Mary, Mary quite contrary

[Letsgofishing]

I have never heard that quote from Mother Theresa and I LOVE IT!!!!just thought I should help you out her Goldy Quotes are in boldQuotes from Martin Luther, John Calvin and other folks ( the founding fathers of protetism keep in mind) In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians:It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).Martin Luther had the belief of Mary's Immaculate Conception, Luther's words follow:It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual VirginityHere are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) } Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) } A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds: Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5} ". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)Commentaries on Luther". . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her." (Ref: Wm. J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116"In Luther's Explanation of the Magnificat in 1521, he begins and ends with an invocation to Mary, which Wright feels compelled to call 'surprising'". (David F. Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspecive, London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, p. 178, Cited from Faith & Reason, Spring 1994, p. 6.)Martin Luther defends the EucharistIn 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Other Reformers on Mary's Perpetual VirginityJohn Calvin Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55} [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107} Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) } Huldreich Zwingli He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . . 'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522} Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' {Thurian, ibid., p.76} I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon} Heinrich Bullinger Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . . 'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5} John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. Dang. Thats like ten pages of quotes there

 

[Unorthodox Christian]

I'm going to Pray to St. Peter to ask him to tell God to forgive me sin.Dear St. Peter, although Christ was the atonement for our sins,and he is our mediator and ONE AND ONLY mediator between us and Abba(Father), tell Abba to forgive my sins.I will no longer put my input in this, those who know the truth, will not feed on this dead manna. Blasphemy towards mary? WOW! Blasphemy can only be towards God. *SMH*

 

[Letsgofishing]

lol that was your best post yet Unorthodox christian .I'm serious that was pure Genius wait I'm supposed to be debating against you aren't I.................

 

[For Life]

How is calling Mary the mother of God putting her equal with god. i don't get your reasoning. I mean she gave birth to him!!!!wouldn't that be enough to be called his mother. This does not mean that she is equal to God. it doesn't even apply this.All it means is that God honored her by making her the bearer of our savior.
I think it is the whole argument. If you called Mary the surrogate of God that would more define her role. But you call her the mother of God and that implies that she passed on certain traits to Him and is in some ways equal to Him. I don't want to take away any honor that Mary is deserving of. God, after all, did choose her to give birth to our Lord. I don't think Jesus wants us to pray to people to intercede for us. I think He wants us to come straight to him. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the father but by me."Jesus talked alot about his Father but I don't recall Him talking about praying to his mother.

 

[Letsgofishing]

And that is the whole reason the bible calls Mary a virgin for life. Scientifically it is impossible for Mary to pass traits on to christ if God was the one who implanted the seed and Not Joseph.

 

[Jordan]

(Letsgofishing;25259)
And that is the whole reason the bible calls Mary a virgin for life. Scientifically it is impossible for Mary to pass traits on to christ if God was the one who implanted the seed and Not Joseph.
Actually Mary is no longer a virgin since she was married to Joseph. So she is not a virgin for life.Jag

 

[Letsgofishing]

" actually mary is no longer a virgin because she married Joseph for life."You can Marry someone without giving up your virginity.You can be a virgin until you die and still be married.( I am sure nobody does that anymore.)Her being married has nothing to do with it.

 

[Christina]

She did have other children so she only started out as virgin forLife hit the nail on the head here.However I must say letsgofishing that if all catholics had more of your attitude and common sense then we would not have such a problem with Catholicism unfortunately they do not.

 

[Letsgofishing]

In Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus and his apostles, had no word for "cousin," so cousins and other close relatives were often referred to as brothers. For example, Abraham's nephew Lot was called his brother (Gen. 14:14). So this does not neccesarily mean that mary wasn't a virgin for life.

 

[Unorthodox Christian]

I agree with KrissI see how much Zeal I have, but at the same time, I can now see my anti-catholic sentiment so forgive me. If more Catholics had the same mind frame as Letsgofishing, there wouldn't even be so much arguments.

 

[Letsgofishing]

Jeez what is this a lets praise lets gofishing thread.I am not worthy of praise. i am not worthy to undo the sandals on your feet.I am broken. I have found my life and yet I rather live in death.instead of praising me, praise God the one who deserves it. The king who died for us. for he is the one who deserves.I am just the scum who can't stop spitting in his faceand yet every time he just wipes it off and smiles. he just wipes it off and smiles.with the wounds of his crucifiction.and the scars from his scourgingand the sufferings from hell.He just wipes it off and smiles. He is the one who deserves your praise.

