Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 106

Thread: Why I Had To Apostatize

  1. #21
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    12,085
    Thanked: 4540
    Do they have WIFI in Guantanamo Bay ??



    No, I'm pretty sure Farm Truck isn't an Islamic terrorist.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

  3. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    †. 1Pet 3:15 . . Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

    That passage should probably always accompany this next one.

    †. Rom 8:23-25 . .We ourselves, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons: the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

    The New Testament Greek word for "hope" in those passages is elpis (el pece') which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure); and to expect with confidence. Note the elements of anticipation, and expectation, and confidence.

    Webster's definition of hope as a verb is very similar: 1) to desire with expectation of obtainment, and 2) to expect with confidence and trust. Note the elements of expectation, and confidence, and trust.

    Webster's definition of hope as a noun is: 1) a desire accompanied by expectation of, or belief in, fulfillment, and 2) expectation of fulfillment or success. Note the elements of expectation, and belief.

    NOTE: Some folk object to Webster's in a Bible study, but unless those of us who speak English base our language upon a universal standard, we risk ending up back at the Tower of Babel.

    The plan of salvation includes not only rescue from the wrath of God, but also rescue from despair and feelings of futility. In other words: unbelievers do not expect to survive the demise of their bodies, nor do they expect to get another body in the afterlife; let alone a better body-- one that's superior in all respects to the body they have now. Believers expect to not only survive the demise of their body; but also to get a better body-- one that's superior in all respects to the one they have now.

    When somebody has that kind of hope, it rescues them from despair and feelings of futility. In other words: the unbeliever's current existence is futile, but the believer's current existence is merely a stepping stone to something better. Believers have something to look forward to while unbelievers have nothing to look forward to. That's what it means to be "saved by hope". In other words: saved from having nothing to look forward to. (cf. 1Cor 15:51-54)

    †. Rom 12:12 . . Rejoicing in hope.

    When people are praying for the best, while in the back of their mind dreading the worst, they have absolutely no cause for rejoicing; no; but they do have plenty of cause to fear the unknown.

    Does an adherent of Catholicism have elpis hope? I don't think so; and in point of fact, Church dogma forbids having it.

    Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16: If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema. (cf. CCC 1020)

    Webster's defines "anathema" as a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.

    Since Rome doesn't permit elpis hope, then it's de facto that Rome's constituents can't possibly comply with Peter's command to give a reason for having it.

    The Bible says that elpis hope is a "calling"

    †. Eph 4:5 . .you were called to one hope when you were called

    Catholicism's hope is not Peter's elpis hope; but rather, a somewhat nervous state of anxiety and wishful thinking that hovers within a hair's breadth of bitter disappointment.

    The Council aside; it only stands to reason, that any candidate for a better body who is in the process of working out their own salvation with fear and trembling as per Rome's interpretation of Phlp 2:12, cannot possibly have elpis hope.

    Think about it. If a candidate for salvation is still in the process of working out their own salvation with fear and trembling, then it's obvious they do not believe themselves to have a better body locked in yet; ergo: no conscientious Catholic can honestly look forward to a better body with a 100% doubt-free expectation of obtaining it; viz: they do not yet have the kind of hope about which Peter wrote in 1Pet 3:15, nor the kind of hope about which Paul wrote in Eph 4:5; and if they claim otherwise, then they merit the penalty of Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16.

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

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

  5. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal TT View Post
    I was right... when you disappeared I said you were in prison....now the lingo
    I never actually disappeared... I was still visible to all those around me



    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    Do they have WIFI in Guantanamo Bay ??



    No, I'm pretty sure Farm Truck isn't an Islamic terrorist.

    Farm Truck is in opposition to islamic teaching and those that adhere to it because those that follow the koran must attempt to either convert of kill Christians and Jews. satan thinks I'm a terrorist because I know how to take God's Word and inflict pain and suffering on his demons! It's quite fun too!

    I wouldn't know anything bout Guantanamo

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Farm Truck For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

  7. #24
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    12,085
    Thanked: 4540
    Quote Originally Posted by Farm Truck View Post
    I wouldn't know anything bout Guantanamo
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

  9. #25
    OK, let me re-phrase - I'm not interested in knowing anything about Guantanamo.

