Very beautiful! I appreciate how you were able to show much gentleness and mercy through this difficult topic. You brought up several valid points and had strong research to back it up! I think people don’t understand the harm to our souls that it causes, and we all need a gentle reminder of why it is wrong. Living with your boyfriend has become so normalized in our society, that it makes it very hard to not do so. Awkwardness is worth the eternity though!
People will say it’s economically smart or it’s good practice for marriage. However, the obvious answer is that people are lonely, lazy, and uneducated. They desire a relationship and are unwilling to wait. They cheapen something that is suppose to be sacred because they’d rather do what’s easy than hard, delight in pleasure than sacrifice. It’s not about starting a family but going on vacations as childless dual-income hedonists
All true, protestants agree (myself), this is foolish, sinful behavior that should not and will not be tolerated. Any leadership in youth or other ministries would be immediately removed from their office. Woman and Men need to protect their bodies minds and souls for the spouse that God has. Hormonal temptation in youth can be pronounced, but excuses obviously dont matter to a Holy God. Turn to Christ and look for a spouse early if your passions are getting the best of you. Furthermore, the statistics bear this out, people that live together before marriage have a greater chance of leaving. "why buy the cow when the milk is free" mentality. Married for 14 years now with 4 kids, Sex is excellent, but like all fires, if it is not protected and in it's place; it will burn the entire house down.
As a Protestant, your counsel should be scripture based, which in this case it is not. Try to find a verse in the entire Bible that condemns sex between two consenting single adults and actually calls it "sinful". Then read John chapter 4 and see how Jesus handled the woman at the well who was living with a man she was not married to. Don't make up your own doctrine. When the Bible is silent on a matter, we must be silent on that matter.
@@madeirafonseca6383 I agree with you that my collusions should be and are derived from scripture. Please read with me Luke 7. One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house and reclined at table. [Luk 7:36 ESV] And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, [Luk 7:37 ESV] and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. [Luk 7:38 ESV] Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." [Luk 7:39 ESV] And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "Say it, Teacher." [Luk 7:40 ESV] "A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. [Luk 7:41 ESV] When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" [Luk 7:42 ESV] Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." [Luk 7:43 ESV] Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. [Luk 7:44 ESV] You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. [Luk 7:45 ESV] You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. [Luk 7:46 ESV] Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven--for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little." [Luk 7:47 ESV] And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." [Luk 7:48 ESV] Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" [Luk 7:49 ESV] And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." [Luk 7:50 ESV] Tell me from this scripture, does Jesus condemn sexual sin or does he not? Why should we be silent on matters of sin? Where/when did that rule come into place? I think, with humility as I only know you through a comment, that this reasoning is simply to give room for sexual libertinism without respect for the God you speak to. Does Pauls command have less weight because it is Paul or, is the Bible all God's revealed word. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. [1Co 6:18 ESV]
I'm not protestant, so I don't need to live by scripture alone. Jesus never told us to. How can you say we must only listen or give counsel on Scripture when scripture doesn't tell us that. It instead tells us that the CHURCH is the pillar of truth. ( 1 Tim 3:15). Your logic is flawed.
@@GodNod Actually, the New Testament is not scripture. All of the gospels were written anonymously, and none of them claim to be eye witnesses. Paul's letters are just someone else's mail, and an early sect of believers called the Alogi reported the book of Revelation and the gospel of John were written by a gnostic named Cerinthus. No one knows who wrote the book of Hebrews, so you don't really even know who you are following. Christians and Jews agree the Old Testament is scripture, and Isa. 43:10-11 proves there is no trinity and Jesus is not a savior. It seems like _your_ logic is flawed.
@@aceyirl It's not that hard. And caving into the world doesn't fix anything. It just makes everything worse. Sure, it takes some effort and courage to do it in this society, but the truth remains.
i truly mean no disrespect here, feel free to ignore if you find these uncomfy! but as someone who grew up in a very religious environment i was wondering, why do you believe in God? i remember asking my teachers how they knew god was real and all they could say was ‘the bible tells us so’ but that always confused me because… the Quran tells muslims their beliefs, the torah to jewish ppl etc. why the christian and catholic god instead of one of the thousands of others? like, do you have any evidence at all, for why you feel the way you do? again, no disrespect is meant at all, i’m just honestly so curious as to how christian’s minds work!🫶
“How do you know God is real?” I’d like to point out that we humans have a brain capable of reasoning. There are many ways of knowing truths: directly and indirectly. How do you know historic events if you didn’t personally witness them? A: through history books which are essentially accounts of firsthand witnesses. Guess what the Bible is? Historic accounts written in various literary formats that range from the allegorical, figurative, literal, and more. There’s so much more I can say, but essentially, just as you have faith that your textbooks are true, so should your faith in Scripture and Tradition be no different (not just the Bible). Now, if you want something easier for proving God: simply look at Aquinas’ Five Proofs. Keep in mind that your disbelief isn’t the failure of Christians around you but your own lack of motivation for truth.
Hi there, thanks for commenting and for your great questions. There are many reasons why I believe. First off, it is more reasonable to believe in a God than to not believe in one. It takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian. Look around, no one can explain why we are here other than believers. No one can explain how something can come from nothing, other than a God who put it in motion. I look to reason and philosophy and it all points to evidence that there must be an intelligence behind creation. You cannot have a beautiful painting without an artist. Thus, reason alone tells us that there is some being who started it all. Reason will then tell you that this being has to be simple and always existing or else it would not be here. And then, it would would have to be good to create at all. Reason alone can provide us with the attributes of God. Now, how I get to Christianity is similar. Look at history accounts and there is no greater explanation for the conversions and martyrs in the 34th century other than Christ resurrecting from the dead. Now personally, I also take all this to heart and truly believe in the evidence behind all of this. I pray to Jesus daily and He responds daily. I have seen miracles, I have seen hundreds of unexplainable answered prayers, I have witnessed great joy and peace. And now I have this amazing relationship with Jesus, as if he was right here on earth. I have a desire to love each person in front of me as if they were Him. I would not have this love if He weren't real, if he weren't granting me the graces. So, long story short, I believe because reason backs it up, there is more evidence for Christianity than there is against, and I have personally been impacted by Jesus and what He has done in my life and I can't go back. He has proven His love to me time and time again and I owe Him my entire life. The Lord does not force Himself, ever. So I invite you friend to go to the nearest Catholic Church, go inside and pray in front of the Eucharist and pray and ask God to reveal Himself to you, and He will. I hope this helps.
