₦airaland Forum

Rich4god:
He traveled na... So we are expecting things frm him...

Am fine my zing... U?

where u for hear that fake rumour? I no go anywhere oh, i have been around just time constrained.

Kamsi welcome gud to hear ur voice,

everybody hw una dey?

Interesting... So the thread came back to life.

dolphinheart:
Oga oga!,
1) why do the church use different processes to arrive at the date they use in celebrating their festivals ?.

The date for christmass is fixed on the Gregorian calender, while the date for Easter is not fixed on the gregorian calender , why is this so, when both dates are fixed on the hebrew calender?

because the hebrew calender of the time didn't always observe time accurately! Some years had 13 months other were less, this is because it tried to base it months on the moon. Imagine what it will be like if we decide to add 1 months to d dis year, that means time will be screwed up. This is why clement of alexander records that every christian community were trying to fix christmas in their own calender trying to equate d 9th jewish month in the hebrew calender to their own calenders. The same arguement occured with easter many christians had already fixed it on march ending, while others wanted it around Nisan, others wanted it on a sunday, other said anytime it fell on week days. Infact many held that the biblical narratives were absolutely unclear, confusing and contradicting! Every christian community celebrated it differently. Atlast sunday around Nisan was chosen becos christ rose on a sunday, sunday was the day of the lord, fixing it around 14 nisan had a sybolism "christ is now our new pash", the jews were been told dat d old order was over. And fixing it around nisan 14 will serve as a good date to d different and sometimes contradictory gospel narratives.

I didn't want to go into this topic. I still advise u to read up on d Council of Nicea.

2) can a date fixed on the hebrew calender be fixed on the gregorian calender?

no unless it id removed from d hebrew rendering and fixed on a more accurate calendar

3) why is Easter not usually done on the date it urccurs on the hebrew calender if not for pride and the determination to validate the day more than the date.? (at least if not for the Jews and the bible, we would not have known the date of jesus resurrection )

i didn't want to discuss this here. I also didn't want to discuss dis with someone who i don't know their level of faith.

The date given in the scriptures are contracdictory. There is a way to explain the reason it seems contradictory but i wont go there. Matthew, mark and luke all record dat Jesus was crucified after d day of d passover, dat is d next day after d day of the unleavened bread, dat is d day after d last supper/passover, but john 18: 28 said Jesus was brought before pilate before d passover was eaten. Those different acounts leave us with at least a one day deficit. Did jesus die on 14 nisan or d day before it? This gave us already two different dates. If we follow John the Jesus die at the same time sacrifice was offered in d temple on 14 nisan on d day of d passover, if we follow matthew, mark, luke Jesus died a day after d passover had already been eaten dat is 15 nisan. Dat means Jesus rose for John on 16th morning, while for matthew, mark and luke he rose on 17th morning. Those two dates cannot both be correct at the same time, Jesus didn't rise twice.

So tell me if one Christian community celebrate easter on d 16th on Nisan and d next day d next Christian community celebrates easter on 17 nisan, which of them is more correct or was Jesus risen twice? Or what about the christian who don't use either dates because they correctly and rightly know that d hebrew calendar of those centuries were unreliable, sometimes b sahendrine added 1 month other times they don't, so d day u are celebrating easter can be weeks different from d real date becos d sahendrine were adding and subtracting months becos a lunar month has a decimal point to make a year? Or what about those insist Jesus rose on d first day of the week as d begining of a new creation so easter should b on sunday. All of them have a point so the catholic church had to weigh all the points. The bible it self is inconclusive as it gives two dates, the hebrew calendar didnt measure time correctly. So it was simply placed around d 14 on nisan, that satisfy all righteousness since d bible is itself inconclusive. This has nothing to do with pride. How do u think it will be like if today some christain celebrate easter d next week others do the d next day others, then again d next week?

JMAN05:
The preface says:

"The work is [size=14]entirely new[/size], and not merely a translation or a
compilation from other encyclopedia sources."

Oga pls go back to where we stopped and start from there. This is the last time am telling you this.

If you ignore where we stopped next time, I will ignore you.

this shows you don't know how to read.

That encyclopedia was published in 1911, at that time the preface was written and it was said to be "new". Is a 1911 book still new today? The book is now about 100yrs old! Is that new?

It updated version was in 1967, that is about50yrs old. So which one is more recent?


