Thus He is our example. If however we run with the immaculate conception theory, we end up with a Jesus who had no weaknesses, a Jesus who lived not as a man, but as God, using His divinity and Godly power to live as opposed to faith, thus demonstrating that He was not our example at all, He was not tempted as we are, and that it is therefore impossible to overcome sin and attain to anything close to how Jesus walked as He is so far above us that we need a mediatrix between us. Mary. Another clear attribute of the true antichrist...instead of Christ a vicarious mediator by the name of Mary. So not only do we need the popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests as go-betweens...they need the saints, and at the top of the list, Mary. And you still claim the papacy doesn't meet the criteria of 'antichrist'? One who stands in the place of Christ? How many stand-ins do you need to convince you?
Was he flesh after he snacked? Of course. but Stan, is it that mode of flesh that Paul speaks of when he equates being carnally minded with walking in the flesh? Was Adam carnally minded when he first stood up and met his Creator? Did Jesus come in the likeness of the Adam that stood innocent before his Creator, or did Jesus come in the likeness of the Adam that stood guilty before the peach tree? The doctrine of the immaculate conception demands that Jesus came in the likeness of the innocent Adam. Yet Romans 8:3 says otherwise. And John tells us who it is that teaches that Jesus came in the likeness of the innocent Adam The Adam that was not Carnal. The Adam that was not yet sinful flesh. Romans 8:3 teaches clearly that Jesus came in the likeness of fallen man. He could be tempted, and was, in all points just as we are, yet did not yield one bit to those temptations. Yet He could have sinned if He had decided so. Jesus, in His humanity but by walking in the spirit and ignoring that inbuilt hereditary weakness so common to man, proved to man that it was possible to walk without sin. Thus He is our example. If however we run with the immaculate conception theory, we end up with a Jesus who had no weaknesses, a Jesus who lived not as a man, but as God, using His divinity and Godly power to live as opposed to faith, thus demonstrating that He was not our example at all, He was not tempted as we are, and that it is therefore impossible to overcome sin and attain to anything close to how Jesus walked as He is so far above us that we need a mediatrix between us. Mary. Another clear attribute of the true antichrist...instead of Christ a vicarious mediator by the name of Mary. So not only do we need the popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests as go-betweens...they need the saints, and at the top of the list, Mary. And you still claim the papacy doesn't meet the criteria of 'antichrist'? One who stands in the place of Christ? How many stand-ins do you need to convince you?
Well said.brakelite said:
Do you not see StanJ, that the doctrine of the Immaculat Conception separates Mary from the rest of Humanity, and therefore separates Christ from us also? Perhaps the following will help.
[SIZE=14pt]9 THE NATURE OF CHRIST[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Immaculate Conception[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]THE DOCTRINE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary [/SIZE]"in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."[SIZE=12pt]"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ."[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ."[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father[/SIZE] had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
[SIZE=12pt]". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ."[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin[/SIZE], was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining in her soul to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.
[SIZE=12pt]". . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race."[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ[/SIZE], withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
[SIZE=12pt]Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII
Copyright © 1910 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]According to the church of Rome, in the above explanation of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was seperated from the rest of humanity by God. She did not inherit that which all the rest of humanity inherited through Adam and Eve, when they fell in the garden. That is to say, she did not have a fallen, sinful nature. This doctrine is wholly extra biblical. It has no foundation in the scriptures at all, and for this reason, we will not even address the issue of whether it is biblical or not. We will examine however, it's effects upon the heart of the gospel message to this fallen world.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]As is apparent from the scriptures above, the conception of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was unlike that of any other of the human race. God himself was Jesus' Father. This is the foundation of the mystery of Godliness. This truth is the salvation of humanity. However, it is not this truth alone that is our salvation, but also the truth that Christ's mother, was one of us. God became a man. Divinity and humanity were united in Christ, bridging the gap created between God and humanity through the disobedience of our first parents. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt].[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]2 Tim 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Christ took upon himself the seed of Abraham, and the seed of David, according to the flesh. These men did not have immaculate conceptions. They were sinners, just as you and I are. Yes, Just as Mary was also. If in fact Mary was not one of us, then Christ did not unite himself to the entirety of the human race that was, is, and always will be this side of heaven, in desperate need of salvation. The false doctrine of the immaculate conception is yet another doctrine of the church of Rome which separates humanity from their Savior. This doctrine completely undermines the entire gospel message.