Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 106

Thread: Why I Had To Apostatize

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    When people are desperately clinging to a treetop, with murky flood waters roiling beneath their feet, just inches away from death and the hereafter, the last thing they need is somebody coming by to lecture them on good citizenship. No, they don't need lectures on citizenship; they need a National Guard helicopter to lower a harness down and pull them up from that treetop. That's the redemption stage of salvation. It rescues sinners from certain death regardless of their degree of piety or depravity.

    †. Rom 5:5-10 . .While we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    . . . Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

    "His life" refers to the kind of life that God is; viz: eternal life. The reason that His life saves people is because eternal life is impervious to death. Therefore, eternal life is impervious to the wages of sin.

    †. Rom 6:23 . .The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    †. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

    Note the grammatical tense of Christ's statement: it's present tense rather than future, indicating that people who listen to his message, and believe in God who sent him, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no waiting period. People lacking eternal life, lack it because they don't listen to him; neither do they believe in God who sent him.

    ================================

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  3. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Webster's defines "immunity" as exempt; viz: free, or released from, some liability or requirement to which others are subject.

    Immunity is the current possession of all Christ's believing followers.

    †. Rom 6:14 . . For sin shall not control your destiny, for you are not under the jurisdiction of God's law, but under His grace.

    †. Rom 6:15 . . God's grace has set us free from His law's jurisdiction

    †. Rom 8:1-3 . .There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

    Gospel immunity is not the same as diplomatic immunity; wherein foreign ambassadors are exempt from prosecution by American laws. That kind of immunity is not only insulting to law-abiding citizenry, but a miscarriage of justice as well. No, the gospel's immunity is not like that. God can't turn a blind eye to people's sins without seriously compromising His own integrity. God's law has to be vindicated and enforced to its maximum extent: somebody has to pay.

    Christ's crucifixion is a "ransom" in that it satisfies debts to God's law by punishing offenders via proxy participation in Christ's execution.

    †. Rom 6:3-11 . . Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? . . For we know that our old self was crucified with him

    †. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

    †. Col 3:2-3 . . Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

    Though Christ's believing followers are dead men walking, they are alive forever more.

    †. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who heed my message, and trust in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already transferred from death into life.

    When Jesus was nailed to the cross to die for the sins of the world, God somehow-- in a way that I have yet to fully understand --counted me nailed to the cross right with him; so that on God's books, I satisfied justice that day on Calvary. True, I got through it without a scratch. But on God's books, Christ's injuries are my injuries, and his execution my execution. And since I fully expect that the Bible's God would never lower Himself to the evil practice of double jeopardy; then I fully expect that I will never again be dragged to justice for my sins. The gospel's proxy justice system is a very good deal for sinners; and a deal that is really just too good to pass up.

    The sweet part is this: once Christ's crucifixion executes a sinner, they can never commit a sin that God didn't foresee and subsequently place on the cross already; because Jesus didn't pay for their sins up to a point; no, he paid for them all the way to their grave; so, in reality, Christ's believing followers have been fully punished already for every sin that they will commit in their entire lifetime; from the first sin to the last sin. In point of fact, if his believing followers didn't die for all their sins when Christ was crucified; then they themselves will have to die for the balance later on in the lake of fire depicted at Rev 20:11-15.

    Although I have a number of legitimate reasons for apostatizing; it's mostly because Rome's way cannot, and does not, promise its followers immunity from the wrath of God; whereas Christ's way does. So, I dumped Rome's way and took up Christ's instead because his way guarantees whoever wants it a fail-safe, fool proof, human error proof, sin proof, Ten Commandments proof, God proof, Devil proof, human nature proof, stupidity proof, free of charge, no strings attached rescue from the wrath of God and full time protection from retribution.

    †. Rev 22:16-17 . . I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And let the one who hears say: Come. And let the one who is thirsty come-- let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

    ================================

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  5. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    ASSERTION: Mary was selected to be Christ's mom because she was a wonderful, ultra pious human being.

    RESPONSE: First and foremost: Christ's mother had to meet an irrevocable prerequisite that had nothing at all to do with her personality. She had to be one of David's biological grandchildren because Christ in turn had to be David's biological grandchild in order to qualify as a candidate to inherit his throne. This prerequisite was chipped in stone way back in the Old Testament in a promise that God made to David as per 2Sam 7:12-13 and Ps 132:11, cf. Acts 2:30 and Rom 1:3)

    OBJECTION: David was of the tribe of Judah. Mary was related to Elizabeth who in turn was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36)

    RESPONSE: Judah and Levi are biological brothers by means of Leah. (Gen 35:23)

    Q: So what are you saying? That "Holy Mary, Mother Of God" was a mere baby mill?

    A: Women have been milling babies since the very beginning-- it is their purpose in life; there's no shame in it.

    †. Gen 3:16 . .Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children

    †. Gen 3:20 . .And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she became the mother of all living. (cf. 1Tim 2:13-15)

    Catholicism has so mystified Christ's mom to the point where she's no longer a real-life Jewish woman with thoughts and feelings of her own. And for somebody to be ticked off because I called her a baby mill is both an oxymoron and a non sequitur.

    Perhaps my critics would prefer that men have the periods, and the bloating, and the pregnancies, and the deliveries, and the means for breast feeding. Christ's mom had all that, and I'm not even going to get into feminine hygiene and the ladies' room. I demand that Catholicism bring Christ's mom back to reality: de-mystify Joseph's wife, and make her a human being again like she was to begin with.

    ================================

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)

  7. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    It's commonly believed that Christ wasn't effected by the so-called original sin because it wasn't passed down to him by a biological father. But it's easy to debunk that theory by going back to the very beginning.

    Adam was created directly from the earth's dust. Not so Eve.

    She was created from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's side. Thus Eve wasn't a second species of h.sapiens. She was biologically just as much Adam as Adam except for gender. In other words: Eve was the flip side of the same biological coin. According to Gen 5:2, Eve is Adam the same as Adam is Adam.

    So then, human life biologically produced by Eve-- whether virgin conceived or naturally conceived --is biologically just as much Adam as Adam because the source of its mother's life is Adam.

    †. Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

    It is pretty much universally agreed among Christians that the offspring spoken of in that passage is Christ. Well; seeing as how Christ derived his life from Eve, and she in turn derived her life from Adam, then it's readily deduced that Adam is Christ's biological progenitor.

    It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't. However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of man flesh; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a sample of woman flesh. And seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would actually be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was produced from Adam's flesh.

    Bottom line: In order to qualify as one of Adam's biological descendants, a person need only be one of Eve's biological descendants: which we all are; including Christ and his mother.

    †. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

    It was the creator's deliberate design that all human life be derived from a solo specimen of human life.

    †. Acts 17:26 . . From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth

    The Greek word for "nation" is ethnos (eth'-nos) which pertains to racial diversity.

    On numerous occasions, Christ identified himself as "son of man". That title was neither new nor unique in his day. God addressed the prophet Ezekiel as "son of man" on at least 93 occasions; and in every case, the Hebrew word for man is 'adam (aw-dawm') which is the proper name of the human race God that created in the very beginning from the flesh of just one man. If Jesus Christ had not biologically descended from Adam, then he would be a bald-faced liar for calling himself son of man.

    So then; seeing as how Christ is Adam's biological progeny, then Christ, right along with all the rest of Adam's biological progeny, shares the results of tasting the forbidden fruit.

    †. Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

    †. Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners.

    Q: If Jesus Christ was made a sinner due to Adam's disobedience, then how can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?

    A: Adam's disobedience made Christ a sinner right along with his fellow men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful; viz: Christ committed no personal sins of his own (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22). We're not talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, nor about Rome's "stain" fantasy; no, we're talking about a class-action felony, so to speak.

    The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to clear his sin off the books seeing as how Adam's demise is the proper satisfaction of justice for his sin (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for his race's own personal sins is another matter.

    ================================

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (10-04-2015)

  9. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    †. Luke 1:43 . . And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

    That passage is a common proof text as scriptural evidence that Mary is the mother of God; but its a poor choice for that purpose.

    When Elizabeth made that statement, she was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41). To be consistent, the Holy Spirit would have to be in agreement with Gabriel's announcement.

    †. Luke 1:32-33 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

    To a Spirit-filled Jew like Elizabeth, the term "my Lord" doesn't mean my God; no, it means my king; viz: the ultimate Davidic monarch predicted in the Old Testament to rule over the nation of Israel from within a theocratic kingdom of peace and prosperity.

    New Testament Greek isn't classical Greek, nor is it modern Greek. It's a kind of ancient Greek called koiné, which was a lingua franca in common use during the first century. There's no formal capitalization in New Testament Greek and no punctuation either.

    Capitalizations and punctuations have been penciled in at the discretion of translators, and often reflect their own best guess, and quite possibly their own personal religious beliefs and biases too. So then "my Lord" can just as easily be translated; "my lord" and even as "my master" (cf. Matt 18:26 where a debtor addressed his king as lord, and also fell down and did obeisance).

    New Testament Greek doesn't have a glossary of precise terms for God like Old Testament Hebrew does. The Greek word kurios (koo'-ree-os) is sort of a catch-all. It can apply to God as well as to anybody who's either superior in rank, in authority, or social status (e.g. Matt 10:24, Matt 13:27, Matt 18:25, and Matt 24:45). The kurios at Luke 1:43 is the same kurios used for Abraham at 1Pet 3:6, and used for Jesus by non Spirit-filled people at least twenty times in the book of Matthew alone.

    So then, when interpreting kurios in Luke 1:43, it first needs to be remembered that Miriam and Elizabeth were both Jewish women. The religion that they each believed and practiced wasn't Catholicism, nor was it Christianity; no, their religion was Old Testament Judaism. According to their religion, it's appropriate to address the Aaronic priests, and the kings of the Davidic dynasty, as "my lord" (e.g. 1Sam 1:26, and 2Sam 4:8).

    Miriam was told that her baby would ascend the throne of its ancestor David. Thus, it was quite appropriate for a Spirit-filled Jewish woman like Elizabeth to refer to Miriam's baby as "my kurios" in recognition of its right to rule over her own self, as well as over the whole nation of Israel.

    †. Dan 7:13-14 . . In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is the one that will never be destroyed.

    Compare Psalm 110:1 and Matt 22:42-45 where David recognized his Messianic son's superior rank and called him 'adown in the Old Testament, which doesn't mean God, no, it means master-- the same word Sarah referred to Abraham in Gen 18:12, and the same word Ephron referred to Abraham in Gen 23:11-15, and the same word Rachel referred to her dad Laban in Gen 31:35.

    It's very common for non-Jews, poorly trained in Old Testament Christology, to read Christian thinking into the Bible and thus err in regards to Christ's Davidic royalty. Below is an example of an enlightened Gentile woman who knew a thing or two about Messiah's rank; and accepted his sovereignty over not only the Jews, but over herself and the entire world as well.

    †. Matt 15:21-22 . .Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying; "Have mercy on me, O lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil."

    That woman called Jesus "lord, son of David" rather than Lord son of God because she knew nothing of the so-called deity of Christ that so obsesses Catholics today. All she knew was Christ's Jewish relationship to Davidic royalty, and that is how she addressed him.

    People commonly addressed Christ by the title kurios; e.g. the promiscuous woman at the well (John 4:11). The only thing she knew about Jesus was his gender and ethnicity. He was just some Jewish guy the cat dragged in; yet she addressed him by a title that Catholicism would dearly love to assume means God in Elizabeth's statement. In that woman's case, kurios certainly did not mean God; not even close.

    ================================

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (10-04-2015)

  11. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Webster's defines an heretic as: (1) a dissenter from established church dogma; especially a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth, and (2) one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine; viz: a nonconformist.

