The Trinity

[Nihilo]

The argument is that the scripture is mistaken in this point, and that it was translated wrongly, and should have been recorded otherwise?

That's apparently your argument, not mine.

Can you understand why this argument is unconvincing to many?

I know why it's unconvincing to me.

That the whole "proof" of the "Primacy of Peter" rests on that we must argue that the scripture is wrong and not preserved?

Straw man.

Matthew 5:18 KJV
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And?

By the way, the gates of hell have prevailed against both Peter and the church.

I guess I'm glad you admit to it. :idunno:

Even if we were to presume that Matthew was an original Aramaic, the Greek translation is also proved correct and inspired, because there's only one Rock who has prevailed against the gates of hell. And His name is Jesus.

He promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. You're trying to change the subject.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's what I said.
The Church is the Bride of Christ, as Paul said. He clearly stated that the Church is the Body of Christ.

The Body of Christ is not the Bride of Christ, and here's why:
The Body of Christ is the second church that I mentioned above.
The Bride of Christ is and always has been the Nation of Israel.
The Body of Christ is not the Nation of Israel, and never has been.
Therefore, the Body of Christ cannot be the Bride of Christ.

Also, does the Body marry the head? No, the Body is already one with the Head. But the Man will marry the Bride, the Bride He had after He brought her out of Egypt, to their honeymoon in the wilderness, after promising her a home in the Promised Land.

No one ever said the Church has authority over Christ.

You do, by saying that the Church has authority over the Bible even if the Church contradicts the Bible.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Body of Christ is not the Bride of Christ, and here's why:
The Body of Christ is the second church that I mentioned above.
The Bride of Christ is and always has been the Nation of Israel.
The Body of Christ is not the Nation of Israel, and never has been.
Therefore, the Body of Christ cannot be the Bride of Christ.

Also, does the Body marry the head? No, the Body is already one with the Head. But the Man will marry the Bride, the Bride He had after He brought her out of Egypt, to their honeymoon in the wilderness, after promising her a home in the Promised Land.



You do, by saying that the Church has authority over the Bible even if the Church contradicts the Bible.

Oh, and the certificate of divorce God gave Israel, mentioned in Jeremiah 3:8? It is the book of Lamentations.

 

[Nihilo]

The Body of Christ is not the Bride of Christ, and here's why:
The Body of Christ is the second church that I mentioned above.
The Bride of Christ is and always has been the Nation of Israel.
The Body of Christ is not the Nation of Israel, and never has been.
Therefore, the Body of Christ cannot be the Bride of Christ.

Another hopscotch. Just cite the Bible verse saying "the second church," and I'll believe you.

Also, does the Body marry the head? No, the Body is already one with the Head. But the Man will marry the Bride, the Bride He had after He brought her out of Egypt, to their honeymoon in the wilderness, after promising her a home in the Promised Land.

The Body is the Bride through marriage.

You do, by saying that the Church has authority over the Bible even if the Church contradicts the Bible.

The Church doesn't contradict the Bible, and cannot anyway. She's in the Bible.

 

[Nang]

The Body of Christ is not the Bride of Christ, and here's why:
The Body of Christ is the second church that I mentioned above.
The Bride of Christ is and always has been the Nation of Israel.
The Body of Christ is not the Nation of Israel, and never has been.
Therefore, the Body of Christ cannot be the Bride of Christ.



Also, does the Body marry the head? No, the Body is already one with the Head. But the Man will marry the Bride, the Bride He had after He brought her out of Egypt, to their honeymoon in the wilderness, after promising her a home in the Promised Land.



You do, by saying that the Church has authority over the Bible even if the Church contradicts the Bible.

Prime example of the confusion caused by Dispensational teaching.

What a mess . . .

 

[lifeisgood]

That is an extremely sad testimony.

Your opinion is duly noted.

 

[lifeisgood]

2nd Corinthians 5:10 (KJV), if we are saved (Ro10:9KJV), how is it that "we must all . . . receive the things done in [our] body . . . whether it be good or bad?" How can we "come boldly unto the throne?" Hebrews 4:16 (KJV)

So, when was the last time your church taught you about the White Throne Judgment as the Bible says?

 

[glorydaz]

That is an extremely sad testimony.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 KJV
(1) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
(2) And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
(3) And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Rosie seems to be claiming he always speaks in a loving way. :rotfl:


That's the problem with judging others while doing what you're accusing them of doing.

 

[Veritas veritate]

If what you say is correct, then why would the surrounding context that explains the meaning say this?

Hebrews 6:4-8 KJV
(4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
(5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
(6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
(7) For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
(8) But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

See? You are getting distracted by the same thing again. But, now that the core meaning of the sentence has been revealed, lets look at the rest that was in the middle.

Now, anyone who is somewhat familiar with grammar in any language knows that prepositions and clauses are used to enhance the meaning of the words and sentences that they are attached with. They do not change the original meaning of the words or sentences.

In regards to this passage we have to look at multiple types of context.

