User Profile: by faith

by faith

Member Since: September 27, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [1] February 10, 2015 at 5:43pm

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s humorous way of pointing out how absurd it is to conclude that the apostles didn’t really witness the resurrection like they said they did.

    He said: We must pray for the courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world.
    The “wise” do not believe in the resurrection of the dead.
    It is really quite absurd [to them]. The Ascension had to be made up by groveling enthusiasts as part of their plan to get themselves martyred.

  • [2] February 10, 2015 at 5:42pm

    Leading Christian AND non-Christian historians of Jesus day testify to his existence and miracles.
    Among them are: Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Syrian Mara bar Serapion.

    Quoting Josephus Flavius,
    the leading Jewish historian of that day:
    (From Jewish Antiquities) Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

    Why would the apostles allow themselves to be martyred in such horrible ways for saying Jesus existed when they knew that was false?

    Are you also claiming the Apostles didn’t exist?

    They said they were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ miracles and resurrection.
    They all were martyred separate from each other.
    It could be said that one of them was crazy and suicidal…but it would be hard to make the case that ALL of them were
    (except John, who wasn’t martyred but was exiled to the island of Patmos instead)

  • [2] February 10, 2015 at 1:09pm

    Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time.
    Jesus’ mother makes 12.
    The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake.

    So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so.

    So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90!
    Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children?”

    Matthew 28
    8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
    16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

    Text, without context, is pretext.

  • [2] February 10, 2015 at 1:06pm

    James is the son of Mary who is the sister of the Blessed Virgin.
    James ,the Apostle, is the son of Alpheus

    The Gospels do not give us many details of Jesus’ childhood, no mention is made of Mary and Joseph ever having other children.

    Never does it refer to the “SONS of Mary” or “A SON of Mary,” but only THE SON of Mary.

    Also, according to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son.

    By the time of the crucifixion, St. Joseph has died.

    Since Jesus, the first born, and had no “blood brother,”

    He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.

    If Mary had other natural sons and daughters at the time of the
    cross, it would be against Jewish law for Jesus to ask John to take care of her.

    It would also be highly insulting to Jesus’ siblings.
    Did Jesus forget he had brothers?

    Especially, James the “brother of the Lord” was alive in 49 AD (Gal 1:19).

    He should have taken care of her.

    Acts 1:14-15….
    “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.”

    A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus.

  • [2] February 10, 2015 at 1:02pm

    Cleophas is the brother of Joseph (Jesus’ adopted father).
    Cleophas’ wife Mary is the Virgin Mary’s sister in law, which explains why they can have the same name and are called sisters.
    It also follows that James is Jesus’ cousin.

    The mother of two of the brothers of the Lord was Mary of Cleophas, the sister of the Blessed Virgin.

    We also know that Cleophas, St Joseph’s brother, was the father of a third, called Simon or Simeon.

    Since the remaining one, Jude, is always connected with Simon and is, like him, part of the family of David, it is natural to suppose that he was also a son of Cleophas.

    Mary, the sister of the Blessed Virgin, having two sons, James and Joseph, by a first marriage, was married a second time to Cleophas, brother of St. Joseph, who also had two sons, Simon and Jude, by a former marriage.

    In the customs of the country and the age, there was nothing extraordinary in the marriage of a widow and a widower, each with children. The sister of the Blessed Virgin had as her first husband a man of the tribe of Levi, called Alpheus.

    So James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are always named in that order, as brethren of the Lord.

    James and Joseph is a pair distinct from Simon and Jude.

    Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin, is called the mother of James and Joseph and not the mother of Simon and Jude.

    Simon and not James is the son of Cleophas.

    Simon and Jude are of the family of David; according to tradition, James was of sacerdotal ancestry.

  • [2] February 10, 2015 at 12:59pm

    Jesus had siblings?
    Not if you read the whole Bible and not just cherry pick one passage here and there

    “And there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.”

    Mary of Cleophas may have had a previous husband named Alpheus, or this Alpheus may have been Cleophas. The Blessed Virgin Mary only had one husband (Joseph)
    Jesus had brethren named James, Joseph, Simon (Simeon) and Jude (Mt 13:55). We also know that His mother Mary had a “sister”(cousin) called Mary. This other Mary in turn had a husband named Cleophas (Jn 19:25).

    At the death of Jesus, we are told that Mary wife of Cleophas/Clopas (Jn 19:25) was present. She was described as the mother of James and Joseph (Mt 27:56) in one account, and mother of James the Less and Joses in another (Mk 15:40). On the other hand, James is described as the son of Alphaeus in the synoptic Gospels’ listing of the Apostles (Mt 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15). We can infer that Mary wife of Cleophas is unlikely to be a true sister of the Virgin Mary, since they bear the same name. However, they are related in some way. This parallels the semitic use of “brother” in relating James to Jesus.

    After the martyrdom of James, it was unanimously decided that Simeon, son of Clopas, was worthy to occupy the see of Jerusalem. He was, it is said, a cousin of the Saviour;” Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

    This Simeon, the son of Clopas, was a cousin of James the Just.

  • [2] February 10, 2015 at 12:53pm

    eutope

    You need physical evidence to prove someone existed?
    No Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus. It would be convenient if they did, but alas, they do not.

    At the same time, the fact is a bit irrelevant since these same sources do not mention many millions of people who actually did live.

    Jesus stands here with the vast majority of living, breathing human beings of earlier ages.

    The fact that there are no non-Christian or Jewish accounts of Jesus seems somewhat irrelevant to me.
    There are dozens of Christian accounts of Jesus’ existence.

    You imply that the first century documents contained in the New Testament are unreliable simply because they were written by Christians.

    This would be a bit like dismissing early American accounts of the Revolutionary War simply because they were written by Americans

    What I do find compelling is that the Christian movement managed to spread so quickly. The Jewish historian Josephus confirms that the movement began in Judea, while Tacitus, Seutonius, and Pliny the Younger tell us that it spread all the way to Rome and Bithnya. According to the writings of the early Christians, these new communities were started by apostles who had been sent by the movement’s founder, Jesus.

    The Christ myth theory has circulated for nearly 200 years, going in and out of style.

    Actually, we have more written evidence to prove Jesus existed than anyone who lived at that time.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 5:38pm

    waiting to pounce ?

    You really need to think before you post.

    You posted at 3:13
    I responded at 4:31
    That is over an hour later.

    Ready to pounce would have been 3:15 or even 3:20
    Not over an hour later.

    The more you post, the more I feel sorry for you

  • [1] February 5, 2015 at 5:33pm

    Poor Zippy, you are so persecuted.

    Until the spirit moves you, why don’t you actually read what I have posted.

    This is doctorate level education material I am giving you for free and you dismiss it as if it were yesterdays garbage.

    Oh, crap, Now I will have to read about your Holy Spirit related story about taking out the garbage.

    You just don’t get it Zippy.
    You are to be pitied.

    I’m still waiting for you to address the actual information in my posts.
    Any of them.
    That would be shocking if you actually read any of my posts.

    But you can’t be bothered with facts, you’ve got your mind made up.
    And there is no room for logic if it differs from your man-made doctrine.

    tear
    :_(

  • [1] February 5, 2015 at 4:35pm

    “Your religion simply does not offer anything to compare with what I have as a Christian.”
    You have no idea what my religion has to offer. And you have no intent to find out what my religion has to offer.

    When it comes to the Catholic Church, you don’t know Zip.

  • [1] February 5, 2015 at 4:34pm

    The biblical idea of peace clearly did not indicate a peace which was totally unbreakable. King David would have been shocked by the suggestion that, when God gave him peace (shalom) with his enemies, this meant they would never, ever, under any circumstances go to war with Israel again.
    Peace with God can be broken, but one must do something grave to break that peace. Does the fact that one’s name was written in the book of life when one came to God and received initial salvation mean that name will stay in the book of life until the last day, when you would receive final salvation?
    No. Scripture indicates in dozens of places that you can lose salvation, and it does so in specific connection with the book of life metaphor.
    In Revelation 3:5, Jesus states: “He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” The implication is that if you end up giving in to sin, your name will be blotted out of the book of life and you will be denied before God and the angels, something Jesus elsewhere emphasizes (Mt 10:33, Lk 12:9). As Jesus puts it, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22, 24:13; Mk 13:13). What happens if you don’t endure to the end? You lose salvation.

    That’s more free education for you Zippy.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 4:33pm

    Assurance of Salvation?
    Mt 7:21 – not everyone saying Lord, Lord will inherit
    Mt 24:13 – those who persevere to the end will be saved
    Rom 11:22 – remain in his kindness or you will be cut off
    Phil 2:12 – work out your salvation in fear and trembling
    1 Cor 9:27 – drive body for fear of being disqualified
    1 Cor 10:11-12 – those thinking they are secure, may fall
    Gal 5:4 – separated from Christ, you’ve fallen from grace
    2 Tim 2:11-13 – must hold out to end to reign with Christ
    Hb 6:4-6 – describes sharers in Holy Spirit who then fall away
    Heb 10:26-27 – if sin after receiving truth, judgment remains
    I’ve heard Romans 5:1 (“since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God”) means that we can never lose our salvation.
    First, the best manuscripts of Romans do not say “we have peace” but “let us have peace,” making it an exhortation to have peace with God, or, more properly, to continue in the peace we were given in justification. Anyone in a state of justification does have peace with God. But the fact that someone has peace now doesn’t mean that peace can’t be broken. If you commit mortal sin, you break the peace with God by turning away from him, and you lose the peace and justification you had.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 4:33pm

    “I deserved death” Past tense?
    You still deserve death. Death awaits us all. But if we stand firm until the end, we will be rewarded with life. That is something that will happen in the future. Which might be very soon for me if you ever figure out how to “pummel” me over the internet.

    “Your religion simply does not offer anything to compare with what I have as a Christian.”

    Have you been saved?
    Past event (I have been saved)
    Rom 8:24 – for in hope we were saved
    Eph 2:5,8 – by grace you have been saved through faith
    2 Tim 1:9 – he saved us, called us, according to His grace
    Tit 3:5 – He saved us thru bath of rebirth, renewal by Holy Spirit

    Present ( I am being saved)
    Phil 2:12 – work out your salvation with fear and trembling
    1 Pet 1:9 – as you attain the goal of your faith, salvation

    Future Event (I will be saved)
    Mt 10:22 – he who endures to the end will be saved
    Mt 24:13 – he who perseveres to the end will be saved
    Mk 8:35 – whoever loses his life for my sake will save it
    Acts 15:11 – we shall be saved through the grace of Jesus
    Rom 5:9-10 – since we are justified, we shall be saved
    Rom 13:11 – salvation is nearer now than first believed
    1 Cor 3:15 – he will be saved but only as through fire
    1 Cor 5:5 – deliver man to Satan so his spirit may be saved
    Heb 9:28 – Jesus will appear a second time, to bring salvation

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 4:31pm

    “He steadies my hand when no amount of human wisdom can” I laughed so hard I almost cried when I read that line. I don’t think you even know what wisdom is. Devine or human

    “He has also been there to turn away when I sinned in His presence.” God turns away from you when you sin? Wrong again Zippy. When you sin it is YOU turning away from God. God never turns away from those he loves. It’s about our free will.
    What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to do to reconcile that sentence with once saved always saved? You are saved, but if you sin God turns away from you? Let me guess, that reminds you of a unrelated story about how wonderful you are?