 

[Tyrel]

(kriss;25317)
She did have other children so she only started out as virgin forLife hit the nail on the head here.However I must say letsgofishing that if all catholics had more of your attitude and common sense then we would not have such a problem with Catholicism unfortunately they do not.
If I may, Kriss, just kindly point something out. Letsgofishing and Goldy, along with others, are taking all the heat and flames from protestants here. I know many many catholics who know their faith much better than either of these. One of whom was about to begin his training as a Jesuit soon, but decided instead on the Dominicans {he loves Augustine and Aquinas}. Anyways, I would just like to put to you that there is a dual problem here.First, the majority of the so called Catholic Church is "stagnant" in one sense. This is a problem the pope has acknowledged as well, and thus all the arguments recently about old and new mass. However, one way or another, due to the structure of the service, and the devout adherence to ritualistic worship {which can be a very noble thing indeed}, I think it leaves most behind who do not understand the imagery. Thus, a great many Catholics do not know their own faith very well, even being uncertain about their Dogma. The lesser faction, I might add, {those who know the faith} is most distressed at the state of affairs in the Protestant Churches. what I mean is, most Catholics have tried at one time or another to commune with the Coptic orthodox, the Russian Orthodox, the Chinese breakawaymistakechurch, the Anglicans {who are protestants}, etc. However, as soon as a Catholic approaches evangelicals, he finds that they already have the torches light, and waiting to anxiously burn them. Now, this is perhaps unfortunate, but I think you know it to be true. There is unresolved hostility here.Most Catholics, the ones who know their faith that is, are simply not willing to go through all the trials that these here on this board have gone through, just to get a "citizenship recognition" status, where others begin to see them at least as Christians, but not as right Christians.Most Catholics who know their faith, don't wish to waste their time. They simply don't go looking for protestants. If you go to see some good online Catholic Forums, you'll see what they believe, and how often these issues come up.Really, if anything, we should be thanking those Catholics who have taken their time to come here and be so humble, clear, concise and respectful.As a note to the Catholics, pertaining to this topic.My personal thoughts on Theotokos is that it is a false assertion of faith. What I mean by this is that it begins as an innocent enough title in the Church, intended to imply nothing of divinity. However, it does irrevocably imply something quite wrong grammatically. It implies two things. First, it implies that Mary taught and raised Jesus so as to make him become the man he is. Thus, some would say, this explains why God choose Mary to be the ark of the Covenant, fulfilling prophesy clearly. However, I do not believe that the ark of the covenant established what was in it, but rather that what was inside, established the reason for having what contained it. Please consider that carefully.The Title also brings with it the insinuation that Mary must have been holy beyond measure, for she is the ark of the covenant, and such a thing ought not be treated lightly as we already see in the Tenak. If she bore the Christ of God, and was chosen as the handmaiden, a virgin, and if the is thought to be theotokos, then she is establishing and making possible Messiah and the Gospel itself.I simply must agree, albeit tentatively, with Denver on this one. The Traditions of men lead one often lead one into trouble. All while I agree the entirety of the Gospel is proclaimed through sacred scripture and Tradition, which do irrevocably communicate one with the other. However, this is a doctrine which is demonstrably evolving in the early church, such that it cannot properly be called apostolic teaching, in the sense that the Apostles have passed it down to us. While I've heard some good arguments for the growing tradition which seeks to be led into all Truth as the Holy Spirit promises the Church, I recognize that first, in this case, the doctrine is obviously evolved, and second, I find it far from being properly philosophically or theologically defensible.For me, the fact that it is an evolved doctrine, makes it reasonable to question, and in my mind should never be counted among the infallible articles of faith by any church. Furthermore, I, upon questioning it, simply find that it doesn't stand up to honest scrutiny.Concerning the Prayers/Petitions to the saintsThe reason I may not so easily adhere to prayers to the saints, is not because we are requiring their aid in prayer for us, but rather because I am of the mind that there is no communion of saints. I am of the opinion, at this time, that people are not in heaven or hell. I believe that people die, entering into the sleep of nothingness, and that we are later resurrected and judged. This, coincidentally, is what Martin Luther thought as well. I believe it on the basis of scripture, and on the basis of experience. For example, I have a friend who died for 3 minutes in a hospital, and then came back to life.. somehow.. He's a fairly odd character who I love to debate with at length about just about anything. He recounts that what he recalls, and that is; he entered into a state of nothingness. This can be observed scientifically now, as the brain, at some times during sleep, actually ceases activity. We know, then, that the brain makes us experience a state of nothingness at least every 24 hours {assuming you didn't stay up all night}.I believe that this is what we experience after this life.. or rather, it is fairer to say that we altogether cease to experience. This view is contestable of course, and that Jesuit/Dominican friend of mine loves to debate for hours on end every day or two about this and other topics with me. We help force each other to question and consider things we never would have otherwise. Most recently, this particular view of mine, was one of the ones brought into question. It may change, in coming months.I'm sort of in and out of this forum now, as I was accused of being a Catholic, a Mormon, a Muslim at one point, and now, I think it's been decided that I believe in all world religions being one, or something like that.. I think they call it oneworldism here. Superjag thinks I'm of the Spirit of the Antichrist, or something like that. In any case, I'm none of those. I got enough abuse to last me a while, so I try to just casually come in and out now. To the Catholics though, I have to say, keep it up, and good job. I was hoping that a Catholic would defend their position and open some eyes here. I wasn't a Catholic, and so it really wasn't my place {though, I got accused of being a Catholic when I quoted Mother Teressa.. I was going to follow up by quoting a passage in the catechism, but after gaging the reaction, figured perhaps I shouldn't