Keep asking the right questions. You should not blindly believe any religion. The New Testament is filled with errors, and therefore, cannot be the inspired work of an all powerful being. You can't even get past the first chapter of the New Testament without finding errors: The gospel of Mathew was written anonymously. The writer does not identify himself anywhere in the text and writes in the third person. The writer does not claim to be an eyewitness. There is uncertainty as to the language Mathew was written in; extant texts are in Greek, but Shem Tob’s Hebrew Gospel of Mathew may be the oldest extant copy. (See “Hebrew Gospel of Mathew” by George Howard) Mat. 1:17 says the Generations are 14, 14, and 14, but if you count them in Mat. 1 they are 14, 14, and 13. Mat. 1:11-12 says Jesus came through the lineage of Jeconias, but Jaconiah was cursed in Jer. 22:30 and was told NONE of his descendants would sit on the throne of David. Mat. 1 Omits four people listed in Solomon’s lineage in 1 Chron. 3:11-15 to try and make the math come out right. (Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim) Mat. 1:23 mis-translates Isa. 7:14 which actually says a young woman (Hebrew almah) not a virgin (Hebrew betulah) The sign being given was given to King Ahaz to be fulfilled in his lifetime. The same prophecy includes a verifiable promise: (vs. 16) “…the land of the two kings whom you fear (Rezin and Pekah) will be abandoned.” 2 Kings 16:9 records the death of Rezin (732 B.C.) 2 Kings 15:30 records the death of Pekah (732 B.C.) So that prophecy was fulfilled in 732 B.C. Numbers 1:2 - Lineage is through paternal lineage, not by adoption.
@@madeirafonseca6383 You are absolutely correct, we should not blindly believe anything. Trust in Christ, however, is not blind. "The gospel of Mathew was written anonymously. The writer does not identify himself anywhere in the text and writes in the third person." Since none of the four Gospels includes the names of their authors in the original manuscripts, they are all technically anonymous. This is not surprising, since the authors likely compiled their Gospel accounts for members of their own churches, to whom they were already well known. However, historical documents from early church history provide significant insight into the Gospels' authorship. The earliest traditions of the church are unanimous in attributing the first Gospel to Matthew, the former tax collector who followed Jesus and became one of his 12 disciples. The earliest and most important of these traditions comes from the second century in the writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (c. A.D. 135), and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (c. 175). Because these early church leaders had either director or indirect contact with the apostolic community, they would have been very familiar with the Gospels' origins. Moreover, no competing traditions now exist (if they ever did) attributing Matthew's Gospel to any other author. If Matthew did not write the book, it is hard to see why the false ascription would bear the name of a relatively obscure apostle when more well-known and popular figures could have been chosen (i.e. Philip, Peter, Mary, or James). "The writer does not claim to be an eyewitness." No, he doesn't, but as mentioned above, he was likely writing to members of his own church, who would have already known he was one of the 12 disciples that followed Jesus. Emphasizing his eye witness testimony was also not Matthew's intended purpose in writing His Gospel. Matthew crafted his account to demonstrate Jesus' messianic identity, His inheritance of the Davidic kingship over Israel, and His fulfillment of the promise made to His ancestor Abraham to be a blessing to all the nations. Thus in large part Matthew's Gospel is an evangelistic tool aimed at his fellow Jews, persuading them to recognize Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah. "There is uncertainty as to the language Mathew was written in; extant texts are in Greek, but Shem Tob’s Hebrew Gospel of Mathew may be the oldest extant copy. (See “Hebrew Gospel of Mathew” by George Howard)" Matthew was likely written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, of which the differences are slim. Aramaic came into daily use with many Jews, especially those in Galilee. Matthew resided and was called in Capernaum, which is in Galilee. Irenaeus, the church leader I mentioned earlier, wrote "Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue..." "Mat. 1:17 says the Generations are 14, 14, and 14, but if you count them in Mat. 1 they are 14, 14, and 13. " Let me premise this with it's worth noting that more than 14 generations passed between each time period, Matthew does not mean ALL the generations that had lived during those times but "all" that he included in his list (for he evidently skipped some, such as three generations between Joram and Uzziah in verse 8; confer 1 Chron. 3:10-12). Perhaps for ease of memorization, perhaps for literary or symbolic symmetry, Matthew structures the genealogy to count 14 generations from each major section. (According to the Jewish practice of gematria, the giving of a numeric value to the consonants in a word, David's name would add to D + V + D or 4 + 6 + 4 = 14, and David is the 14th name on the list.) That said, some commentators count the names slightly differently, and scholars have suggested varied opinions on what Matthew may have intended to represent with the number 14. Some count David twice, some count Jechoniah twice since he lived before and after the Babylonian captivity. Even if this were, say, an "error," by no means does it discount everything else. "Mat. 1:11-12 says Jesus came through the lineage of Jeconias, but Jaconiah was cursed in Jer. 22:30 and was told NONE of his descendants would sit on the throne of David." While a natural, biological son could not therefore inherit the throne, the legal claim could still come through Jechoniah's line. That said, there are three possible solutions to this difficulty. First, the "offspring" of Jechoniah mentioned in the curse could be a limited reference to the king's own children - in otherwords his immediate offspring. On a related note, the phrase "in his lifetime" could apply to the entire verse. The curse would only be in force while the king lived. This is exactly what happened, as Jechoniah was not successful as a king (hey only reigned for three months before he surrendered to Nebuchgadnezzar's forces), and none of his sons (he had seven of them, 1 Chron. 3:17-18) reigned over Judah. A second solution concerns the virgin birth. Jesus only had one human parent, Mary. His mother of was of David's line, but not through Jechoniah (Luke 3:31). Joseph was Jesus' legal father, but not His physical one. Thus, Jesus was of royal blood through Mary, but the curse of Jechoniah stopped with Joseph. A third possible solution is that God reversed the curse on Jechoniah's family. In Jeremiah 22:24, God says that though Jechoniah was the signet ring on His right hand He would tear him off. Later in Haggai 2:23, He says He will take Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and make him like a signet ring. All three of these solutions offer a perfectly valid, noncontradictory explanation. "Mat. 1 Omits four people listed in Solomon’s lineage in 1 Chron. 3:11-15 to try and make the math come out right. (Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim)" See notes above on Matthew's structure of the Jesus' genealogy. "Mat. 1:23 mis-translates Isa. 7:14 which actually says a young woman (Hebrew almah) not a virgin (Hebrew betulah) The sign being given was given to King Ahaz to be fulfilled in his lifetime. The same prophecy includes a verifiable promise: (vs. 16) “…the land of the two kings whom you fear (Rezin and Pekah) will be abandoned.” 2 Kings 16:9 records the death of Rezin (732 B.C.) 2 Kings 15:30 records the death of Pekah (732 B.C.) So that prophecy was fulfilled in 732 B.C." Matthew 1:23 does not mistranslate Isaiah 7:14. The Greek word Parthenos ("virgin") corresponds to the Hebrew term 'almah'. So you're correct, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is 'almah' but 'almah' does not merely mean a "young woman" as you say. The Hebrew word 'almah' ("virgin" or "maiden") generally denotes an unmarried woman who is a virgin. According to The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament, the definition of 'almah' is "young woman (ripe sexually, maid or newly married)" and according to A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible, the definition of 'almah' is "a lass (as veiled or private): - damsel, maid, virgin." The ESV Bible translation renders the Hebrew 'almah' as virgin or virgins 6 times in the Old Testament: (Gen. 24:43, Ps. 68:25, Prov. 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, Song of Solomon 6:8, and in Isaiah 7:14). Moving on, let me answer your next concern. Some hold that the sign has a single fulfillment - that is, the sign points originally and solely to the birth of Jesus as the Messiah. Note the variation in reference to a "son" (Hebrew ben) in 7:14 as compared to a "boy" (Hebrew na'ar) in 7:16, further distinguishes between the child of miraculous birth and a more generic reference to a male child unrelated to the divine promise. This has the effect of separating the reference to Isaiah's day (vv. 16-17) from the fulfillment of the announced miraculous son to be born at a future time (v. 14). Others hold that the prophecy has a double fulfillment - that is, both an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah's day and a long-term fulfillment in the birth of the Messiah. Even if the prophecy does include an immediate application to the time of Ahaz, the prophecy cannot have been fulfilled completely by the birth of someone like Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isaiah 8:1-3) or by Hezekiah, as some have suggested, since 9:6 prophesies the birth of a son whose name will be "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" - a statement that could only apply to the Davidic Messiah. On this understanding, then, the prophecy of 7:14 foretells the birth of Immanuel, which was fulfilled partially in Isaiah's time but fully and finally in the person of Jesus Christ. Faithful interpreters can be found on either side of the debate, so one should not, therefore, lose sigh of the truth on which all agree: the prophet speaks authoritatively for God, fulfillment of the prophecy comes about through direct divine intervention in human history, and the sign finds its fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah, who is literally "God with us." "Numbers 1:2 - Lineage is through paternal lineage, not by adoption." The book of Numbers is primarily historical narrative. Numbers 1:2 records God instructing Moses to take a census of men ages 20 and older who are able to go to war. This is not a prescriptive verse providing instruction for how lineage / genealogies are to be listed. What else have you got? Defending God's truth is my heart and soul, I could do this all day. There isn't anything you could possibly come up with that Christianity doesn't have an answer for that is more reasonable.
@@ejfisc I'm glad you can do this all day; however, I'm going to bed now, but I will respond more later. For now, I strongly recommend you watch one video by Jews for Judaism entitled, "Why Are Christian Missionaries Wrong About Jesus". It is a very succinct information packed video. I hardly ever read books anymore because literary fluff annoys me; I can get the same information in a fraction of the time on the internet.
@@madeirafonseca6383 He also invented drugs, science and alcohol but the Devil corrupted it. Ive had sex outside marriage when Ib was younger, so Im not sinless. If God says its a sin, its a sin.
@@Jeanettesboxingchannel First of all, Satan is a servant of God; read Job. Satan had to get permission from God to mess with Job, and it was actually God that initiated the "game". I agree if God says it's a sin it's a sin, but nowhere in the Tanach did God say sex between to single consenting adults is a sin. Neither did He say Polygamy was a sin, or prostitution, or Lesbianism, or masturbation, but the Church teaches all of those are sinful; based on WHAT? Some men's opinions? Who do you wish to follow; men or God?
I agree that Christians should not cohabitate before marriage, but some of your scriptural passages and application points are misused. Purgatory is not a Biblical doctrine. A believer's works on earth will only amount to rewards in heaven, there is no need to atone for sins in purgatory because Jesus atoned for those sins on the cross.
Purgatory as seen by the Catholic Church is definitely in scripture. Purgatory to Catholics just simply means that after death, you have to be completely purified to enter heaven. Most of us, will not be perfect at death... Unless you disagree with Hebrews 12:14 that says only those with holiness can see God, or Revelation 21:27 when it says only those clean will enter Heaven. As for your other comment, Jesus indeed died for our sins, but our sins still effect us. The more we sin, the more viceful we become and the more we will have to be purified later. David had to still be punished for his sins in 2 Samuel 12:13-14. Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:26 that we will not be released until we pay every last penny. What else does that refer to? Matthew 12:36 says every idle word we say we will have to account for on the day of judgement. 2 Maccasbees 12:44-46 atoned for the dead to be free from sin (a book Luther took out of sacred scripture because he disagreed with the earliest of Christians 1500 years later...) 1 Cor 3:15 says we will be saved but only through fire, which is why Purgatory can be seen as souls being purified through fire. St. Paul even prays for his dead friend...Onesiphorus in 2 Timothy 1:16-18. How can you explain that other than his dead friend needed prayers to enter heaven? Many of my protestant friends have brought this up and are just simply not aware how scriptural the doctrine of purgatory is, I hope this helps you at least see it is very scriptural.