The fact that they saw a need to update the book tell you a lot about your hypothesis..

This is also written on the encyclopedia
Nihil Obstat.
November 1, 1908.

nihil obstat is given around d time a book is proof read. The nihil obstat was given in 1908

dolphinheart:
Oga, my question is, are you saying ur Easter date does not align or fall in line with Nissan 14.

easter doesn't exactly fall on 14th Nisan, is fall around nisan d same way christmas falls around tebet.

I know that the Easter is not always celebrated on Nissan 14. Easter is not on Nissan 14 , even if its to be celebrated , then it should be Nissan 16/17.
The reason why I mentioned Nissan 14 was because this date was mentioned in the scriptures in relation to the date jesus died and you celebrate jesus resurrection which happened 2 days later.

Now Easter date is fixed in another style unlike the christmas date (this is the point I'm trying bring out). Easter date is fixed by choosing the nearest sunday in the year the day Nissan 14 falls on in the gregorian calender.(which is still wrong anyway and done for selfish reasons and pride). Easter should have been celebrated on any day Nissan 16/17 falls on.

and yet it hardly falls on 16/17 Nisan. And easter wasn't fixed because of selfish reason and pride, if you don't read up on early church history then i advise you research on it because making accusations of pride.

So why is this done for the Easter, which date can be figured out with the hebrew calender, and not done with the christmass celebration that you claim also have a hebrew date.?
Why is the Christmas date fixed on the gregorian calender and the surer date Nissan 14 used to calculate Easter is not fixed on the same calender.?

because the catholic church decided to fix the date that way. The council of nicean decided to fixed easter around Nicean and each individual church fixed christmas around tebet.

JMAN05:
The proof I gave for Mithra's birthday is from ur online encyclopedia, not that 1967 one. Check thread 11.

Though that one was still helpful on this point, your online encyclopedia seem to present the most current info on catholic view.

It is this online info that am talking about on the comment you responded to.

But it would be better u start from where we stopped on Jan 23rd.

Pls go back there, if not, I ll stop responding to you here cos it is pointless to abandon what you need to respond to and start another phase.

The content I quoted on the online encyclopedia is in my post above.

are you aware that the online encyclopedia you quoted is from 1911?

Are you aware that d said incyclopedia has been updated by the 1967 version?

The 1911 said sol invinctus has a strong claim, the update encyclopedia says it is only a popular hypothesis. That is how you know an information that isn't certain.

JMAN05:
We are talking of Mithra's birthday here. Your brother have not presented any reason the festival wasnt on dec 25.

Your reference book, your encyclopedia said the birthday of Mithra holds on 25th december. If that statement is wrong, go and remove your name from that encyclopedia or better still denounce it. In as much as you ve not disassociated yourself from that book. It is still a valid reference material of what you believe whether dogma or non-dogma.

You can say that what you say here on nairaland does not present a catholic view, but your religion's encyclopedia is what an outsider can read and know about you. It cant be written anyhow.

sorry the catholic encyclopedia didnt present any such fact!

Instead the catholic encyclopedia say that a popular hypothesis is that 25 of december is the celebration of sol invinti and that adherent of mithra celebrated this feast.

The hypothesis has now been refuted because the celebration of Christmas predates the celebration of sol invinctus.

JMAN05:
Provide where he said he was quoting Usener.

I quoted Catholic encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of another Church. And the person who wrote it is a valid member of your church. his work is a reference material about your church. Provide your church so called official book that said Mithra's birthday is done another day.

If you think an encyclopedia of a church is written any how, please go and write your own and call it "Roman catholic encyclopedia", and write any rubbish you wish inside. I give you just one week, Catholic scholars will storm your house and give you a dirty slap legally. Even your local Father will immediately tell you to go and tire that rubbish or face the music. Do you think you just wake up and write encyclopedia of a church? Are you not an adult? habah! argument. Pls end this puerile point abeg.

you are accusing me of puerile points? Are you aware you are the inventor of puerile points?

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, says:
According to the hypothesis . . . accepted by most scholars today, the birth of Christ was
assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as
the sun began its return to northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the
dies natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of the Invincible Sun). On Dec. 25, 274, Aurelian had proclaimed the sun-god principal patron of the empire and dedicated a temple to him in the Campus Martius. Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome.



