Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $28,711
32%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 32% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by imardmd1

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Is the Angel of the Lord the Pre-Incarnate Christ?

    01/25/2015 3:52:34 PM PST · 46 of 60
    imardmd1 to chajin
    The angels of the churches do not seem to me to be "Angels of The LORD" as in the OT. Here is a summary on the angels to whom the letters were written in Rev. 2 and 3:

    ========

    Angels (ἄγγελοι)

    The exact meaning of the term here is uncertain. The following are the principal interpretations:

    1. The officials known as angels or messengers of the synagogue, transferred to the Christian Church. These were mere clerks or readers; so that their position does not answer to that of the angels presiding over the churches. There is, besides, no trace of the transfer of that office to the Christian Church.

    2. Angels proper Heavenly guardians of the churches. This is urged on the ground that the word is constantly used in Revelation of a heavenly being; by reference to the angels of the little ones (Mat_18:10), and to Peter's angel (Act_12:15). It is urged that, if an individual may have a guardian angel, so may a Church. Reference is also made to the tutelar national angels of Dan_10:21; Dan_12:1.
    But why should the seer be instructed to write to heavenly messengers, with exhortations to repentance and fidelity, and describing them as "rich," "poor," "lukewarm," etc. (Rev_2:4; Rev_3:1, Rev_3:16)?

    3. The angels are a personification of the churches themselves: the Church being spoken of as if concentrated in its angel or messenger. But in Rev_1:20, they are explicitly distinguished from the golden candlesticks, the churches.

    4. The rulers ard teachers of the congregation. These are compared by Daniel (Dan_12:3) to stars. See Mal_2:7, where the priest is called the messenger (angel) of the Lord; and Mal_3:1, where the same word is used of the prophet. See also Hag_1:13. Under this interpretation two views are possible.
    ...(a) The angels are Bishops; the word ἄγγελος sometimes occurring in that sense (as in Jerome and Socrates). This raises the question of the existence of episcopacy towards the close of the first century.
    ...(b) The word is used of the ministry collectively; the whole board of officers, including both presbyters and deacons, who represented and were responsible for the moral condition of the churches. See Act_20:17, Act_20:28; 1Pe_5:1-5.

    Dr. Schaff says: "This phraseology of the Apocalypse already looks towards the idea of episcopacy in its primitive form, that is, to a monarchical concentration of governmental form in one person, bearing a patriarchal relation to the congregation, and responsible in an eminent sense for the spiritual condition of the whole. . . . But even in this case we must insist on an important distinction between the 'angels' of the Book of Revelation and the later diocesan Bishops. For aside from the very limited extent of their charges, as compared with the large territory of most Greek, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Bishops, these angels stood below the Apostles and their legates, and were not yet invested with the great power (particularly the right to confirm and ordain) which fell to the later Bishops after the death of the Apostles. . . . The angels, accordingly, if we are to understand by them single individuals, must be considered as forming the transition from the presbyters of the apostolic age to the Bishops of the second century" ("History of the Apostolic Church").

  • "The Big Broadcast" Live Sunday 1/25 7-11pm est

    01/25/2015 3:16:45 PM PST · 7 of 20
    imardmd1 to Vision

    Boy! Does this livung roon scene bring back childhood memories! (Except we couldn’t afford the Sunday paper until I got a route.) Green Hornet. Mr. Keene, Tracer of Lost Persons. The Great Gildersleeve. Inner Sanctum. (Afternooon programs). Comics with Moon Mullins. Katzenjammer Kids. Dick Tracy. And me day-dreaming of getting a date with Mary Spangler.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/25/2015 9:59:48 AM PST · 6,858 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    something that is done or said, often dishonestly,>/i>

    Not dishonestly here, fellow. And certainly not twisting the Scripture, as is the habit of some. You wouldn't do that, would you? Like telling me that the RCC wrote the Bible? Nah.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/25/2015 4:28:10 AM PST · 6,853 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to Mark17

    Huh? ah, neither. It’s a defense to a couple of AF’s supposed fault-finding agenda, see Post #6835. Just getting warmed up —

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/24/2015 9:25:55 PM PST · 6,851 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    Jesus used no ploy.

    Jesus to a scribe:

    "David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?" (Lk. 20:44 AV).

    To the temple officer:

    "Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" (Jn. 18:23 AV).

    To the disciples, including Judas Iscariot:

    "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (Jn. 6:70 AV).

    (Lots more like this.)

    ==========

    that the Spirit of God was upon David when he committed adultery and murder, although you have not fully developed your teaching here;

    "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah" (1 Sam. 16:13 AV).

    Here the verb is in the imperfect tense but the overall sense of the clause is the same as if it were in the perfect. But:

    "And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice" (1 Ki. 19:12 AV).

    The Holy Ghost was there, but David must have refused to hear the still small voice. As we fail to heed the still small voice when we are contemplating iniquity. To God, sin is sin, no matter how we try to regard it as small or large.

    xxxxxxxxx

    More later. Time to rest.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/24/2015 8:05:09 PM PST · 6,850 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to rwa265
    What bible are you using?

    The Textus Receptus, Scrivener's, Trinitarian Bible Society; and eSword Bible Software TR and Robinson/Pierpont.

    και And
    υστερησαντος it lacking (of); aorist tense, active voice, participle, genitive, singular, masculine; "it" refers to τον γαμον = the marriage, accusative, singular, masculine. οινου wine

    There is no "they" here, there is no "ran out of," and there is no "when" involved here.

    οινον wine
    ουκ no or not
    εχουσιν they continually have; present tense,active voice indicative mode, third person plural

    "And Jesus was summoned and also his disciples to the marriage, and it lacked wine. Jesus' mother said to him,

    "They continually are having no wine"

    or

    "They are not having wine."

    Look carefully. It is the marriage that has no wine, so the people have no wine.

    They are not having wine because there is no wine at this marriage event.

    That's point one.

    =========

    Point two is that the wine refreshment is a wine that has never been made before by man, that is made by a process not yet known to man, and it was made by the God-man who could not possibly be glorified by making drunk people drunker, nor would people be brought to belief in him by having "one more for the road" so to speak.

    Furthermore, this "wine" (for if it were fine, sweet, pure grape juice what else could it be called in their language other than optionally gleukos) is so new, and made without any base than pure water, that by the moment it was served could not have been fermented to any degree when it was immediately served.

    Unless, that is, that he went to the trouble to add all sorts of impurities, ethanol, resveratrol, and all sorts of headache-making esters, just to make it seem as though aged, according to your requirements for it to be "good."

    ========

    And point three is that nowhere does the emcee say at all that any wine has yet been served at this event. He is remarking on the procedures commonly observed, but he says nothing for this feast except that the timing for the presentation of the libation is not only fortuitous, but tasty. And he says nothing about its alcohol content.

    It is you criticizers who wish to color this with your brush, and insist that the text yields what you wish. But you cannot do that, if you are (a) honest, and (b) have no defense against the many reasons why Jesus as God need not and is never required to make, serve, or drink intoxicating beverage, no matter what you think is customary or usual, in that time or now.

    And don't forget that these translations by uninspired interpreters have no better foundation than mine here, and are very slow to credit the Christ sent from Heaven with pure habits and intentions that would demand, from other Scriptures, that He be a tee-totaller from recreational man-made poison.

    So go ahead, fight over it. You'll not be able to convince me, and I know from experience what "recreational" life-destroying ethanol is all about. I think it's going to be quite interesting to hear how Jesus deals with this at His Judgment Seat.

  • 7 common beliefs that make you terribly unhappy

    01/24/2015 9:40:22 AM PST · 29 of 30
    imardmd1 to Secret Agent Man
    shared my reason, was clear which one was wrong.

    Well, I thought you said six were wrong? There's something I'm not getting here.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/24/2015 1:44:57 AM PST · 6,825 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    To be wise and clever in one's own eyes is a snare.

    Make sure you remember that, next time your alter ego tells you to contravene that advice.

    Jesus used that didactic ploy in debating the self-serving Pharisees all the time.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/24/2015 1:26:26 AM PST · 6,824 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to Gamecock
    One of the basic tenants of reading Scripture is to read a few verses before and after, to get the full context of the passage.

    Tenets.

    One of the tenets of hermeneutics is to consider each particle, each word, decline the nouns and conjugate the verbs, syntax, consider the idioms, cultue, history, and context. Your translation may say "ran out," but that is not what the Greek says.

    For Advent: Wedding at Cana . . . Post #90

    Your translation is incorrect. It reads something into the Greek that is not there, linguistically. It comes from a prejudice as to the meaning of the context, and misrepresents the sense of glorifying The Christ and the purpose of the miracle.

    Your interpretation, which features Jesus giving drunk people 150 gallons more of intoxicant to just get drunker does not glorify Him or make drunken people cause to believe on Him as Savior.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/24/2015 12:49:46 AM PST · 6,823 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    I already have.

    Then you did not do it right.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/23/2015 7:43:20 PM PST · 6,814 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to terycarl
    Sorry. What Jesus made was new wine. Nice, tasty, cool, pure new wine, without the least hint of toe-jam, or dirt, or skin-flakes, or . . . well, you name it, whatever was found in vat-trod typical manufacture. His wine would have been clear and pure, like today's Welch's made from concentrate, but better. And unintoxicating,

    And it would take a lot of theological back-and-fill to make it look like he would ever supply anything different. IT WAS NEWLY MADE! Do you get that? N-e-w = new. Unfermented. There had been NO wine at this wedding, before His mother told him: "They have NO wine."

    She did NOT say, "They have NO MORE wine."

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/23/2015 7:25:23 PM PST · 6,809 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to terycarl

    Never think that I want to see him marvellized and made into a myth by idolators. When I see him as he was, there is hope for me and other ordinary sinners —

  • The Universal Presence

    01/23/2015 7:17:03 PM PST · 8 of 17
    imardmd1 to metmom
    From "Goodreads";

    "During a train trip from Chicago to Texas in the late 1940s, A.W. Tozer began to write The Pursuit of God. He wrote all night, and when the train arrived at his destination, the rough draft was done. The depth of this book has made it an enduring favorite."

    =========

    From his vantage, marking the times, apparently he saw a lot of "rubberstamp" mimicking, not at all what we see today:

    "We have been too blind to see, or too timid to speak out, or too self-satisfied to desire anything better than the poor average diet with which others appear satisfied. To put it differently, we have accepted one another's notions, copied one another's lives and made one another's experiences the model for our own."

    The great revivals and crusades, from D. L. Moody to Billy Graham, he was looking at an age that had largely abandoned the "each one teach one" model that Jesus ordained his Apostles to put into place to build His church.

    We should never have abandoned it for the mass evangelism of the mid-century in America, IMHO.

    =========

    Thanks for this article! It is an encouragement to get back to the personal discipling interaction to draw seekers to salvation, and thence move them to spiritual maturity and fruition.

  • Israeli makes ‘magic’ yarmulke to protect Jews from attacks

    01/23/2015 6:26:08 PM PST · 13 of 22
    imardmd1 to SJackson
    . . . known as a yarmulke in Yiddish and a kippa in Hebrew . . .

    In English it's known as a 'wig' . . .

  • 7 common beliefs that make you terribly unhappy

    01/23/2015 6:18:32 PM PST · 23 of 30
    imardmd1 to AZLiberty
    I read that what she is saying is:

    "You will become terribly unhappy if you believe that hope is not a (survival) strategy."

    Think of the converse.

  • 7 common beliefs that make you terribly unhappy

    01/23/2015 6:07:03 PM PST · 22 of 30
    imardmd1 to Secret Agent Man; All

    The original article is not long. If you have read it, you might want to share couple of reasons why any of its claims are wrong.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/23/2015 3:05:13 PM PST · 6,798 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    Messiah said three. Each gospel records three denials, albeit with some variations as is found elsewhere in the books.

    Jesus did not say it in this way, as three only. Pay attention to the language, and check it out for yourself, taking the Bible translation in one hand and the Greek text in the other, and follow it through. Put the happenings and the locations on a timeline as detectives do, and check the genders of the pronouns when you do it. And you will find out that your position is incorrect. I really was just trolling to get you to step in it, and you did.

    You say six, and then compound the error by making a false assertion about me.

    I made two assertions, both of them obvious and true. And you 're proving both of them true in this reply. It's OK, if I took them as insults I wouldn't be able to also laugh at your contortions with the Scriptures.