    You said Jesus did all for all. I’m paraphrasing. (you know this word? – look it up if not)
    If Jesus paid all debts for all mankind, why would God need to discipline you and scourged you? Now your once saved always saved doctrine is failing. But what would you expect, it is a man-made doctrine.

    He has sent me to open your eyes and provide you with truth.

    “And He has given me eternal life”
    To quote the minions: Whaaat? Don’t you mean He will give you eternal life?
    Are you guaranteed eternal life? Jesus did not teach that.
    Let’s stick with Matthew: “but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”(MT 24:13)
    See that, you must stand firm to the end. Once saved always saved? No, that’s not Biblical either.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 4:31pm

    That’s actually quite funny Zippy.
    I stay on topic and you criticize me? You ramble on about what you perceive as God doing for you. I don’t really care. This discussion is about your error in so many different things. You might remember this: “you don’t know Zip”
    These posts are me correcting your errors. We are not arguing about who has what relationship with Jesus. Would you like to know my life story? Would that be more efficacious in getting you to understand that you are wrong in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and Pre-tribulation Rapture and …….

    Or is it just another attempt to change the subject? Since you have Zip in the way of evidence to support your position.

    My personal relationship with The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is just that. Personal.
    I don’t want to: “be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.” Matt 6:5
    Or
    Matt 6:6
    But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
    You want me to post on here how “holy” I am?
    That’s what you do, but that’s not what Jesus wants.

    “The Spirit of the Living God indwells me as He does all Christians.” Except Catholics, Right?
    There you go again Zippy, arguing with yourself is a sign on mental disorder.
    So does hearing disembodied voices.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 10:36am

    I have more Zippy, but since you don’t read what I post, I’ll stop the Bible lesson there.

    The bedrock of Christian faith did not exist in its present form for 1,500 years.
    Unchangeable? Luther changed it. King James changed it. The Archbishop of Canterbury changed it. 35,000 different denominations change its meaning every day.

    The Spirit always agrees? Then how do you explain 35,000 denominations?

    “It is awesome when the Spirit reveals something you were not looking” Do you mean like the facts I have provided you?

    The Bible never once claims to be sufficient. Profitable, useful, but never supreme.
    Jesus’ go-to was the Bible? Not
    Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, a collection of books you claim are un-biblical.

    When you were reading Matt 4 did you see “ MAN SHALL LIVE BY THE WRITTEN WORD”? NO
    Hey Zippy, can you tell me what we call words that are spoken? O R A L T R A D I T I O N?

    Why didn’t Jesus just tell the Devil to read His book? Oh yea that’s right, Jesus never did write a book.

    Wrong again Zippy, yet your still unwilling to even attempt to accept any truth that differs from your personal interpretation. You alone are infallible. You have the Holy Spirit speaking directly to you.

    Tell me Zippy, does the aluminum foil hat at as an antenna?
    Or do you have to take off the hat to hear the Spirit?

    You have been proven wrong so many times.
    While your looking up those words I gave you, look up stubborn.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 10:31am

    AD 393 the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

    AD 397 The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch).

    AD 787 The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, adopted the canon of Carthage.

    AD 1442 At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier.

    All orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.

    This is still 100 years before the Reformation.

    AD 1536 In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

    AD 1546 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 373 AD, 397, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 10:30am

    Poor Zippy, don’t you just hate when facts get in the way of a good story?

    Hey Zippy, it’s just you and me. That’s all that’s left. If anyone is reading this they see one thing. I deal in Historical and Biblical facts. You deal in personal opinion.

    Ohhh, the invisible Church. Why I’ve never heard of that. ROTFL

    I’ll type slower so you can keep up.
    There was NO Bible before 382. The Catholic Church canonized it.

    Timeline of how the Bible came to us
    AD 51-125 – The New Testament books are written.
    AD 140 Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.

    AD 367 The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39.

    AD 382 Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 10:27am

    Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 10:27am

    Because he had no choice, Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
    You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love