John UK wrote: So "might receive" means "will assuredly receive".
I was about to post something on J4J's handling of "might receive" but deleted it. But for you, the phrase "might receive" is a verb, in the active voice, from the Greek word lambano. As an active voice verb it is an action that the subject performs. Here is an example:
Matt 8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself **took G2983** our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
"Took" in this text is the same Greek word lambano while "might" is a different word, hopos, a particle or adverb.
In either case, hopos or lambano doesn't give the sense of a possibility but, as you rightly assert, assuredly. J4J is just winging it as usual and it's a disgusting abuse of the Truth.
One of my business interests in the past was carwashing. I had two locations for over 30 years with self serve as well as automatic bays.
Most I'm sure are familiar with the term Spot Free Rinse which is reverse osmosis filtered water. No spots because all spot producing minerals have been removed. Bottled water is produced by the same RO filtering process regardless of the fancy names they label it as.
In the carwashing industry it's called hungry water because it wants to equalize with whatever it comes in contact with. In that regard it's quite corrosive over time and can actually dissolve and re-suspend metal and minerals such as hard water scale.
In the body it actually has the ability to deplete necessary minerals as it seeks to normalize itself with its surroundings.
It is far healthier to use municipal water and filter it with a high quality carbon filter to remove chlorine and a few other harmful municipal additives as well as bad smells while leaving necessary minerals in the water.
Jaycobee wrote: I just finished listening to [URL=https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Believe-Understand-Explain-Catholic/dp/B00485V77I]]]Scott Hahn's Reasons to Believe[/URL]I would encourage everyone to read/hea
From the site:
"He [Scott Hahn] wrote in the first chapter of this 2007 book, "This book is a summons for Catholics to fulfill the duty that St. Peter spelled out. It's not enough for us just to FEEL hopeful, and then hope that our hope will be contagious. St. Peter [1 Pet 3:15] wants us to prepare a defensible account of our hope, showing that its foundations are ushakable, grounded as they are in ultimate reality... We're talking about theology... that branch of theology known as apologetics, the art of explaining and defending the faith." "
1 Peter 3:15 be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you...
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Seems simple enough to me. Probably why Paul wrote:
1 Cor 1:26ff not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise
Jaycobee wrote: Lumen Gentium 16 addresses this too. Salvation outside the church: CCC First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church."307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation"308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.824 United with Christ, the Church is sanctified by him; through him and with him she becomes sanctifying. "All the activities of the Church are directed, as toward their end, to the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God."292 It is in the Church that "the fullness of the means of sa
Interesting. On the shroud thread you were insistent to stay on topic but here you're all too eager to jettison the inconvenient topic and quote RCC propaganda to defend the indefensible.
Jesus said "I am the way", not the church. What part of that don't you understand?
Jaycobee wrote: Thank you Christopher. I don't think it's fair to condemn the entire system based on these crimes. After all abuse occurrs in Protestant denominations.
You're right, Jaycobee.
The RCC's doctrine of justification condemns the entire institution. Atrocities such as these simply confirm what we already knew; that the RCC is filled with darkness which knows no bounds. There has never been any chastening for wrongdoing by God with subsequent repentance which makes the RCC b@st@rds and not sons.
John UK wrote: Lurker, I have some scriptures to discuss with you, if you are available later. Joshua 24:2 KJV (2)Â And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood [river] in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. From this text, we can be certain that Abram's father was an idolater. We could also say that the wording means that Terah, Abram and his brother were all idolaters, "they" served other gods. So Abram did more than just dwell in a land of idolaters, he was brought up in it from birth.
It's a great text in defense of your assertion so I'll concede you didn't make it without cause.
However, (you knew there would be a however) I'll not concede to your interpretation because "they" grammatically points back to "fathers" or forefathers and Terah is the only one named. To prove this up just delete "the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor" and read again. So we'll probably not agree but I'll respect your interpretation.
Btw, I can also see from your interpretation of this text why you believe Abram was converted when God called him out of Ur. Still don't agree but understand your reasoning.
John UK wrote: Lurker, you bring forth some points.
My main reason for commenting is your assertion that Abram was an idolater. I understand why you may think this but it's a pretty serious charge without any biblical evidence. May be better to say Abram lived in a land of idolaters.
