JoeChan82

Ok. Love the name you chose, by the way.

Appreciate that.

Or, you may exactly on topic. Just saying.

Hey, I found it! 1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

I cannot argue with that, nor do I want to. If there are limits in our reasoning, they are our limits. Keep up the good work.

Let me take a second bite at the apple. Here is the Bible as understood by pure logic: Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Therefore Mary is the mother of God. That is logical, but not true. Example two: God can do anything. God is good. Why does God not stop evil? That is also logical, but incorrect. My only point is that the Bible cannot be understood by logic alone. I was not attempting to discredit your OP. In fact, I am in agreement with the OP. Did that clear up my intentions for you any?

That was deep! Your scripture references were spot on. I especially liked what you said about truth being in place first, before a lie can exist. What a thought!

This really boils down to the sovereignty of God vs the free will of man, doesn't it? Is God completely sovereign? Yes. Does man have a free will? Yes. Both of these are equally true. Did God create sin? No. Sounds illogical, doesn't it? That's because it is illogical. The truths of the Bible are spiritually discerned. We believe it, because our Bibles say it. We are foolish to the Greeks. 1Co 1:22-24 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1Co 1:26-29 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Our founders were aware of the dangers of the state and church marriage. It goes without saying that when Jesus does it, it will be done to perfection. Whether the protestants or the catholics held power, the results were the same; namely persecution of the nonconformists. It is ironic that the Puritans, who themselves fled before persecution, set up the same system and became persecutors. The argument in favor of establishing a state church is to prevent cults. For some reason, it never does that. Enforcing church doctrine by the sword of government leads inevitably to tyranny. When you missed church in Massachusetts during the 1600's it wasn't the minister that visited your door, it was the sheriff. To conclude that the U.S. Constitution was somehow anti religion is to ignore our own history. Ben Franklin praised Christianity as the only means to morality and encouraged it. The hue and cry of the ungodly is, "Separation of church and state". Nope. Religion was to flourish without interference from the state. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I am looking for a review on my position on Matthew 16:13-23. I am dealing with a guy who thinks that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. I think it is Peter's confession. (The guy claims not to be Catholic.) Please review this and point out any flaws in my arguments or logic or exegesis. Many thanks. Matt 16:13-23 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 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. First look at the context of this conversation. In verse 13, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” That is the question put to the disciples. Then verse 15 says, “But whom say ye that I am?” Same conversation and the same context are in view, namely who is Jesus Christ. Peter answers, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Good answer. The correct answer. Jesus Himself confirms this. We're all good so far. Verses 17-19 are where debate is. When Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build this church” what is He talking about? Does this mean that Peter is the rock as some insist? The context would seem to dictate that it the confession itself. Look at verse 20. Jesus is staying with His original topic, namely His identity. Then look at verse 23. Jesus said unto Peter, “ Get thee behind me, Satan”. So is Peter the rock or is he Satan. Neither. What changed in Peter? His confession changed. Christ builds His church on Peter's first confession, but when Peter is appalled by the cross and says, “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.”, Jesus rebukes it as coming from Satan. So what about the keys and the church and the remittance of sins? In verse 17, Jesus said, “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” So God the Father gave the first confession to Peter. We know that later in this very gospel, Jesus gives the great commission to the disciples and at Pentecost, Jesus delegates the power to accomplish the great commission to these disciples. That is the key to the kingdom of heaven. So what about binding and loosing? Verse says 19 says, “and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Notice the word 'whatsoever'. 'Whatsoever' is not 'whosoever' is it? No, we cannot forgive all sin against God and pronounce salvation. Only God can do that. John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Nice dodge, but the burden of proof rests with you.

The Bible says nothing about the assumption of Mary. Nothing for it. Nothing against it. So arguing from a position of silence is pointless.

Make no mistake, I believe the trinity. What I don't believe is making Mary the Queen of Heaven by saying that Christ is God and therefore Mary is the mother of God. That is the semantics to which I referred.

Now you are playing at semantics. You cannot explain nor define the trinity. If that is your basis for defending the assumption of Mary, you will persuade no one here.

If you want to see an example of the old and the new covenants being unified by Christ, study the book of Ruth. In the book of Ruth you have a Jewish and a Gentile bride, namely Naomi and Ruth. Both are redeemed by the child born in Bethlehem Judah. That child is the kinsman redeemer. Ruth 4:13-22 ¶ So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son. 14 And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel. 15 And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him. 16 And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.