glorydaz
Well-known member
Lest anyone think Evil Eye doesn't deserve what he gets..... I rest my case. :chew:
What is the Gospel?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
Lest anyone think Evil Eye doesn't deserve what he gets..... I rest my case. :chew:
As long as I can then retort back with what you need to hear, that's all right with me.
This is because I am theologically Catholic, that I deserve rebuking, I presume.
Between Catholic theology, and another Christian theology? Or is there another fence?
glorydaz
Well-known member
First, I'm sorry I misspelled your name. I was writing it as Evil had written it, figuring he surely must know the spelling better than I do. Second, you can say whatever you like, and I sincerely doubt you need someone defending you. You do quite well on your own.
From what you have written, I have gathered that you're not a Catholic but still stick quite closely to Catholic Dogma. That's the fence I was talking about.
And don't get all bent out of shape by the word "rebuke". Convince, convict, retort, etc. are all part of the way of debating. I was doing exactly that when I was calling you on the use of the word Easter. That understanding comes from the Catholics, too, as I recall.
Of course, you could let Evil plant a seed of butt-hurtedness in your heart....he's good at that, but I don't think you will take that course. Judging from you past postings.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I prefer Resurrection. Easter is a pagan term isn't it?
There it is in use - in your KJV.
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
And the explanations for its use being there are not only many, but mostly full of holes.
Lol, sort of like most of your attempted arguments over in the Politics Forum :chuckle:
Rom. 5:8.
Ishtar is the pagan goddess Easter is named after.
These distinctions are not that simple...
Are not as simple as "this mean this within this over here, therefore, this always means this everywhere else..."
And left unchecked, it is a violation of that kind of a principle in that way, that resulted in the Reformed view; in where the Acts 2 view has remained; in how the Acts 28 view ended up where it did; and in the Hybrid of the Acts 9 (aka Mid-Acts) view with the Acts 28 view into what is now being touted on here by some as "Mid-Acts."
Rom. 5:8.
Um... What?
Those of you who have faith hope and Love towards Sonnet... blessings. Those of you who want to make this about theology, people or church dispute...
Get right.
Deuces...
Get right.
Deuces...
A majority of the world knows that Christmas means Birth of the Savior and Easter means Ressurection of the Savior.
End of story.
What is seen to be bad by Man can be used for good by God. Paul apparently knew this.
This ain’t a thread about dispute and petty infighting or mocking Sonnet... It’s about THE Gospel!
End of story.
What is seen to be bad by Man can be used for good by God. Paul apparently knew this.
This ain’t a thread about dispute and petty infighting or mocking Sonnet... It’s about THE Gospel!
So did I, so I tried it; too ambiguous for people, not clear enough. Lazarus, those who were raised by Elijah and Peter and Paul, the general resurrection .. Easter is unambiguous.
Nobody thinks of it as pagan. It's Christian. Easter is ours.
By the same means by which all sorts of words and or phrases eventually take on additional meanings...over time.
Sort of like the Christmas Tree now, in contrast to its origin, and said origin's own sense of its tree.
Likewise with a word like Easter...
By the time of the first English Bible, the word Easter had come to have a different meaning within Protestantism - one which it borrowed from the Roman Catholicism it broke from.
Sort of like when someone in the world speaks of having gone through a trial of some sort in their life that they refer to as "my baptism of fire."
They do not mean it in the exact sense of John the Baptist's use of that in Matthew 3.
In short, the RCC "corrupted" the word "Pascha" into the word Easter (back when the ROMAN Emperor: Constantine, was drawing from the various pagan religions then at odds with one another within that then vast ROMAN Empire - including the religion of Ishstar - into what became ROMAN Catholicism, short for Rome's Official Universal, State Religion).
Centuries later, the Protestants took up that same word "Easter."
Which was where things were, when Pascha was translated "Easter" there, in Acts; the first mention of Pascha after the Resurrection.
But boy have the KJVists come up with "alternate facts" or "fake news" on why that word is there, only in that one passage.
The so called "right alone" within the equally so called "religious right" - being itself...once more.
In short, anything but such being willing to admit the obvious.
Good luck with such, Nihilo - theirs is quite the "club" on here.
Rom. 5:8.
Scripture reminded the Israelites to "train up a child in the way he should go" (via their Schema, Deut..6) in the hope that "when he is old(er) he will not depart from it" Prov. 22:6
Reminding Pastor Timothy of that time in his childhood, the Apostle Paul writes...
2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
In other words, because children do not know right from wrong; they require instruction on both.
That they might come to know the difference between the two "by reason of use" Heb. 5:14.
However, that does not mean they are "innocent" or "pure."
It means they do not know right from wrong, not that they do not do right and wrong.
It means they do not know right from wrong.
(And that moment of first knowing the difference, is different for each child).
Were they "innocent" or "pure" Christ would not have had to die.
But He died because all humanity is precious to The Father, 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9, etc.
And children also fit in said "precious" category.
But especially children.
Why?
Because those "children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil," are, after they are born, not counted as being in rebellion against God until that point wherein they are able not only to discern between good and evil, but to knowingly choose between the two.
Until then, said child has not knowingly and willingly gone against "the purpose of God" as to this issue - "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" 1 Timothy 2:4.
For just as with the issue of Election, Romans 9:11 (when properly understood) salvation is also not only "Not of works, lest any man should boast" Ephesians 2:9, but said child's works, are not yet even an issue with God, because the little tyke does not yet know the difference between right and wrong.
In short, if we are so cut a break by God that
"when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly" Romans 5:6, you know He is going to "suffer the little ones" even more so.
I, for one, do not mind in the least, His "respect of persons" where said little ones are concerned.
Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Thus why - Romans 5:8 - Amen!
I... Toni Montana... the self professed bad guy... had hit like on this post. I misread it and disagree with you... but... your argument is sound and valid...
In other words... I see no reason to belittle your arguments as GD and others do. You have very valid points and though I’ve said I’ld Go 1000 times... I want to let you know that your dispensational perspective is well thought out and though I disagree on you argument to “counter innocence”... I feel okay telling you that if I had to agree with anyone counter to my personal perspective... it would be you... because... your argument is sound and fair counter perspective.
Sorry I focused on cliques during some debates here and placed my wrath towards you to gain thread support.
You stay humble and take a beating with grace... but remain sincere and full of fight.
:e4e:
Sonnet
New member
glorydaz
Well-known member
What world do you live in? Your own little one....I know. :chuckle:
It's too bad you had to melt down and make this thread about yourself. That you continue to consider yourself the monitor of it only reminds me of your great deception. :nono:
glorydaz
Well-known member
So far you haven't gotten much right, so I guess I won't get my feelings hurt over this one. :chuckle: