Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 106

Thread: Why I Had To Apostatize

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Melchizedek was a high priest of the Most High God in the book of Genesis contemporary with Abraham. (Gen 14:18-20)

    Mel, along with Abraham, existed prior to the covenanted law that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. This is very important seeing as how according to the Bible, law enacted ex post facto isn't retroactive.

    †. Rom 4:15 . . Law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

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

    †. Gal 3:17. .The Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God.

    That being the case, then Melchizedek's constituents-- among whom was Abraham --were immune to the consequences stipulated for breaking the covenant as per Ex 34:6-7, Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69.

    Christ's priesthood is patterned after Melchizedek's (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:5-6). So then, seeing as how Melchizedek and his constituents-- which included Abraham --were immune to the curses stipulated for breaking the covenanted law, then Christ and his constituents are immune to the curses too. In a nutshell: neither Christ nor his followers can be sent to hell for breaking the Ten Commandments.

    †. 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: "He became to all those who obey him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing." (Heb 5:9-11)

    "dull" of hearing is not so much a physical impairment, nor a low IQ. The problem is indifference. For example:

    †. Heb 6:12 . . We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

    The Greek word for "lazy" in that passage is the very same word for "dull" and it has reference to a lack of enthusiasm.

    In other words: a comprehensive study of the priesthood order of Melchizedek, and as to how it relates to Christ, is not everyone's cup of tea. I daresay that most John and Jane Doe pew warmers would rather talk around it rather than actually get into the technical aspects of it-- the nuts and bolts of it; so to speak --because it's not all that entertaining; hence it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to stay awake and pay attention: which is tragic to say the least seeing as how a priesthood patterned after Melchizedek's is the cat's meow for people seeking permanent, full-time protection from the wrath of God.

    †. Heb 7:24-25 . . He, because he abides forever, holds his priesthood permanently. Hence, also, he is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

    FYI: The order of Melchizedek is a "high priest" order (Heb 2:17, Heb 5:10). Well; the Bible limits the number of high priests in office at a time to just one; and the man stays in office till he's dead before being replaced-- which of course means that Mormonism's order of Melchizedek is unbiblical: and so, for that matter, is Mormonism's order of Aaron seeing as how his was the office of a high priest too.

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

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Were you to ask John and Jane Doe pew-warmer if sinners are saved by grace; they would probably answer YES, that is; if they've been properly catechized. However, what they really mean is that grace makes it possible for them to be saved by works; viz: in their minds; Christ's crucifixion protects sinners from facing justice only if they prove themselves worthy of it.

    For example: Abraham proved himself worthy of being called God's friend, and a believer in God's promises, by offering his son Isaac as a human sacrifice.

    †. Jas 2:21-24 . . Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone?

    That passage in James' writings appears to contradict Paul's.

    †. Rom 4:1-5 . .What then can we say that Abraham found, our ancestor according to the flesh? Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

    †. Rom 5:6-10 . . For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly. Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath. Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.

    †. Eph 2:8-9 . . For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.

    Poorly-trained pew warmers are often stumped by the seeming contradiction between Paul and James; and it's usually because they're unaware that some of the same words that they use are ambiguous.

    Take for example the word "justification". It can mean acquitted of guilt, and/or it can simply mean vindication. For example if you were accused of being God's friend, and of believing His promises: would your actions prove the accusations true? Well; Abraham's could; and did.

    Another ambiguous word is "save".

    †. Jas 2:14 . . What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

    A study of "salvation" throughout the Bible reveals that it doesn't eo ipso pertain to hell and/or the wrath of God. Mostly it pertains to providence; which can be roughly defined as the benefits of God's kindly patronage; which plays out in preservation, support, guidance, and assistance, etc. The Old Testament is loaded with stories of God's providence. Well; providence is conditional. In other words: one's conduct has an effect upon the amount of kindly patronage that God sends their way. For example:

    †. Php 2:12-13 . . So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.

    The Philippian believers did not have to worry about hell. According to Php 1:1 and 1:6, they were already marked out for safety in heaven. And besides, the Paul who penned Php 2:12-13 is the very same Paul who penned Rom 4:1-5, Rom 5:6-1, and Eph 2:8-9. So in order to harmonize his writings, we simply have to conclude that Php 2:12-13 is not talking about hell and the wrath of God, but rather, about obtaining His providence.

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

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Q: I'm considering becoming a Catholic. What do you think?

    A: I strongly advise intelligent inquirers to consult non Catholic, independent sources of information about the religion of Roman Catholicism. In spiritual matters pertaining to heaven and hell; one cannot be too cautious considering the potentially grave consequences for choosing unwisely.

    Q: What's wrong with attending the Church's RCIA classes?

    A: The Church's conduct, past and present, has easily demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to be honest about itself. Seeking the truth about Catholicism from the Church is about as reliable as seeking the truth about North Korea from Kim Jong Un.

    CCC 1782 . . Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.

    That paragraph from the catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting a religion of their own personal choice. However, be aware that once you join the Catholic Church, you will be relinquishing those rights.

    You will be placed under the jurisdiction of Rome, which is a theocratic form of government with Christ supposedly at its head; and you will be expected to fully comply with everything in the Catechism, plus all of Rome's traditions, and every Bull, every Holy Day of Obligation, every Encyclical plus all of the Sermon On The Mount and everything taught in the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John; along with every ruling of Rome's Church Councils including Nicaea 1 & 2, Constantinople 1 & 2 & 3, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5, Lyons 1 & 2, Vienne, Constance, Florence, Trent, and Vaticans 1 & 2.

    In addition, you will not be permitted to either interpret, or apply, the Holy Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight.

    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. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

    Rome will have the final say in all matters pertaining to your faith and practices.

    †. 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.

    Therefore, refusal to comply with Rome's directions and decisions is rebellion against the Christ of Catholicism, and merits punishment; even to the extent of excommunication.

    †.
    Matt 18:17 . . If he refuses to listen even to the Church, treat him as you would a pagan or one who collaborates with the enemy.

    If a candidate for Roman Catholic membership is unsure that they can fully comply with all that the Church demands, and all that the Church teaches and stands for; then they might want to consider looking for a version of Christianity that's a bit more accommodating: like maybe Christ's version.

    †. Matt 11:28-30 . . Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.

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

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    †. Eph 1:13-14 . . In him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession

    According to CCC 1317, the seal is an imprinted spiritual mark or indelible character on the believer's soul. However, according to the syntax of the passage above, the seal isn't a mark or a character at all, but rather: the promised Holy Spirit.

    The koiné Greek word for "guarantee" is arrhabon (ar-hrab-ohn') which means: a pledge; which Webster's defines as: (1) security for a debt or other obligation, and (2) something given as security for the performance of an act.

    An excellent example of a pledge is located at Gen 38:15-18. Judah left his staff and his signet with a women whom he assumed to be a temple prostitute to guarantee his promise to pay her with an animal from his flocks. According to the rules of a pledge, had Judah reneged on his promise, the woman would have legal right to keep his personal items in lieu of the animal. This is exactly how quite a few pawn shops conduct their short-term loan business even to this day.

    So then, since the Holy Spirit is God's pledge in Eph 1:13-14; then, according to the principles underlying pledges, if God should renege on His promise to spare people who hear and believe the gospel, then He has to forfeit His own Spirit, and the believer gets to keep it, regardless of their eternal destiny.

    Since it would be very embarrassing for God to renege, and even more embarrassing to send somebody to hell accompanied by His spirit, then I'm sure you can see right off that once God commits; He will certainly follow through.

    †. Phlp 1:6 . . Being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

    †. 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.

    FYI: Webster's defines "never" as not ever, at no time, not in any degree, not under any condition

    Some folk are apparently of the opinion that Christ's Father has a problem with integrity. Not me. I believe that God's pledge, like His word, is His bond; viz: I have every right to detain God's spirit in custody until God makes good on His promise to pull me through to safety.

    Another application of the arrhabon pledge is commonly seen in real estate transactions.

    As anybody who's ever bought property knows, earnest money isn't a down payment; no, far from it. Although it may be applied towards the purchase price of property, earnest money itself serves a specific purpose of its own in the real estate business. In some quarters; this is also called good faith money.

    When the contract, and all the other necessary documents are submitted to Escrow, the buyer is required to also submit a token amount of the purchase price. It's usually a relatively small number of dollars compared to the full price of the property. I think ours was just $1,000 back in 1988 on a $74,000 home. When the buyer follows through on their intent to purchase the property, the good faith money (minus some Escrow fees of course) goes towards the purchase. However, if the buyer loses interest in the property and decides to renege, then they forfeit the good faith money. No doubt that's done to discourage vacillating buyers from fiddling around with other people's time and money.

    So then, since God's spirit is the Escrow deposit depicted in Eph 1:13-14; then, according to the principles underlying good faith deposits, if God should renege on His promise to spare people who hear and believe the gospel, then He forfeits; and the believer gets to keep the Holy Spirit regardless of their eternal destiny.

    There are people who actually believe the Bible's God can get away with reneging on His promises. A belief of that nature of course eo ipso insinuates that the Bible's God is capable of dishonesty and can't be trusted to make good on anything He says.

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

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    †. John 8:1-6a . .Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the Temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.

    . . .They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus; Rabbi, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?

    . . .They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

    That scene took place outdoors. Israel's covenanted law permits only Levitical priests to enter the house portion of the Temple facility. The acreage adjoining the Temple served as a sort of sacred town square, where just about anybody with the moxie and the wherewithal could set up a soap-box yeshiva and teach and/or preach, and vendors such as money changers and livestock and fowl dealers could set up for business. In those days, when Jews spoke of "God's house" the term always included the courtyard as well as the house, and the whole precinct was enclosed inside a very large retaining wall.

    Gentiles are often unaware of the Levitical restrictions controlling Temple entry and typically think of it as a church. But the rank and file did their worship outside; not inside. Their closest approach was the Altar, which was situated at the foot of steps leading up to a portico.

    Christ wasn't a member of the Sanhedrin. So his Jewish opponents didn't bring the woman to him for legal proceedings. This incident was wholly an entrapment staged only to see where Christ stood regarding the stipulations mandated in Israel's covenanted law regarding adultery; but as the woman's accusers were to soon find out, Christ was a stickler for due process.

    The covenant mandates that adulterers be put to death-- both the man and the woman --no excuses and no exceptions.

    †. Lev 20:10 . . And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

    However, the covenant requires the testimony of a minimum of at least two witnesses in capital cases.

    †. Deut 17:6-7 . . At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

    As it turned out; every one of the witnesses against the woman disqualified themselves.

    †. John 8:6-9 . . Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them: He among you without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

    . . . Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

    Consequently; the accusation was dropped.

    †. John 8:10-11 . . Jesus said to her: Woman, where are they? Does no one condemn you? And she said: No one, sir. And Jesus said: Neither do I condemn you

    You see; even if Christ had been a legitimate witness, he couldn't testify against her because the covenant requires a minimum of two witnesses in capital cases.

    Q: Isn't Christ supposed to be God; therefore knowing all things and seeing all things? Why couldn't Christ prosecute the woman in that capacity?

    A: Christ wasn't here the first time to judge-- he was here as John Q Citizen and as such wasn't authorized to come down on his fellow Jews.

    †. Luke 12:13-14 . . Someone in the crowd said to him: Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me. Jesus replied: Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?

    †. John 3:17 . . God didn't send His son into the world to condemn the world; but to spare the world through him.

    NOTE: It's fun to speculate about what Christ wrote on the ground in the incident of the woman taken in adultery. Well, as for me; I suspect it was the names of girlfriends that the woman's accusers had on the side that they thought nobody knew about. Hence when Christ said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't talking about sin in general; no, he talking about the same sin; viz: adultery.

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

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    I often encounter rational people who have logically concluded that God has set the bar too high; that He's made it humanly impossible to attain the kingdom of God; so what's the point of even trying.

    And there are others who have decided that as bad as hell might be, it would be even worse to squander this life in self denial and quite possibly end up going to hell anyway. Those people have decided that it's better to live a life of pleasure here and a life of no pleasure there, rather than run the risk of having no pleasure either place. I have to agree: that would be sad.

    A third classification of folk are in a clash of wills with God. In other words: they are so determined not to give in to God's demands that they would rather be cremated alive than do so. In their minds: giving in means God wins; which for them is not only unacceptable; but thoroughly intolerable.

    Those people are tough; just as tough as the anti-commie crowd who proudly announce: Better dead than Red, and/or the pro-gun people who defiantly announce: If you want my guns; you'll have to pry them loose from my cold, dead fingers.

    I'm not saying it's bad to be anti-commie, nor bad to be pro-gun. I'm just using those people's attitude to illustrate the bitter impasse going on between God and those who would rather reign in hell than serve in His kingdom

    Then there are people who have chosen hell over the kingdom of God because they'll be more at home in hell-- they'll fit in; but in the kingdom they'd never fit in.

    And like they say: birds of a feather flock together; viz: some prefer the company of certain kinds of rather unsavory folk; and people in the kingdom will be so heavenly minded that they'd no fun to be with at all. In addition; people in hell are free to speak their minds, and use all the purple epithets, double entendres, colorful metaphors, and F-bombs that they want; but in the kingdom, people have to be careful with their choice of words.

    So you see; for some folk hell is the better choice; and were they to end up in the kingdom of God instead; I think they would actually be very disappointed.

    You really have to kind of envy people who've made hell their choice rather than their luck. At least they know where they're going when they pass on and have mentally prepared themselves for the worst; but the approximately 1.2 billion Catholics currently working towards their salvation as per Rome's interpretation of Php 2:12-- and the approximately 8.2 million Jehovah's Witnesses doing the same --haven't a clue where they're headed. They're hoping for the best; while in the back of their minds dreading the worst because for people working towards their salvation, the kingdom of God is never a sure thing. In point of fact, the Roman catechism prohibits Catholics from taking the kingdom for granted.

    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.

    Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses who fail to adequately work towards their salvation will be cruelly heckled without mercy in hell by the very people that they at one time condemned as unfit to inherit the kingdom of God. The mockers will taunt and sing: "Hey believer! how about give us the gospel ay? Tell us about the glories of the kingdom of God." Awww-Haw-Haw-Haw Hawwww :-)

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    In the passages below, note the grammatical tense of the "have" verbs. They're in the present tense; not future, indicating that believers have eternal life right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.

    †. John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life

    †. John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

    †. 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 passed from Death into Life.

    †. 1John 5:13 . . I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

    The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's testimony, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to eternal life; Christians who currently lack it do not have God's son. In other words: they are currently quite christless.

    †. 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; and whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.

    I should think that it goes without saying that christless Christians are in grave danger of the sum of all fears.

    †. Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does no belong to Christ.

    How many christless Christians are there? Well; for starters: Roman Catholicism-- known everywhere as the largest single denomination in the world --currently consists of approximately 1.2 billion followers who all, to a man, including the Pope, insist that no one obtains eternal life till they die and cross over to the other side.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    First I'll quote one of Christ's statements; afterwards some questions and commentary related to it.

    †. John 5:24 . . Amen, amen, I say to you: whoever hears my word, and believes in the one who sent me, has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life.

    Q: What happens to born-again Christians who stop listening to Christ and stop believing in God who sent him? Do they then lose eternal life, pass back from life into death, and go on to condemnation?

    A: The question is based upon an inadequate understanding of the qualities of eternal life.

    1• Eternal life is impervious to death, decay, and the aging process; therefore its impervious to the wages of sin.

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

    †. Rom 8:2 . . For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death.

    Ergo: people with eternal life cannot pass back from life into death.

    †. John 10:27-28 . . My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.

    Webster's defines "never" as; not ever, at no time, not in any degree, not under any condition.

    2• Truly born-again Christians are incapable of rejecting Christ's message and/or disbelieving in God.

    †. 1John 3:9 . . No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Christ's version of Christianity is a lethal religion. It quite literally, in some mysterious way that I don't quite understand; put Christ's believing followers to death. Their entire existence, as natural-born human beings, went up on the cross with him.

    †. Rom 6:3 . . Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

    †. Rom 6:6 . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him

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

    †. Col 3:3 . . For you died when Christ died

    Seeing as how Christ's believing followers have already adequately satisfied justice for every sin that they will ever commit from birth to the grave; then no matter what they do from here on in; they'll never again be in the slightest danger of the lake of molten sulfur depicted at Rev 20:10-15.

    One of my biggest fears as a Roman Catholic was that something fatal would happen to me in between confessions. Well; you can just imagine my relief at discovering that people who actually do have eternal life cannot kill it by sinning in between confessions and that's because eternal life is impervious to death; therefore it is impervious to the wages of sin. If it were possible to kill eternal life in any way at all; then it would be possible to kill God.

    Christ offers a version of Christianity that guarantees a Ten Commandments proof, God proof, sin proof, Devil proof, temptation proof, fool proof, human nature proof, human error proof, fail-safe rescue from the wrath of God. It just amazes me the number of people, even those warming pews in old school Christian churches, who want nothing to do with it.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    †. John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

    The kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting Christ's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood, is eternal life.

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

    Note the tense of Christ's "has" verb in John 6:54. It's present tense rather than future, indicating that people who correctly ingest his flesh, and correctly imbibe his blood, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no waiting period.

    There has never been a time when eternal life didn't exist because it's the kind of life that sustains God; viz: eternal life always was, it always is, and it always shall be. In other words: eternal life is an imperishable kind of life that's impervious to death, decay, and the aging process. Were that not true, it would be possible to assassinate God.

    That being the case, then the kind of life obtained by correctly ingesting Christ's flesh, and correctly imbibing his blood, never wears out nor ever wears off because in order for it to wear out or wear off, it would have to die; which, by eternal life's very nature, is impossible.

    So then, once someone obtains eternal life, they never need to obtain it again seeing as how eternal life is imperishable; viz: eternal life is impervious to the wages of sin (Rom 6:23) which means that it cannot die in between confessions and/or in between doses of Eucharist.

    Christ compared his body and blood to the manna that Yhvh's people subsisted on out in the wilderness prior to their entry into the land of Canaan. Manna was a nourishing food, but it was merely an organic sustenance; viz: it was very nourishing, but it didn't have any life in it. No matter how much of the stuff that the people consumed, manna couldn't keep them alive forever. They eventually died. And the people couldn't get by on just one dose of manna; they had to consume it on a daily basis or risk starvation because that stuff was the primary staple that God provided on their journeys.

    In contrast, Christ's body and blood are far and away superior to organic sustenance. His body and blood contain life; and the quality of the life is such that people need to partake of it just once and they will live forever.

    Now, the trick to obtaining this benefit is in correctly partaking of Christ's flesh and blood. When people do it incorrectly, they fail to obtain eternal life; ergo: they pass on with only human life; which is a perishable kind of life that will not survive the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev 20:10-15.

    Q: How does one partake of Christ's body and blood correctly?

    A: Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh and blood-- literal or transubstantiated --they are going to have to first make sure it's quite dead; which of course is impossible seeing as how Christ rose from the dead with immortality. (Rom 6:9)

    The night of Christ's last Passover meal, all the men present with him were Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb 9:16-17, the new covenant wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his men were still under the jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the Old Testament: which covenant forbids Jews to eat any manner of blood (Lev 7:26-27). So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood, he would have led them into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus relegated himself to the position of the least in the kingdom of God. (Matt 26:26-28)

    Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid explanation of John 6:32-58.

    Now; the trick is: the words that Christ spoke in that section of John were cryptic. Though his words look like ordinary language and grammar; they said things that the human mind would find difficult to unravel.

    †. John 6:63 . .The words I have spoken to you are spirit

    Seeing as how Christ's words were spoken in spirit-speak; then you'd need some sort of Enigma device to translate them; or at least someone proficient in spirit-speak. That ain't me.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Avoid unexpected, expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your Suzuki. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.