Vatican stops use of titles for Mary
- General Theology
- 95 Replies
Do you mean that some people state those things?Because some people here think because I am not Roman Catholic, it automatically makes me ignorant.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you mean that some people state those things?Because some people here think because I am not Roman Catholic, it automatically makes me ignorant.
Thanks for raising this important question. Many Christian Denominations teach that you can't be sure that you are saved, until judgement day.And this is what ACTS 15:1 SAYS !!
# 1 AND //. KAI ,is a CONJUNCATION
# 2 CERTAIN MEN //. TIS , INDEFINITE. PRONOUN , in a NOMINATIVE CASE , in. the PLURAL
# 3 WHICH CAME DOWN //. KATERCHOMIAI. , in. the. AORIST TENSE , in. the ACTIVE VOICE , a PARTICIPLE. in. the NOMINATIVE CASE.
in. the PLURAL
# 4 FROM // APO. , is a PREPOSITION
# 5. JUDAEA //. IOUDAIA , in the GENITIVE CASE , in. the SIGNULAR
# 6 TAUGHT //. DIDASKO. , is in the IMPERFECT TENSE , in. the ACTIVE VOICE , in. the INDICATIVE MOOD , in. the PLURAL
# 7 THE //. HO , is a DEFINITE ARTICLE , in the ACCUSATIVE CASE , in. the PLURAL
# 8 BRETHREN // ADELPHOS. , in. the ACCUSATIVE CASE , in. the PLURAL
# 9 AND SAID //. was added , EXCEPT // ME , is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE
# 10. YE BE CIRCUMCISED // PENTEMNO. , in. the PESENT TENSE , in the PASSIVE VOICE. in. the SUBJUNCTIVE. , in. the PLURAL
# 11 AFTER THE // THE , is a DEFINITE ARTICLE. , is in DATIVE. CASE. , in. the SINGULAR , is a NEUTER
# 12. MANNER. // ETHOS. in. the DATIVE CASE , in. the SINGULAR and. in. the NEUTER
# 13. OF MOSES // MOYSOS. in. the GENITIVE CASE. , in. the SINGULAR
# 14. NOT //. OU. is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE
# 15. YE CANNOT //. DYNAMA , in. the PRESENT TENSE in. the MIDDLE or PRESENT VOICE. in. the INDICATIVE MOOD , in. the PLURAL
#. 16. BE SAVED // SOZO in. the AORIST TENSE , in. the PASSIVE VOICE.
And this verse PLAINLY says men , to be saved , you have to be CIRCUMCISED
# 17. And just what are woman going to. DO. ??
# 18 Are we saved by Rom 10:9 and 10 , if you confess with your mouth the LORD JESUS. and should believe your heart. that GOD.
raised Him from the dead you WILL BE SAVED
# 19 Are you saved by Water Baptism
# 20. Saved by BEING BORN AGAIN ?
# 21 Saved by WATER and the SPIRIT ??
What say you. ??
dan p
Deception is usually a sin, unless to protect somebody from harm. Satan is the great deceiver, but human beings are able to deceive without Satan’s help. The question is who is doing the deceiving and why? Is Bart Sibrel intentionally deceiving or is he deceived?Another lie by @Apple Sky
Bart Sibrel did no such thing. If he claims he did then he is lying.
It is truly disturbing that you surround yourself with falsehood as that cannot possibly benefit your relationship with God and there has been a noticeable change for the worse in your posts over the last few weeks. I'm considering putting you on ignore and recommending that others do the same so that we do not unintentionally play a part in your downward spiral. Everyone has been extremely patient with you whereas you have lately been treating everyone with obvious disrespect. To treat your fellow Christians in that manner is not of God and has its source in another spirit that is unholy. It makes it quite clear that "flat earth" is a satanic deception.
I have not yet made up my mind about putting you on ignore but seeing the change in you since your husband passed is pushing me in that direction.