Can you see what was written? It never said it was a proven fact, or an irrefutable conclusion!

The Catholic encyclopedia said it is the HYPOTHESIS accepted by many scholars who lived in 1967. The encyclopedia never said "this is what d church believes" or this is the fact, it says it is a hypothesis accepted by scholars who lived in 1967.

Can you read English? You are the person treating an hypothesis as though it was fact! The catholic encyclopedia never said it was fact or the conclusive truth, it said it is the popular hypothesis.

That hypothesis has now been refuted by scholars.

Bidam:
God alone made the covenant....No party is involved when he made the covenant. Are you satisfied?

oh yeah!
I don hear, No parties were involved in the covenant.

Weldone.

dolphinheart:
Before I answer you, please are you saying ur Easter date does not align or fall in line with Nissan 14?

exactly!

Easter hardly falls on 14th of Nissan.

That is another effect of the council of Nicea. I told you earlier that before nicean different arms of the catholic church had different dates for easter.

It was in nicean that it was agreed that easter should be celebrated on any sunday which fell around 14th of Nisan, sometimes easter and 14th nisan are many days apart.

Easter hardly falls on 14th Nisan, if you think am lying go make the research, the day of Christs resurrection and the day easter is celebrated are usually days apart.

Bidam:
A blind argument really. Trustman has answered you. Guess you do not understand my write up. God making the covenant alone means God never consulted Man for the terms of the covenant.

you are trying to dodge the fact that you previously claim that there are parties involved in a covenant.

JMAN05:
Even the Annunciation?

The issue for now is on mithra. Your encyclopedia can't be dismissed just like that, unless I hear that the man who wrote it is excommunicated. The write up was never under speculation. The writer never even said it as if the matter was under controversy. Of course the date for mithra's birthday is well known.

mithras birthday has no historic source! It was cooked up by Usener and adopted by other scholar.

JMAN05:
I need an official statement, stating that what it said on Mithra is against catholic doctrine. Or an oficial statement showing that what is in the encyclopedia is not a correct catholic teaching. Provide it.

Even if the Pope didnt endorse it, which no man has shown me, that does not mean that what it said about catholic is wrong. GET THAT STRAIGHT.

An encyclopedia of ur church has been in circulation for decades, those who wrote it are not termed heretics. They are ur scholars and they claim to provide an authoritative info. Neither the pope nor any of you have sued him for such claim nor excommucated them, and you are here shouting "it has no authority". If I dont believe this international journal, written by men who know the church more than you do, whu should I believe you? Is it your own word on nairaland that has authority?

In as much as an international journal of that kind is concerned, and its writers remain valid catholics, I wont accept that there writeup is wrong. Even if the Pope do not endorse it, it doesnt make the info therein wrong. I would rather say that you guys know little about ur doctrines.

the date of christmas is not a dogma, it is an historic enquiry so catholics are free to speculate on it. The writer on the page on the encyclopedia is simply speculating according to the materials he is using, particularly usener.

dolphinheart:
And I've already explained that it is useless to keep the date. The calendar are not accurate ,they are not the same, they are not equal, so the dates should change like its done for ur Easter celebrations .

will you also say it is useless to keep easter becos easter doesn't fall on the 14th of nisan every year?

striktlymi:
Not really...


Just awakened me to a number of things.

i was in a melancholic mood recently and i remember saying; in humans there is no white and black, its all grey just just different shades of grey, the saints have flaws, the sinner have virtues.

Bidam:
God and who? God alone made the covenant. Don't forget the lamb was slain even before the world began. The unconditional covenant of Abraham NEVER included gentiles as a nation.

“Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3.5-6).

i always laugh when people decide to throw passages around.

This is what scripture says about the new covenant.

Heb 8
8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


Kindly read well and read again, God makes a covenant WITH man, two parties, he doesn't make is alone by himself with himself for man. He makes it with man not just for man.
If you wish to define a covenant as a contract like Calvin did then it is certainly between God and man two parties.


If you wish to define it as the establishment of kinship, or a family bond as catholics sometimes do it is still between two parties God and man.

Compare that passage with what you wrote below

salvation is a covenant made by God ALONE to mankind, no party is involved,

who can you say no party is involved when scriptures clearly show two parties first God who makes a covenant with man.


Infact the new covenant is more interesting and efficacious because God became man, the blood shed was that of a spotless man not an animal. Jesus become the representative of humanity and all who by faith identify with him become part of the covenant.