}I'm glad some Catholics are finally here though. Though I might disagree with Catholicism on some points, what I find absolutely intolerable is that people attack it while they know nothing about it. At least Martin Luther {who I generally really disagree with immensely} wrote a 95 page thesis. These protestants often can't come up with anything beyond the three golden anticatholic polemics, which are launched in ignorance of Catholicism {Prayers/Petitions to the saints in communion with the living, The transubstantiation of the true Eucharist, and the recognition as the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ on behalf of the Church}.So, since you are opening eyes, I want to personally thank you.In Hope and Thanks,~Tyrel

 

[Jordan]

(Biblical Tetragramaton;25398)
If I may, Kriss, just kindly point something out. Letsgofishing and Goldy, along with others, are taking all the heat and flames from protestants here. I know many many catholics who know their faith much better than either of these. One of whom was about to begin his training as a Jesuit soon, but decided instead on the Dominicans {he loves Augustine and Aquinas}. Anyways, I would just like to put to you that there is a dual problem here.First, the majority of the so called Catholic Church is "stagnant" in one sense. This is a problem the pope has acknowledged as well, and thus all the arguments recently about old and new mass. However, one way or another, due to the structure of the service, and the devout adherence to ritualistic worship {which can be a very noble thing indeed}, I think it leaves most behind who do not understand the imagery. Thus, a great many Catholics do not know their own faith very well, even being uncertain about their Dogma. The lesser faction, I might add, {those who know the faith} is most distressed at the state of affairs in the Protestant Churches. what I mean is, most Catholics have tried at one time or another to commune with the Coptic orthodox, the Russian Orthodox, the Chinese breakawaymistakechurch, the Anglicans {who are protestants}, etc. However, as soon as a Catholic approaches evangelicals, he finds that they already have the torches light, and waiting to anxiously burn them. Now, this is perhaps unfortunate, but I think you know it to be true. There is unresolved hostility here.Most Catholics, the ones who know their faith that is, are simply not willing to go through all the trials that these here on this board have gone through, just to get a "citizenship recognition" status, where others begin to see them at least as Christians, but not as right Christians.Most Catholics who know their faith, don't wish to waste their time. They simply don't go looking for protestants. If you go to see some good online Catholic Forums, you'll see what they believe, and how often these issues come up.Really, if anything, we should be thanking those Catholics who have taken their time to come here and be so humble, clear, concise and respectful.As a note to the Catholics, pertaining to this topic.My personal thoughts on Theotokos is that it is a false assertion of faith. What I mean by this is that it begins as an innocent enough title in the Church, intended to imply nothing of divinity. However, it does irrevocably imply something quite wrong grammatically. It implies two things. First, it implies that Mary taught and raised Jesus so as to make him become the man he is. Thus, some would say, this explains why God choose Mary to be the ark of the Covenant, fulfilling prophesy clearly. However, I do not believe that the ark of the covenant established what was in it, but rather that what was inside, established the reason for having what contained it. Please consider that carefully.The Title also brings with it the insinuation that Mary must have been holy beyond measure, for she is the ark of the covenant, and such a thing ought not be treated lightly as we already see in the Tenak. If she bore the Christ of God, and was chosen as the handmaiden, a virgin, and if the is thought to be theotokos, then she is establishing and making possible Messiah and the Gospel itself.I simply must agree, albeit tentatively, with Denver on this one. The Traditions of men lead one often lead one into trouble. All while I agree the entirety of the Gospel is proclaimed through sacred scripture and Tradition, which do irrevocably communicate one with