Hi Linux,That is not correct. The definition of sin is simple: to do what God tells us not to do or to not do what God says to do. This is evident from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 1-3. Adam and Eve ate the apple God told them not to eat and thus were banished from the Garden. None of the Scriptures cited above disprove what I just said.
Sin is not defined by the Law. It is defined by God as whatever displeases Him that He wants to write a command against. The Law was given to a specific people (the nation of Israel) during a specific period of time. Our Lord Jesus updated those commands in His Sermon on the Mount. He’s allowed to do that because He is God. God is inherently allowed to give humans commands. That authority is established in Genesis and runs all the way to Revelation. (He’s allowed to make us as miserable as he wants, seeing as misery is defined by our fallen body systems that oppose Him.)
This doesn't make sense, God gave us the Law that we will be judged by because we can't keep it. That means God who judges us by His Law James2:11-12 Ecc12:13-14 Mat5:19-30 Rev11:18-19 Rev22:14-15 is part of the conspiracy against man. That's not at all what Scriptures teach.The purpose of the Law - Decalogue and all the rest of it - was to show that we, as fallen human beings, cannot follow God’s commands no matter what commands are given. God is Holy, and we are not, so any instructions He gives we will fall short of.
Believe it or not, people longed for relationship to God, to know and be known by Him. If you doubt me on this, take a good read of the Psalms. (People longed for what we have today, and what we have is so much better than they could ever imagine: God as our Father, Christ as Our Bride, and the Holy Spirit inside of us FOREVER.) So, out of love, God gave us a set of commands and he said “Follow this.” The idea was simple: through the Law, we became aware of our sin problem. God was saying “This is your relationship to me. You are not following my commands. You are no better than your father Adam.” The Law was meant to show us that.
Yes, but I would want a Text before saying only worshipping the God of Creation went from being a blessing to a curse. We we are told to worship this God only Rev14:7 Exo20:11 Exo20:3It is. There is nothing to preclude God from updating His commands to us at any time in response to our success or failure in dealing with Him. All of His commands are perfect and holy, but not all are sufficient to deal with our fallen condition.
Those who make it through the gates of heaven are not going to be sinning, they will have already overcome through Jesus (Rev14:12 John14:15-10 John15:10 Rev22:14). In heaven there is not going to be any sin. The law of the Lord is perfect for converting the soul, His testimonies are sure Psa19:7 His Testimony is what is already in heaven Rev15:5 Rev11:19, the Ten Commandments written by the Holy Spirit, not man- if everyone was keeping these commandments now, the way Jesus taught Mat5:19-30 there would be no more sin. I do not believe He is going to have more laws, He is going to restore things back before sin hijacked this world.When our Lord returns for us, I imagine that a new set of commands will be given for us to follow.
Amen! We can know doctrine Truth and still not know Jesus. But Truth helps and staying in darkness (untruth) is not the way either. The Sabbath is absolutely about a deeper relationship with God. Why God wants us to cease from our works and labors on the seventh day Sabbath Exo 20:8-11 and have spiritual rest with Him Heb4,4,9,10- keeping our focus on Him Isa:58:13Missing the relationship component behind the Scriptures is to come away with an impoverished theology. I
What is the point of of keeping the Sabbath anyway, if not a deeper relationship with God?
God claimed His times and laws was changed not by Him Dan7:25, the only law (4th commandment) that is a time (every seventh day Exo20:10) was changed clearly in history, not by God. The institution who changed it claims they did so on their authority over the bible and anyone who keeps Sunday over the Sabbath is bowing to their authority just as His Word predicted.If you think there’s a conspiracy, I’m not a part of it. I think there is some utility to keeping the Sabbath in this present age.