  • 7 common beliefs that make you terribly unhappy

    01/23/2015 2:23:07 PM PST · 1 of 30
    imardmd1
    Hurry, hurry! Lets have some post on beliefs that truly make you happy, makes you blessed! Like:

    "Blessed is everyone that feareth God, that walketh in His Ways!" (Psalm 128:1)

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/23/2015 1:39:36 PM PST · 6,796 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    Three, not six times:

    Six times, not three, demonstrating beyond the shadow of a doubt that you haven't scrutinized the Scriptures. To find the truth, you have to take a couple of things into account:

    "And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept" (Mar_14:72 AV).

    A correct exposition will show you that Peter denied thrice before the first crowing, and thrice more in the hour before the second crowing. To get it, you have to use the Koine to discern the gender of who was doing the accosting, and allow for the fact that the servant girl at Annas's door accused him on two different occasions, to both of which Peter responded "nay." That's two times right there.

    Yes. Are you thinking of Thomas ?

    No. I am saying exactly that Peter, instead of hanging close to the risen Lord, went back to Galilee and commenced his old occupation (which he had told Jesus that he had abandoned to follow Him), and drawing off his old pals instead of proclaiming with them the great news, "He is risen!" to the Galilean public.

    Fishers of men? Pah! They weren't even good at fishing for fish.

    And there, The resurrected Lord called him back to the shore, to his promised duties, to take up his cross like the other faithful disciples. He hit Simon, laughingly and perversely nicknamed "The Rock" with the challenge:

    "Simon," (not "Peter") "agapao thou Me? (do you sovereignly prefer thou Me over yourself and above these others here?)"

    And did Simon (no longer addressed as "Peter" or "Kephas") confess to Him, say the same thing as he had always before professed to follow Him to death? No. What he responded with was:

    "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I phileo thee" ("Well, yah, Lord, you know, I have a warm fraternal affection for you, eh?)

    Pffft! this guy finally had to face up to his phony attitude, without even coming up with the truth, which was "Yeah, bro, I like you OK, but I'm going to look out for myself."

    And when asked to "Feed My sheep, tend my lambs," did Simon say "Ok, Lord, I'll do it. I'll do what you asked, without question." Nah. Simon, who had wanted to be top dog all along, just turned to his old pal, old Buddy John, pointed to him and said, "Ok, so what are you going to do with this guy?" trying to shift the Lord's attention away from himself and onto John.

    Boy! What a pal!

    OK, AF, you can wake up, any time now --- you're doing the same thing in this thread that "Peter" was doing in this vignette. How about coming up with some excuses for your own versions of "truth"? Quit trying to make a prince out of Peter. Stick to the script, please!

    And quit trying to find fault with me, when nobody believes in your phony stories and excuses for Simon Bar Jona, dubbed "Peter," before his moment of truth at Pentecost.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/23/2015 12:29:50 PM PST · 6,792 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    The Spirit of the LORD descended on Yeshua/Jesus when John baptized Him. They were co-located, so to speak.

    But not on Peter. Nowhere dors the Scripture say that The Holy Ghost was resting on Peter in his days accompanying Jesus.In fact, Jesus told him to his face that night that he was not even converted, and that Satan was going to have at him for a while:

    "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
    But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Luk 22:31 AV).

    But look, you've been told this before. How about keeping your mind on this fact? Peter was not yet fully placing his trust irreversibly on Jesus, and was not regenerated, not yet "born again," was not yet a true child of God in the Spirit. Please stop saying otherwise. Peter was a fitful, come-and-leave follower, but not an attentive one desiring to emulate Christ's teachings. In fact, he was demonstrating the same kind of leanings that got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven. I do know Jesus could quell that, but so far was only partially successful in translating Peter from a boorish fisherman to a reliable evangelizer and humble man of God. The time frame we're at here was just at the beginning of Peter's spiritual walk, not worthy of imitation.

    Is this your own interpolation, eisigesis, or interpretation ? Where in the scriptures, or in which faith group, do they teach this ?

    No, it is what I've learned from a proper exegetical approach to the Scriptures. About the "cup" of agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, apparently your "faith group" has not given you the clues necessary to interpret this event, which is explained in:

    NOTES ON THE CUP ABOUT WHICH JESUS PRAYED IN GETHSEMANE

    It is about the verse appearing in Hebrews 5:7-9:

    "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
    Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
    And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; . . .

    Excerpting this Note:

    ==========

    What is the cup for which Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane? Herein is an attempt to clarify the apparent confusion which prompted the question. . . . Since the Lord Jesus used the word in figurative literal language, it is necessary to identify such uses throughout all of Scripture and then to focus on those that pertain to the question asked.

    (My note here: Regarding this "cup" in Gethsemane, there are several explanations, only one of which can be shown to be valid, the seventh, Item G.)

    A. Some propose that He prayed to be saved from dying. But that cannot be true . . .
    B. Some propose that He prayed to be saved out of the permanent death of His human body.
    C. Some think that Satan would kill him before He got to the cross, using Psalm 91:11,12 to substantiate it since Satan quoted it in the days of His testing in the desert [wilderness, AV] (Mt. 4:6).
    D. Some advance the view that Jesus was praying for deliverance from dying in the Garden of Gethsemane . . . (but) to die as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world, and to shed His precious blood, would be negated.
    E. Then another view presented is that the cup' is the cup of infinite holy wrath against human sin, involving that forsaking (sic) concerning which our Lord cried with such anguish, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"
    F. Others also link the agony of Gethsemane with Calvary enduring our hell so that we might be set free to enter Heaven . . .
    G. An alternative view presented by Adolph Saphir in The Epistle to the Hebrews gives an exposition of Hebrews 5:7 and mentions that The anticipation of His agony on the cross overwhelms Him''-- The Son of Man (p. 269). Later he states The anguish that well-nigh overcame Him was conquered'' (p. 270). Herein lies a vital distinction between the cup'' referred to in Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and the cup of infinite holy wrath against human sin indicated when speaking to Peter before the multitude led by Judas Iscariot. The cup which My Father has given to Me, I should positively drink it, should I not?'' (Jn. 18:11). Additional distinctions can be noted after comparing the accounts in the synoptic Gospels quoted from The New Testament: A Precise Translation.