    There are lots of Catholics right here in the USA disagreeing with Rome who would never consider themselves heretics; but that's exactly what they are anyway. The New Testament Greek word for heretic is hairetikos (hahee-ret-ee-kos') which means: a schismatic; viz: someone in your very own church who causes dissent, reformation, division, discord, disputes, and disharmony.

    In other words: heretics aren't outsiders; no, a true heretic goes to the same church you go to and professes to believe and practice the very same religion that you profess to believe and practice; viz: for Catholics, a heretic would be a professing Catholic who openly disagrees with Rome, and attempts to persuade other Catholics to follow suit; for example on issues like abortion, female priests, and LGBT marriage.

    Heresy is a serious sin; stubborn cases call for excommunication.

    †. Titus 3:10-11 . . A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

    Heresy is different than apostasy, which is defined as: renunciation of a religious faith, and/or abandonment of a previous loyalty. In other words: an apostate is a defector whereas an heretic is a dissenter.

    Q: Why can't I oppose Rome's stance on some things? Surely you don't suggest that makes me a bad Catholic. I'm just being democratic; after all: dissent is a human right.

    A: The USA is a democracy consisting of a representative form of government. Christ's church is a theocracy consisting of a monarchal form of government; viz: his church is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; but rather; it's a government of Christ, by Christ, and for Christ-- a monarch who expects nothing less than 110% loyalty from his subjects; which, relative to the pew warmer, implies submission to Rome.

    †. Matt 16:19 . . And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

    Those keys were not given to the rank and file; they were given to the hierarchy; therefore, Catholics who dissent with Rome are actually rebelling against the Christ whom Rome supposedly represents. It's a domino effect all the way to the top.

    †. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you; rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.

    Dissention within Christ's church isn't democratic; no, dissention within his church is all the same as pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping Shiva and Vishnu.

    †. 1Sam 15:23 . . For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.

    Several years ago, on Good Morning America, a Monsignor was asked by David Hartman and Joan Lunden about Catholic dissidents, and he replied: They've left the Church; and don't know it.

    †. Matt 12:30 . . He that is not with me is against me

    One of the New Testament's Greek words for "lord" is despotes (des-pot'-ace) which indicates absolute rule; viz: despotism. That word is applied to Christ in more than one location in the New Testament. Despots typically have little patience with dissenters.

    According to the May 2, 2005 issue of Newsweek, a Gallup pole taken during April 2005, on "difficult moral questions" showed that 74% of USA Catholics would follow their own conscience rather than the authority of Rome. Just 20% said they would follow Rome. Apparently 6% were undecided.

    Look; let me give that 74% a word of advice (and also that 6% who're undecided); and this coming from a 71 year-old ex Catholic who was faithful to Rome for the first 24+ years of his life. If you can't give your whole-hearted support to those whom you profess to believe hold the keys of the kingdom; then it's time to bow out. It would be far better for all concerned, yourself included, to defect and to self-excommunicate rather than to hang around causing division and attempting to reform a religion that you find impossible to support as-is.

    Catholics like that are not true Catholics at all; no, not in any sense of the word. They're hybrids; actually Protestant Catholics, who have, in spirit, already left the Church but just can't bring yourselves to step out the door and make it final.

    †. Rev 3:15-16 . . I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

    ================================

  12. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    AFFIRMATION: There is nothing wrong with traditions, so long as they are founded and based in the Bible.

    RESPONSE: That's precisely where the rub is. Many of Rome's beliefs and traditions are "based" upon the Bible rather than taken from the Bible; e.g. Hollywood movies are often based upon true stories while not being duplicates of the true stories. What I mean is: movies based upon true stories are not meant to be documentaries, but rather, the concept of the movie was obtained from a true story but typically with events and circumstances altered in such a way as to make the story appeal to a larger audience.

    An example is the 2008 movie "21" starring Kevin Spacey; about some MIT students who cleaned up in Las Vegas by counting cards at Black Jack. The story is true, but the movie version of the story isn't. It's a dramatized version of the true story. If Hollywood had told the MIT students' story true to life, it would have been dull to most of the audience.

    A good example of Rome's practice in this respect are prayers to the dead. Since the Bible encourages believers on the earth to pray for one another, Rome construes that it's even better to request prayer from believers in Heaven. That tradition of course is nowhere in the New Testament, but rather, based upon the New Testament just like Hollywood movies that are based upon true stories.

    Q: Where in the Bible do you find where it says apostolic traditions exist only in the Bible's texts? Haven't you read 2Thss 2:15?

    A: There's a cute movie out on DVD called Legally Blonde. In one of Elle's classes at college, her law teacher asked everybody a technical question. One of the female students tendered an answer and the Prof asked one of the male students if he agreed with the answer given by the female student. He did. Then the professor asked the male student if he was willing to bet his life that the answer the female gave was correct. He said yes. Then the Prof pointed to a male student in the front row and asked the first if was willing to bet the second student's life that the answer was correct.

    You see what Rome would like to do to me? It would like me to bet my own life that it's so-called Apostolic Traditions are valid. Well; let me tell them a thing or two: It's my own derriere that's on the line before God, not theirs; so if they don't mind, I prefer to take full responsibility for my own future rather than let Rome take the liberty of messing it up for me. If I'm to go to hell; I would rather it be upon my own recognizance than upon the questionable integrity of a self-proclaimed one true church.

    Around the world within the sphere of Christianity, there is one source of revelation upon which we all pretty much agree is divinely inspired; and that's the Holy Bible. It is the universal handbook for all Christians of every denomination. So then, if Rome can't make its case from the Bible— from the universally accepted Christian handbook —then I am not willing to permit Rome to risk my future upon data from questionable sources of revelation.

    The abuse of power that I see in Rome is really no different than the abuse of power prevalent in Christ's day. Jewish religious leaders had a bad habit of enforcing church-made traditions with the negative effect of making Old Testament Judaism more strict, and more cumbersome than it really is. Rome's so-called Apostolic Traditions, invented in Councils like Nicaea 1-2, Constantinople 1-2-3, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran 1-2-3-4-5, Lyons 1-2, Vienne, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vatican 1-2, have been just as effective as Judaism's traditions in making Christianity more strict, and more cumbersome than it really is while at the same time embellishing the Bible with unscriptural myths.

    Christ often clashed with his religion's authorities over their traditions; some of which actually nullified God-given Scripture (e.g. Matt 15:3, Mark 7:7-9, Mark 7:13).

    According to Matt 23:23 and Luke 11:42, Christ isn't totally against traditions just so long as they don't circumvent, replace, repeal, clash with, marginalize, nor nullify the Bible.

    For example: Christ drank wine at his final Passover meal. That element isn't stipulated in God's instructions as per the 12th chapter of Exodus. Passover wine is rabbi-given rather than God-given. But Christ went along with it anyway because the tradition is quite harmless; viz: it neither circumvents, replaces, repeals, clashes with, marginalizes, nor nullifies Passover's God-given instructions.

    Q: What about 2Thss 3:6 . . Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

    A: Unless Christians stick to the New Testament as the "tradition which he received of us" they are vulnerable to deception.

    †. Eph 4:14-15 . .Then we will no longer be like children, forever changing our minds about what we believe because someone has told us something different or because someone has cleverly lied to us and made the lie sound like the truth.

    †. 1Tim 1:3-4 . . As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths

    †. 1Tim 4:7 . . Have nothing to do with Godless myths and old wives' tales

    OBJECTION: You still didn't answer 2Thss 2:15 . .Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

    RESPONSE: The New Testament's manuscripts were obviously incomplete when Paul penned his second letter to the Thessalonian believers; and in the really early days of Christianity, the primary source of New Testament teaching wasn't from books at all, but was totally via word of mouth; viz: itinerant evangelism.

    No doubt everything that Paul and Silvanus meant to pass on to their friends as tradition, via word of mouth and/or via letters, was eventually put down in writing, authored by not only Paul and Silvanus, but also by Peter, James, John, and Jude too: as those men all preached a unified, homogenous, harmonious message (cf. Gal 1:15-2:9, 2Pet 3:15-16). And whatever's supposedly missing from the sacred texts, is dangerously subject to human error, private ambition, bias, and a fertile imagination.