It has always been God making a covenant WITH man, two parties.

Papist:
Excuse me...i'm not knowledgeable on the subject under discussion. Just want to inform you that the Catholic Encyclopaedia has zero authority in the Catholic Church.

i already told him this but he decided to be deaf.

trustman:
[size=6pt][/size]
Note these:
Made by....
Involve ....parties

If there's no such thing as a covenant MADE by God alone, then the question to you is this: Did both God and man sit down together to draw out the terms of such covenant(s)?

covenants always involve two parties, they don't need to sit on a round table and banter on the terms, all the terms may be proposed by one party, but agreed by all.

The covenant of promise with abraham is a good example, God propose all the terms and promises and abraham agreed.

It is always between two parties. God usually draws the terms, and he alway establish his covenant with men.

JMAN05:
1. Catholic encyclopedia, written by your scholars were wrong on Mithra. Yes or No?

Yes

2. When did Catholic encyclopedia contradict on Mithra's birth day?

the catholic encyclopedia was last revised in the 90s it doesn't have a recently uppdated work, it hasn't contradicted itself, but it is contradicted by the more recently updated encyclopedia britanica.

3. Where did this your catholic tutored scholars cook the Mithra's birth day from? Where is there source?

they all used a ref source by usener, he was the one who cooked up the story that scholars have now affirmed have no historic basis. The catholic encyclopedia mentioms its source and usener is mentioned at least 5 times.

The 3rd question is important, so that we 'll know how to place this claimed "authoritative info".

the 3rd question has been aswered.

Bidam:
Justification, salvation is a covenant made by God ALONE to mankind, no party is involved, it is a done and sealed deal.....through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20).

hahaha,


do you know how funny this sounds??

A convenant can't be made by one party. It is not possible, covenant even according to Calvin is a contract involving two parties.

All the covenants in scripture involve two parties and the new covenant is not an exception.

There is no such thing as a covenant made by God ALONE to mankind, instead it is a covenant between God and man.

shdemidemi:
bully!!! ok, if that is the way you see it, well and good. It isn't about me here so I see all he says as one acting based on ignorance. Moreover, I never used none of those lines for you, they were all for my good friend, vooks.

You are yet to find holes in all we have said so far, save for silly excuses from vooks that the message is not as old as he would have liked it to be.

i didn't call you a bully, read my post again. Your 7 despensation has no place in scripture, so also your division of the new testament into first class and second class.
The holes in your theory is there but you have continued to try to patch by dismissing none pauline text and interpreting the pauline text based on preconcieved ideas. I didn't even bother with a long arguement after reading the series of scripture you dismissed.

And vook point is actually a good one not an excuse, a doctrine that seem totally absent in the early church and only appeared in the 1500s is a novel teaching.

5solas:
As to whether a believer can lose salvation, the Arminians got it wrong from the onset , by their thoughts on freewill. They thought, think and teach that a man's salvation was up to them, a cursory look at scripture and you find that this notion is false and so their whole house crumble. To succeed in their scheme they must get through a whole lot of scripture. For starters:
Mt 11.

If man is the author of salvation, then of course salvation can be lost but if God is the author of salvation, then it definitely can't be lost.

hehehe, i have a feeling you are misrepresenting the arminians.
First, their testimony on freewill is much more consistent with the witness of Christians from biblical times to the time of the reformation, their testimonity seem more consistent with scripture and christian thought of over 1500 pre-reformation year.

God has always presented choices to his people, tree of life and tree of death at eden was the first, life or death, darkness or light, blessing or curse, he has always asked that we choose, right from the old testament God has alway given choices. In the news it is the same, preach the gospel, he who believes choses life, who who rejects choses death. Even after sin God has alway presented those choices and by his grace he enables us to chose rightly. In this the arminians were correct, so far as we guide against the pelegian heresy.

Secondly, the arminian didn't say man salvation is man's work, they taught that God calls man to salvation and grant it as a freegift to all who answer his call.

On both point the arminians were correct over and against Calvin and Luther. God does not save us without us.

shdemidemi:
This is the point where the rubber meets the road, I hope you and our very in-house thug called vooks enjoy your ride with the pro and anti catholic rhethorics.