As for the olive tree; everyone else is tossing about their opinions: Jews, Abraham, Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, etc. so I thought I'd toss mine in the ring.
But here's the thing. The Jews of Paul's day were broken off of something and at some identifiable point in time. Same as God giving them a bill of divorcement because they played the harlot? When did that happen? How about God bringing the curse upon them because they broke His covenant? How about concluding them all in unbelief? What is the state of unbelief and what was their state before being concluded in unbelief? How about taking the gospel away from them and giving it to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof? When did all these things happen? Are they all the same as or consequences of being broken off of the olive tree?
Rhetorical questions to think about, John. My point is there is a multitude of information in the bible that can help resolve the question..... or opinions can prevail.
Christopher000 wrote: "Such establishments may still provide customers with plastic stirrers and utensils, but only if the server asks if they want these items and customers reply in the affirmative." What nonsense. Too bad that all of the babys being murdered take a backseat to plastic straws being dumped into the landfills.
Amen to that, Chris.
The liberal mind is perfectly up side down and inside out. To them evil is good and good is evil. People aren't born that way.... it's a learned fault. Learned in our liberal universities which keep indoctrinating and cranking out liberal minds filled with liberal mush who will soon be dominating our elections and running our country. Full blown socialism is on the horizon looming large and spreading like a cancer through social media.
John UK wrote: I agree that the clear promises of God which were fulfilled in Christ began in earnest with this converted heathen idolator, and that he is the physical father of the physical Israel.
Your comment caught my eye so just wanted to point out a couple things to consider.
I don't recall anything in the biblical account about Abram being converted nor being an idolater. Granted, he was called out of Ur which most likely worshipped idols but no evidence that Abram did the same.
Also, Abram was immediately obedient to God's call which tells me he was already circumcised in heart (he loved/believed God according to Deut 6:5) and that by Paul's definition makes Abram a Jew.
But the secular/historical term Jew came to be about the time of the Babylonian captivity and referred to the people of the southern Judean kingdom or more specifically Judah; one of Jacob's twelve sons. Biblically, this has some traction:
Psalm 78:67-68 Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.
As for the olive tree; I've always thought it figured the Zion covenant of peace which the Jews (circumcised in flesh but not heart) were kicked out of.
Jaycobee wrote: lurker I understand that people can harden their hearts and reject God even if they were to see a miracle. But there are people who I think would find the shroud as a legitimate justification for opening their hearts to God and the gospel. I think if every scientist and theologian did get on board and support the shroud we would see many people saved but there would still be people who choose not to believe.
Thanks for your reply, Jaycobee.
I must say I picked up a strong sense of free will theism in your comment. If that is your theological position; it answers a lot of questions.
That said, God ordained the gospel (Christ crucified) as the sole means to reconcile those He foreknew unto Himself. We have been reconciled in time by the death of Jesus, because of what was taken out of the way and nailed to His cross, and saved by His life.
The problem with too many Protestant churches today is they have no idea what the gospel is and are ever dreaming up new ways to draw warm bodies to their pews or to keep those already there. Is God going to bless them when they have forsaken the means He ordained?
My bottom line, Jaycobee; the shroud is a non-starter. Authentic or not, it has no God ordained power to do anything.
Jaycobee wrote: I feel like alot of hostility toward the authenticity of this alleged relic is the general consensus among the group here that any holy relic takes away from the honor God alone is due and at worst can become an idol. Am I right everyone? Is that the big elephant in the room?
You've made it fairly clear you believe the shroud is authentic. Of course, that's your prerogative and it's ours to not believe its authenticity. But I can't help but wonder if there isn't more on your mind than just the authenticity.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the shroud was proven beyond any doubt to be authentic: The actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
In your mind, Jaycobee, how would that revelation play out for Christendom? Or put another way: Then what?
John UK wrote: The most important doctrine of all is what God teaches about justification, namely by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And I know this is not taught in Catholicism. So why consider attending a church which doesn't even have the gospel, the good news?
Amen to that. Get right to the bottom line.... the one doctrine that points one to hell or heaven. It's either faith alone or faith plus something. All this other nonsense is tip toeing around the elephant in the room.