If you pay attention to what the Bible actually says, and just as importantly what it does not say, there will be almost no confusion in your life. Sexual sin is described in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20. When you read those chapters pay attention to what it does not say as much as what it says. When God is silent on a matter, we must be silent as well and not try to make up our own doctrine. One of the things you will notice missing from Leviticus is sex between two consenting single people. In the particular issue you are addressing, it would also be advisable to read John chapter 4 to see how Jesus responded to a woman living with a man she was not married to. (Spoiler alert: there was no condemnation)
He says go and sin no more. He doesn't condemn, but he tells her to stop, to follow Him. Jesus cares that we sin. It is what crucified Him. Sex was given for a reason: for bond 2 people for life and for procreation. The only setting this makes sense is within marriage. You cannot bind your life to someone if it's not for life, which is what marriage is. If you have sex outside of marriage, you are just lying with your body telling them you give them everything when in reality you have not. And, John 21 tells us that they could not write down everything Jesus spoke about, taught, or did. Which is why we must also look at the apostles writings and their actions because they were the ones closest to Him, who listened to Him. Just because the bible doesn't explicitly say not to do something, doesn't mean we should be silent on it. God gave us a brain for a reason, to reason. Scripture speaks explicitly as well as implicitly. It doesn't say "Don't have an abortion" but it implicitly does. The same for sex outside of marriage. 1 Cor 6:18, Eph 5:3, Matt 15:19, Rom 1:29, Heb 13:4, etc. Sexual immorality is everywhere.
@@GodNod You have created a god in your own image rather than the proper way which is for you to conform to God's image. Nowhere did the Apostles condemn sex between two consenting single adults. Some of the Patriarchs were polygamists, and God didn't have a problem with it, but now men (the Church) have decided that's not acceptable. The men you are following have put themselves in God's place.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Hebrews 13:4 "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Scripture is pretty clear that sex outside of marriage is sexually immoral, and that sexual immorality is sinful.
@@ejfisc The only problem with your argument is you didn't quote any "scripture". The New Testament is not scripture. Paul's letters are somebody else's mail. The author of Hebrews is virtually unknown to the world, so you don't even know who you are following. The gospels were written anonymously, so again, who are you following? Scripture can be identified by "God said...". Modern Christianity is just repackaged Roman paganism. You worship on Sunday instead of keeping the Sabbath because a Roman Emperor decided that was the day to worship. Therefore, you violat4e the 4th commandment 52 times a year, and you think you are honoring God. I could go on and on, but I don't want to write a book.
@madeirafonseca6383 You have created God in your own image and you create your own interpretations and definitions of the things of Scripture. You know who else twists God's Word? The Devil. Matthew 3:16-4:11 The devil twists God's words to Adam and Eve, attempting to change their memory and perspective I ask you to repent and put your faith onto Christ, the Son of God, to free you from your sins
Without Mary, Jesus wouldn’t have been here. The earliest of Christians speak about Mary’s sinless ness. The apostles of the apostles. What evidence do you have that she sinned?
@@GodNod Jesus has ALWAYS existed considering He's God (John 10:30). All things were created by Him and for Him (Colossians 1:16-17). He didn't need Mary to exist considering He created Mary. Read the Scriptures instead of listening to your priests and popes who make up their own doctrines and traditions that have nothing to do with what Jesus taught and blatantly disobey His commands. The evidence that she sinned is based on Jesus' own words in Mark 10:18 - "No one is good but God alone." Might I ask you where the Scriptures say Mary never sinned? Have you even considered how little Mary is spoken of in the Bible compared to so many others? If she were really sinless, she would be spoken of just as much as Jesus. Break free from the catholic dogma you were brought up in and follow Jesus only. Be like the Bereans who didn't blindly accept whatever they were taught, but studied the Scriptures daily to see if what they were taught was true.
@@GodNod What do you mean by "the apostles of the apostles?" Why should the words of early church members take precedence over the word of God? Nowhere in the entirety of scripture does the Bible say Mary was sinless, neither does it say the virgin that would give birth to Jesus would be or must be sinless. To say Mary was sinless is to imply Jesus is not the only human who's ever lived a sinless life. But Mary isn't God, and I'd think you'd agree with that, right? So if Mary, a human (more importantly NOT GOD), can live a perfect life, then that means Jesus' atonement was for nothing. If we as humans are capable of living a sinless life as you claim Mary did, then there was no need for Jesus to redeem us by bearing our sins on the cross.
@@GodNod It also makes no sense to say that without Mary Jesus wouldn't have been here. Do you really think that the Sovereign Creator of the universe was incapable of just popping into a human form as He pleased? No, He chose to use Mary to bring the Son into the world. That does NOT mean Mary was NECESSARY for Jesus to be brought into the world.
@@GodNod As for evidence that Mary sinned, again I say that she is not God, she is not divine. She is a human, like the rest of us. Scripture is pretty clear that all humans descended from Adam are inherently sinful. Romans 3:10
True and right, However, in todays world it is a huge risk Marrying a woman in America, because the courts are mostly in her favor, a man can lose everything. I mean everything. end up on the streets with nothing, because she decided she is not happy! or for whatever reason she divorces him, and now he has to pay alimony and or child support. Totally unfair and risky. Couples need to find out if they are compatible before they say "I Do"..
@@GodNod I married a "Christian woman" who later committed adultery and abandoned me and our two children to run off with another man. I'm convinced there are no "virtuous" women in this country anymore.
Very beautiful! I appreciate how you were able to show much gentleness and mercy through this difficult topic. You brought up several valid points and had strong research to back it up!
I think people don’t understand the harm to our souls that it causes, and we all need a gentle reminder of why it is wrong.
Living with your boyfriend has become so normalized in our society, that it makes it very hard to not do so. Awkwardness is worth the eternity though!
Thank you Dani! I completely agree!