I have never read scoffield's work, so the junk yard dog's aspersions are baseless and unfounded.

it seems vooks really bullied you.

I have no "junk yard dog's aspersions" for you dear, if you have a good memory you'll remember we had a discussion some time ago, i was highly critical of the way you were throwing passages away because they aren't pauline, and you considered them 2nd class. I still have a very critical view of your theory and i'm sure you've gathered that much. I'm been critical, i am not casting aspersions.

JMAN05:
No Sir, you miss the point. The post you responded to isn't talking about replacing Xmas with pagan teaching, rather it is about whether Mithra worshipers celebrated on Dec 25th. You were seeking for a 2nd to 4th century prove. Your words:



And I said:



So pls respond to that.

it is simply dear, when reference sources conflict, an encyclopedia repudates it former claims then it is clear that we must look for the historic sources.

Reference sources can be wrong that is why there are historic sources. Many sholars have arrived at the conclusion that the socalled pagan christmas link has no historic basis. To prove it wrong we need you to ref a historic source.

vooks:
This is not Calvin but John Darby and his erstwhile student Scoffield. Scoffield made notes as he studied scriptures and thenhe INSERTED the same in a bible. The product was Scoffield Reference Bible. In it he propagates Dispensationalism.

It is 150 years young. Am extremely cautious of NEW beliefs and teachings that were virtually nonexistent for over 1800years of Christendom. This is no difference from Catholicism and their 'traditions'-progressive revelation

In some quarters, test of orthodoxy includes believing in Scoffield Bible.

Shdemidemi and others would do well to apply their brains to looking outside Scoffield. He did well but he is as fallible as vooks. You know you got it bad if inside EVERY scripture you quote, it has to. Be 'aligned' with Dispensationalism/Scoffield.

I was shocked when I quoted the 2Peter where Peter says Paul......and shdemidemi instinctively quoted Romans a particular verse in Scoffield marginal notes never mind the fact that it was totally irrelevant to the discussion

Dispensationalism is indoctrination and it's conclusions are ones you would NEVER arrive at unless you were specifically looking to scriptures to validate your existing beliefs. And even then, you'd need to suspend logic and adopt the. Strangest hermeneutics under the sun

oh yes!

I happened to have read someone who used to rely on the scoffield bible, before that i didn't even know it existed. The person claimed it contains fundamental errors but i have never see the said work to judge for myself.

And catholics will reject "progressive relevation" any day anytime. Catholics believe revelation ended with the apostle and they'll certainly find it uncharitable to be classed with any group that denies the authority of scripture.

vooks:
When I call Dispensationalism BS you now understand what I mean
Subscribing to this means DEFENDING 'eternal security' by irrelevancies, illogic and plain obtuseness

Any portion that contradicts this doctrine MUST at all costs be pushed into the Grace-less futiristic age called Millenium.

If you look at this discussion, it started with the assertion that Romans 9-11 are not written for Christians. Why so? Because Romans 11 specifically warns believers of being cut off, something the Dispensationalist rabidly rejects

Earlier on, Revelation which talks of 'not remove their names from the book of life' came up. Initially, the argument was Jesus WILL not remove names, sovereignty bla de bla. When this was proven faulty reasoning, Revelation is quickly discarded as being un-Church age

Hebrews 6 was quickly dismissed as Jewish. I sought to understand how the epistles audience/addressee' race overturns this logic. We were first told that they were not 'fully saved'. Semantics and word play were thrown in; TASTING was aid to imply 'temporal' given the context. Next, I sought to know whether one can receive the Holy Spirit temporarily. OT examples were given. When I insisted on NT, the argument changed. We agreed Holy Spirit baptism is not temporary.

2 Peter is Jewish. But pray let me ask. What gospel did first century Jews received? We agree it was the same as Gentiles. This means regardless of whether the epistle was written for Jews,Gentiles or both, the gospel was the same. Unless you argue that beside Paul, the other Inspired authors propagated a distorted gospel

Matthew example came in of miracle workers who are cast to hell. This attracted two dumb excuses. The first was it referred to pre-resurrection UNJUSTIFIED believers. This is nonsensical because there were FEW miracle workers before resurrection and in any case, we can presume that immediately after resurrection they were automatically justified ( I have a problem with this). SO the many that Jesus spoke of would have to be the pre-resurrection miracle workers who died BEFORE his resurrection.
Next we heard that these were miracle workers during the so called 'Grace-less Dispensation aka Millenium. But if you notice, the many also cast out demons. How do demons possess people when Satan is bound?

