Standing Up To Rome

glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
everready said:
He expressed disagreement, stating that as per Romans 8:15, those who receive the adoption of sons through the blood of Jesus can never be orphans.

“The pope continues to display his biblical ignorance,” he said. “Pope Francis does not know that Christians cannot be orphans because they have been adopted into God’s eternal family. No one can be an orphan who has received the Spirit of adoption as sons joyfully cry out ‘Abba! Father!'”
Click to expand...

Christ has two parents. A father and a mother.

If becoming His adopted siblings makes us the adopted sons and daughters of His father, then it follows that we've become adopted sons and daughters of His mother, too.

John 19:27
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Bright Raven said:
Simply this: 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Click to expand...
QUESTION: Is your personal interpretation/application of this or any other biblical text, then, "an infallible and binding authority"---yes, or no?

It would seem that the apostle is saying that all the man of God needs is an understanding of the scriptures as illuminated unto him by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
It is simply impossible that Paul is teaching that Scripture is, as you claim, "all the man of God needs" since---aside from nowhere stating that in the text itself---this same apostle elsewhere teaches that the man of God also needs Apostolic Tradition, which he also describes as "the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13). Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
WeberHome

WeberHome

New member
-
glassjester said:
You believe that Eve came into being without sin.
Click to expand...

Although Eve came into being with no sins to her credit; she did come into
the world with the capability to commit sin. So it would be incorrect to say
Eve was sinless because a truly sinless person is incapable of committing
sin. For example:

†. Jas 1:13 . . God cannot be tempted by evil

†. 1John 3:9 . . No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed
abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

To my knowledge, the Bible does not say Christ's mother was born of God.
Ergo: Mary was an ordinary woman; viz: she wasn't sinless.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
WeberHome said:
Although Eve came into being with no sins to her credit; she did come into the world with the capability to commit sin.
Click to expand...

As did Mary. This does not imply that they were God.

Claiming that Eve had the capability to commit sin, means she also had the capability to not sin. Had she chosen not to sin (which she could have!) she would not have become a god. She would have remained a human - a sinless one. Which is exactly what she was up until time of the Fall, anyway.

Mary is the new Eve. Just as Eve was a sinless human until she freely chose to sin, Mary was a sinless human who freely chose not to sin.

None of this makes either of them into Gods. They're human.


WeberHome said:
So it would be incorrect to say
Eve was sinless because a truly sinless person is incapable of committing sin.
Click to expand...

False.

God is both sinless and incapable of sinning, as, by definition, He cannot act against His own will.

Humans can. Adam and Eve were created without sin, yet chose to sin anyway. Even a portion of God's angels in Heaven (created without sin) chose to sin.

Mary, in choosing not to sin, is not "made into a god."
You choose not to sin, don't you? Does that make you God? No. You're still human. So is Mary.
 
WeberHome

WeberHome

New member
-
CLAIM: Jesus had no earthly father and that's why he was not subject to the
ramifications of original sin.

RESPONSE: Adam was created directly from the earth's dust. Not so Eve.

She was created from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's side.
Thus Eve's flesh wasn't the flesh of a second species of h.sapiens. Her flesh
was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's except for gender. In
other words: Eve was the flip side of the same biological coin. (Gen 5:2)

So then, any human beings biologically produced from Eve's flesh-- whether
virgin conceived or naturally conceived --would be biologically just as much
Adam's flesh as Adam's because the source of its mother's flesh was Adam.

†. Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Just about everybody agrees that the seed spoken of in that passage is
Christ. Well; seeing as how his mom's flesh was derived biologically from
Eve, then Christ's flesh is just as much Eve's flesh as Eve's, and seeing as
how her flesh was just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then it's readily
deduced that Adam is Christ's biological progenitor.

It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome
necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't.
However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of
man flesh; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to
construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a sample of woman flesh. And
seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then
any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would
actually be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was
produced from Adam's flesh.

Bottom line: In order to qualify as one of Adam's biological descendants, a
person need only be one of Eve's biological descendants: which we all are.

†. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all the living.

On numerous occasions, Christ identified himself as "son of man". That title
was neither new nor unique in his day. God addressed the prophet Ezekiel as
"son of man" on at least 93 occasions; and in every case, the Hebrew word
for man is 'adam (aw-dawm') which is the proper name of the human race
God that created in the very beginning from the flesh of just one man. If
Jesus Christ had not biologically descended from Adam, then he would be a
bald-faced liar for calling himself son of man.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
WeberHome

WeberHome

New member
-
CLAIM: Jesus had to be virgin-conceived in order to evade Jeconiah's curse.

RESPONSE: Most Gentiles are unaware of Jeconiah's curse, and I dare say
totally unaware of even Jeconiah himself (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or Coniah).
He was a very bad king of the Davidic dynasty; so bad that God black-listed
his family. Here's the text of the curse.

†. Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said
the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be
found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the
throne of David and to rule again in Judah.

Well; it just so happens that Joseph is biologically related to Jeconiah (Matt
1:11, Matt 1:16)

So then, it's very common for Bible students to appropriate Jeconiah's curse
as one of the reasons why Joseph could not be allowed to sire Mary's son
Jesus. They say that had Jesus been in Jeconiah's biological line, he would
have been disqualified from inheriting David's throne.

However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse was
relatively brief.

The curse on Coniah's offspring was limited to the time of his family's
jurisdiction in Judah. In other words: the curse was in effect only during the
days of the divided kingdom with Judah in the south and Samaria in the
north. That condition came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the
whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian
slavery.

When Christ returns to rule, the country of Israel will be unified. His
jurisdiction won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will
dominate all of Eretz Israel. (Ezek 37:21-24)

So the curse does not apply to him. In point of fact, it didn't apply to Joseph
either seeing as how the curse ran its course only up to the time of the end
of the divided kingdom.

Another very common error is one that says Jesus circumvented the curse
via adoption. In other words, seeing as how he was Joseph's legal son but
not his biological son, then Jeconiah's curse didn't pass to Jesus.

But adoption doesn't work like that.

According to most, if not all, adoption laws; adopted children have all the
rights, privileges, benefits, liabilities, and responsibilities of natural children,
including a right to inherit just as if they were 100% biological progeny.

In addition, if a man divorces a woman after they brought adopted children
into their home, or if he adopted his wife's children from a previous
marriage, he's liable for child support because the law recognizes no
difference between adopted children and natural children.

NOTE: It's not uncommon for a young inexperienced fellow to marry a girl
with children from a previous relationship only to find himself paying child
support for another man's progeny when they separate because he adopted
the man's kids and gave them his name. Ouch! That's gotta hurt.

Therefore, since Jesus was Joseph's legal son by law, then Jesus would have
inherited any, and all, curses that may have filtered down from Mr. Jeconiah
right along with Solomon's throne; just as if Jesus were Joseph's biological
progeny. In other words: the curse would have come with the throne as a
package deal. So if you take away Christ's inheritance rights to Jeconiah's
curse, then you must of necessity take away his inheritance rights to
Solomon's throne too.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Bright Raven said:
The answer to your question is yes. The scripture is the infallible and binding authority on all things.
Click to expand...
That isn't what I asked. Try again:
"Is your personal interpretation/application of this or any other biblical text, then, 'an infallible and binding authority'---yes, or no?"​
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Cruciform said:
That isn't what I asked. Try again:
"Is your personal interpretation/application of this or any other biblical text, then, 'an infallible and binding authority'---yes, or no?"​
Click to expand...

It is infallible and binding and heaven help you if you do not believe the same.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Bright Raven said:
It is infallible and binding and heaven help you if you do not believe the same.
Click to expand...
Well then, just to be clear: Your answer is that your personal interpretations of the Bible are indeed "an infallible and binding authority."

Is that actually your claim, or do you need some time to think about your answer?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Cruciform said:
No one is disputing that the Bible is infallible. My question was whether or not YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible are infallible. Are they---yes or no?
Click to expand...

Whether I am right or wrong is not in question. The question pertains to the written word of God. Hopefully I study it well enough to have the correct interpretation. Same with you eh?
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Cruciform said:
It is exactly my question. Again:
"Are YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible infallible and binding---yes or no?"​
Click to expand...

Nope, all I can do is study and make an interpretation based upon that study. With the Holy Spirit as teacher and studying to show myself approved I have found that I am mostly correct and if not am able to correct my thinking. And you?
 
H

HisServant

New member
Hey we have a toss up... Cruciform's personal interpretations (they may be his cRomanist's cults but it his personal choice and interpretation to believe them) against Bright Raven... its a Tie.

And no, numbers do not count... actually scripture is on the side of the lesser numbers. (the way is narrow).
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
HisServant said:
Hey we have a toss up... Cruciform's personal interpretations (they may be his cRomanist's cults but it his personal choice and interpretation to believe them) against Bright Raven... its a Tie.

And no, numbers do not count... actually scripture is on the side of the lesser numbers. (the way is narrow).
Click to expand...

Cruciforms interpretations are not His own. They are the interpretations of Mother Church. He tosses biblical interpretation out with the dishwater.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Bright Raven said:
Nope...
Click to expand...
Therefore, you can stop appealing to the Bible's infallibility as though your interpretations of the Bible were the same thing. THEY'RE NOT.

An infallible book without an infallible interpretation certainly cannot function as the binding authority that both you and I agree the Bible is. This is precisely why the Protestant movement is nothing more than a hopelessly subjective interpretive chaos of competing and contradictory opinions of men. Nor can it possibly be anything else. Ever.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top