• The cultural context about this passage(to whom was it written)
• The grammatical context within this passage
• The immediate context
• The context it has within the whole of the Bible

Let us first look at the cultural context of this passage. Though the original author of the epistle to the Hebrews is arguably unknown, we do know for sure that it was written to Jewish believers. The Jews were known for trying to turn back to their old lives when things started getting rough: complaining and wanting to go back to Egypt for example. We also know that the believers in Jerusalem (predominantly Jewish) were being persecuted at that time, and it would have sounded better to many to go back to the Law of Moses rather than suffer for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The cultural context relates that this passage was encouraging believers to continue to grow in the faith, for those who have turned back to their old lives (the Law of Moses) cannot start over from the beginning. It is akin to saying to someone: "It is impossible for someone, who has learned, tasted knowledge, was shown the benefits of education, and dropped out of school, to return to kindergarten and relearn everything again." In other words, stay in school because you cant go back to kindergarten and get a do over, if you drop out or fail, you are stuck where you are, until you start to grow again. This passage is a warning to believers in regards to continual spiritual growth: and on that note, on to the next context.

Let us look at it in the grammatical context. All of the verbs throughout that passage are in the aorist (past tense). I do not know who decided to put the "if" in there which changes the original meaning from past tense to a conditional, hypothetical future tense, but it was intellectually dishonest. This suggests that there were some Jewish believers who had already turned back to the Law of Moses when put under persecution. The writer was saying, "Continue to grow spiritually and do not be like those who were enlightened and have fallen away, but don't worry about them, though they are no longer growing spiritually, it is impossible to recrucify Jesus and put him to open shame.

You may argue and say that what I just said is a stretch of the passage, but let us look at the immediate context. Go back to the beginning of the chapter and we will see that what I said is correct. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us press on to perfection; not relaying the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of age-abiding judgment: and this will we do if God permit. ~ Hebrews 6:1-3.

As to your differing interpretation above, that would require that which bears thorns and briers shall be accepted and never be burned.

I purposely left the last context until after the above quote. More light is placed on this passage if we look at the whole of scripture. Recall the parable of the sower? I could explain it to you, but I think it is more beneficial if you try to research it on your own first. Also, do you recall the parable of the farmer who plants a crop and the enemy sows tares in with the wheat? Or how about the parable of the prodigal son who knows the truth, has tasted the richness of his father's inheritance, turned away from the truth, and was met by his father where he was before he could even make it back to the house? There is no need to recrucify Jesus, and it is impossible to do so and put him to open shame because the work he did once and for all was just that, once and for all.

 

[Veritas veritate]

By the grace of God, through faith

Which is more pertinent; the altar or the sacrifice?

 

[Rosenritter]

See? You are getting distracted by the same thing again. But, now that the core meaning of the sentence has been revealed, lets look at the rest that was in the middle.

Now, anyone who is somewhat familiar with grammar in any language knows that prepositions and clauses are used to enhance the meaning of the words and sentences that they are attached with. They do not change the original meaning of the words or sentences.

In regards to this passage we have to look at multiple types of context.

1. The cultural context about this passage(to whom was it written)
2. The grammatical context within this passage
3. The immediate context
4. The context it has within the whole of the Bible

Let us first look at the cultural context of this passage. Though the original author of the epistle to the Hebrews is arguably unknown, we do know for sure that it was written to Jewish believers. The Jews were known for trying to turn back to their old lives when things started getting rough: complaining and wanting to go back to Egypt for example. We also know that the believers in Jerusalem (predominantly Jewish) were being persecuted at that time, and it would have sounded better to many to go back to the Law of Moses rather than suffer for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The cultural context relates that this passage was encouraging believers to continue to grow in the faith, for those who have turned back to their old lives (the Law of Moses) cannot start over from the beginning. It is akin to saying to someone: "It is impossible for someone, who has learned, tasted knowledge, was shown the benefits of education, and dropped out of school, to return to kindergarten and relearn everything again." In other words, stay in school because you cant go back to kindergarten and get a do over, if you drop out or fail, you are stuck where you are, until you start to grow again. This passage is a warning to believers in regards to continual spiritual growth: and on that note, on to the next context.

Let us look at it in the grammatical context. All of the verbs throughout that passage are in the aorist (past tense). I do not know who decided to put the "if" in there which changes the original meaning from past tense to a conditional, hypothetical future tense, but it was intellectually dishonest. This suggests that there were some Jewish believers who had already turned back to the Law of Moses when put under persecution. The writer was saying, "Continue to grow spiritually and do not be like those who were enlightened and have fallen away, but don't worry about them, though they are no longer growing spiritually, it is impossible to recrucify Jesus and put him to open shame.

You may argue and say that what I just said is a stretch of the passage, but let us look at the immediate context. Go back to the beginning of the chapter and we will see that what I said is correct. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us press on to perfection; not relaying the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of age-abiding judgment: and this will we do if God permit. ~ Hebrews 6:1-3.