    ====

    An alternative view presented by Adolph Saphir in The Epistle to the Hebrews gives an exposition of Hebrews 5:7 and mentions that The anticipation of His agony on the cross overwhelms Him''-- The Son of Man (p. 269). Later he states The anguish that well-nigh overcame Him was conquered'' (p. 270). Herein lies a vital distinction between the cup'' referred to in Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and the cup of infinite holy wrath against human sin indicated when speaking to Peter before the multitude led by Judas Iscariot. The cup which My Father has given to Me, I should positively drink it, should I not?'' (Jn. 18:11). Additional distinctions can be noted after comparing the accounts in the synoptic Gospels quoted from The New Testament: A Precise Translation.

    Eight Reasons for Such Conclusion

    1. The Scripture indicated that Satan would return to test Him at an appointed time. Scripture does not record or specify such occasion. The only other recorded most likely event is this "cup.''
    2. This cup''contrasted with the hour'' in both Matthew and Mark indicates they refer to the same thing.
    3. Jesus' emphasis on one hour'' indicates the length of time until the cup passed.
    4. The use of the first class conditional clause indicates the possibility that the request could be granted. Jesus knew that there was no possibility to avoid the cross.
    5. The wording of the prayer in Koin‚ Greek, This cup is to go from alongside Me!'' indicates that the ordeal is in His presence and not before or up ahead of Him.
    6. The only occasion other than Matthew 4:11 that (an) angel(s) ministered to or strengthened Him is recorded of Gethsemane in Luke 22:43.
    7. The Savior's statements, "It is far distant away. The hour is gone,'' substantiate that the prayer was heard.
    8. The thick blood clots of perspiration ceased indicating that the ordeal is ended.

    ===========

    Look, from all the hints you've gotten from myself and others, you need to find someone who can disciple you through getting to know the God of the Bible, and His Only Begotten-in-the-flesh Son. And your "faith-group" does not seem to be helping. I'd love to see you enjoying the benefit of a good Biblical training. You're certainly floundering now --

    While yet in the Garden, and before the other watching disciples and band of temple guards and mobsters, Satan certainly had Peter and was sifting him, as Jesus predicted. Where's your common sense on this, let alone spiritual insight?

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/23/2015 3:37:06 AM PST · 6,784 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    It is not clear how the first of these passages bear on this topic. The issue was:

    "Was the Holy Spirit upon Peter who cut off a soldier's ear?"

    (from ealgeone to af_vet_1982, also ent to imardmd1)

    My answer was "No" and I gave good and sufficient reasons to support that conclusion.

    It is true that while following the Master Teacher, Peter was under His care, in that Jesus/God was not only Rabbi, but also Comforter. But so was Judas, who was given over to the Devil. During that period, The Holy Spirit, another Comforter of the same kind, was (as far as Peter or any of the other disciples were concerned) yet in The Heavens (Jn. 16:7). This pronouncement came on the same evening after supper.

    Then they walked over to the Mount of Olives, where Jesus overcame the onslaught of the Devil who attacked him while Peter slept, without praying for his Master, while Jesus took up the cup of a mighty, blood-sweating battle.

    Almost immediately after, Peter foolishly interfered with the temple guards who were trying to identify Jesus. Peter was not assigned to do this, but stepped in and performed an earotomy on the High Priest's servant Malchus. Peter, prompted by Satan, tried to get a knife fight going in which Satan might have gotten Jesus killed for "resisting arrest." This required Jesus to intervene and heal the wounded one supernaturally, so that He could continue on to the Cross, according to His plan.

    And then, just a short time after, Peter six times very vociferously denied any association with Jesus the Galilean, even to the very face of the same Malchus whose ear had been healed from Peter's wound!

    And then, after his Master had been crucified, but with the hope of an uprising against the Roman oppessors gone, Peter left the whole mess behind. Rather than following the resurrected Savior, he left for home, drawing away some of his pals, saying, "I go a-fishing" (Jn. 21:3). Was the Holy Ghost with/on him?

    I say "No," and you can't prove otherwise, IMHO.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/22/2015 6:18:29 PM PST · 6,765 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    No, I'm looking at exactly the time when Messiah said those words.

    "Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
    But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Mat 16:23-24 AV).

    This is the Peter who, when the chips were down, firmly denied relationship to the Nazarene.

    "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
    But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Mat 10:32-33 AV).

    You were saying . . .?

  • A Lowly Pastor Comments on Troubling Developments in the “Divorce Debate”

    01/22/2015 4:55:38 PM PST · 28 of 28
    imardmd1 to FourtySeven
    I’m not sure why you said my post was incorrect, everything you said doesn’t negate what I said.

    You've completely missed the point of my reply. You are talking about a modern Christian marriage.

    That is not what Jesus was discussing in Mt. 5:32 and 19:9. He was referring only to a Jewish marriage of an espoused couple, bound as married under contract, but not consummated until about a year after the legal pledge was initiated. Unfaithfulness of the espoused bride could be a basis for ending the contract under Jewish law.. It has nothing to do with a Gentile or Christian marriage.

    I'm sorry, but you do not grasp that your proposition is irrelevant.

    Let me suggest you read my reply again.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/21/2015 9:28:54 PM PST · 6,693 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981

    You are looking into the future, not at the moment for which the questions were asked. Satan was influencing Peter when he thought he was smarter than Jehovah Jesus Christ.

  • Pagan Saints

    01/21/2015 5:09:34 PM PST · 8 of 468
    imardmd1 to RnMomof7

    “We will hear thee again of this matter.”

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/21/2015 4:55:02 PM PST · 6,620 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981

    Peter was not saved, not even converted (Luke 22:31-32) at that evening; and, similar to his ability to be prompted by Satan as in Matthew 16:22-23, Satan had Peter, was sifting him, and used Peter’s inability to master his stupid lashing out at Malchus in order that Satan might work through him to create a situation which would cause Jesus to be killed through rebellion, thus preventing Jesus from being sacrificed on the cross.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/21/2015 4:34:33 PM PST · 6,614 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to Mark17

    I think you’ve qualified for excommunication—a Roman BCD. I guess you can no longer be classified as a RCC veteran, eh?

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/21/2015 4:27:58 PM PST · 6,613 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to Elsie
    Even if this is true, ol' Pete was STILL teaching ERROR later!!!