People will say it’s economically smart or it’s good practice for marriage. However, the obvious answer is that people are lonely, lazy, and uneducated. They desire a relationship and are unwilling to wait. They cheapen something that is suppose to be sacred because they’d rather do what’s easy than hard, delight in pleasure than sacrifice. It’s not about starting a family but going on vacations as childless dual-income hedonists
It's true
All true, protestants agree (myself), this is foolish, sinful behavior that should not and will not be tolerated. Any leadership in youth or other ministries would be immediately removed from their office.
Woman and Men need to protect their bodies minds and souls for the spouse that God has. Hormonal temptation in youth can be pronounced, but excuses obviously dont matter to a Holy God.
Turn to Christ and look for a spouse early if your passions are getting the best of you.
Furthermore, the statistics bear this out, people that live together before marriage have a greater chance of leaving. "why buy the cow when the milk is free" mentality.
Married for 14 years now with 4 kids, Sex is excellent, but like all fires, if it is not protected and in it's place; it will burn the entire house down.
Praise God for your marriage and kids. Thanks for sharing!
As a Protestant, your counsel should be scripture based, which in this case it is not. Try to find a verse in the entire Bible that condemns sex between two consenting single adults and actually calls it "sinful". Then read John chapter 4 and see how Jesus handled the woman at the well who was living with a man she was not married to. Don't make up your own doctrine. When the Bible is silent on a matter, we must be silent on that matter.
@@madeirafonseca6383
I agree with you that my collusions should be and are derived from scripture. Please read with me Luke 7.
One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house and reclined at table. [Luk 7:36 ESV]
And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, [Luk 7:37 ESV]
and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. [Luk 7:38 ESV]
Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." [Luk 7:39 ESV]
And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "Say it, Teacher." [Luk 7:40 ESV]
"A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. [Luk 7:41 ESV]
When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" [Luk 7:42 ESV]
Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." [Luk 7:43 ESV]
Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. [Luk 7:44 ESV]
You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. [Luk 7:45 ESV]
You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. [Luk 7:46 ESV]
Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven--for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little." [Luk 7:47 ESV]
And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." [Luk 7:48 ESV]
Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" [Luk 7:49 ESV]
And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." [Luk 7:50 ESV]
Tell me from this scripture, does Jesus condemn sexual sin or does he not? Why should we be silent on matters of sin? Where/when did that rule come into place? I think, with humility as I only know you through a comment, that this reasoning is simply to give room for sexual libertinism without respect for the God you speak to.
Does Pauls command have less weight because it is Paul or, is the Bible all God's revealed word.
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. [1Co 6:18 ESV]
I'm not protestant, so I don't need to live by scripture alone. Jesus never told us to. How can you say we must only listen or give counsel on Scripture when scripture doesn't tell us that. It instead tells us that the CHURCH is the pillar of truth. ( 1 Tim 3:15). Your logic is flawed.
@@GodNod Actually, the New Testament is not scripture. All of the gospels were written anonymously, and none of them claim to be eye witnesses. Paul's letters are just someone else's mail, and an early sect of believers called the Alogi reported the book of Revelation and the gospel of John were written by a gnostic named Cerinthus. No one knows who wrote the book of Hebrews, so you don't really even know who you are following. Christians and Jews agree the Old Testament is scripture, and Isa. 43:10-11 proves there is no trinity and Jesus is not a savior. It seems like _your_ logic is flawed.
You need to encourage young ppl to get married. Birthrates are in the dumpster
Thanks for the recommendation. It's true, marriage is on major decline.
In this economy? 🤣
Sin is still sin even if the majority are doing it.
lol
@@GodNodAgreed
@@aceyirl It's not that hard. And caving into the world doesn't fix anything. It just makes everything worse. Sure, it takes some effort and courage to do it in this society, but the truth remains.
i truly mean no disrespect here, feel free to ignore if you find these uncomfy! but as someone who grew up in a very religious environment i was wondering, why do you believe in God? i remember asking my teachers how they knew god was real and all they could say was ‘the bible tells us so’ but that always confused me because… the Quran tells muslims their beliefs, the torah to jewish ppl etc. why the christian and catholic god instead of one of the thousands of others? like, do you have any evidence at all, for why you feel the way you do? again, no disrespect is meant at all, i’m just honestly so curious as to how christian’s minds work!🫶
“How do you know God is real?” I’d like to point out that we humans have a brain capable of reasoning. There are many ways of knowing truths: directly and indirectly. How do you know historic events if you didn’t personally witness them? A: through history books which are essentially accounts of firsthand witnesses. Guess what the Bible is? Historic accounts written in various literary formats that range from the allegorical, figurative, literal, and more.
There’s so much more I can say, but essentially, just as you have faith that your textbooks are true, so should your faith in Scripture and Tradition be no different (not just the Bible).
Now, if you want something easier for proving God: simply look at Aquinas’ Five Proofs.
Keep in mind that your disbelief isn’t the failure of Christians around you but your own lack of motivation for truth.
Hi there, thanks for commenting and for your great questions. There are many reasons why I believe. First off, it is more reasonable to believe in a God than to not believe in one. It takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian. Look around, no one can explain why we are here other than believers. No one can explain how something can come from nothing, other than a God who put it in motion. I look to reason and philosophy and it all points to evidence that there must be an intelligence behind creation. You cannot have a beautiful painting without an artist. Thus, reason alone tells us that there is some being who started it all. Reason will then tell you that this being has to be simple and always existing or else it would not be here. And then, it would would have to be good to create at all. Reason alone can provide us with the attributes of God. Now, how I get to Christianity is similar. Look at history accounts and there is no greater explanation for the conversions and martyrs in the 34th century other than Christ resurrecting from the dead. Now personally, I also take all this to heart and truly believe in the evidence behind all of this. I pray to Jesus daily and He responds daily. I have seen miracles, I have seen hundreds of unexplainable answered prayers, I have witnessed great joy and peace. And now I have this amazing relationship with Jesus, as if he was right here on earth. I have a desire to love each person in front of me as if they were Him. I would not have this love if He weren't real, if he weren't granting me the graces. So, long story short, I believe because reason backs it up, there is more evidence for Christianity than there is against, and I have personally been impacted by Jesus and what He has done in my life and I can't go back. He has proven His love to me time and time again and I owe Him my entire life. The Lord does not force Himself, ever. So I invite you friend to go to the nearest Catholic Church, go inside and pray in front of the Eucharist and pray and ask God to reveal Himself to you, and He will. I hope this helps.