the other. However, this is a doctrine which is demonstrably evolving in the early church, such that it cannot properly be called apostolic teaching, in the sense that the Apostles have passed it down to us. While I've heard some good arguments for the growing tradition which seeks to be led into all Truth as the Holy Spirit promises the Church, I recognize that first, in this case, the doctrine is obviously evolved, and second, I find it far from being properly philosophically or theologically defensible.For me, the fact that it is an evolved doctrine, makes it reasonable to question, and in my mind should never be counted among the infallible articles of faith by any church. Furthermore, I, upon questioning it, simply find that it doesn't stand up to honest scrutiny.Concerning the Prayers/Petitions to the saintsThe reason I may not so easily adhere to prayers to the saints, is not because we are requiring their aid in prayer for us, but rather because I am of the mind that there is no communion of saints. I am of the opinion, at this time, that people are not in heaven or hell. I believe that people die, entering into the sleep of nothingness, and that we are later resurrected and judged. This, coincidentally, is what Martin Luther thought as well. I believe it on the basis of scripture, and on the basis of experience. For example, I have a friend who died for 3 minutes in a hospital, and then came back to life.. somehow.. He's a fairly odd character who I love to debate with at length about just about anything. He recounts that what he recalls, and that is; he entered into a state of nothingness. This can be observed scientifically now, as the brain, at some times during sleep, actually ceases activity. We know, then, that the brain makes us experience a state of nothingness at least every 24 hours {assuming you didn't stay up all night}.I believe that this is what we experience after this life.. or rather, it is fairer to say that we altogether cease to experience. This view is contestable of course, and that Jesuit/Dominican friend of mine loves to debate for hours on end every day or two about this and other topics with me. We help force each other to question and consider things we never would have otherwise. Most recently, this particular view of mine, was one of the ones brought into question. It may change, in coming months.I'm sort of in and out of this forum now, as I was accused of being a Catholic, a Mormon, a Muslim at one point, and now, I think it's been decided that I believe in all world religions being one, or something like that.. I think they call it oneworldism here. Superjag thinks I'm of the Spirit of the Antichrist, or something like that. In any case, I'm none of those. I got enough abuse to last me a while, so I try to just casually come in and out now. To the Catholics though, I have to say, keep it up, and good job. I was hoping that a Catholic would defend their position and open some eyes here. I wasn't a Catholic, and so it really wasn't my place {though, I got accused of being a Catholic when I quoted Mother Teressa.. I was going to follow up by quoting a passage in the catechism, but after gaging the reaction, figured perhaps I shouldn't

}I'm glad some Catholics are finally here though. Though I might disagree with Catholicism on some points, what I find absolutely intolerable is that people attack it while they know nothing about it. At least Martin Luther {who I generally really disagree with immensely} wrote a 95 page thesis. These protestants often can't come up with anything beyond the three golden anticatholic polemics, which are launched in ignorance of Catholicism {Prayers/Petitions to the saints in communion with the living, The transubstantiation of the true Eucharist, and the recognition as the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ on behalf of the Church}.So, since you are opening eyes, I want to personally thank you.In Hope and Thanks,~Tyrel
Anybody who preaches doctrine that is NOT in the bible is an antichrist. I John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.Jag

 

[Tyrel]

(thesuperjag;25435)
Anybody who preaches doctrine that is NOT in the bible is an antichrist. I John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.Jag
Find in the Bible that the Byzantine texts are better than the Alexandrian

Find in the Bible the teaching of non-geocentricity.

