halifaxchristian

Hello worthyboards...my name is michael and I am a worthyboards addict. I have been reading for about 4 months now up to 15 threads a day... Liked that one fiosh...so I decided to steal it! (is that a mortal sin??? ) Anyway...I really need to get to sleep but I'll be back tomorrow, Lord willing of course. I missed you also fiosh...and I'm not sure why??? I thought it was agreed upon...me and you hate each other don't we??? When did the rules change??? See ya tomorrow...God bless!

why so? He preaches what's true instead of what's popular. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because all he preaches he does in hate. Like the faith or not, are you not suppose to minister to people in LOVE not hate? This i snot what Jack Chick does. Also, he makes wild and outlandish claims about Roman Catholics, almost none of which can he back up with proof. The man has a vendetta against the Church,and I dont think (although Im not God this stems from wat believe) that Jesus would condone such hatred. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did Jesus preach in hate when He took a whip of scourges and flipped over tables and rebuke the Pharisees and tax collectors and lawyers and call them snakes and hypocrites and open sepulchres...need I go on??? What is love? A gentle, politically-correct speaker like the antichrist who comes in his own name to unite mankind? Jesus came to send a sword...not peace. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You have the right idea, but the wrong spirit. The only death I wish to impose is upon death itself! When I see "religion" interfering with the real work of bringing God's loving presence into this world, I get a bit testy myself. Catholics are no more wrong, nor right, than the protestant church. Each need to embrace one another in Jesus. In time, the differences will be worked out. I, for one, take my stand with Catholics (e.g., I'm a protestant)! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well ringo...we differ...and that is the difference between me and you. You can persue your ecumenical efforts with others...but don't even try that with me. No offense...but as of right now...we stand on opposite sides of the fence. I will not compromise the Word of God. The Catholic Church is evil and antichrist. Here stand I. If you don't like the "spirit" there...I am sorry. But I would rather please God than man. There is a way that seemeth right unto a man...and the end thereof are the ways of death.

And I agree with Shiloh...I have a feeling that you have an agenda...and you feel you have too much at stake to change what you already believe...goodness knows that you went to all those lengths to make a whole book about Jesus' sinfulness. Which comes first...your own labours...or the truths of God's Word???? God didn't send you here as a fluke...you need to repent of this wrong theology and know the true Saviour. I am NOT here to judge you...and sorry if that's what this appears to be. I am merely trying to do my job as a believer...proclaiming the Gospel. The WORD OF GOD judges us...not man. If I stand on my own righteousness here and not on the Word...God shall be my judge.

Rukkus...what you don't understand is that the flesh profits NOTHING. The flesh is not what constitutes us sinners or separated from God. The flesh is merely a RESULT of this spiritual condition. God, Who is perfect, became sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. God did not become a sinner by becoming sin in the flesh...because that isn't what makes us sinners in the first place...it is the RESULT of sin. God bore the penalty that we all deserve...death...and bore that death for us on the cross...even though He remained sinless, and perfect...and did not deserve it. That is why He is the ultimate sacrifice for sin. If Jesus became sin in Spirit...and was constituted an actual sinful entity...that sacrifice meant didilly squat...honestly. What would that sacrifice have meant??? NOTHING. But praise God we have a sufficient, never-changing Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the RIGHTEOUS....not Jesus Christ the once-upon-a-time-sinner.

I never said the "original Greek says." My point is that the context indicates word usuage. It is the sense that we should be trying to get at. The sense of the passage as the words are used is that Jesus made to be sin only in the sense that sin was imputed to him. If Jesus became sinful, then He could have been a sin sacrifice, as it had to blameless. It was for our transgressions that He died. You need to read your Bible a little better. Paul's point is that Jesus was made a sin offering for us, and this is especially true when you look at the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek in this verse. It is the word Chatat which is a reference to the sin sacrifice, which vicariously bore the sins of the people. It did not "become sin" but rather it was the sin bearer which bore away the sins of the people. Likewise Christ is our sin bearer. Your approach makes Christ a sinner is blasphemous in the highest regard. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:13-14) It was our transgressions that were applied to Jesus. In those days it was customary for the sins of the accused to be nailed on the cross along with the accused. Paul is saying that it was our sins, our list of transgressions that were nailed to Christ's cross. It was our transgressions that were being payed for by a sinless sacrifice. Had Jesus been made sinful in the abosolute sense, it would have nullified the entire reason for going to the cross. It is heretical ideas like yours that are the product of a sloppy and unskilled handling of God's Word. You obviously don't much about the Greek or you would not come to the false conclusions that you have. You are not teaching biblical Christianity. Rather it is a false teaching that should be rejected by every Christian reading this thread. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Amen again!!!!