    Poor Ignatius!

  • A Lowly Pastor Comments on Troubling Developments in the “Divorce Debate”

    01/21/2015 4:08:45 PM PST · 23 of 28
    imardmd1 to FourtySeven; Iscool
    Your explanation is not correct. The verse ypu are looking at only applies to man and woman espoused under the Jewish system of establishing the legitimate marriage of a virgin to the husband and the legitimacy of the children born of that union. The "exception clause" does not apply to a Gentile marriage, then or now.

    Matthew was written with the Jewish culture as is primary audience. When Jesus pronounced the "exception," it was first to his Jewish disciples, in the hearing of multitudes of Jewish listeners in His sermon on the mount in First Adar, A. D. 31; then again almost two years later to a group of Pharisee antiChristians who came to try to embarrass Him before His disciples and in view of watching crowds of listeners, in Judea, in the month of Tebet, A. D. 32.

    Please do not fail to take note that it is precisely this "excerption" option that Joseph chose not to exercise, being advised by the angel, when his espoused virgin wife was found to be "with child" (though yet a virgin upon examination!) without his participation.

    Again, the "exception clause" does not apply to a Gentile marriage already consummated. It only applies to the deflowering of a Jewish bride by someone other than her esposed husband, in the time that she was supposewd to remain vergin.

  • A Lowly Pastor Comments on Troubling Developments in the “Divorce Debate”

    01/21/2015 8:18:45 AM PST · 11 of 28
    imardmd1 to defconw
    You don't have to live together, but you are married until one of you dies.

    Agree totally.

    Let the excoriation of disbelievers begin.

  • A Lowly Pastor Comments on Troubling Developments in the “Divorce Debate”

    01/21/2015 8:14:38 AM PST · 10 of 28
    imardmd1 to Salvation
    If any age is ill-equipped to teach on marriage, family, and sexuality, it is ours. The Church cannot afford to take cues from a confused and darkened culture.

    As a non-Catholic I see many discrepancies of Roman doctrine as compared to straightforward readings from the Holy Bible; but regarding divorce, my agreement with rejection of remarriage while the first mate is still alive is consistent with Msgr. Pope's article.

    I am a witness of the benefits of following the teaching of Our Savior. I was unwillingly saddled with the judgment of divorce by civil courts in 1972, and have remained alone since. In the course of this celibacy, I raised my four children to responsible, productive adulthood as a single parent.

    Here is a link to a very sound non-Catholic discussion of the Scriptural basis for seeing remarriage adultery as a wilful defiance of God's view on the matter, a daily practice of unrepentant sin against God's plan for the basis of mankind's fellowship and joy:

    The Sin of Remarriage Adultery

    About This Paper:

    This paper answers the questions,

    o What is the Sin of Remarriage Adultery?
    o How important is it to realize the depth of sin in remarriage after divorce?
    o What does The True God think of divorce?
    o Why does The God in The Old Testament and in the writings of Paul equate adultery and idolatry?
    o How does The True God look upon adultery in the Old Testament?
    o What is the difference in The God's viewpoint of adultery in the New Testament from that in the Old Testament?
    o How does remarriage adultery affect one's inheritance in The God's Kingdom and why?

    =========

    This is found on the Happy Heralds, Inc. internet site.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/20/2015 8:53:46 PM PST · 6,518 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981

    You have totally missed the point. The judgment is on you, because you have called David a murderer of Uriah, and that claim is simply not so. That claim is eisegesis, reading into Scripture something that is not there, and thus making God a liar.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/20/2015 8:39:30 PM PST · 6,515 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to ealgeone

    I’m sorry—I let Post #6509 get through without making the html and punctuation do what I wanted. I hope you can work it out -—

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/20/2015 8:19:15 PM PST · 6,513 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to editor-surveyor
    The word of God clearly holds responsibility for Uriah’s death with David’s action.

    Do you not think Uriah would have been in the thick of the fight anyway? Was he not committed to his pals in his battalion?

    And Did not God have it pre-planned that David was to marry Bathsheba whether David was acting out of less-than-honorable motives or not?

    You need to start thinking out of the "let's-condemn-David" box, like God did. Your reasoning on this seems kind of limited, pedestrian, unimaginative. God often has ways above your ways, and thoughts above your thoughts. Give Him some credit for solving problems in a new and novel yet righteous way.

    The answer is in the Bible. Find the holiness in it. Show how it glorifies Jehovah!

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/20/2015 7:59:51 PM PST · 6,509 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to ealgeone
    To your questions: no, no, and yes. Peter was not converted and restored to a place in The Company of disciple/Apostles until his interrogation by the risen Jesus on the shore of Gennessaret. The Spirit had not been sent until 10 days after Jesus ascended to heaven after walking about for 40 days. Peter was not filled with the Spirit until the day of Pentecost following Jesusreturn to heaven.

    Paul was absolutely serving Satan as he persecuted the followers of The Christ, up until his conversion on the Damascus road. Paul cited that God called David "A man after mine own heart" in Acts 13:22, but 1 Sam 16:7, 12.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/20/2015 10:44:25 AM PST · 6,481 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    Did I mistake you for a Calvinist ?

    I don't much cafe for the TULIP model. But that isn't the only mistake you've made. It's your handling of the Word of The God that brings you down. Maybe you don't believe in the doctrine Sola Scriptura, but you'd best give it a predominant rule over everything else you want to invest your faith in.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/20/2015 10:31:12 AM PST · 6,480 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981; Mark17
    Was the Holy Spirit was upon him even as he murdered another man so he could take the other man's wife in adultery ?

    Your Bible disagrees with mine. Either that or you are again injecting your own opinion into the Bible account. David did not murder another man. That man, Uriah, was a warrior, and he died in battle as an honorable man, serving his king. While David asked Uriah's commander to put him at the forefront of the battle, you do not know that Uriah might have died in any case. For one reason or another, God wanted Uriah dead at that point. Are you saying that God could not have saved Uriah and brought him back to his wife?