 

[Christina]

(Biblical Tetragramaton;25457)
Find in the Bible that the Byzantine texts are better than the Alexandrian

Find in the Bible the teaching of non-geocentricity.
The Massorah was notes along the margins that said "how many letters, jots & tittles" were in each line. In this way the Massorah "fenced" in the cannonized scriptures.Any book that doesnt have these fences is open to infiltration by men.And You are wrong about your opinion I have already informed Letsgofishing that any time he is feeling to attacked I will close these threads and the same applies to Goldy. It was they that started these threads to discuss these things I find it brave of them and have not hesitated to tell them so But on the other hand Im not going to white wash what is in Gods word because it offends Catholics or protestants for that matter. Thats where you and I have always disagreed You think its fine to overlook the Word of God and justify the traditions men.Justifying our differences without the Word is exactly why we are so divided in Christianity Gods word is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow Men Who try to fit God into mens traditions rather than change the traditions to follow the Word of God.If the apostles had your attitude we would still all be Jews because they would have never given up the perverted traditions of men that had crept into Judaism. They would have all denied Christ to hang on to their traditions as to offend the Jewish priest and peoples.

 

[Pariah]

Jag,
Anybody who preaches doctrine that is NOT in the bible is an antichrist. I John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Isn't the definition of an anti-christ is "instead of christ"?2 Thessalonians 3:1Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: 2And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith. 3But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. 4And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. 5And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ. 6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 7For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; ....14And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. 16Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.2 Timothy 2: 24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.I thank the Lord that you are where you are in Christ Jesus, Jag, but you should remember where you were and how the Lord brought you to this point now in your relationship with the Lord. Do not hate the wayward brother. Hate the lies, but do not hate him.1 John 2: 8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. 9He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. 12I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I know myself, I can get so embroiled in a discussion or an argument because I want the truth to be known and left uncontested, but then I am forgetting Whom is really doing the work and Whom is really doing the increase for I am nothing. And if I do all of this posting without love, I am nothing in another sense.Just a reminder from one brother to another as I hope you may remind me one day when the zeal for the House of God has eaten me up.Love ya in Christ, Jag!! :grouphug:

 

[Jordan]

(Pariah;25537)
Jag,(thesuperjag;25435)
Anybody who preaches doctrine that is NOT in the bible is an antichrist. I John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.Jag
Isn't the definition of an anti-christ is "instead of christ"?2 Thessalonians 3:1Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: 2And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith. 3But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. 4And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. 5And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ. 6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 7For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; ....14And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. 16Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.2 Timothy 2: 24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.I thank the Lord that you are where you are in Christ Jesus, Jag, but you should remember where you were and how the Lord brought you to this point now in your relationship with the Lord. Do not hate the wayward brother. Hate the lies, but do not hate him.1 John 2: 8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. 9He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. 12I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I know myself, I can get so embroiled in a discussion or an argument because I want the truth to be known and left uncontested, but then I am forgetting Whom is really doing the work and Whom is really doing the increase for I am nothing. And if I do all of this posting without love, I am nothing in another sense.Just a reminder from one brother to another as I hope you may remind me one day when the zeal for the House of God has eaten me up.Love ya in Christ, Jag!! :grouphug:Yes Pariah, antichrist means Instead of Christ. Not only Satan is the instead of Christ...he is also against Christ. So whosoever preaches false doctrine is the antichrist. Pariah, Biblical Tetragramaton is not my brother. He's been spreading falsehood ever since long before you ever joined this forum.II John 1:9-11 - Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.You can even go ask Kriss yourself.JagLovest thou in Christ Yahshua, Lord and Saviour of the world.

 

[Pariah]