Keep asking the right questions. You should not blindly believe any religion. The New Testament is filled with errors, and therefore, cannot be the inspired work of an all powerful being. You can't even get past the first chapter of the New Testament without finding errors:
The gospel of Mathew was written anonymously. The writer does not identify himself anywhere in the text and writes in the third person.
The writer does not claim to be an eyewitness.
There is uncertainty as to the language Mathew was written in; extant texts are in Greek, but Shem Tob’s Hebrew Gospel of Mathew may be the oldest extant copy. (See “Hebrew Gospel of Mathew” by George Howard)
Mat. 1:17 says the Generations are 14, 14, and 14, but if you count them in Mat. 1 they are 14, 14, and 13.
Mat. 1:11-12 says Jesus came through the lineage of Jeconias, but Jaconiah was cursed in Jer. 22:30 and was told NONE of his descendants would sit on the throne of David.
Mat. 1 Omits four people listed in Solomon’s lineage in 1 Chron. 3:11-15 to try and make the math come out right. (Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim)
Mat. 1:23 mis-translates Isa. 7:14 which actually says a young woman (Hebrew almah) not a virgin (Hebrew betulah) The sign being given was given to King Ahaz to be fulfilled in his lifetime. The same prophecy includes a verifiable promise: (vs. 16) “…the land of the two kings whom you fear (Rezin and Pekah) will be abandoned.”
2 Kings 16:9 records the death of Rezin (732 B.C.)
2 Kings 15:30 records the death of Pekah (732 B.C.)
So that prophecy was fulfilled in 732 B.C.
Numbers 1:2 - Lineage is through paternal lineage, not by adoption.
@@madeirafonseca6383 You are absolutely correct, we should not blindly believe anything. Trust in Christ, however, is not blind.
"The gospel of Mathew was written anonymously. The writer does not identify himself anywhere in the text and writes in the third person."
Since none of the four Gospels includes the names of their authors in the original manuscripts, they are all technically anonymous. This is not surprising, since the authors likely compiled their Gospel accounts for members of their own churches, to whom they were already well known. However, historical documents from early church history provide significant insight into the Gospels' authorship. The earliest traditions of the church are unanimous in attributing the first Gospel to Matthew, the former tax collector who followed Jesus and became one of his 12 disciples. The earliest and most important of these traditions comes from the second century in the writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (c. A.D. 135), and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (c. 175). Because these early church leaders had either director or indirect contact with the apostolic community, they would have been very familiar with the Gospels' origins. Moreover, no competing traditions now exist (if they ever did) attributing Matthew's Gospel to any other author. If Matthew did not write the book, it is hard to see why the false ascription would bear the name of a relatively obscure apostle when more well-known and popular figures could have been chosen (i.e. Philip, Peter, Mary, or James).
"The writer does not claim to be an eyewitness."
No, he doesn't, but as mentioned above, he was likely writing to members of his own church, who would have already known he was one of the 12 disciples that followed Jesus. Emphasizing his eye witness testimony was also not Matthew's intended purpose in writing His Gospel. Matthew crafted his account to demonstrate Jesus' messianic identity, His inheritance of the Davidic kingship over Israel, and His fulfillment of the promise made to His ancestor Abraham to be a blessing to all the nations. Thus in large part Matthew's Gospel is an evangelistic tool aimed at his fellow Jews, persuading them to recognize Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah.
"There is uncertainty as to the language Mathew was written in; extant texts are in Greek, but Shem Tob’s Hebrew Gospel of Mathew may be the oldest extant copy. (See “Hebrew Gospel of Mathew” by George Howard)"
Matthew was likely written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, of which the differences are slim. Aramaic came into daily use with many Jews, especially those in Galilee. Matthew resided and was called in Capernaum, which is in Galilee. Irenaeus, the church leader I mentioned earlier, wrote "Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue..."
"Mat. 1:17 says the Generations are 14, 14, and 14, but if you count them in Mat. 1 they are 14, 14, and 13. "
Let me premise this with it's worth noting that more than 14 generations passed between each time period, Matthew does not mean ALL the generations that had lived during those times but "all" that he included in his list (for he evidently skipped some, such as three generations between Joram and Uzziah in verse 8; confer 1 Chron. 3:10-12). Perhaps for ease of memorization, perhaps for literary or symbolic symmetry, Matthew structures the genealogy to count 14 generations from each major section. (According to the Jewish practice of gematria, the giving of a numeric value to the consonants in a word, David's name would add to D + V + D or 4 + 6 + 4 = 14, and David is the 14th name on the list.) That said, some commentators count the names slightly differently, and scholars have suggested varied opinions on what Matthew may have intended to represent with the number 14. Some count David twice, some count Jechoniah twice since he lived before and after the Babylonian captivity. Even if this were, say, an "error," by no means does it discount everything else.
"Mat. 1:11-12 says Jesus came through the lineage of Jeconias, but Jaconiah was cursed in Jer. 22:30 and was told NONE of his descendants would sit on the throne of David."
While a natural, biological son could not therefore inherit the throne, the legal claim could still come through Jechoniah's line. That said, there are three possible solutions to this difficulty. First, the "offspring" of Jechoniah mentioned in the curse could be a limited reference to the king's own children - in otherwords his immediate offspring. On a related note, the phrase "in his lifetime" could apply to the entire verse. The curse would only be in force while the king lived. This is exactly what happened, as Jechoniah was not successful as a king (hey only reigned for three months before he surrendered to Nebuchgadnezzar's forces), and none of his sons (he had seven of them, 1 Chron. 3:17-18) reigned over Judah. A second solution concerns the virgin birth. Jesus only had one human parent, Mary. His mother of was of David's line, but not through Jechoniah (Luke 3:31). Joseph was Jesus' legal father, but not His physical one. Thus, Jesus was of royal blood through Mary, but the curse of Jechoniah stopped with Joseph. A third possible solution is that God reversed the curse on Jechoniah's family. In Jeremiah 22:24, God says that though Jechoniah was the signet ring on His right hand He would tear him off. Later in Haggai 2:23, He says He will take Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and make him like a signet ring. All three of these solutions offer a perfectly valid, noncontradictory explanation.