    The case was that Satan, the god of this world, provided the progenitor of Joseph and Mary a situation testing his obedience to God. If David had listened to the guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than the urging of his pecker, he would still have been Bathsheba's husband, yet without sinning by anticipating Uriah's death but instead, joining with Bathsheba after she became a widow. In any case, David's sin with Bathsheba was found out. He could hide it neither from God nor man. David was a sinner: saved, but still a sinner. Yet, being saved, he had an option--obey God or obey your own lusts. In it all, The God of the Bible, through Paul, proclained David as a man "after His own heart" (Acts 13:22) David was a sinner, and when He was guided by the Holy Ghost, the writer of a large portion of the longest book in the Bible.

    God saves sinners. Before their redemption, humans stained with the crime of their father Adam have no power over their bent to give in to sin. They are not sinners because they sin--they sin because they are sinners.

    Sinners who are saved also are tempted to sin, as Jesus was in the beginning of His ministry. And though Jesus by victory over death has broken the power of sin as a master, though they are regenerated with the indwelling Spiritual Advisor, and though they have the clear ability to choose the right thing to do and make that choice stick, sometimes they ignorantly or willingly through spiritual immaturity choose otherwise, and they do err.

    When that happens, they are faced with another choice: do I humble myself, confess my sin, and repent, being forgiven by the Faithful, Just Father, and be cleansed of all unrighteousness; and go on walking in the light? or do I cling to my pride, reject The Counselor's urging, and go on walking in the dark, out of fellowship with God and other Christians?

    David chose the former and was renewed in fellowship with The Father. More than once.

    What about you? In the statement above, you make God's Word to be a lie, by calling David a murderer.

    "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (1 Jn. 1:10 AV).

    Now, if I sin, I have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ The Righteous One. But I know that there is another power, the prince of the air, who has his opwn advocates. You're not one of those, are you? Have you ever sinned? Have you ever looked on a woman with lust in your heart? Come on now, confess. If you have, or looked on an acquaintance with murder in your eye, wishing he/she were dead, you're no different than David.

    The beam, man, the beam.

    Who is telling the truth in this matter, you or I? (God will judge.)

    One of us is not in fellowship with the Christ of The Bible, guided by His Spirit the Comforter, and proclaiming His Gospel as a herald, an unashamed workman, rightly dividing the Word of The Truth. One of us is walking in the dark.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/19/2015 10:45:35 PM PST · 6,448 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981

    I only asked a question which you did not answer. I didn’t concede anything. A baby hasn’t got to the point where he/she can make any kind of rational decision. That must have been you for several of the first years you appeared in this world.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/19/2015 9:25:49 PM PST · 6,445 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    Salvation is a journey

    Well, like every journey, it has to have a beginning. And the beginning of starts with God seeking you out, as He did Abram, and Nathanael, and inviting you to go on a long, long trip, with Him as the tour director, and no going back. And the ticket is paid for. You only have to meet the requirement of believing in Him, based on His history with others, leaving everything you have behind, as Peter and his fellow fishermen did, including their homes and Moms and Dads.

    Now, when the trip labeled Salvation, or in the pre-Christ times Redemption (which is about the same thing), you need to count the cost, for when God saves, it is for ever, and it happens once, at the beginning, for good, with lasting effects.

    Before The Law:

    "Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale" (Isa. 29:22 AV).

    Jehovah ordered, Abram believed, and The Lord redeemed. (Gen. 12:1, Heb. 11:9).

    "Redeemed" above is in the perfect tense, a action performed, once for all time, with ongoing consequences.

    "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; . . ." (Gen 48:16 AV).

    Isaac spoke of The LORD to Jacob, and Jacob hd a dream at Luz, which he naned Bethel. There Jacob belived in Christ, and God saved/redeemed him (Gen. 28:20-22). "Redeemed" here is in the perfect tense. Once completed, with ongoing effects.

    Under The Law:

    "And David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said unto them, As the LORD liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity," (2 Sam 4:9 AV).

    The Lord sent Samuel to anoint David, David responded and was anointed, and the Holy Spirit was upon him thereafter. David was redeemed, and the tense of the verb is the perfect tense. An action, once completed and irrevocable, with lasting results.

    "And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk. 7:50 AV).

    Mary Magdalene showed her faith in the Lord Jesus, and was saved, not by her works, but by her faith.

    "Saved" here is in the perfect tense, Jesus saved her ar once, forever, with lasting consequences.

    "And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee" (Lk. 18:42 AV).

    A blind beggar, in faith, cried out to Jesus passing by, and had faith to trust Jesus to give him site. Jesus saved him on the basis of his faith unaccompanied by any works, and gave him sight.

    "Saved" here is in the perfect tense: an action once for all time completed, with eternal consequences.

    Under Grace:

    "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" (Eph 2:4-5 AV).

    Those who were saved, were dead in sins and absolutely unable to perform any acceptable works toward The God, but he saved them, each individual at once for all time, with everlasting consequences of new birth, new life, and new Lord.

    "Saved" here is in the perfect tense.

    "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8-9 AV).

    Referring to the same souls, they are saved by grace and faith apart from any human beneficial (or detrimental) works, penance duties, acts of contrition, etc. because people who are unsaved, who are dead in spirit to The God and His Christ, cannot do anything pleasing for Him. He saaves in spite of what you are, who you are, or what you do., based on crying out in sensible longing faith, "Please save me!"

    "Saved" here is in the perfect tense--somthing done once at a point in time, never needing to be repeated, with ongoing and increasing effects.

    =============

    Are you getting the point?? "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Php 2:12-13 AV).

    You can't work out a salvation which is not already yours, permanently, and for all time. Yes God is more often interested in the process, perhaps more than the product. But you can't have a process, which in this case is sanctification, that doesn't start with an initial event, which is the act God performs gratuitously--salvation--the result being having Him as the new and permanent owner and proprietor of this piece of dead meat.

    So, lets not hear anything more about penance having anything to do with this redemption, this act of salvation, this change in ownership. The Savior is not interested or impressed with penance, a self-imposed inversely prideful suffering. There's enough unwanted suffering without it, and He's already done more of it for you already than you can comprehend.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/19/2015 6:18:35 PM PST · 6,426 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to Mark17
    Well, actually, he is not interpreting, when the sense of the rendering of a thought from one language is rendered in the words of another language such that the idea comes across without warping it. So what you see is that, working from a warped commentary perfected to sling a skewed interpretation, his explanation must also be warped.

    I don't know if that makes sense to you, but there you are.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/19/2015 5:54:59 PM PST · 6,422 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    Are you asserting that babies are unsaved ?