Jag,
Yes Pariah, antichrist means Instead of Christ. Not only Satan is the instead of Christ...he is also against Christ. So whosoever preaches false doctrine is the antichrist. Pariah, Biblical Tetragramaton is not my brother. He's been spreading falsehood ever since long before you ever joined this forum.
Then what about those that preach the pre-tribualtion rapture? Denver and kriss has pretty much called it a lie as I think you have also. By your standard, I would be judged as an anti-christ.Now before you confirm your judgment, I would ask you to please consider this. By the standard which you judge, you shall be judged. Were you always abiding in Him or were you not led astray by false doctrine? Did that make you an anti-christ? I don't believe you are. I just want you to consider the ramification of how you judge by that standard.The teaching of the kennites being the descendents of Cain is false. Scriptures proved that Abraham in Genesis 20 did not commit incest because the decree from God was not given yet as in Leviticus 18. Otherwise, all the descendents of Abraham is the result of an union that was an abomination to the Lord, but we know it is not. Just as animals were not meat before the Flood as God has decreed, and yet God decreed that they were to be meat after the Flood.If angels were not given in marriage and when we are resurrected, we shall become like them, neither marrying nor gven in marriage, then God would not allow fallen angels to be given in marriage anymore than angels for He has decreed that man is to reproduce after his own kind as He decreed for the animals. All children from the womb are a heritage from the Lord, and it was man that God repented of having made, thus all men.. not specifically targeting the Nephilim or the giants in the earth. Violence and continual wickedness in their thoughts was the corruption the Lord spoke of. If it was the intermingling alone, then He would have spoken it as such if the Flood was to preserve the linage of the Adamic line to bring forth the promised seed, but it was not. It was violence being in the earth and the wickedness of man was great.You may have trouble believing that there was only Adam and Eve, but after the Flood, God addressed only Noah and his sons to multiply and replenish the earth... no one else. Looking for something that wasn't there and ignoring what is plainly written elsewhere just to support a false teaching that came out of teaching of the British Israel / Christian Identity Connection that has spurned hate groups is not wise. No good tree shall produce an evil fruit. The serpent seed doctrine is just there to give cause to hate the "kennites" for crucifying Jesus as it is used differently by the KKK to hate all blacks due to the lineage of Ham as being cursed which is false also.Did not Jesus prayed to the Father to forgive them for they know not what they do? Thus when Jesus spoke unto them as being of the devil, He was referring to the sin of lying. It is by the spiritual identity of lying they were of the devil, not by a physical identity of some obscure connection to the kennites of whom scriptures testified that they were kind to the Israelites... thus very hard to believe they were descendents of Cain as it is also not written. Only eight sould were saved by the ark. Not Adamic souls. That is adding to God's words. It was eight souls, thus significant of how many of "man" was on the ark, just as it is also significant that Noah and his family were the only ones addressed to multiply and replenish the earth.... thus there was only Adam and eve just as in Genesis 2, it proved that God was recapping the event and by going into detail more when there was no man to till the earth.By God's decrees and the words of Jesus in that of the resurrection regarding the state of angels, the kennites being of the descendents of the Cain and thus the serpent seed is a false doctrine because it is derived from reading between the lines, and Eve did not commit adultery. That would be bearing false witness of Eve. It was the help of the Lord as all children are a heritage from the Lord that Eve addressed. No way would Lord be the devil nor the sons of God be still considered of God to be fallen angles. What is plainly written in scriptures debunks the teachings of the serpent seed which came out after the Gospel to preach another gospel that has done nothing but sprouted branches to gve cause to hate, and Jesus commanded to love one another.. even our enemies.. and a wayward brother is not an enemy... for he has been bought with a price, and unless God peradventures give him knowledge unto repentance as He did you, then He shall chasten him later so that he may be partakers of his holiness for it is written that all those that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved and that Jesus shall lose nothing that was given Him but raised up in the last day, but not everyone shall be found abiding in Him and thus the reason why judgment must fall on the House of God first. The call to be ready is now and thus hating your wayward brother is not abiding in Him. I already gave you scriptures for the Lord to speak to your heart in correcting you in His love so that you may rremmber where you were before He corrected you.You are not an anti-christ, but Jesus did say that by the standard which you judge, you shall be judged. You can reprove the lie by the scriptures, and as it is on the Lord to cause the increase as He enables you to reprove the lie by the scriptures, so it is on the Lord to judge as in condemning anyone before the time.I ask you, brother jag, to reconsider the way you judge for many believers shall fall away from the faith in this perilous times, and yet we are called in meekness to serve the Lord in the hopes that God may peradventure recover some out of the snare of the devil as I am hoping He shall do for you, kriss, and Denver due to the false teachings of the kennites. You know of Chronicles.. the newbie member that profess being a believer at one time as it was the book of Enoch as being one of the reason why he did not believe and the false teachings of the kennites would add to that disbelief, for they use the book of Enoch to support it. So how can this teaching of the serpent seed be a good tree for it has produced an evil fruit? How can it go hand in hand with a book that is a forgerie and found as such as it was burned finally after the "fad" settled down for them to discern it by the other scriptures?Again, I would not call you an anti-christ, but if the serpent seed doctrine is causing you to hate your brother and finally me because I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture or shall I say... pre-tribulation harvest because judgment must fall on the House of God first as the prodigal son and the foolish virgins shall be left behind in order for God to reprove them to be partakers of His holiness as Hebrews 12 suggests, then out of love for you, I shall withdraw from this forum to admonish you, but I shall still count you as my brother.Colossians 3: 11Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. 12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. 14And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. 15And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. I pray the Lord shall restore you to love one another in not condemning a wayward brother as not being a brother for by the standard for which you judge, you have forgotten what the Lord has done for you.I do love ya in Christ, Jag. I am not asking you to love the lie. By no means compromise. But we are called to admonish the brother out of love for them that they may be found abiding in Him. Maybe I do not know the guy as maybe he never confess Jesus as His Saviour, but it is by your standard for which you judge by, that I am concern for you. Otherwise, if the wayward brother confessed Him, he is still a brother.. although wayward depending on what it is that you consider him wayward in, for I know him not.Praying for you, brother, Jag! Hope you repent of this lack of love and judging as in condemning which is left to God to do.. not us. I believe you had posted that at one time too, so I am hoping the Lord shall restore you to love one another... to tell the truth and to judging as in correcting and in exposing false doctrines that voids faith or cause those to go astray.... which the false teaching of the serpent seed can do in supporting the book of enoch which was one of the reason why wayward brother, Chronicles caused him to not believe anymore. But look at what is written!2 Timothy 2: 12If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: 13If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. 14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.There is hope for Chronicles yet as well as for all those that have gone astray!John 10: 14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

