Does John 5:24-29 contradict the belief that one must believe in Jesus to avoid eternal death?

[BreadOfLife]

I can't tell you how many times I have read this (mis)interpretation. Every single Bible translation says that Jesus had brothers. Every single one!

And your Scriptural misrepresentation is obvious. Genesis 14:14, " When Abram heard that his nephew had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan." Genesis 29:15, "Then Laban said to Jacob, “Because you are my kinsman, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?” Those two examples are enough; I won't waste my time correcting your every misinterpretation of Scripture.

Clearly you don't understand eisegesis: the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. That is clearly what you are doing. Choosing out of context verses and misinterpreting them to justify your foregone conclusion is pathetic.

Then you change the subject! You write "From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage." WISHFUL TNINKING!!! Since Jesus had brothers and sisters, as Scripture clearly says, she and Joseph had intercourse multiple times (and not every intercourse causes a pregnancy!).

Claiming that "A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus" is a clear denial of what Scripture says in multiple places. => Why are you denying the truth of God's word??? <=

Another lie: "When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph." More eisegesis, clearly reading into the Bible something that isn't there.

You are right about one thing (only) that you wrote... "your personal interpretation of Scripture leaves you in error. Jesus gave His authority to teach and preach to His Church, not to each individual personally (including you!) interpreting Scripture to fit your own desires, biases, and prejudices."

Why don't you and other Catholics accept what the Bible clearly says in multiple places??? Why do you have to invent this mythology about Mary? Among other things, it creates a false ideal of womanhood, a standard to which no woman can live up to. It idealizes virginity, as though intercourse is evil, even though there is no biblical basis for Mary being "ever virgin".

You might want to look into the doctrine of marianismo. It emphasizes the role of women as family- and home-centered; it encourages passivity, self-sacrifice, and chastity. It defines standards for the female gender role in Hispanic American folk cultures, and is strictly intertwined with machismo and Roman Catholicism.

Another definition: Marianismo is having a strong sense of femininity; it is characterized by virginity until marriage, submission to men, self-sacrifice, tolerance, and nurturance. This is highly associated with Hispanic cultures or Catholicism as it emulates the traits of “The Blessed Virgin Mary”. This term was first used in the 1970s to refer to norms concerning Latin American women. It is the counterpart of machismo which expects men to be muscular, aggressive, dominant, and sexually experienced.

Clearly, none of this is Biblical!!!

Let me start off by pointing out that several things YOU are saying aren‘t Biblical.
Namely, the idea that “Scripture CLEARLY says, she and Joseph had intercourse multiple times”, with regard to Mary.

Mary’s question to the Angel is very telling about her intention to remain a virgin:
Luke 1:34: Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to “I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had no intention of having marital relations.

I OPENLY CHALLENGE you to show me where the Bible says this – Chapter and Verse.
Contrary to YOUR charge – there is FAR more evidence in Scripture that supports Mary’s Perpetual Virginity than the idea that she had children. Let start with the so-called “siblings” of Jesus.

Bibliocally-speaking, “brother” is used FAR mor often for relationships other than uterine sibling. The word “Adelphos(oi)” is used for brother, half-brother, cousin, uncle, neighbor, fellow-believer, fellow-countryman, etc.

There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

AGAIN - 74% of the time tis NOT used for uterine siblings.

Let that sink in as you look for a SINGLE verse that says MARY had other children – or than ANY of these “Adelphoi” of Jesus was HER children.

If you want to blather on about the “named” adelphoi of Jesus (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10) they were the children of Mary’s relative – the other Mary at the foot of the cross and her husband, Clopaas/Alphaeus.

YOUR turn.

 

[Augustin56]

That's. wicked good rationalization. Either Mary is human and sinned or she is sinless and therefore, not human.

The Bible seems to make an exception for the Son of God only. I don't know the authority of those who explained to you otherwise. So, there is that.

Well, there are two types of sin in this conversation. One is Original sin, which we are all born with, except Adam and Eve, the Virgin Mary, and Jesus. And the other is actual sin, i.e., sin we willingly commit.

Keep in mind that Mary was not the first human to be born sinless. Adam and Eve started out that way, too. They were human.

Keep in mind that sin is a willful decision to disobey God. Babies and children before the age of reason cannot sin. That would be millions of humans who have not sinned (yet).

 

[Wrangler]

Well, there are two types of sin in this conversation. One is Original sin, which we are all born with, except Adam and Eve, the Virgin Mary, and Jesus.

I hear you but my point is the claim that Mary belongs on this august list is not Biblical.

And I deny she remained a virgin based on the Bible's wording "until" and reference to Jesus brothers and sisters.

 

[Augustin56]

I hear you but my point is the claim that Mary belongs on this august list is not Biblical.