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Jesus Christ became one of us, in order to save us from the sinful flesh that we inherited from our first parents. This He did, by crucifying the deeds of the flesh, and allowing the deeds of his Father to be fulfilled within him. This is what makes it possible for us to pick up the cross and follow him. However, if Christ did not even have our flesh, how could he possibly have conquered the sins of the flesh that we struggle with, and ask us to follow him? He could not, and he would not. To the contrary, it was for this very purpose that he took upon himself our very own flesh, and nature, yet without sin. This is our salvation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]As the book of Hebrews points out, it is the very fact that Jesus Christ became completely one of us, that qualifies him to be our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Because he knows and completely understands us, he ever liveth to make intercession for us. ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Heb. 7: 25-27[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]) Christ took upon himself our fallen natures, that he might redeem us from this very nature, or flesh if you will. He fought and won this battle with the flesh on our behalf, seeing that we could never have accomplished this victory. Although he took upon himself our fallen nature, Christ never sinned, and this is our salvation. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Our Lord and Savior condemned sin in the flesh, by living in our very flesh, but never fulfilling the desires of the flesh. By depending completely on his heavenly Father, and the power of His Holy Spirit, Christ continually crucified the desires of the flesh, thereby fulfilling the will of his Father. This he did until it lead him to the cross, where he was literally crucified for the sins of the world. Christ did not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Now those who wish to do so, may lay down their lives at the foot of the cross with their Lord and Savior, and pick up the cross and follow Jesus. Christ condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in those who choose to follow him, and walk in the Spirit, instead of the flesh.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Lord Jesus Christ did nothing of himself. For he was God, and man. If he lived by the strength of his own divinity, then he would not be our salvation, for we have no divinity from within ourselves to live with. If he lived, or walked by the flesh, then he could not be our salvation, for he would have lived, or walked in sin. But no, Christ lived, and walked by the Spirit, fulfilling the will of the Father. This is our salvation. Now we can do the same in Christ.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]If we abide in Christ, first and foremost being crucified with him, then he may abide in us through the power of the Holy Spirit of God. Just as he abode in his Father as one of us, so may we abide in him unto salvation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Jesus crucified the deeds of the flesh all his life long, until it led him to the literal cross. The true Christians life, must begin, where Christ's ended, at the cross. When we die in Christ on the cross, we are justified. The law demands the death of the one who breaks it. Therefore Christ has made it possible for us to enter into his death, that the just demands of the law may be fulfilled. When we die with him, we are justified. When he lives in us, we are sanctified. This is the spiritual service of the Christian, to give their bodies as a living sacrifice unto the Lord, that he might dwell within them unto salvation.([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Rom. 12:1&2[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The true Christian seeks to always walk in the Spirit, and not in the flesh. Of course, it is not possible to walk in the Spirit, unless you have first crucified the flesh. The Christian is only able to crucify the flesh in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who took our sinful flesh, and crucified it's desires all his life long, resulting in his literal crucifixion. His flesh, was our flesh. If you take this truth away, you destroy the entire gospel message. What good would it do any of us, if Christ crucified some kind of flesh that we have no part of? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]II Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, our flesh. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception undermines this foundational truth of the gospel message. By teaching this false doctrine, the church of Rome manifest's the spirit of antichrist. This is only right of course, since her doctrines serve the purpose of separating humanity from God, while Christ came to do just the opposite. The scriptures no where indicate that the flesh Christ took upon himself was different from the flesh of the rest of humanity. The scriptures do point out that Christ was of the seed of Abraham, and of David according to the flesh, not of the seed of some human that had no original sin. we will close this chapter with the following verses.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 2 The same was in the beginning with God.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.[/SIZE]
<< Great churches developed, and none of them until well into the 6th century and onward, had anything to do with Rome. They did not recognize Rome as the spiritual or temporal leader of Christendom, they did not submit to the authority of the pontiffs, >>brakelite said:
In my understanding, that is correct. St. Augustine of Canterbury reports the incident of the inability of the Celtic bishops to come to agreement with the (Roman) bishops as to the day of Easter and the Irish church had closer connections with Alexandria than with Rome. Eusebius refers to a North African Bishop informing the Bishop of Rome that he should mind his own business.