 

[Letsgofishing]

Amen Pariah!!!!!

 

[Pariah]

Hi Jag,
How am I to suppose to explain thy seed who crucified our Lord and Saviour Yahshua? And what is the difination of the Kenites to you?

If you want to believe that Adam and Eve ate an apple, that's fine by me, but I'm not going to limit God, as I know some of Genesis 2 and some to all of Genesis 3 are NOT meant to be taken literally
You did explain it. I don't believe Eve committed adultery. If God and even Jesus gave permission for divorce due to the cause of adultery, why did it not happen then? You rejected the spiritual identity of sin as man became fallen and thus inheritting death. It is by Christ's seed... by faith.. we are identify with God again. Sin seperated us from God and we were all related to the devil by sin. 1 John 3: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Romans 3: 9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17And the way of peace have they not known: 18There is no fear of God before their eyes. Spiritual identity.Romans 5: 6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. 12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.Verse 13 is to those that did not sin the first sin, that is everyone from Adam to Moses.. as in even unto them, not "including those outside of Adam to Moses". We know this because...Eve is the mother of all living. That is what her name means. No other couples.Noah and his family survived the Flood. God commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth. Flood legends around the world testifies of eight souls for they have no reason to adhere to the Adamic line if addressing their cultural heritage if there were other races on the ark. That is why it is written by Peter that only eight souls were saved, Adamic, yes... but still only eight souls.
Pariah, nowhere in this forum, (Christianity Board) have I ever stated that I hated Tyrel. But I did state that I said he is NOT my brother in Christ. I'm going to state scripture(s) here.

I am not condemning a person's soul as it is not my right to do so, but I can condemn a doctine that is purely NOT lined up in the Word of God. Even my enemy can repent to the Lord Yahshua. The only person I hate is Satan himself as he is God's enemy.
Well, then the question is put to you, brother, how does one take this of your quote?
Yes Pariah, antichrist means Instead of Christ. Not only Satan is the instead of Christ...he is also against Christ. So whosoever preaches false doctrine is the antichrist. Pariah, Biblical Tetragramaton is not my brother. He's been spreading falsehood ever since long before you ever joined this forum.
This was your first post to Biblical Tetragramaton below.
Anybody who preaches doctrine that is NOT in the bible is an antichrist.
Isn't that going a bit far from just condemning false doctrine?I am glad that you do not hate Biblical Tetragramaton as you say that you love your enemy, but identifying people as the anti-christ and thus declaring that you hate Satan as he is the anti-christ, it does lead one to think you hate those that preach false doctrine and not just hating the false doctrine when you call them the anti-christ.I shall not leave then if hate is not in your heart, and of that I am glad, but you should consider your words towards people. If you hate Satan because he is the anti-christ, then ..... not much of a leap for others to think that. I did. Glad I was wrong.