I purposely left the last context until after the above quote. More light is placed on this passage if we look at the whole of scripture. Recall the parable of the sower? I could explain it to you, but I think it is more beneficial if you try to research it on your own first. Also, do you recall the parable of the farmer who plants a crop and the enemy sows tares in with the wheat? Or how about the parable of the prodigal son who knows the truth, has tasted the richness of his father's inheritance, turned away from the truth, and was met by his father where he was before he could even make it back to the house? There is no need to recrucify Jesus, and it is impossible to do so and put him to open shame because the work he did once and for all was just that, once and for all.

The parable of the wheat and the tares is a different message with a different application. In all of your hundreds of words I have lost track of what you are trying to say, but I just checked through 18 different English translations and in their translation, none of them seemed to say that the verse was saying that one could not fall away, or that renewal after such a falling away after this point was a possibility. Do you have any translation of Hebrews 6, from anyone, that properly conveys your meaning here?

 

[Rosenritter]

That's apparently your argument, not mine.
I know why it's unconvincing to me.
Straw man.
And?
I guess I'm glad you admit to it. :idunno:
He promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. You're trying to change the subject.

Your argument does seem to be that the scripture we have is flat-out wrong. If that isn't what you mean, then you have no room to cry "Straw man argument" if you refuse to clearly state your argument when questioned.

And NO, the scripture does not say ever that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church. That's the POINT.

 

[Nihilo]

So, when was the last time your church taught you about the White Throne Judgment as the Bible says?

Why don't you tell me what you mean by that, and then I can answer.

 

[Nihilo]

Your argument does seem to be that the scripture we have is flat-out wrong.

Not in the slightest bit. For centuries the whole ("catholic!") Church received Matthew 16:18 (KJV) as plain and clear scriptural evidence of the primacy of the successor of Peter; first among equals, where the equals are all the bishops of the One Church.

If that isn't what you mean, then you have no room to cry "Straw man argument" if you refuse to clearly state your argument when questioned.

And NO, the scripture does not say ever that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church. That's the POINT.

:AMR:

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) : " thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

Let the reader decide? :idunno:

 

[lifeisgood]

Why don't you tell me what you mean by that, and then I can answer.

Oh, c'mon Nihilo. I would ask that you ask your church to teach you all about the White Throne Judgment. You can also read the Bible and find out.

 

[Nihilo]

Oh, c'mon Nihilo. I would ask that you ask your church to teach you all about the White Throne Judgment. You can also read the Bible and find out.

Tell me what you mean, pretty much exactly what you mean, by "the White Throne Judgment," and I'll go right ahead and answer your question. It's only fair. :idunno:

 

[popsthebuilder]

So, God saves everybody even those who reject Him. Got it.



Not what you said. This is what you said:


Notice how it is all about, popsthebuilder, doings TO BE SAVED.

Where is that verse that says that God tells the UNbeliever to grieve and sorrow to the point of wishing for death, TO BE SAVED.



Therefore, I, popsthebuilder, having to ADD my own works to Jesus Christ and His already finished/completed work of the Cross of Calvary.



Yes, it is called belief. If you work for the gift it no longer is a gift.



????

I stopped reading when I saw you had quoted your own words and pretended like they were mine.

I have no interest in speaking with those who knowingly misrepresent what I say; and this isnt the first time.

I don't expect anyone be sincere just because I am; just don't think I'll be taking you seriously any time soon.

All you seem to wish to do is accuse and or misrepresent others who's belief you don't agree with. That may venture for you, but as I've stated; my goal is for profitable conversation.

Perhaps you are right about something; how would any catch it through the negativity generally emanated from you?
You think I'm wrong; that much is certain. So what do you do to help the lost? Be a general prick.... Check this out.... Really.... Consider what I'm about to write, really consider it.

Have you ever learned a positive thing from a person who actively hurt you or angered you? Have you ever left upon the conclusion of an interaction with someone being mean spirited or hateful or bitter thinking "hey, they were right. It's a good thing that went down like that or I might not have gained that valuable insight from that intellectual person?

I'll give you a hint; the answer is no, you haven't.

So; if you, being the true christian you so obviously are, are actively being hateful or hurtful while attempting to convey some message; well, frankly, then, you're urinating into the wind (synonymous too, with peeing on one's own self.)

Thanks though; my poor memory keeps allowing for my attempts at actual profitable communication; you keep reminding me I'm barking up the wrong tree.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

You are not interested in The Truth.

No amount of explanation from such a puny no one as myself will convince you of anything.

God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) has to reach into your indoctrination for you to see Him and that is my prayer for you, that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) reaches you the same way He reached me.

What were you saying about boasting and works?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

It matters not what amount of information you receive you will reject all of it.

My prayer to you is that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) breaks through your indoctrination as only God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can break through the darkness of your indoctrination.

And again

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

It's an odd way to say it, is all. Why must Pops call Him something other than what His Church calls Him, today, and for centuries? Christ. We don't think there's more than One Christ, there's no need for "the," why does Pops insist upon being different? Locked into adolescent rebellion? :idunno:

Ofttimes I will say Jesus the Christ of GOD. Because Jesus was the anointed of GOD. Christ means anointed with oil.

Jesus anointed just doesn't sound right; it isn't a last name; it is a title.


Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk