Assurance of salvation:

[bbyrd009]

???

um, there are other reflections of the lesson i guess; it's all waves...oh, ya;
God asked Moses if he wanted God to wipe the Wanderers away, and make Moses the father of a new race
same deal

 

[verzanumi24]

Quetzalcoatl was the "Feather Serpent" - not a serpent on a pole.

Do you know what the Aztec descendants in Mexico referred to the Blessed Mother in their native Nahuatal tongue when she appeared to Juan Diego? They called her Coatlaxopeuh”, (pronounced “Quatlasupe”) - the "Serpent Crusher."

Gen. 3:15
"And I will put enmity between you and the WOMAN, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

It wasn't the woman who crushed the head of satan, it was Jesus. Genesis 3:15 was simply a prophecy that a child would be born of a woman, who will defeat the devil.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It wasn't the woman who crushed the head of satan, it was Jesus. Genesis 3:15 was simply a prophecy that a child would be born of a woman, who will defeat the devil.

Yes - HER offspring crushed the head of the serpent.
In case you forgot - Jesus has a mother and her name is "Mary."

 

[verzanumi24]

Yes - HER offspring crushed the head of the serpent.
In case you forgot - Jesus has a mother and her name is "Mary."

Jesus having a mother still doesn't change the fact that it was He who crushed the head of satan, and not his mother. Even Mary needed a Savior.

Luke 1:46-47 (KJV)
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

 

[pia]

Quetzalcoatl
the Snake on a Pole

Jeez.....What a horrendous image...Are you saying this is supposed to show Christ ?

 

[brakelite]

I am a member of an ecclesiastical group of people. Or church. Have been for 20 years. Not only is it not a house church, or even an independant group, it is in fact a denomination. I will go further. It is a global denomination that is, outside of the RCC, the fastest growing Christian denomination on earth, (one could almost argue the only growing Christian denomination) and yet in the majority of other Christian minds, answers to all the assumed criteria marking it as a cult. Therefore it has all the hallmarks of abject condemnation many of you folk have placed upon it and thus by extension, upon me, because in your estimation I am relying on my membership of said church, and my connection to it, as providing merit which ensures my salvation. Of course,I could point to the many positive attributes that my church possesses, a couple of which I have alluded to above and could indeed claim such blessings the church has received from God means the church itself is therefore assured of salvation, and thus means by association, I partake of those blessings and am thus also assured of salvation.
But no. We all know such cannot be the case. Salvation is personal. It is not dependant upon church membership. No salvation of any sort has been offered to an organisation. No blanket salvation was ever offered to, nor gained by Israel. Just as true Israel is made up of individuals who are inwardly circumcised, and thus not flesh and blood descendants of Abraham, so does the body of Christ comprise of the same. And such are found in all churches.
However, truth of the gospel can be found in church, some more than others, and God can and does use such truth operating albeit through imperfect vehicles, to bring people into His kingdom. It is true also that the vast majority of organised churches will join the global apostate club now forming under the auspices of the UN/WCC/RCC affiliation, and those that do not will be forced to cease operations.
That said, I am tired of seeing so much blanket condemnation of those who like myself choose a church fellowship in and through which we serve God. Our salvation is no more or less affected by such as your independence affects your salvation. But as you continue to insist my membership of a church means I personally am an apostate, then are you not exalting your independence as meriting salvation for yourself, or at the very least contributing towards it? If not, why keep bringing it up?
Now of course some of you may be wondering why it is that I have so much to say negatively of the RCC. And that would be a fair question. I am aware that it is a fine line that is drawn between criticism and condemnation of a church, and criticism and condemnation of individuals because they belong to that church. Which is why I try and steer well clear of making blanket statements regarding people’s salvation based on church membership. Unlike some here who boast of their independence on just about any thread, not excluding such as this one which focuses on salvation, thus intimating the two are inexorably linked. There can be a link, but none are qualified to judge reason nor motive for church membership, therefore church membership alone can never be used as criteria in judging for or against anyone’s ultimate destiny.