"Mat. 1 Omits four people listed in Solomon’s lineage in 1 Chron. 3:11-15 to try and make the math come out right. (Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim)"
See notes above on Matthew's structure of the Jesus' genealogy.
"Mat. 1:23 mis-translates Isa. 7:14 which actually says a young woman (Hebrew almah) not a virgin (Hebrew betulah) The sign being given was given to King Ahaz to be fulfilled in his lifetime. The same prophecy includes a verifiable promise: (vs. 16) “…the land of the two kings whom you fear (Rezin and Pekah) will be abandoned.”
2 Kings 16:9 records the death of Rezin (732 B.C.)
2 Kings 15:30 records the death of Pekah (732 B.C.)
So that prophecy was fulfilled in 732 B.C."
Matthew 1:23 does not mistranslate Isaiah 7:14. The Greek word Parthenos ("virgin") corresponds to the Hebrew term 'almah'. So you're correct, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is 'almah' but 'almah' does not merely mean a "young woman" as you say. The Hebrew word 'almah' ("virgin" or "maiden") generally denotes an unmarried woman who is a virgin. According to The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament, the definition of 'almah' is "young woman (ripe sexually, maid or newly married)" and according to A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible, the definition of 'almah' is "a lass (as veiled or private): - damsel, maid, virgin." The ESV Bible translation renders the Hebrew 'almah' as virgin or virgins 6 times in the Old Testament: (Gen. 24:43, Ps. 68:25, Prov. 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, Song of Solomon 6:8, and in Isaiah 7:14). Moving on, let me answer your next concern. Some hold that the sign has a single fulfillment - that is, the sign points originally and solely to the birth of Jesus as the Messiah. Note the variation in reference to a "son" (Hebrew ben) in 7:14 as compared to a "boy" (Hebrew na'ar) in 7:16, further distinguishes between the child of miraculous birth and a more generic reference to a male child unrelated to the divine promise. This has the effect of separating the reference to Isaiah's day (vv. 16-17) from the fulfillment of the announced miraculous son to be born at a future time (v. 14). Others hold that the prophecy has a double fulfillment - that is, both an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah's day and a long-term fulfillment in the birth of the Messiah. Even if the prophecy does include an immediate application to the time of Ahaz, the prophecy cannot have been fulfilled completely by the birth of someone like Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isaiah 8:1-3) or by Hezekiah, as some have suggested, since 9:6 prophesies the birth of a son whose name will be "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" - a statement that could only apply to the Davidic Messiah. On this understanding, then, the prophecy of 7:14 foretells the birth of Immanuel, which was fulfilled partially in Isaiah's time but fully and finally in the person of Jesus Christ. Faithful interpreters can be found on either side of the debate, so one should not, therefore, lose sigh of the truth on which all agree: the prophet speaks authoritatively for God, fulfillment of the prophecy comes about through direct divine intervention in human history, and the sign finds its fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah, who is literally "God with us."
"Numbers 1:2 - Lineage is through paternal lineage, not by adoption."
The book of Numbers is primarily historical narrative. Numbers 1:2 records God instructing Moses to take a census of men ages 20 and older who are able to go to war. This is not a prescriptive verse providing instruction for how lineage / genealogies are to be listed.
What else have you got? Defending God's truth is my heart and soul, I could do this all day. There isn't anything you could possibly come up with that Christianity doesn't have an answer for that is more reasonable.
@@ejfisc I'm glad you can do this all day; however, I'm going to bed now, but I will respond more later. For now, I strongly recommend you watch one video by Jews for Judaism entitled, "Why Are Christian Missionaries Wrong About Jesus". It is a very succinct information packed video. I hardly ever read books anymore because literary fluff annoys me; I can get the same information in a fraction of the time on the internet.
You could live in without sex...but of course living in invites one to the sin...
sex is not a sin - God invented it.
@@madeirafonseca6383 He also invented drugs, science and alcohol but the Devil corrupted it. Ive had sex outside marriage when Ib was younger, so Im not sinless. If God says its a sin, its a sin.
No, living together creates scandal and putting yourself in a situation of temptation is a sin.
Correct, it is one of God's greatest gifts which is why there is a proper place and time for it. It can become sin if not in the right context.
@@Jeanettesboxingchannel First of all, Satan is a servant of God; read Job. Satan had to get permission from God to mess with Job, and it was actually God that initiated the "game". I agree if God says it's a sin it's a sin, but nowhere in the Tanach did God say sex between to single consenting adults is a sin. Neither did He say Polygamy was a sin, or prostitution, or Lesbianism, or masturbation, but the Church teaches all of those are sinful; based on WHAT? Some men's opinions? Who do you wish to follow; men or God?
I agree that Christians should not cohabitate before marriage, but some of your scriptural passages and application points are misused. Purgatory is not a Biblical doctrine. A believer's works on earth will only amount to rewards in heaven, there is no need to atone for sins in purgatory because Jesus atoned for those sins on the cross.
Purgatory as seen by the Catholic Church is definitely in scripture. Purgatory to Catholics just simply means that after death, you have to be completely purified to enter heaven. Most of us, will not be perfect at death... Unless you disagree with Hebrews 12:14 that says only those with holiness can see God, or Revelation 21:27 when it says only those clean will enter Heaven.
As for your other comment, Jesus indeed died for our sins, but our sins still effect us. The more we sin, the more viceful we become and the more we will have to be purified later. David had to still be punished for his sins in 2 Samuel 12:13-14. Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:26 that we will not be released until we pay every last penny. What else does that refer to? Matthew 12:36 says every idle word we say we will have to account for on the day of judgement. 2 Maccasbees 12:44-46 atoned for the dead to be free from sin (a book Luther took out of sacred scripture because he disagreed with the earliest of Christians 1500 years later...) 1 Cor 3:15 says we will be saved but only through fire, which is why Purgatory can be seen as souls being purified through fire.