    I think you must have been an infant somewhere along the line. Were you "saved" at birth?

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/19/2015 5:39:52 PM PST · 6,421 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981
    and all that without striking through a single word of the KJV.

    I infer from this that you mean this as a (veiled?) insult for the way I presented the passage regarding regret vs. repentance. You probably know that in the AV the translators were faithful to the reader in that they italicized the words that they added to the translation that were not in the Greek text. So that is what I do when presenting the KJV/AV here so that the same faithfulness to the translation is observed. If this little detail is not observed, and the verse no longer distinguishes these added words, the the verse can no longer be presented as nor clain to be as from the Crown-Authorized Bible.

    Also, the translation may be read leaving those added words out, without violating the translation or the sense of the original text from which it was translated. Sometimes when I present the passage from the AV, I may, without removing the added words (honoring the translators) do strike them through, so as to encourage the reader to read the passage eliminating the added words, and thereby see that the meaning may be a bit limited by the added word(s). In doing so, I have not changed the original text at all, nor the English sense of it.

    Since a translation is not inspired, and what I have done is not dishonoring, the innuendo I take from your comment that I have done something to mar or defile the passage is unacceptable. You did not mean it as a scholarly correction, did you?

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/19/2015 5:06:25 PM PST · 6,417 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to af_vet_1981; boatbums; metmom; daniel1212; Mark17; annalex
    It is an asinine argument to bring this passage to the debate of whether works bring salvation, because it was many, many years before this Mt. Moriah affair occurred that Jehovah/Christ saw that Abram committed total trust in Him, that Abram believed in Him (first), and then Jehovah asked him to leave his kin behind and journey to the land God had planned for Abram and His kin, because of the decision Abram had made to accept The LORD on His Own terms, and follow Christ.

    The purpose of the passage you are quoting has nothing to do with salvation. What it serves for spiritual purposes is to demonstrate the quality and genuineness of the faith of the mn already renamed Abraham (because of his proven loyalty to the God Who sees to the bottom of your heart), to demonstrate to all ages the instant, total, unquestioning obedience of both Abraham and Isaac:

    "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac:
    and he that had received the promises offered up his only
    begotten son,
    Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
    Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead;
    from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb 11:17-19 AV).

    Don't be a dunce! The passage in James occurred about 42 years after Abram went on record of committing himself, his obedience, and the eternal future of himself and his descendants, his seed, to the care of Jehovah.

    This passage cannot be used to demonstrate inception of salvation being effected by human works! God's salvation begins with faith alone in Messiah alone, as recorded in His Word alone.

    Regarding your quotation, what part of "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:" do you not understand? It does not say that Abraham wore a hair shirt and believed, and that made him righteous. No! God saw that he placed his entire person and future in God's hands, and because of that, Abram was counted as if he were righteous. Being judicially freed of guilt does not indicate you did not sin. It only means that you are freed from the penalty that the sin deserves, but the judge says "Not guilty."

    It's time you brushed up your Catholic terms and translations to fit the Scrpture, not vice versa as has been done. Translating μετάνοια (metanoia) = repentance, "a change of mind," by substituting "penance" for it, a defined term that is an act, a work of, say, giving up chocolate for Lent--This substitution is a red hot criminal misuse of the translator's position of trust, but which perverts the whole doctrine of Chrisy Jesus' suffering for our sins.

    My dear fellow human, Scripture says that you are so full of sin, of depravity, from the moment of conception and on through life, that you couldn't even begin to be recognized as compensating God or others for your own misdeeds, even the ones performed unintentionally, to earn even a small step toward heaven by any thing you might think is good toward one person, that doesn't actually deprive the benefit of it from another!

    Come on! It is only by pleading the Blood of Christ alone for your iniquity that you might start to move Him to hear a plea for salvation based on trusting Christ alone, apart from any works you have done or ever will do. To think otherwise is to take on the same haughty attitude that got Lucifer cast out of heaven! To think you can contribute anything more to the offering of His Body and Blood that is already given for our salvation is the peak of unrepentant pride of self. Isaac Watts commented on that, back in 1707 AD:

    "When I survey the wondrous cross
    on which the Prince of Glory died;
    my richest gain I count but loss,
    and pour contempt on all my pride.

    Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
    save in the death of Christ, my God;
    all the vain things that charm me most,
    I sacrifice them to his blood.

    See, from his head, his hands, his feet,
    sorrow and love flow mingled down.
    Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
    or thorns compose so rich a crown.

    Were the whole realm of nature mine,
    that were an offering far too small;
    love so amazing, so divine,
    demands my soul, my life, my all."

    =========

    "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1Jn 1:9 AV)

    No mention of "penance" here, only confession--and repentance, a change of mind inferred--any attempt to add to God's work of forgiving and total cleansing by insisting on subsequent acts of contrition would be just a deep, deep insult to the merciful nature of The God, and counted as yet another gross sinful mistake in estimating the character of Christ, IMHO.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/19/2015 1:07:57 PM PST · 6,407 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to annalex
    I understand your opinion about that, but I follow what the Holy Scripture says.

    No, you do not "understand" that I told you exactly what the Holy Scripture says, and your interpretation does not. You must sustain your opinion against the plain sense of the language, else your whole house of cards will fall.

    It's this simple:

    Your position says that no matter what Jesus did in His life and on the Cross, it was not enough to secure God's friendship to those who surrender themselves to The Christ. You, personally, now have to make up the balance of the cost of heavenly passage by doing some good deeds, or lighting some candles, or inducing some personal discomfort like flailing yourself with a knotty whip, or by wearing scratchy underwear, or by eating watery gruel with bugs in it, or . . . or . . . or . . . what? What . . . utter nonsense!

    People putting your phony interpretation to James' letter was the reason for so much infighting that at the time of inclusion in the canon, it almost didn't make it; for your interpretation of that passage flies in the face of Scripture from the beginning of the Tanach to the end of The Apocalypse!

    No sale here, buddy!

  • Why Orthodox Jewish Women are Happy

    01/19/2015 7:10:22 AM PST · 22 of 32
    imardmd1 to EinNYC

    Sounds like Proverbs 31 o me. Read at my mother’s funeral.

  • The Real George Zimmerman-A cautionary tale for conservatives.