 

[bbyrd009]

If a person has no assurance of their salvation then they are not saved. Why??? Because they don't believe Jesus really died and paid for their sins.

another problem you will run into with that concept is that now salvation is predicated upon beliefs, which are not faith, and you will be led to judge ppl on their beliefs

 

[bbyrd009]

Jeez.....What a horrendous image...Are you saying this is supposed to show Christ ?

a reflection of Nehushtan anyway, i guess, maybe a Shadow or whatever. Quite interesting time frame too. Not sure why you say horrendous, i doubt Christ with hands and feet nailed down makes for a much less horrendous image? But then you were "born" on the other side of the Sea of Reeds i guess, huh, and are maybe just reacting to
under the law practically everything is cleansed with blood.

it's kind of hard to grasp in this context, but God loves the "Egyptians" too i guess,
25The LORD of Hosts will bless them, saying, "Egypt My people, Assyria My handiwork, and Israel My inheritance are blessed."
so i guess we'll need an idea of...who Assyria is at some point huh.
You might be "Assyria," having side-stepped the Reeds, dunno
"handiwork" suggests a 'yes' there to me, but i am not aware of what Assyria symbolizes, maybe someone else is.
"Handiwork" sounds like you though

hmm. anyway, yes, surely God loved the Aztecs (civilization) too, and came to them where they were at as well imo.
That image is not the usual one of Q, who is usually depicted as a feathered Snake, "flying" (between earth and heaven)

 

[bbyrd009]

It wasn't the woman who crushed the head of satan, it was Jesus. Genesis 3:15 was simply a prophecy that a child would be born of a woman, who will defeat the devil.

wadr i'd stick with "bruised" there, for effect

Yes - HER offspring crushed the head of the serpent.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus having a mother still doesn't change the fact that it was He who crushed the head of satan, and not his mother. Even Mary needed a Savior.

Luke 1:46-47 (KJV)
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

And you keep missing the point.
Jesus IS the one who crushed the head of the serpent - but His mother is no less a part of the prophecy.
The prophecy is NOT only about the offspring - but about the WOMAN as well. This is why Jesus ALWAYS refers to His Mother as "Woman" in John's Gospel.

As for Mary needing a Savior - WHO says that she didn't??

 

[verzanumi24]

And you keep missing the point.
Jesus IS the one who crushed the head of the serpent - but His mother is no less a part of the prophecy.
The prophecy is NOT only about the offspring - but about the WOMAN as well. This is why Jesus ALWAYS refers to His Mother as "Woman" in John's Gospel.

As for Mary needing a Savior - WHO says that she didn't??

And you missed the point of the prophecy.....the mother(Mary) was only the bearer of the one who crushed the head of satan. It wasn't Mary who defeated satan on the cross, it was Jesus. So the Aztec descendants in Mexico are wrong; Mary was not the serpent crusher.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And you missed the point of the prophecy.....the mother(Mary) was only the bearer of the one who crushed the head of satan. It wasn't Mary who defeated satan on the cross, it was Jesus. So the Aztec descendants in Mexico are wrong; Mary was not the serpent crusher.

You missed the point again.

Just as Eve was the mother of all the living - Mary is mother of all of those living in Christ.
She is the God-bearer - the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant. Mary didn't crush the serpent's head - Jesus did.

HOWEVER, no Mary, no Jesus. He was God but He also HAD to be created flesh - of His sacrifice wouldn't have been legitimate. He got His humanity from His mother. She was with Him when the prophecy was being fulfilled on Calvary.

 

[verzanumi24]

You missed the point again.

What is important is that I didn't missed who was prophecied to crush the head of satan.

Just as Eve was the mother of all the living - Mary is mother of all of those living in Christ.

There is no scripture in the Bible that supports that. Here is what the scripture say is the mother of those living in Christ.

Galatians 4:26 (KJV)
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

She is the God-bearer - the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant. Mary didn't crush the serpent's head - Jesus did.

HOWEVER, no Mary, no Jesus. He was God but He also HAD to be created flesh - of His sacrifice wouldn't have been legitimate. He got His humanity from His mother. She was with Him when the prophecy was being fulfilled on Calvary.

Mary had other children after Jesus and they were not God....so she was not the God bearer. Mary was simply a normal woman that God choose to use....it's what God did and not who Mary was. God could have used any woman if He wanted to.

 

[amadeus]

@brakelite

Thanks for the introduction and clarification. I doubt that many here took note of your words and what they meant. Also remember:

"And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." Luke 9:50

Of course it would not surprising to find that some here would argue against that verse, especially if they did not know it was in scripture.

Give God the glory!