Amen sister MS. I think we'd all be willing to help Jaycobee but not on his terms. No sincerityâ€¦.. too mechanical as though it's an intellectual exercise determining the perfect will of God. If God doesn't prick the heart as He did with the contrite publican, there is nothing man can do.
. . .
Is anyone else having trouble with the verification thingy? Seems like it was put on steroids.
John UK wrote: Jaycobee, there are no folks here think you are sincere.
If I may add to that, John.
Jaycobee came here asking for input yet has offered nothing about himself. No idea what denom he is, married, children, or his Christian experience to date. No testimony.... nothing that will help us determine his present standing with God. All we have gotten is "I'm not Catholic" yet he comes to the defense of all things RC like the shroud in this thread.
I asked a question regarding the shroud and crickets. Same as I got from him in most of the previous questions I asked.
I stand by my earlier observation that Jaycobee has never experienced the new birth and it's just a matter of time before The RCC reels him in. That's too bad but it's God who convinces..... not anyone here.
As for the shroud.... it matters not to me if it's authentic or not. It didn't draw me to Christ, it has no power of salvation and it gives no assurance of a right standing with God. That makes it interesting at best and at worse...â€¦ a snare and stumbling block for pretend Christians.
John for JESUS wrote: Wing it? I've qouted irrefutable evidence as found in scripture. On the contrary, it must make sense or you wouldn't be commenting. Wing it? I didn't say Jesus "probably" meant this or that like some people do. All of your arguments end with this verse: But He answered and said, â€śI was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.â€ť Matthew 15:24
. . .
I don't know what happened to the "I'm not a robot" verification but I think I'm done here till a better system is implemented. I bet I had to check 50 boxes to finally get verified and now I see I have to do it again because I wanted to add this comment and the verification has expired. GRRRRRR
Yet the spammers continue to fill the threads with their junk. Enough.
Jaycobee wrote: Now you and some others here are saying that all you need is the Bible to show the Resurrection. That is fine, but what if someone wants more evidence than that? Are you really going to deny them the opportunity to learn about the archaeological evidence, the textual preservation evidence, the historical evidence.
You need to be more specific. Who, exactly, is the audience that needs to be convinced of Christ's resurrection; believers or unbelievers?
John for JESUS wrote: However, the earthly ministry of Jesus involved seeking after the lost sheep of Israel. He wasn't concerned with the Gentiles.
A bit of a history lesson.
The text says "house of Israel". The house of Israel points to the ten tribes of the northern kingdom while the house of Judah points to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin of the southern kingdom. In the OT, "Israel" almost always points to the northern kingdom after the reign of Solomon, when Israel divided into two kingdoms, and "Judah" to the southern kingdom.
After the Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom, the house of Israel was considered "not a people of God" as they were without covenant with God. Therefore, they became as Gentiles, uncircumcised in both flesh and heart. Probably why Jesus called them lost sheep and "other sheep not of this fold"; "this fold" being the house of Judah.
J4J, you'll never be able to make a convincing argument while trying to wing it through biblical terminology. Words and terms have meaning and the bible defines them. Your arguments are non-sensical.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Oh, the Trader Trump tapes --[URL=https://tinyurl.com/yaz98xoe]]]Avenatti says Cohen's Trump recording 'is not the only tape'[/URL] ...Yikesâť— I have to stop this I think I'm getting a twitch in my eyeâť—
From the article: "Avenatti said the FBI is already in possession of the tapes after they raided Cohenâ€™s home, office and hotel room in April as part of a criminal investigation into his business dealings. â€śThereâ€™s nothing thatâ€™s stopping Michael Cohen from releasing the audio recordings that he made between him and the president concerning my client, Ms. McDougal, and others,â€ť Avenatti said."
So if the FBI has the tapes then how is it possible for Cohen to release them? Jim, are you so enamored over any dirt on Trump that you've lost all ability to reason? And then there is the attorney/client privilege. Apparently Avenatti isn't concerned with that since Trump isn't his client. Yet he's a credible attorney?
Avenatti is a slimeball using a porn star to get into the national spotlight to further his career. He's probably paying her to agree to be his client. Yet you quote him with glee.