The Lord Jesus Christ never drank alcohol - THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN ANY FORM IS A SIN!

[Marymog]

that's not twisting at all. Judas is antichrist. antichrist ain't 'good'

interesting how you phrased that, 'counted among the 11'

Matthias becomes like the goat for Azazel. proof to Satan/Judas that atonement is accomplished. saved from death & set free, standing in the empty place Judas the son of hell once stood.

so who is Paul in Leviticus 16?
is he there? or somewhere else?

So are you saying that that Matthias replaced Judas in ALL aspects? Matthias was like Judas and a betrayer of the Lord (or his teachings)?

And what do you mean it is interesting how I phrased that? What I wrote is basically how it is written in Scripture.....not word for word....but in general.

Who is your teacher?

 

[Marymog]

not at all.
if i have communicated that it is complex beyond all human understanding, then i have effectively done the job of helping you.
step 1 is not thinking the Bible is "simple" -- recognizing that the thoughts and ways of infinite God are impossible for us to comprehend even in the least without divine intervention to open our understanding.

that's a "check, OK"

step 2 is convincing you that when it comes to the full truth of the things written in scripture, we're laughably ignorant of their depth and even if we could spend 100 years digging into a single passage like this one we're not going to fully comprehend it. God's word is far higher

so if you realize that there is a heck of a lot more going on in Acts 1:15-26 than some kind of simplistic justification for the authority of men over the church, that such an interpretation that Devin & theefaith have of it is no more than a horrendously shallow propagandizing for the RCC, then i have 100% done a great job of helping you.

Yes, you are a confusing teacher. No, it’s not complex beyond all human understanding. No, you haven’t done a effective job of helping me.

It is not true that we could spend 100 years digging into a single passage and not fully comprehend it. God didn’t give us his word (Scripture) and then laugh at us and say “You ignorant humans will never figure it out”. That’s ludicrous and OPPOSITE of what Scripture says. Scripture says we will know the truth.

I’m sorry post...I just can’t continue with you. I don’t know who taught you the things you are saying but you should run far, far, far away from them.

Best wishes....Mary

 

[Marymog]

"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, skillful in teaching, 3not overindulging in wine, not a bully, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil." 1 Timothy 3:2

Those qualifications certainly exclude Roman Catholic priests from any kind of apostolic succession. Peter was married! Gasp!

Hey Stan. Did you know there are married Priests?

 

[Marymog]

The Apostle Paul was definitely married; an essential qualification for his position in the Sanhedrin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews.

Hey Stan,

I can’t find anywhere in scripture or any ancient historical writings that said Paul was married. Can you provide your source....Please?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I can’t find anywhere in scripture or any ancient historical writings that said Paul was married. Can you provide your source....Please?

There are none that directly and emphatically state Paul was ever married.

That said, there is a legitimate body of circumstantial evidence and some legitimate reads of Scripture that build a defensible case that at least for a time Paul had a wife.

My own research leads me to be in the camp that he "more likely than not" was married ( for a time anyway) but I wouldn't try to sell it to anyone or defend it beyond presenting the body of evidence for the individual to come to their own conclusion.

 

[Marymog]

There are none that directly and emphatically state Paul was ever married.

That said, there is a legitimate body of circumstantial evidence and some legitimate reads of Scripture that build a defensible case that at least for a time Paul had a wife.

My own research leads me to be in the camp that he "more likely than not" was married ( for a time anyway) but I wouldn't try to sell it to anyone or defend it beyond presenting the body of evidence for the individual to come to their own conclusion.

Thank you sheepdog.

What is this “legitimate reads of Scripture” that backs up the case that Paul had a wife? I have never heard this before.

Mary

 

[Stan B]

Hey Stan. Did you know there are married Priests?

Yeah, there is a shortage of priests these days. I recall reading that there is such a shortage in many parts of Brazil, that parish priests only visit once a month.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

What is this “legitimate reads of Scripture” that backs up the case that Paul had a wife? I have never heard this before.

Drawing a legitimate conclusion ( extrapolating if you will) from information in scripture.

Some of them arenot sure of the exact verses)

Paul makes statements that he cast votes and was on a fast track in Judaism (Galatians i think) but he never implicitly stated he was a full fledged member. If he were, he would have to have been married.

Others are when he mentions "unmarried" as he was. There is a legitimate context where "un" married doesn't mean "single" ( as in never married) but no longer married for any number of reasons. ( some historians make a case that a 'widower" [ male] didn't take that title socially)

Few others that escape my memory right now but basically a circumstantial case but with no definitive "proof" either way.

 

[Stan B]

Thank you sheepdog.

What is this “legitimate reads of Scripture” that backs up the case that Paul had a wife? I have never heard this before.

Mary

In his address to widows in Corinthians, he advises them to remain unmarried as he is. He is identifying with the widowed.

There was a strong emphasis on marriage in those days, i.e. under Roman law, if one was not married by age 26, they would lose all rights of inheritance. I am not sure how that played out in Jewish culture of that era.