St. Paul even prays for his dead friend...Onesiphorus in 2 Timothy 1:16-18. How can you explain that other than his dead friend needed prayers to enter heaven?
Many of my protestant friends have brought this up and are just simply not aware how scriptural the doctrine of purgatory is, I hope this helps you at least see it is very scriptural.
If you pay attention to what the Bible actually says, and just as importantly what it does not say, there will be almost no confusion in your life. Sexual sin is described in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20. When you read those chapters pay attention to what it does not say as much as what it says. When God is silent on a matter, we must be silent as well and not try to make up our own doctrine. One of the things you will notice missing from Leviticus is sex between two consenting single people. In the particular issue you are addressing, it would also be advisable to read John chapter 4 to see how Jesus responded to a woman living with a man she was not married to. (Spoiler alert: there was no condemnation)
He says go and sin no more. He doesn't condemn, but he tells her to stop, to follow Him. Jesus cares that we sin. It is what crucified Him. Sex was given for a reason: for bond 2 people for life and for procreation. The only setting this makes sense is within marriage. You cannot bind your life to someone if it's not for life, which is what marriage is. If you have sex outside of marriage, you are just lying with your body telling them you give them everything when in reality you have not. And, John 21 tells us that they could not write down everything Jesus spoke about, taught, or did. Which is why we must also look at the apostles writings and their actions because they were the ones closest to Him, who listened to Him. Just because the bible doesn't explicitly say not to do something, doesn't mean we should be silent on it. God gave us a brain for a reason, to reason. Scripture speaks explicitly as well as implicitly. It doesn't say "Don't have an abortion" but it implicitly does. The same for sex outside of marriage. 1 Cor 6:18, Eph 5:3, Matt 15:19, Rom 1:29, Heb 13:4, etc. Sexual immorality is everywhere.
@@GodNod You have created a god in your own image rather than the proper way which is for you to conform to God's image. Nowhere did the Apostles condemn sex between two consenting single adults. Some of the Patriarchs were polygamists, and God didn't have a problem with it, but now men (the Church) have decided that's not acceptable. The men you are following have put themselves in God's place.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Hebrews 13:4 "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."
Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Scripture is pretty clear that sex outside of marriage is sexually immoral, and that sexual immorality is sinful.
@@ejfisc The only problem with your argument is you didn't quote any "scripture". The New Testament is not scripture. Paul's letters are somebody else's mail. The author of Hebrews is virtually unknown to the world, so you don't even know who you are following. The gospels were written anonymously, so again, who are you following? Scripture can be identified by "God said...". Modern Christianity is just repackaged Roman paganism. You worship on Sunday instead of keeping the Sabbath because a Roman Emperor decided that was the day to worship. Therefore, you violat4e the 4th commandment 52 times a year, and you think you are honoring God. I could go on and on, but I don't want to write a book.
@madeirafonseca6383 You have created God in your own image and you create your own interpretations and definitions of the things of Scripture. You know who else twists God's Word? The Devil. Matthew 3:16-4:11
The devil twists God's words to Adam and Eve, attempting to change their memory and perspective
I ask you to repent and put your faith onto Christ, the Son of God, to free you from your sins
You only need a relationship with Jesus, not Mary. Mary was a sinner like everybody else.
Without Mary, Jesus wouldn’t have been here. The earliest of Christians speak about Mary’s sinless ness. The apostles of the apostles. What evidence do you have that she sinned?
@@GodNod Jesus has ALWAYS existed considering He's God (John 10:30). All things were created by Him and for Him (Colossians 1:16-17). He didn't need Mary to exist considering He created Mary. Read the Scriptures instead of listening to your priests and popes who make up their own doctrines and traditions that have nothing to do with what Jesus taught and blatantly disobey His commands. The evidence that she sinned is based on Jesus' own words in Mark 10:18 - "No one is good but God alone." Might I ask you where the Scriptures say Mary never sinned? Have you even considered how little Mary is spoken of in the Bible compared to so many others? If she were really sinless, she would be spoken of just as much as Jesus. Break free from the catholic dogma you were brought up in and follow Jesus only. Be like the Bereans who didn't blindly accept whatever they were taught, but studied the Scriptures daily to see if what they were taught was true.
@@GodNod What do you mean by "the apostles of the apostles?" Why should the words of early church members take precedence over the word of God? Nowhere in the entirety of scripture does the Bible say Mary was sinless, neither does it say the virgin that would give birth to Jesus would be or must be sinless. To say Mary was sinless is to imply Jesus is not the only human who's ever lived a sinless life. But Mary isn't God, and I'd think you'd agree with that, right? So if Mary, a human (more importantly NOT GOD), can live a perfect life, then that means Jesus' atonement was for nothing. If we as humans are capable of living a sinless life as you claim Mary did, then there was no need for Jesus to redeem us by bearing our sins on the cross.
@@GodNod It also makes no sense to say that without Mary Jesus wouldn't have been here. Do you really think that the Sovereign Creator of the universe was incapable of just popping into a human form as He pleased? No, He chose to use Mary to bring the Son into the world. That does NOT mean Mary was NECESSARY for Jesus to be brought into the world.
@@GodNod As for evidence that Mary sinned, again I say that she is not God, she is not divine. She is a human, like the rest of us. Scripture is pretty clear that all humans descended from Adam are inherently sinful. Romans 3:10
True and right, However, in todays world it is a huge risk Marrying a woman in America, because the courts are mostly in her favor, a man can lose everything. I mean everything. end up on the streets with nothing, because she decided she is not happy! or for whatever reason she divorces him, and now he has to pay alimony and or child support. Totally unfair and risky. Couples need to find out if they are compatible before they say "I Do"..
I can understand that, but that's why you marry a holy virtuous woman so none of that is a concern.
@@GodNod I married a "Christian woman" who later committed adultery and abandoned me and our two children to run off with another man. I'm convinced there are no "virtuous" women in this country anymore.
This is a very worldly excuse
I’m so sorry you went through that. That is terrible. Lord have mercy. Have hope. There are great women out there