<< and they did not at first succumb to the paganized corruptions that so embedded themselves into Catholic tradition. >>
Exactly to what “paganized corruptions” do you refer?
<<And all this history meets every single criteria, without exception, with which the scriptures characterize the Antichrist. ……allow me to offer a little detail.>>
What you have offered is the interpretations of apocalyptic (not prophetic) visions based on the interpretations of those who have a tradition of prejudice and bias against the Catholic Church. It is rather like asking a Klansman for an unbiased assessment of the history of Africans in the USA.
I’ve heard or read all that (IMO) baloney before.
<<Manning has clearly given an excellent summary of history which directly correlates with the prophecies of Daniel .>>
I doubt that Manning would have agreed. Perhaps you should read his book; Why I Became a Catholic, Or Religio Viatoris
<< The ten kings who vied for power as the Roman Empire disintegrated before them and from which 7 nations of modern …bla…bla…bla… Burgundians (Burgundy/Switzerland)) and the Suevi (Portugal). >>
I have already seen this “stuff” from other Seventh Day Adventists. It wasn’t any more convincing the first time than it is when you present it.
<<The Bible is its own best expositor>>
That is absurd nonsense unless you can cite a verified example of a Bible actually speaking and telling someone “this is what these words mean.” What you are about to present is a combination of the logical fallacies called “Appeal to Authority” and “Appeal to Tradition.” What you have done is inserted your church’s traditional interpretation of the Bible into your polemic against the RCC and then claimed, “It’s right there in the Bible.”
No. It is not.
If the Bible were it’s own expositor there would be no disagreement between churches as to what is written in it. Instead there are tens of thousands of sects.
<< so we shall go to the word of God to find our answer. >>
Rather, “Shall I allow myself to be influenced by your church’s traditional interpretation of what you think the Bible says about “those damned Catholics” based on your church’s devotion to it’s irrational hatred for the RCC in general and the pope? “
I’ll pass.
How disappointing! At first I thought you had something of substance to offer. Nope: just SOS
OK I'll reluctantly try to deal with this again one more time even though it is a false doctrine.brakelite said:
- Yes
- Yes, but it was submission not condescension
- Yes
- If you are referring to Rom 8:3, Paul uses σάρξ (sarx) with the connotation of carnality, so no.
- He had a carnal mind, yes.
- No, he came in the likeness of sinful flesh, carnality, as Paul is teaching in Rom 8:3
What you have to learn is the difference between the two different Babylons in Rev 18 and 19.
So are you going to enlighten us, or is this just priveleged information for the priveleged themselves and poeple of superior intellect, such as yourself?StanJ said:
The topic of hell, etc. has been discussed on this board many a time, and the discussions always seem to go the way this one has.
The really good ones have been where people start saying, "But in ancient Greek the meaning is actually..." or "In the Latin, it actually translates into..."
Or when someone mentions Matt. 25:41 "“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" and someone claims that only the first is eternal and the lives/souls of the sinners are not so they are quickly burned into nothing and/or it will only be the devil and his angels that will be there for all eternity.
The there are those that claim that they will suffer in 'a hell-like environment' until they have 'paid the price' and then are welcomed into heaven (ignoring the scripture that people are appointed to die once and then be judged).
I would take a step back and first ask why Jesus spoke so frequently and prominently of the dangers of hell. Is it because people "don't know what they are missing" and that they will be destroyed quickly and be without God and from then on be nothing and they are missing out?
That makes no sense.
The really good ones have been where people start saying, "But in ancient Greek the meaning is actually..." or "In the Latin, it actually translates into..."
Or when someone mentions Matt. 25:41 "“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" and someone claims that only the first is eternal and the lives/souls of the sinners are not so they are quickly burned into nothing and/or it will only be the devil and his angels that will be there for all eternity.
The there are those that claim that they will suffer in 'a hell-like environment' until they have 'paid the price' and then are welcomed into heaven (ignoring the scripture that people are appointed to die once and then be judged).
I would take a step back and first ask why Jesus spoke so frequently and prominently of the dangers of hell. Is it because people "don't know what they are missing" and that they will be destroyed quickly and be without God and from then on be nothing and they are missing out?
That makes no sense.
Similar threads