And I deny she remained a virgin based on the Bible's wording "until" and reference to Jesus brothers and sisters.

Actually, it is Biblical. Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew Mary not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

• 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to until the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
• 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
• 1 Corinthians 15:25: For He (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)

With regard to "Jesus' brothers and sisters," we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.

Furthermore, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: “Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

Notice, the “James” of whom Paul was speaking was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.” He most likely would not be the “James” referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph.

Paul more likely is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this “James” was not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. Though this is a possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are referred to as “apostles” in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak. When Paul wrote about going “up to Jerusalem” to see Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he “should be running or had run in vain.” It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about “apostles” proper, or “the twelve.”

But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?

Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.


Even Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children. See his comment here:

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph, and had more children after that. . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . (That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew [1523] from Luther’s Works: vol. 45, pp. 199, 205-206, 212-213; translated by Walther I. Brandt)

So did Calvin:
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

And Zwingli:

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. (G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, 88-89, 395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522)

 

[Wrangler]

Actually, it is Biblical. Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew Mary not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus.

Not necessarily? There is nothing wrong with a wife having sex with her husband.

‘I did not look at the text until my car came to a complete and total stop.’ You want to take that to mean I never looked at the text?! Good grief.

 

[Augustin56]

Not necessarily? There is nothing wrong with a wife having sex with her husband.

‘I did not look at the text until my car came to a complete and total stop.’ You want to take that to mean I never looked at the text?! Good grief.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Mary having relations with Joseph would have been wrong. The claim is that she didn't do it and remained a perpetual virgin. The notion that she wasn't is a fairly new notion in Christianity. Even the founding fathers of Protestantism believed Mary was a perpetual virgin. This is the problem with allowing everyone to self-interpret Scripture through their own biases, prejudices, language, and culture rather than the intent of the author at the time, in his language and culture.

There is a trend in Protestantism which should be obvious from a 10,000 foot view. As time has gone by, it has continually splintered into more and more man-made, differing denomiations because someone decided that their interpretation of Scripture was correct, and all the others were wrong. And the further time goes by, the further from the original beliefs and meaning they get. There is no final authority beyond each individual and whatever crosses their mind. How can that possibly be the bulwark for the fullness of truth?

 

[Wrangler]

I don't think anyone is claiming that Mary having relations with Joseph would have been wrong. The claim is that she didn't do it and remained a perpetual virgin.

I know. It's an absurd claim on many levels, not the least of which is Scripture as I already stated. Putting aside the distraction of the sex life of a 1st century, Jewish teenager, there is nothing in Scripture stating that Mary was sinless.

 

[Raccoon1010]

John 5:24-29 esv

24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.


In verse 24 Jesus says that believers have "eternal" life.

In verse 29 Jesus says those resurrected who did "good" will have life. Notice Jesus said nothing about faith or belief.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm gleaning that believers in Jesus go straight to Heaven. Unbelievers are DEAD in the ground until their resurrection on the last day but those unbelievers that were nevertheless Godly people will remain among the living forever.

Great scripture, brings peace to my soul. I think Jesus can save people if they want to be saved.

 

[Augustin56]

I know. It's an absurd claim on many levels, not the least of which is Scripture as I already stated. Putting aside the distraction of the sex life of a 1st century, Jewish teenager, there is nothing in Scripture stating that Mary was sinless.

Not sure if I mentioned it to you (or someone else?), but yes, there is Scripture stating that Mary was sinless, although you won't catch that in an English translation. Translation into the vernacular language is more art than science. In modern languages certain words and phrases often do not easily translate from one language and culture to another, so you can imagine the problems that are sometimes present trying to translate a 2,000-year-old language into modern languages and culture.

Look at Luke 1:28, for example. Gabriel’s salutation, “Hail, full of grace,” (kaire, kecharitomene, Greek) is not an ordinary greeting. The angel doesn’t call Mary by her given name (Miryam), but instead gives her a new name or title: “full of grace.” The renaming of Mary also conveys how names communicate something that is permanent about the character of the one named (Abram changed to Abraham—Gen. 17:5, l5; Jacob changed to Israel—Gen. 32:28).

To understand the significance of this name change and how it points to Mary being conceived without sin, we look to the Greek word kecharitomene (“full of grace”), a perfect passive participle, coming from the root word charitoo, or grace, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” It denotes an action having taken place in the past, before the announcement of the angel, and one that continues throughout her existence. Understood in this way, the words of the angel “full of grace” (free from all stain of original and actual sin) extend to the moment of Mary’s conception and throughout her earthly life.