    If Paul and his associates should show up here in Oregon at a speaking engagement, then I will listen to the traditions that they teach by mouth. Until that happens, I will obey his command to keep a strong grip on the traditions he and his associates taught by letter rather than what a modern hierarchy claims they taught by mouth; and I would advise everyone to do the same.

    ================================

  13. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    †. 1John 4:1 . .Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

    In order to "try" the spirits (whoever and/or whatever those spirits might be in, whether thoughts, prophets, writings, clergy, or laymen) one must first have access to an independent, non proprietary source of truth with which all other instructional materials must comply. That in itself is an impossibility for rank and file pew warmers because they depend entirely upon the integrity of Rome's magisterium for the truth-- a magisterium composed of human beings who, in reality, may be under the influence of the very spirits whom Catholics are supposed to try; but have no independent, non proprietary means to do so.

    What I'm saying is this: if the magisterium itself is the unwitting pawn of dark beings, then the rank and file are inadvertent puppets of the dark beings through their trust in the integrity of Rome's magisterium; viz: a Catholic is the perfect patsy because Rome has convinced the rank and file that the clergy alone has the truth, and convinced them that, on their own, they cannot find the truth without the clergy's help: a classic catch-22.

    In the study of logic, that's called circular reasoning; viz: pointing to Rome's own proprietary teachings to prove that it's right. That kind of evidence is inadmissible in a court of law because it's like dismissing the charges against a defendant simply by virtue of the fact that he says he didn't do it. In other words, Catholics are confident Rome has the true interpretation of The Holy Bible because Rome's teachings say it does. Thus the average pew warmer is a naive child who renders an utterly thoughtless compliance to the string-pulls of an organization which the rank and file have absolutely no way to validate except by taking its own word for it.

    Catholics may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must interpret any doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome and with Tradition.

    CCC 85 . .The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.

    To that rule, the rank and file might be inclined to retort: So what? Well; the consequence of that "so what" attitude is the destruction of conscience and integrity.

    A famous social psychology experiment published in Stanley Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience", revealed that people are too easily persuaded to compromise their integrity and suppress their own conscience while under the supervision of a higher authority. The experiment was performed with subjects who were under the impression that they were giving increasingly higher doses of electricity in 15 volt increments, wired to strangers in an adjoining room who answered questions incorrectly. The registered voltage could go as high as 420, and the person receiving them (who was of course just an actor playing a part in the experiment) would let out increasingly agonized cries from the shocks.

    Amazingly, the subjects throwing the switch would sometimes break into tears from the stress of knowingly causing a stranger undeserved pain. Others would be sweating, trembling, stuttering, or biting their lips, and some even broke into uncontrollable nervous fits of psychotic laughter like souls gone mad; but would still faithfully continue to administer what they were led to believe was pain and near-causes of death from the electric shocks jolting suffering people in the adjoining room failing to answer questions correctly. And even when the actors protested the shocks because of an existing heart condition, the electricity continued to flow because the switch operators were told they would not be held accountable if somebody should die during the experiment.

    When Nazi death camp guards were asked how they could, in all good conscience, justify abusing and killing so many innocent men, women, and children; they simply answered: "You can't blame any of us for that; we were only following orders."

    It's beyond belief, but many of those very same German guards were Christians who attended church on Sunday, sang the lovely hymns and partook the Eucharist; then during the week, impaled newborn Jewish infants-- thrown out of hospital windows --in midair on their bayonets.

    There you have the typical Catholic mentality: "It is not for me to reason why, it's only for me to faithfully comply." Thus many Catholics willingly suppress their conscience, and surrender control of their sensitivities, their reasoning, and their better judgment to the Borg-collective nerve center of a Magisterium like all good little Catholic boys and girls are supposed to do. And if The Magisterium is wrong? Well, so what? Can you really blame the rank and file? After all; they were only doing their duty; and how could God possibly condemn anybody for that?