Ma'am, you child is fine even without the baptism. I am sure you have heard it said. 2 Samuel 12:22-23 KJV (22) And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? (23) But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I know. I believe that my Father is full of gentleness and compassion. Thanks, Aim. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fiosh...the difference is...your Church does not agree with you. That is why I am afraid that you love your Church so much that you won't admit that you are not in total agreement with all that she teaches. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, HC, you are wrong. I "stole" that phrase from my Pastor. During the prayers of repentance at Mass, he often close with "...for we know that You are full of gentleness and compassion". You really should get a Catechism and study up if you plan to continue to tell me what I am taught by the RCC. Welcome back! Unfortunately, today I have lots of work to do--cleaning, painting, etc. Only popped in for a sec. Later, F <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've said it before here on very recent threads...that baby baptism removes the stain of original sin...and Pax can vouch for that one. If the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that babies can go to hell...then there is absolutely no purpose in that vain tradition and it should stop. Either it has a purpose or it doesn't and you cannot have it both ways. Sorry...it's just common sense I suppose. Are you REALLY happy that I am back????

Fiosh...you said: I'm not sure what you mean by "true Christian tradition" ? I mean that...only believers should be baptised...and that is true Christian tradition. You use the Old Covenant circumcision to uphold your anti-Christian doctrine of baptising babies. What you don't understand is that the Old Covenant was to the Chosen People a fleshly covenant at that time. The circumcision was merely an outward symbol that the child was born into God's Messiah's lineage. Paul, in the epistle to the Romans, makes it clear that circumcision availeth nothing and TRUE CIRCUMCISION is of the heart. You used a Scripture to defend the baptism of babies also when you said that "whole families" were baptised. But you failed to include that the context said that these "whole families" or houses...BELIEVED in Christ. We know that the Bible makes it very clear that there is an age when someone is too young to make a decision of true saving faith in Jesus. "...Before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose the good..."-Isaiah 7:16 "...Your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil..."-Deuteronomy 1:39 "...The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil..."-Romans 9:11 To say that babies must be baptised to be saved is a sick distortion of God's loving character...and is totally and completely false and un-Biblical and should be renounced.

Ma'am, you child is fine even without the baptism. I am sure you have heard it said. 2 Samuel 12:22-23 KJV (22) And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? (23) But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I know. I believe that my Father is full of gentleness and compassion. Thanks, Aim. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fiosh...the difference is...your Church does not agree with you. That is why I am afraid that you love your Church so much that you won't admit that you are not in total agreement with all that she teaches.

There are 40 pages of stuff dealing with this subject...I believe that both sides have presented their cases. Anyone who seriously wants to debate this subject should first read through some of the arguments given as I am sure most reservations have already been covered already. I am a forever OSAS believer because I believe it is Scriptural and the only doctrine concerning salvation that is consistent with God's character. I am open to studying passages from the Word to anyone who has difficulties understanding this theological stance. And I am open to hearing from the opposite side's viewpoints. I just feel that from this point forward we should concentrate on the Word strictly because emotions appear to be getting the most play around here right now. But that's just my take. God bless.

My new best friend...I love you!!!!

Gotta go to work guys...see you tommorrow...Lord willing. God bless! Oh yeah...fiosh...my nemesis...thankyou for calling me "victorious" earlier on!!!