    I am void of that desire.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Farm Truck For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

  11. #26
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    12,085
    Thanked: 4540
    ok

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

  13. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Rome's dogma of Christ's mom as a "new Eve" is a man-made Catholic fantasy not found in the New Testament. In order for Christ's mom to be considered a true Eve, she and Jesus would have to be the parents of an entirely different human race distinctly separate from the race that God created with Adam and Eve.

    The in-house Catholic concept of Christ's mom being a "new Eve" and Jesus being a "new Adam" implies the vilest sort of relationship: that of a mother mating with her own son and bearing his children.

    Though born-again Christians are a new race of human being, they are not Mary's children: no, they are God's.

    †. John 1:12-13 . . But as many as accepted him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who rely upon his name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

    †. John 3:5-6 . . Jesus answered; I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and The Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but The Spirit gives birth to spirit.

    The supernatural births about which John wrote, and about which Christ spoke, are the result of creative acts of God.

    †. 2Cor 5:17 . . If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature

    †. Gal 6:15 . . For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor un-circumcision, but a new creature.

    Catholicism's "new Eve" is extrapolated from its own faulty logic; e.g. since Mary is the mother of God, and God makes men new creatures via a second birth performed by God, then to Catholicism, Mary is, in effect, the mother of all born-again Christians.

    However, God has neither a wife nor a mother: from the vanishing point in the past, to the vanishing point in the future, God always was, He always is, and He always will be because the Bible's God is an eternal life. Though Mary was Christ's mother, nobody has ever been God's mother. Jesus was a flesh and blood human being; while God is, and always has been, spirit rather than flesh. (John 4:24)

    NOTE: Catholicism has difficulty discerning between the Word of John 1:1 and the flesh that the Word became as per John 1:14. Though Christ's mother could give birth to the flesh that the Word became, she could not possibly have given birth to the Word; which, according to John 1:1-3 and 1John 1:1-2, preceded Mary's existence by an innumerable number of years.

    Catholicism's theory of a new Eve is premised upon three gross errors.

    1• Sin came into the world via Eve.

    It didn't. The Holy Bible clearly, and without ambiguity, lays responsibility for the entry of sin into the world squarely upon Adam (Gen 2:16-17, Rom 5:12, Rom 5:14-19). Eve instigated their sin, but her own act didn't do the trick. It wasn't until Adam's eating that anything serious happened. (Gen 3:6-7)

    2• Mary's submission to the Angel's announcement implies she was given a choice. (Luke 1:38)

    The Angel's announcement sought neither consent nor decision. It simply informed Mary quite clearly, and without ambiguity, prior to her voluntary submission, that the Holy Spirit was going to make her pregnant with a child who would become the ultimate Israeli monarch. (Luke 1:31-35)

    3• Mary was a special creation.

    Catholicism's in-house teaching that Mary was a special creation isn't found in The Holy Bible. There is absolutely nothing in the sacred record indicating that she wasn't an ordinary Jewish girl produced by two ordinary Jewish parents.

    If perchance Mary had been a special creation, then Jesus himself would have been the offspring of a special creation, and in no way biologically related to either David, Abraham, nor Adam; and thus totally disqualified from inheriting David's throne and/or redeeming the sins of his fellow man; primarily because he wouldn't have any fellow men. However, the Bible clearly, and without ambiguity, says David was Christ's biological kin (Luke 1:32, Acts 13:22-23, Rom 1:3) therefore Jesus' mother couldn't possibly have been a special creation.

    Q: If the Bible contains no information clearly stating that Jesus' mother was a special creation; then why does the Church insist such a thing?

    A: Allowing Christ to biologically descend from Adam would mean that Christ shares the consequences of Adam's disobedience.

    "Sin entered the world through one person, and through sin, death, and thus death came unto all, inasmuch as all sinned." (Rom 5:12)

    "all sinned" is grammatically past tense; which means that when Adam sinned, his posterity sinned too; viz: everybody descending from Adam became collateral damage; so to speak, including Christ. Don't ask me how that's fair: I just know it's a reality.

    Q: How can you be so confident that Christ was collateral damage just like everybody else?

    A: Easy. Two of the consequences of Adam's disobedience were mortality (Gen 3:17-19) and loss of access to the tree of life (Gen 3:22-24). Had Christ been immortal, and/or had access to the tree of life, the Romans would have had like zero success trying to execute him on the cross.