    But that defense is not going to work at the Great White Throne event depictred at Rev 20:11-15. Nobody but nobody is going to pass the buck. If an otherwise intelligent pew warmer foolishly chooses to let others do their own thinking for them, then they will perish in a fool's death even if their own personal IQ is 200 or better.

    †. Luke 6:39 . .Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?

    ================================

  14. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    A false premise like "Rome Has Spoken" renders Rome's followers vulnerable to scotoma; which, if you've seen The Davinci Code, you know is a subconsciously induced psychological blindness caused by the mind's propensity to disregard concepts that are incongruous with deep seated, preconceived notions.

    Scotoma is a serious condition. It causes people to disregard what Christ has spoken in favor of what Rome has spoken. Curiously, they don't deliberately disregard what Christ has spoken in favor of what Rome has spoken; they actually do so without even thinking about it because scotoma is a mental weakness rather then a weakness of the will.

    For example: note the grammatical tense of Christ's statement below. It's in the present tense rather than future, indicating that people who correctly imbibe his blood, and correctly ingest his flesh, obtain eternal life right now, rather than later in the next life after they pass on.

    †. John 6:54 . .Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life

    The average pew warmer's mind will miss the grammatical tense of Christ's statement; and without even thinking push the possession of eternal life into the future because the pew warmer has had it drilled into their head ever since catechism that the afterlife is where people obtain eternal life; and there is no use in debating this issue with them because their belief is a deep-seated, preconceived notion that will resist any and all reasoning to the contrary no matter how well presented.

    Here's another example:

    †. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

    According to Christ's statement, the one possessing eternal life will never be condemned for their sins; which means they are guaranteed to persevere to the end. Ironically, the Church severely disciplines people who believe such things.

    Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16: If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

    I sincerely believe that Christ's statements qualify as special revelations. Rome doesn't agree? Well all I can say is: shame on Rome.

    †. John 3:34 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's Spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

    †. John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

    ================================

  15. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Christianity's so-called Lord's Day is sometimes confused with Judaism's weekly 7th day Sabbath; which is associated with creation. (Ex 20:8-11)

    The Lord's Day is mentioned by name only once in the entire New Testament at Rev 1:10. The Greek word for "Lord's" is kuriakos (koo-ree-ak-os') which appears in only one other verse-- 1Cor 11:20 --where it refers to a Christian ritual associated with Christ; which in turn is associated with the 1st day of the week rather than the 7th. (Acts 20:7).

    So we're probably pretty safe to assume that the Lord's Day should be on Sunday seeing as how Judaism observes its 7th day Sabbath on Saturday

    The Sabbath is mandatory for Yhvh's people because it's incorporated in a covenant that they agreed upon with God.

    †. Ex 31:13 . . Speak to the children of Israel, saying; You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am Yhvh who sanctifies you. Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you.

    Yhvh's people are in breech of covenant whenever they fail to honor their obligation to keep the sabbath; and thus incur severe covenanted penalties.

    †. Ex 31:14 . .Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.

    Christ's believing followers are not covenanted with God to keep the Sabbath; so then, for them, it isn't a mandatory obligation; and the penalties for breaking the Sabbath don't apply either because where there is no covenant, there is no breech of covenant.

    †. Rom 4:15 . .Where there is no law, neither is there violation.

    †. Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    The exception is when Christ's believing followers are residents in the land of Israel.

    †. Ex 12:49 . .The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.

    †. Lev 24:22 . .There shall be one standard for you: it shall be for the stranger as well as the native

    The Lord's Day didn't begin as a sort of Sabbath day; but merely a conveniently designated day for Christ's believing followers to assemble together for various purposes. Biblically, the Lord's Day is not a mandatory observance; though according to the RCC it is: at least for Rome's followers anyway.

    CCC 2177 . . .The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."

    ================================

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Be prepared for breakdowns with a comprehensive service contract for your Subaru. Warranty plans are available for all Subaru models including the Impreza.