Rukkus...you are devising a WHOLE DOCTRINE that Jesus was SPIRITUALLY DEAD because of TWO SINGLE VERSES. That is very dangerous. The first verse you use is the one that says Jesus was forsaken by the Father. He was...but NOT SPIRITUALLY. He was forsaken UNTO DEATH ON THE CROSS for our sins. Even Jesus said that His disciples would forsake Him but that the Father would not. You are reading your own interpretation onto that text I have shown you. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever...and He cannot change. A spiritual separation from the Father would make that void. Jesus is God and cannot die. God is Spirit. Jesus is ETERNAL and separation from the Father would make this void. Jesus was the SPOTLESS LAMB and if He was sin in SPIRIT He would not have been SPOTLESS. The list goes on and on. The second verse you use is the one that says Jesus became sin. He did...in HIS BODY...by becoming a human being in the flesh. He bore our sins in His own BODY on the tree. Jesus became sin alright...no question about it...in BODY...but certainly NOT IN SPIRIT. Period.

Sorry ringo...but the Bible issue...it's all or nothing. But don't be dismayed...it's true from start to finish. I haven't seen any proof otherwise in all my years. I'm only 25...but that's still a long time kinda!!!

Huh???

All of the denominations and fractions of "Christianity" have been prophesied in the Bible...even by Jesus Himself. This should come of no surprise to a believer in Christ. The true "Church" of Jesus Christ our Lord is not a physical entity visible by the eye or human intellect...it is a new spiritual creation washed by the blood of the Lamb by faith. Trust me...there were "Protestants" throughout the Catholic Dark Ages...only most of them were living on mountaintops and in caves hiding from being slaughtered.

Rukkus...first of all...if you are saying that Jesus was not forsaken by the Father in Spirit...I am all for it. If you are saying that Jesus went to hell to preach to the lost souls and take back the keys of heaven and whatnot...I am all for it. That is what the Bible says. I agree that Christ did not ascend immediately to the Father and that He had a job to do in the world of the dead. No question about it. But did Jesus forsake His unity with the Father in doing so? Absolutely not. Did Jesus get tortured in hell as some people say (not saying you do)? Absolutely not. I do believe that we agree on many points...but on one issue we greatly diverge. And you believe that Jesus became sin literally in His Spirit. I don't see Scriptural support for that and I don't understand how you can accuse me of not having done so??? That verse I quoted from Peter clearly says that Jesus was put to death in flesh and kept alive in Spirit. It does not get any more simple than that. And spiritual death...is not soul extinction. I don't know what you think I believe spiritual death is, but just for the sake of clarity: SPIRITUAL DEATH IS SEPARATION OF SPIRIT FROM GOD. This is clearly a Biblical prinicpal...and to say that all humans are not spiritually dead before being born again...and to say that fallen angels are not spiritually dead...is ludacris. Are you saying that Jesus partook of the SAME SPIRITUAL DEATH that fallen humans and angels have??? Yes or no, and elaborate if you want. God bless.

Pax...you said: There are two reasons why I usually don't qoute sources. Number one, is because I was told by two modertors not to link any Catholic sources or they will be deleted. Number two is because I get tired of looking up all the sources and then writing them down. I am not an expert on the Catholic Church but, I do feel like I have a good idea. If all of you want a source for what I look up on any topic Please refer to THE CATHECISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. If you want to know what the seven Sacraments of the Church are, then get the Cathecism out and read about the Sacraments. Fiosh in your post above, it seems to me like you are hinting that I don't know what I am talking about and it is only an opinion. What I write about the Catholic Church is what she teaches. The last thing I want to do is spread falsehoods about the Church. There is enough of that on this board. And if you do think I ever write something that is only my opinion and not grounded in the truth, then let me know. I will tell you and everyone else what the Catholic Church specifcally teaches....It's all in the Cathecism. I respond: I think you are doing an excellent job of presenting Catholic doctrine. I find that you are being very honest and accurate in your depiction. I just don't believe the stuff you and your Church is saying. But I do believe that you are doing a fantastic job for the Popery.