    The Bible says that Christ came into the world in the likeness of, not innocent flesh, but of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). In other words; he came into the world as Adam's biological posterity; which means Christ really and truly is humanity's fellow man; and if Rome can't cope with it; well; that's just too bad.

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

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

  15. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Catholicism's "new Adam" is a misnomer. It's supposed to be last Adam rather than new Adam: and the last Adam isn't even a human being; no, the last Adam is a spirit being.

    †. 1Cor 15:45 . . So it is written: the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam: a life-giving spirit.

    The reference is to Gen 2:7 where the Hebrew word for "living soul" is nephesh (neh'-fesh) which categorizes critters as opposed to non critters. In other words: nephesh is not only a label for humans; but also other species. For example: aquatic life and birds (Gen 1:20). Cattle and beasts (Gen 1:24). Creepy crawlies (Gen 1:24). Everybody and every critter aboard Noah's ark (Gen 9:10)

    The meaning is: the first man Adam was endowed with life while the last Adam is an endower of life. In other words: though the first man Adam was alive, he was merely a critter; viz: the first man Adam did not have the capability to construct either himself nor any other critter. But the last Adam isn't a critter. He had, and does have, the capability to construct both humans and critters. There are many spirits, but the last Adam is the one spirit capable of creating living things.

    The Watch Tower Society and its missionaries (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses) don't believe it's possible for someone to exist simultaneously as a human being and as a spirit being. But the Christ of the Holy Bible is the irrefutable proof of such a possibility.

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

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

  17. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    KJ Howell's explanation of the term "New Eve" supposes that Eve was a virgin the day she succumbed to the Serpent's reasoning and ate the forbidden fruit. His explanation is no doubt predicated upon the data indicating that Eve and her husband produced their first child of record after they were expelled from the garden.

    †. Gen 3:23-4:1 . . So Yhvh God banished him from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After He drove the man out, He placed on the east side of the garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.

    However, there is nothing in the sacred text clearly, and without ambiguity, indicating that Eve was a virgin prior to Gen 4:1. At the very most, it can only be safely deduced from the data that she wasn't a mother at the time. And it would seem to me thoroughly illogical to assume that the first couple-- the most perfect specimens of human psyche and physicality that ever existed --were frigid up until the moment they ate the fruit; especially since God had already blessed them with fertility on the sixth day of creation, and encouraged them to procreate prior to the forbidden fruit incident.

    †. Gen 1:27 . . God created man in his image; in the divine image He created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying; Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.

    I have, in the past, challenged Catholics to provide me with just one good reason why Joseph and his Jewish wife did not at least try to have children of their own after Jesus was born. The response I got?

    Nobody cites the Bible; but rather, they cite Ste. Jerome's logic saying: " What bigger blessing could two Moses-trained Jewish adults wish for than the Messiah?" In other words, according to Ste. Jerome's logic; surely Joseph and his wife would neither want, nor need, any additional children than Jesus: implying that Joseph and his wife had fewer paternal feelings for children than people do today for a pair of Manolo Blahik heels. Personally, I have yet to know of anyone whose one pair of Blahniks were their only pair of shoes.

    If Jerome didn't believe the holy couple had children of their own; fine. But it was a gross error in his reasoning to assume that Joseph and his wife didn't at least sleep together without first proving-- clearly, and without ambiguity --that their libidos were somehow miraculously disabled.

    No, it has to be assumed, from the normal round of human experience, that Adam and his wife slept together prior to the forbidden fruit incident, and it has to be assumed from the normal round of human experience that Joseph and his wife slept together after Jesus was born. Otherwise I am forced to seriously question Joseph's sexual preference.

    You know, prior to their expulsion, Adam and his wife associated in the nude. Exactly how KJ Howell could possibly believe that an otherwise normal, red-blooded man, whose libido was unaffected by hormonal irregularities, can associate 24-7 with a nude specimen of the most perfect female form in existence, and not get aroused to mate, can't help but make me question KJ Howell's own sexual preference.

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

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

  19. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by WebersHome View Post
    [FONT=Verdana]KJ Howell's own sexual preference
    Yeah, I was wondering that also

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Farm Truck For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (08-23-2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Has your Nissan Sentra warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.