 

[pia]

, yes, surely God loved the Aztecs (civilization) too

You made a good point about how Christ would have made for a horrendous image too...The one on that photo, just didn't look quite human.........I agree with you that God would love the Aztecs or whoever anyone can point to....
Considering that He IS Love, I'm guessing it would be difficult for Him not to

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is important is that I didn't missed who was prophecied to crush the head of satan.

Yup - Jesus - and indirectly, the WOMAN (Mary).

There is no scripture in the Bible that supports that. Here is what the scripture say is the mother of those living in Christ.
Galatians 4:26 (KJV)
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

That's NOT what Paul is saying.
He is speaking figuratively of his Jewish ancestry.

Nice try, though . . .

Mary had other children after Jesus and they were not God....so she was not the God bearer. Mary was simply a normal woman that God choose to use....it's what God did and not who Mary was. God could have used any woman if He wanted to.

The Bible doesn't say that Mary had other children. As a matter of fact - there is not even ONE single extrabiblical testimony of her having other children. WHY is that??

Also - if Mary had "other" children - why did Jesus hand her over to the care of John??
Not only would this have been inappropriate - it would have been a scandalous slap in the face to His so-called siblings.

 

[verzanumi24]

Yup - Jesus - and indirectly, the WOMAN (Mary).

There is no scripture that say that. That is something invented by the pagan church.....the roman catholic church.

That's NOT what Paul is saying.
He is speaking figuratively of his Jewish ancestry.

Nice try, though . . .

So Mary could never be the mother of believers and is not Bibical, but is a invention by the catholic church.

The Bible doesn't say that Mary had other children. As a matter of fact - there is not even ONE single extrabiblical testimony of her having other children. WHY is that??

Jesus was Mary's first born

Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV)
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

A son or a doughter cannot be called the first born if they are an only child.


Matthew 12:46-47 (KJV)
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Also - if Mary had "other" children - why did Jesus hand her over to the care of John??
Not only would this have been inappropriate - it would have been a scandalous slap in the face to His so-called siblings.

You would have to ask Jesus that, but it could be that John was more capable of taking care of His mother than His younger brothers.

 

[H. Richard]

Like all threads this one has lost its focus and has been chocked out by nonsense.

This thread was about assurance of salvation. If a person does not feel assured of their salvation then that person has no faith in the work of Jesus on the cross, period!

 

[bbyrd009]

oh, lots of threads where that isn't happening, HR

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is no scripture that say that. That is something invented by the pagan church.....the roman catholic church.

No - it not.

The prophecy in Gen. 3:15 isn't just about the offspring of the Woman - but about the Woman herself as well.
It is about BOTH of them - AND Satan.

So Mary could never be the mother of believers and is not Bibical, but is a invention by the catholic church.

John 26:27
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Was Mary the mother of John??
Nope.

Why would Jesus tell a lie like this??

Jesus was Mary's first born

Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV)
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
A son or a doughter cannot be called the first born if they are an only child.

WRONG.
This is based on your ignorance of Jewish culture.

To the Jews - "Firstborn" simply meant, "the one who opens his mother's womb."
Whether she has TWELVE children - or just ONE - her first child is the "Firstborn".

Matthew 12:46-47 (KJV)

46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Ummmm, where does it say that these are MARY'S children?
The word for brother (Adelphos) is used in the NT 344 times. Let's take a look . . .

Of the 344 times we see the use of the word “Adelphos”, “Adelphe” and all of their variations, we see that –
- 41 cases (12%) where "adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
- 47 cases (14%) where "adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
- There are a whopping 256 cases (74%) where "adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling.

Adelphos can mean uterine sibling, half brother, step brother, adopted brother, cousin, uncle, distant relation, neighbor, fellow countryman, fellow believer, etc.

Let's see some Biblical examples of this word.
- In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "Adelpohs", even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28).

- In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "Adelphos" of his uncle Laban.

- Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "Adelphoi”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their COUSINS (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

FINALLY - these so-called "brothers" of Jesus are actually named in Scripture:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?

HOWEVER, when we read the accounts of the women standing near the cross with Mary - we see that these are the children of the "other Mary", who is related to Mary (Jesus' Mother). It says that she is Mary's "Sister" (Adelphe) - yet they are BOTH named "Mary":
Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s SISTER, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

You would have to ask Jesus that, but it could be that John was more capable of taking care of His mother than His younger brothers.

That's about as WEAK an answer as I've ever heard.
This would have been a scandalous insult and NOT something Jesus would have done.

Remember - Jesus never violated the Law - He FULFILLED it.