This is a popular theory against doing what God asked, but its not in reality. The Sabbath is about God, doing what God asks through faith and love. So by this theory, you are saying God would rather us profane His Sabbath than spend time with Him on the day He sanctified and blessed to do so despite so many thus saith the Lords in the Holy Word of God saying the opposite. Rebellion to God is not love or faith, it is just that, something God is trying to get our attention on if we hear Him Heb3:7-19The danger of following the theology of the post quoted above is that it can lead one to idolize one’s Sabbath over one’s God,
and I will have no part of that. Our relationship to God is more important than any Sabbath or lack of Sabbath worship/rest.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooo. More people are coming in. Its already a pile on. Helllllllllllllllllllllllllllpppppppppppppppppp. lol.![]()
The dregs!
I neither know nor care about the condition of their souls.But they all know he's lying. They cannot not know. Doesn't it eat away at your soul to keep denying it?
You're right! I'm sorry.You are in the Catholic forum…
You said Venezuela was communist. They aren’t. But I’m not going to strain gnats with you.That has nothing to do with Democratic Socialism. Look it up.
So since you seem to have taken your ball and went home, I should probably explain something. What you call my "latest set of assertions" are largely drawn from Barr's criticism, which was not exclusive to the TDNT but simply used the TDNT as its exemplar. His criticism in no way discredited the TDNT, though it did alter how it is used in scholarship as well as every other lexography. You seem to misunderstand what Barr was actually saying, which was not that the TDNT was methodologically flawed but that word studies are misguided in general. His argument rests on 4 fallacies he identified, 2 of which you are clearly employing(word-concept and essentialism) and a 3rd seems to be present in your argument as well(totality transfer). Barr's argument was that word studies are poor exegesis because meaning is not at the word level, with Barr believing it to be at the sentence level but more recent arguments placing it primarily at the level of the paragraph or even entire pericope. Word studies are a supplement to exegesis, not an act of it. Word meanings aren't sufficiently fixed to be able to establish a meaning outside of their context, which is why now when scholars engage in word studies they are comparitive studies of a limited body of work, not sweeping studies of particular meaning. If you're going to cite a source, you might want to make sure you actually understand what that source argued.a q]I skimmed your latest set of assertions. I will not waste my time responding point by point because the pattern is clear: claims are being offered without engaging the actual argument or evidence I've presented. It is not my burden to disprove your assertions; it is yours to substantiate them. If you want a substantive discussion, raise focused, textually and methodologically grounded objections. Broad dismissals and unfounded accusations do not qualify as argument and do not merit serious engagement.
To clarify the stakes: your position on ἑλκύω implies that, syntactically, John 6:44 leaves coming to Jesus potentially impossible -- a consequence of your view I have already argued and that you have ignored. You have also ignored that the semantics of ἑλκύω are irrelevant to the Calvinist argument itself. Once again, you are sidestepping the actual issue and fishing for something to latch onto just to have a reply. I am not going to play that game. Until you offer a focused, substantive objection that engages these points seriously, this conversation is over.
Sounds like when it comes to this issue there are those on the left who are just basically trolling. So noted.It appears this really is the only reason the left cares. If they can help sow chaos they are happy to do so. Maybe we ought to just ignore them since their concern isn't really genuine.
We need to contemplate why we are at Mass. it is for worship of God and His sacrifice to save us from sin. Fellowship with others is secondary, and we need to clear our minds of distractionsLearn to detach from the need to be accepted. I've gone through this and I'm still learning to detach from that
necessity in my life.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 NIVFather and Son are both relational words. All 3 persons are involved in all activities, including creation.
Considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity. But it's not; it's probably zero.
The Prosperity Gospel fundamentally contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ of Nazareth by replacing His call for self-denial, suffering, and humility with a promise of guaranteed earthly wealth, health, and happiness.
Blessings
The great experiment.It will be interesting to see how this all plays out
I agree that taking Communion is a sacred and solemn occasion, and we should examine ourselves before partaking.Paul says some of you are sick and dying because you gulp the Supper unworthily (1 Cor 11). Share the moment the bread and wine stopped being routine and started feeling dangerous.
What happened, and how did it change the way you prepare?