 

[Wrangler]

Not sure if I mentioned it to you (or someone else?), but yes, there is Scripture stating that Mary was sinless, although you won't catch that in an English translation. Translation into the vernacular language is more art than science. In modern languages certain words and phrases often do not easily translate from one language and culture to another, so you can imagine the problems that are sometimes present trying to translate a 2,000-year-old language into modern languages and culture.

While I agree on the difficulty of translation, I'm not buying the analysis. The Bible is renound for the quintessential standard of explicitness. God literally wrote the 10C into rock. I reject the idea that such a God also puts secrets in subtle ways. So, I don't read into the verse the exegesis conclusion you impose on it.

 

[Jim B]

I don't think anyone is claiming that Mary having relations with Joseph would have been wrong. The claim is that she didn't do it and remained a perpetual virgin. The notion that she wasn't is a fairly new notion in Christianity. Even the founding fathers of Protestantism believed Mary was a perpetual virgin. This is the problem with allowing everyone to self-interpret Scripture through their own biases, prejudices, language, and culture rather than the intent of the author at the time, in his language and culture.

There is a trend in Protestantism which should be obvious from a 10,000 foot view. As time has gone by, it has continually splintered into more and more man-made, differing denomiations because someone decided that their interpretation of Scripture was correct, and all the others were wrong. And the further time goes by, the further from the original beliefs and meaning they get. There is no final authority beyond each individual and whatever crosses their mind. How can that possibly be the bulwark for the fullness of truth?

Absolute nonsense! There is no evidence that Mary and Joseph didn't have intercourse multiple times. How else were Jesus' brothers and sisters born? Scripture clearly proves you wrong: Matthew 1:24-25, "When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Jesus."

You are clearly self-interpreting Scripture through your own bias, prejudice, language, and Catholic doctrine rather than the clear words of the author at the time, in his language and culture.

You condemn Protestantism because you blindly follow what your denomination says is the truth, whether it is based on Scripture or not. That is clearly shown by your writing "the further time goes by, the further from the original beliefs and meaning they get", as though all the false positions, false doctrinal teachings, idolatry, attributing God's works to "saints" -- all believers are saints, i.e., sanctified -- bizarre rituals and costumes of a separate priesthood (akin to the Old Testament priesthood), and claiming to be the roiginal church have even the slightest resemblance to the truth.

According to you, there is no final authority beyond the Pope and whatever crosses his mind. Guess what? He is simply a fallible human being.

Why did God give us minds? Why did He gives us the ability to think and reason? Why did He give us Scripture and the ability to read it?

You believe a man; I and others believe God!

 

[Augustin56]

While I agree on the difficulty of translation, I'm not buying the analysis. The Bible is renound for the quintessential standard of explicitness. God literally wrote the 10C into rock. I reject the idea that such a God also puts secrets in subtle ways. So, I don't read into the verse the exegesis conclusion you impose on it.

Well, Wrangler, if the Bible was so clear, please explain to me why we have so many different Protestant denominations, all claiming to read the same Bible, led by the same Holy Spirit, yet coming up to different and contrary conclusions?

For example, the Baptists hold that infant Baptism is invalid. Yet, the Lutherans hold that it is valid. Both groups read the same Bible, claim to be led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible, but come to contrary conclusions? Only one, at most, can be correct, right? But the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion, but the Spirit of Truth. Right?

I think that in the end, it comes to authority. Authority is given, not taken. Christ gave His authority to the Apostles. The Apostles gave that same authority to their successors, the bishops. Those bishops did likewise to their successor bishops, and so forth, for 2000 years now.

Otherwise, we have no sure way of knowing Christ's truth. Do you propose that Christ didn't give mankind the entirety of Divine Revelation, or some sure way to know it? I think He did. He didn't write a book to spread His truths, which would have limited it to a very tiny percentage of elite who were literate until the last 100 years or so in history. Christ established a Church to do so! He gave this Church His authority to teach, preach, and sanctify here on earth with His heavenly authority, including the authority to forgive sins.

As just one example, look at John 20:19-23, which says,

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Note that Jesus told the Apostles that as the Father sent Him, He is sending them. Well, okay. How did the Father send Jesus? With all heavenly authority, including the authority to forgive sins! Then Jesus breathed on them. Only twice in all Scripture, does God breathe on man! Once in Genesis when He breated life into Adam, and once here! Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit, then told them that whose sins you forgive are forgiven them! And whose sins you retain, they are retained!

Jesus didn't give this authority to everyone. He could have easily done it when He was preaching to the crowds. But, He didn't. Not everyone has the authority of Christ here on earth.

 

[Augustin56]

Absolute nonsense! There is no evidence that Mary and Joseph didn't have intercourse multiple times. How else were Jesus' brothers and sisters born? Scripture clearly proves you wrong: Matthew 1:24-25, "When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Jesus."