And finally come to Acts, when evidence of similarity between Paul and Peter is adduced, it is dismissed since 'revelation was progressive'. Peter preached faith long before Paul and Paul preached works to his death. This from the same person who quoted Peter's 'repent and be baptized' vs paul's 'believe'

The whole theological circus hinges on Eternal Security. Every scripture debunking this MUST be resisted, ignored,doubted and wished away. Dispensationalism BTW is a ruse for watering down scriptures. They know they cant beat you in Greek. So they hive off huge works Holy Spirit painstakingly inspired and push it into a utopia called Millenium

So you have first century Jews receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ which is relevant for Jews living under Moses thousands of years away

John Darby must be happy with his disciples

this is a funny gospel, i don't think calvin went this far, the basis calvinism was a misunderstanding of original sin and a presumption on predestination, calvin didn't separate scriptures into 7 despensation.

shdemidemi:
There are two sets of people- those of the spirit and those of the flesh.
Romans 8
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

There is something that occur by being one of the spirit- you start producing those fruits of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance

On the flipside you have the Adamic nature/ the flesh and its fruits which are -Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings. These are people who still live in the realm of old Adam, and know nothing of God's saving Grace.


The people who live by the flesh will definitely not see God.

and you just told me that people of the spirit may perform works of th flesh, the very same works that paul says christian should abstain from because those who do them will not inherit eternal life right?

JMAN05:
No, you made the clain that only 2nd to 4th century document is the only valid evidence. Prove that assertion and also tell us why ur encyclopedia is wrong. Waiting...

It is not a claim, it is a request based on observation, you presented ref sources that claims christmas is related to pagan celebration, i countered by addressing each festival individually, i also came across ref sources that claims this connection have no basis, you quoted encyclopedia britanica, but the same enclyclopedia was updated recently and repudated that claim.

This is what it say

This view presumes—as does the view associating the origin of Christmas on December 25 with pagan celebrations of the winter equinox—that Christians appropriated pagan names and holidays for their highest festivals.
Given the determination with which Christians combated all forms of paganism, this appears a rather dubious presumption.


as you can see britanica rejected what is previously claimed.

Why will an encyclopedia be wrong?

The answer it simple, it previous source was dubious.

shdemidemi:
It is not enough to say 'well, he also said ...'. The man clearly mentioned those he was addressing, didn't he?

I also think the most miused word in christendom is the word- 'Faith'.

If you get to this chapter to say christians can be cut off from God, that means Romans 8 which explains the work of the Holy Spirit in us is completely wrong.

Is Paul saying if we boast to the Jews then we lose our salvation as christians.. Is that what the passage is saying?

then it seems you do not understand roman 8, you should reread and read well.

shdemidemi:
He chose some by Grace--- Free gift of salvation
The Jewish nation botched it but they were never justified. However, God still have them in His plan according to promise. The promise to the churh is better, way better than the promise to the nation of Israel. The bible says they have only stumbled, they will rise as a nation when the fullness of Gentile
Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in

So when it comes to God's promise to the elect/the church, it is sealed. But the Gentile world as a whole is getting to a place where Israel was when they crucified their king. Paul was sending a message to the Gentile world and not to the saved christians.

but do you agree that the first people God "foreknew" were the isrealite?

Do you agree that the said foreknowledge didn't suffice to save them all?

Do you agree that only a remnant were?

I hope you do!

If you do then i'll see that foreknowledge doesn't guarantee glorification.

If you do i'll see that not all who were called were chosen.

If we can agree on this then maybe we can move forward.

shdemidemi:
Very possible, but that don't make them dead to the spirit, does it?.As one of the spirit you are motivated by things of the spirit just as one in the flesh is with things of the flesh. One in the flesh will hardly feel a sense of guilt while one of spirit will always be pricked by what they know about the Word.

so you say a man of the spirit can do the works of tthe flesh!

And paul says that a person who does those works shall not inherit the kingdom of God, gal 5:21.

I hope you can add 1 + 1 together.

If a justified christian can do works of the flesh, and those who do such work will not inherit eternal life, then it follows that it is possible for one who was justified to willingly greviously sin and thus lose eternal life.


What do you say dear?