sorry af...
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/24/2022 5:40:39 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childishness |
Posted on 03/06/2022 11:16:06 AM PST by CharlesOConnell
Souls that seek truth are rare.
Most of humanity just rearranges their prejudices …
But if something is really true, it can withstand scrutiny.
🤗
Through this thread it has been evident that no one knew if Rav Zacharias, a prominent evangelical minister for more than forty years, was “really saved” or not.
***
...no, REALLY?
We’ve only been trying to tell you for literally weeks that we can’t know if *someone else* is saved because only God knows the hearts of all mankind.
And now you apparently think that you’re clever by pointing it out after we’ve only told you that... what, a dozen times each?
Do you even read anyone else’s posts at all?
There is a teaching from Chuck Missler which exposes the very wrong perspective you are using with regard to eternal security. I won’t bother posting the link for you because I am now convinced you will - if you watch it- actually have a mind filled with ‘yesbut’ reaction. You are convinced in what you espouse even as some of us have tried to get you to actually review what you espouse using scripture rather than the catechisms or traditions. I hold the Bible to be the authority over all other means of searching. You wrest the scriptures, using verses out of context to fabricate meanings which in some cases are actually blasphemous.
If you mean we cannot please God without saving Faith in Christ, then yes I agree. For God's inspired word assures us, 6 And without faith it is impossible to please him. ......
So, what sort of faith do you have bro? There is faith that saves, (Heaven) and faith that does not save. (Hell) Which is actually, no faith at all. Which faith do you have?
If good works merit nothing for our salvation, than bad works cannot merit our damnation. So that can't be a path to hell, can it?
Um, yes, works can, and is a path to Hell. Even faith plus works is a path to hell. Which path are you on? Which path are you most comfortable on? The wide road or the narrow road. There is no middle ground, and you do not go back and forth between the two.
The only thing I will say about the mass, is I think it’s blasphemy, and the only ones wearing vestments were the priests of Baal, and the priestly class is condemned as the Nicolaitans in Revelation. God hates the priestly class, as do I.
Beyond that, I don’t think it’s profitable to discuss anything with you. My opinion is, you are not interested in the truth, only pushing Catholic doctrine, which to me, is false doctrine. I have no intention of ever going back to the Church of Rome. I will leave you to your own devices now. Have a nice forever, I plan to.
Yes they can.
There IS, however, ONE condition in which works can save someone. That is if a person could lead a perfect life in thought, word, and deed, just as Jesus did. If a person never sinned, they would indeed merit eternal life.
But ONE sin, is all it takes. Ask Adam and Eve.
And good luck with that.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
But now, since you HAVE sinned, at least once, you are now disqualified from being able to have works attain or contribute to salvation. God has been sinned against and an accounting of that sin must take place to satisfy the justice of God.
Works are not and never have been the solution for sin nor the appropriate payment for it as the only payment that qualifies is death, and works are not death. They are the wrong currency, as it were.
Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
You got it MM. Adam and Eve committed only one tiny little seemingly innocuous teency weency sin. Most Catholics would probably call it a venial sin. As a Catholic, I thought it was a very tiny sin, one from which we can easily recover from.
Now, I say hogwash. They didn’t just have a slight fall. As far as hell is below heaven. That’s how far they fell. Totally, completely, and without the slightest ray of hope of ever returning to the good graces of God. Satan may have thought he had God over a barrel. Have you ever heard anyone say, I can’t believe God would send all those people to hell? Perhaps Satan thought the same thing, so maybe he thought, if God lets mankind off the hook, he figured God would have to let him go too. The problem is, Satan never anticipated the cross.
Who knows for sure, but maybe even after millions of eons in the lake of fire, he will still be struggling, and still believes, that one day, he will escape Hell, and be Victorious over God. It ain’t happening. 👍
Gotta ask:
“They have a few weird things going on, but one of the most disgusting ones, is grave sucking.”
Should I look it up or not, bro?
Ne’er mind. I looked it up. Can’t say on thread what I really think.
HOWEVER ... ha, ha
One thing I will say:
I’ve seen it that people have one or the other: Jesus or religion. These folks definitely have themselves a religion.
In the land of fruits and nuts, no less.
Well, you looked it up, before I had a chance to tell you not to look it up. 🙃😀 There are other NAR churches out there, like the International House of Prayer. I am not into NAR or Catholic doctrine. Anyone who thinks grave sucking works, has a screw loose. 😆
Oh how cute; he thinks he did a gotcha.
Nope, you are still incorrect. I can know I’m saved because my salvation is based on Christ’s work.
I can’t know if you’re saved because despite what you seem to think, I’m not God and I don’t know whether you believe or if you’re just lying through your teeth.
Bonus points for parroting the Catholic lie about eternal security being used as a license to sin though. Is that what you would do if you were certain of your salvation?