    01/19/2015 6:46:14 AM PST · 45 of 58
    imardmd1 to PghBaldy
    Ezzakly what I am thinking. Whatever else, he was justified in defending himself when a rabid animal attacked him.

    Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice, by Z's cheap gun jammed on ejecting the brass after the first shot. Hope he got a better gun.

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/19/2015 1:09:02 AM PST · 6,353 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to boatbums
    What James is saying is that you can't do any works acceptable to God unless you are (1) first saved by faith, and after that (2) operating under the guidance of the indwelling Holy Ghost (which Satan and his minions do not).
  • Middle class decline looms over final years of Obama presidency

    01/18/2015 7:49:11 PM PST · 72 of 79
    imardmd1 to F15Eagle

    Nah. He’s just lying low —

  • Middle class decline looms over final years of Obama presidency

    01/18/2015 7:47:41 PM PST · 71 of 79
    imardmd1 to Aria

    Yeah -—

  • Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

    01/18/2015 7:33:04 PM PST · 6,344 of 6,866
    imardmd1 to annalex; daniel1212; metmom; Mark17
    imardmd1: . . .salvation is not a result of works.

    annalex: It is not a result of works alone.

    Salvation is not the result of any works of any human except those of the sinless God-man Jesus, suffering The Gods fiery wrath upon the Cross of Calvary, for bearing there in His Body all our sins, dying, resurrecting to life, and placing His Incorruptible Life-bearing Blood. once for all time, as our Eternal High Priest, on the Heavenly Mercy Seat, thus completely satisfying all of The Father's righteous demands for the damage to His Creation that human sin has made.

    Apparently you do not understand, or at least won't admit that works of any kind by you or by any other human do not enter into the salvation formula.

    You want us to believe that:

    (dead) Faith + (dead) Works = Rebirth

    Whereas contrary to that, the true salvation equation is:

    (Living) Faith + (God-given) Rebirth = (Living) Works for Christ

    It is not until the new birth has been effected through God instantaneously conferring the irreversible gift of salvation, based on one's permanent change-of-mind (which comprises both simultaneous repentance and total committed trust, in one fell swoop) that a life of creditable works can be initiated, as prompted by the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 2:8-10, Heb 9:14)

    A dead faith produces dead works, which mixed together can never produce a living child of God. To overcome this condition, the blood of Christ cleanses ones conscience, one's mind, from dead works. Relinquishing and abandoning them is the sign to God that one's mind has been changed, and that a permanent unbreakable loyalty to The Christ Whose Blood accomplished the cleansing is cemented. Christ Jesus is become the Source of Life and Truth, and is the single focus of ones affection above self and others, forever.

    Sadly, but truthfully, there is no salvation that allows for "falling away," for "backsliding." Such behavior only means the person never really had that "change of mind," that μετάνοια (metanoeeah), that saving once-and-for-all repentance--and was never saved. (Moreover, neither water baptism nor paedobaptism can ever generate a new spiritual creature or remove sin.)

    He/she not following through only experienced metamellomai--a regret, though yet a guilty, deep, sorrowful remorse--but remorse alone is not the basis for The God to confer salvation and new birth.

    Paul described this condition to the Corinthian church, some of whose members clearly were not truly saved--they were just carnal, unregenerated "believer" converts:

    "For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent (μεταμελομαι = regret),
    though I did repent (μετεμελομην = regret): for I perceive that the same epistle
    hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.
    Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance
    (μετανοιαν = change of mind): for ye were made sorry after a godly
    manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
    For godly sorrow worketh repentance (μετανοιαν) to salvation not-to-be-
    repented-of (αμεταμελητον = unregrettable): but the sorrow of the world
    worketh death" (2 Cor. 7:8-10 AV).

    Now, for those carnal Corinthians who evidently were regenerated as a consequence of hearing (faith cometh by hearing) and responding humbly to Paul's Gospel with a saving mind and heart (from which come the good works once saved), here is a summary of the works of their new and permanent relationship with God that ensued:

    "For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a
    godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what
    clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what
    fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what
    revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be
    clear
    in this matter" (2 Cor. 7:8-11 AV).

    (In the above, I have inserted some parenthetical explanatory words, bolded a phrase for emphasis, hyphenated a phrase translated from one Greek word, and struck through the words as supplied by the translators only for clarifying.)

    Unfortunately, in the Latin Vulgate and English Douay-Rheims translations the word "repentance" involving a total, 180 degree turnabout, has been replaced by the totally inadequate and misleading tern "penance," which only means that separation from God by Sin as a master can somehow be repaired by doing some kind of pay-back to God, of saying a few cycles of the Rosary, or spending a few days or months or a life in seclusion of a monk, etc. All these are dead works arising out of a dead faith, which is found in that mortally reprobate translation as follows:

    "Now I am glad: not because you were made sorrowful, but because you were
    made sorrowful unto penance. For you were made sorrowful according to God,
    that you might suffer damage by us in nothing.
    For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance, steadfast unto
    salvation: but the sorrow of the world worketh death" (2Co 7:9-10 DRB).

    That simple substitution wreaks such havoc to Paul's words as to completely destroy his Gospel of salvation by faith/repentance alone, and rob one of the only path to salvation through the work of Jesus on The Cross.

    For the true meaning of the Greek words for repent or repentance, we look to the reliable lexicons:

    From Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:

    Strong's Number: G3341 μετάνοια
    metanoia
    Thayer Definition:
    1) a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents,
    of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done
    Part of Speech: noun feminine

    -------

    G3340
    μετανοέω
    metanoeō
    Thayer Definition:
    1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent
    2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with
    abhorrence of one’s past sins
    Part of Speech: verb

    -----------

    From Strong's Concordance:

    G3341
    μετάνοια
    metanoia
    met-an'-oy-ah
    From G3340; (subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication reversal (of [another’s] decision): - repentance.

    -------

    G3340
    μετανοέω
    metanoeō
    met-an-o-eh'-o
    From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.

    ========

    I would be concerned for the eternal disposition of anyone who does not take the above explanation very seriously, and repair their relationship to The Lord Jesus Messiah accordingly.

    Don't you think it's about time to give up on your fruitless approach? Your strategy is really logically, spiritually, and Scripturally untenable, and it cannot give you any security or heart-rest.