You are clearly self-interpreting Scripture through your own bias, prejudice, language, and Catholic doctrine rather than the clear words of the author at the time, in his language and culture.

You condemn Protestantism because you blindly follow what your denomination says is the truth, whether it is based on Scripture or not. That is clearly shown by your writing "the further time goes by, the further from the original beliefs and meaning they get", as though all the false positions, false doctrinal teachings, idolatry, attributing God's works to "saints" -- all believers are saints, i.e., sanctified -- bizarre rituals and costumes of a separate priesthood (akin to the Old Testament priesthood), and claiming to be the roiginal church have even the slightest resemblance to the truth.

According to you, there is no final authority beyond the Pope and whatever crosses his mind. Guess what? He is simply a fallible human being.

Why did God give us minds? Why did He gives us the ability to think and reason? Why did He give us Scripture and the ability to read it?

You believe a man; I and others believe God!

Jim, I don't claim the right to change the doctrines of Christ, and unlike you, I don't have to reinvent the theological wheel. I have the Church founded by Christ, which has His authority to preach, teach, and sanctify to tell me what the Bible that it assembled, means.

And, again, the Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the original Church founded by Christ. It is an absolute historical fact. The word denomination comes from the Latin and implies that it comes from something else. Every Protestant Church has to go through the Catholic Church to try to trace it's beliefs back to Christ. Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th centurty, and has continually splintered ever since, based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture, which they claim is the right one compared to all the other denominations. In fact, I heard of one pastor that bragged that his denomination kept their doctrines in a loose-leaf binder because they changed so often.

 

[Jim B]

Jim, I don't claim the right to change the doctrines of Christ, and unlike you, I don't have to reinvent the theological wheel. I have the Church founded by Christ, which has His authority to preach, teach, and sanctify to tell me what the Bible that it assembled, means.

And, again, the Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the original Church founded by Christ. It is an absolute historical fact. The word denomination comes from the Latin and implies that it comes from something else. Every Protestant Church has to go through the Catholic Church to try to trace it's beliefs back to Christ. Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th centurty, and has continually splintered ever since, based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture, which they claim is the right one compared to all the other denominations. In fact, I heard of one pastor that bragged that his denomination kept their doctrines in a loose-leaf binder because they changed so often.

Do we have to go through this multiple times? You write "the Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the original Church founded by Christ." Show me one single place in the Bible where the Catholic denomination is mentioned. Otherwise, stop repeating your false claim!

You seem to be able to think through things for yourself, so why can't you apply that God-given ability to matters of faith and doctrine?

Writing "Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century, and has continually splintered ever since, based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture, which they claim is the right one compared to all the other denominations" is just total nonsense! Protestantism, unlike your denomination, is based on the Bible, a.k.a., the words of God. God had to intervene after centuries of corruption (and mass murder) to rescue His believers from the false teachings and practices of your denomination. He brought His believers back to the principles written in Scripture, not the false teachings of the corrupt Catholic clergy.

Like a parrot, you keep repeating the lie that true belief cannot be based on an individual's personal interpretation of Scripture. Why did God give us the Bible? (and the ability to read and understand His Word?)

John 17:17, "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth."

 

[Wrangler]

Well, Wrangler, if the Bible was so clear, please explain to me why we have so many different Protestant denominations, all claiming to read the same Bible, led by the same Holy Spirit, yet coming up to different and contrary conclusions?

I've written many times that only Christianity has such flowering of denominations as the Holy Spirit is all things to all people so that some may be reached. There is nothing wrong with the Spirit telling you to go west and me south, etc.

Regarding different and contradictory conclusions, it's all IDOLATRY to make it come between a brother and God.

 

[Wrangler]

For example, the Baptists hold that infant Baptism is invalid. Yet, the Lutherans hold that it is valid. Both groups read the same Bible, claim to be led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible, but come to contrary conclusions?

I wise pastor said not to call things heresy that are not a salvation issue. Baptism timing is a great example of that. A little tolerance would go a long way and NOT pretend every doctrinal matter is a prompting by the Holy Spirit. Some churches are wood. Some are brick. We don't have to have a holy war over such matters.

 

[Wrangler]

Otherwise, we have no sure way of knowing Christ's truth.

Some things are true that are not Christ's truth. For instance, Florida is south of Maine. It's not in the Bible, yet it is true.

 

[Wrangler]

Not everyone has the authority of Christ here on earth.

I deny anyone now has the authority of Christ here on earth.

 

[Patrick1966]

I think Jesus can save people if they want to be saved.

Do you think that people prefer to be dead or suffering in misery rather than be in paradise?

 

[Patrick1966]

We don't have to have a holy war over such matters.

Like half the folks on here.