 

[post]

It is not true that we could spend 100 years digging into a single passage and not fully comprehend it.

OK so why are we still trying to figure out the hypostatic union and free-will / predestination and grace /works and the origin & meaning of evil, thousands of years later?
Because it's so simple?


It may be the case that the Bible is a lot more than you think it is. Can you explain something easy to me like why Adam changes his wife's name to Eve, and where the complement of that is found in the life of Jesus? - that will help me understand how to approach talking to you.

 

[post]

That’s ludicrous and OPPOSITE of what Scripture says. Scripture says we will know the truth.

Mary, you don't strike me as much of a student of scripture.

Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable [are] His judgments and His ways past finding out!

 

[post]

”Matthias becomes the goat for Azazel.”????

Who taught you that? And what does that mean?

Do you agree that the OT is entirely connected with the NT such that they explain each other and correspond with each other, that it is one scripture with One Author and one purpose being spiritually discerned?

Do you understand that there is a 1:1 correspondence between Acts 1:26 and Leviticus 16:8?

Two are chosen from the congregation by men. Then, men cast the lot seeking God to select from those two what shall be their appointing?

 

[post]

And what do you mean it is interesting how I phrased that?

Why does it say "numbered with the 11“
Instead of "counted as one of the 12“

?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

OK so why are we still trying to figure out the hypostatic union and free-will / predestination and grace /works and the origin & meaning of evil, thousands of years later?
Because it's so simple?

No, only because certain people argue points from a variety of motivations that are clearly not supported by any intelligently honest reading and interpretation of scripture. That's nothing new and it started way back in a garden.

It may be the case that the Bible is a lot more than you think it is. Can you explain something easy to me like why Adam changes his wife's name to Eve, and where the complement of that is found in the life of Jesus? -

Don't tell me you are talking about that "woman" to Eve thing are you?

 

[post]

No, only because certain people argue points from a variety of motivations that are clearly not supported by any intelligently honest reading and interpretation of scripture.

oh

that's interesting -- so you're saying, the only reason people have for a couple thousand years continued to wonder about certain topics in theology & to seemingly inexhaustibly explore the rich meaning in the scripture, is because they are unintelligent & dishonest?

Don't tell me you are talking about that "woman" to Eve thing are you?

oh
apparently Genesis 3 offends you. sorry, didn't know.
hmm let me ask you a different 'easy' question so i can kind of gauge where you're at: why does Simon of Cyrene carry the cross?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

that's interesting -- so you're saying, the only reason people have for a couple thousand years continued to wonder about certain topics in theology & to seemingly inexhaustibly explore the rich meaning in the scripture, is because they are unintelligent & dishonest?

No, thats simply one of them

apparently Genesis 3 offends you. sorry, didn't know.

No but it also has nothing to do with your original claim either, just a straw man

hmm let me ask you a different 'easy' question so i can kind of gauge where you're at: why does Simon of Cyrene carry the cross?

I doubt you are capable of that but lets see. First, what bearing does that have on anything under discussion and what exactly do you think you are going to "gauge" by any answer i give and how are you going to do it?

I'm waiting with bated breath for this.

 

[post]

there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.
(John 21:25)​

 

[Marymog]

Do you agree that the OT is entirely connected with the NT such that they explain each other and correspond with each other, that it is one scripture with One Author and one purpose being spiritually discerned?

Do you understand that there is a 1:1 correspondence between Acts 1:26 and Leviticus 16:8?

Two are chosen from the congregation by men. Then, men cast the lot seeking God to select from those two what shall be their appointing?

You seem to find it difficult to answer questions.

You alleged that Mathias became a goat for Azazal. What does that mean? You didn’t answer. Please explain your theory.

Also, I asked you who taught you that. You didn’t answer.

All you have done is compared OT events to NT events.

 

[Marymog]

Mary, you don't strike me as much of a student of scripture.

Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable [are] His judgments and His ways past finding out!

Romans 11:33 has NOTHING to do with knowing the truth of Scripture. John 8:32 does! Your allegation that we could spend 100 years digging into a single passage and not fully comprehend it is ludicrous and anti-biblical. Scripture makes it clear that there is sound doctrine and false doctrine, false teachers etc etc. So your theory that we will not fully comprehend Scripture is OPPOSITE of what Scripture says. God didn’t give us His word and then laugh at us saying we will never figure it out. Learn Scripture and then get back with me kiddo.

 

[Marymog]

OK so why are we still trying to figure out the hypostatic union and free-will / predestination and grace /works and the origin & meaning of evil, thousands of years later?
Because it's so simple?


It may be the case that the Bible is a lot more than you think it is. Can you explain something easy to me like why Adam changes his wife's name to Eve, and where the complement of that is found in the life of Jesus? - that will help me understand how to approach talking to you.

NO, we are not trying to figure it out. You Protestants are trying to figure it out but The Church has already resolved it. Your Adam and Eve question is bizarre.