Thais is an absolutely poor representation unacceptable in English what the inspired words of the Holy Spirit had Beloved John write in his account of the ministry of Jesus.
What John wrote in Greek regarding the sobriquet gave Simon was that Jesus spoke the Aramaic, which was כֵּף (pronounced kayph), but which John transliterated that sound into Koine Greek; but in doing so, John had to write it as κηφας (pronounced kayfahss). However, for that name to be represented in the spoken or written Greek, it had to be put into the nominative case, which required adding the letters -ας (pronounced ahss) to the Greek letters that one reading the Greek must pronounce the stem κηφ- (kayph) which is exactly how the Aramaic word sounds.
But then, without help from the translator, the reader does not know what the word means. So John interprets the Aramaic, telling the reader that the meaning has that of the word (pronounced peh-trawss) which as given is in the nominative case, since it has the inflection -ος (that puts the word in the nominative case and masculine gender, singular) to the stem πετρ- to which its use in a sentence is indicated by adding the inflections for its grammatical use of nominative, vocative, genitive, dative, or accusative.
So, the Greek speaker knows exactly the nature of the object what that word signifies as a label.
BUT, the person who does not know anything about the spoken or written Koine Greek therefore does not know what the word means in Aramaic OR Greek.
What is under scrutiny here is this: How is that Greek sentence to be translated? Well, in translating it properly into English, without changing its meaning. What John was doing with the last phrase was to impart the meaning \ of th Aramaic word which John has transliterated into Greek in the previous phrase. Seeing this, it is very clear that our translation into English souls, for the last phrase, give the meaning of the Greek word, which is exactly the same as the meaning in the Greek of the Aramaic word. But that is not what the lackadaisical translators of the (Catholic-approved) New American Bible (Revised). they have merely transliterated the Greek word πετρος into English as "Peter," which tells the reader nothing about the meaning of the word. And that is not the mode in which the Holy Spirit intended to instruct us, by having John give us the exact meaning as it was applied by Jesus and recorded for us in Greek by John.
So, what should we do about that phrase different than what the translators of NAS (Rev) did. It is pretty obvious that what we should do is what John did, and that is to give in English the meaning of what the name was that Jesus gave to Simon bar Jonah on their first meeting. How we do that is to look at the phrase again, and translate it properly, but here, the translation puts into English the verb of action ἑρμηνεύω (pronounced hair-mayn-yoo'-o). to interpret, to render the meaning of. The object in consideration is the word πετρος, which refers to something of the substance of stone. There is a special point to be made here. Some readers think this means that figuratively speaking, Simon bar Jonah is to be thought of as a stone,one of a good size, about as big as a man or thereabouts. Others have presumed in their thinking that Simon is the stone (they think figuratively a cornerstone, even more dramatically that upon Peter Jesus will build His church!), that is where Simon would be a strong, immovable, perfect example of the most prominent man of faith that Jesus would be putting up as a model and head of all under-shepherds yet to come.
However, looking at this verse, I do not believe that is the meaning or use of that word. Take note that the word is not distiguished, made separate, by prefixing it with the definite article. Therefore, that use is very dubious when the definite modifying article is not present.
A second, a little more probable, is that the definite article absent, the translation of the noun standing alone would be to indicate in English, one out f many; that is a stone (here figuratively) s big, hard, heavy, hard to move, hard to break, etc. So that use wold be figuratively identifying Simon as figuratively representing a boulder, a big rock, an object of steadiness. If so, one might tend to use that concept that, when expanded, would represent a standard of firmness, size in importance, and longevity, upon which to build some pictures of Simon;s importance among the constituents of Jesus' gatherings.
Actually though that approach is quite appealing, I think the third use of a noun without the definite article is more the meaning of how that appellation, that sobriquet, that characterization can be explained that such use can mean that when a person is defined n this way, without the definite article, it is a summing up, not as an object, or a unique superior being, but as describing a substance or a quality in either plain literal, or figurative literal language. That mode is used in John 1:1 that properly translated ". . . the Word was God." There is a cult that, denying that Jesus is God Incarnated, try to interpret this by translation the Greek into English, render it without the definite article defining "The God" as in the preceding phrase, the say ". . . the Word was a god" thus making Jesus as a being pretty important, but only one among many others, not unique. This is, of course a great error, and criticized by Julius R. Mantey, the well-known grammarian. In fact, the phrase is to be interpreted as meaning that Jesus, the Word is of the identical quality and substance of God, He is Deity Incarnated, that is.
And then the interpretation of the last phrase of John 1:42 is to take it that Simon bar Jonah is to be identified as having (figuratively) of the same quality and characteristics of the substance of stone, not differentiating igneous from metamorphic or sedimentary.
I believe this is the proper interpretation obtaining to that verse and overall context, with size no matter, plain-literal or figurative-literal. But, indeed, examining the application in the ongoing subsequent context will be a new area in which to examine its use, to see if it be so.
sorry af...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
