Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 106

Thread: Why I Had To Apostatize

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    During my years as an active Catholic, I was never actually taught to worship patron saints; but rather, to look to them for support, guidance, protection, and comfort; viz: pray to them for providence. Unfortunately, patron saints compete with God for humanity's affections; which is of course unacceptable.

    †. Deut 6:5 . .You shall love Yhvh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

    †. Mark 12:30 . .You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.

    "you shall" is neither a suggestion nor an option, no; it's mandatory.

    When people pray to celestial beings like departed saints and/or angels for providence; they're not really loving God with all their heart, all their soul, all their mind, and with all their strength. No, their loyalties are divided; viz: they're allotting God a percentage of their all, but not 100% of their all.

    A number of other gods vied for humanity's affections in Jacob's day; and out of all the available options, he selected Yhvh (contingent, in Jacob's spiritually immature mind, upon Yhvh's reliability as a provider).

    †. Gen 28:20-21 . . Jacob then made a vow, saying: If God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father's house-- Yhvh shall be my god.

    What did Jacob say? Yhvh wasn't his god up to that point? Not necessarily. It wasn't uncommon in those days for people to communicate with other gods right along with Yhvh. This practice was later strictly forbidden by the first of the Ten Commandments.

    †.
    Ex 20:1-3 . . And God spoke all these words: I am Yhvh your god, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods in my sight.

    Jacob's uncle Laban was notorious for polytheism. On the one hand, he recognized Yhvh as a legitimate deity (Gen 24:50, Gen 31:29) while on the other hand he harbored a collection of patron gods in his home (Gen 31:19, Gen 31:30). In the ancient Semitic world; patron gods were equivalent to Catholicism's patron saints-- objects of devotion; venerated as special guardians, intercessors, protectors, and/or supporters; viz: alternate sources of providence.

    Jacob's vow reflects a personal decision of his own volition to make Yhvh the sole source of his providence to the exclusion of all the other gods that people commonly looked to in his day. So Gen 28:20-21 could be paraphrased to read like this:

    "If God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father's house-- Yhvh shall be my only patron."

    So, although I didn't worship patron saints, nevertheless, I practiced polytheism just like uncle Laban because of my devotion to God's competitors rather than narrowing the field down to just the one benefactor like Jacob did.

    That was a very important milestone for Jacob; and it's a very tall obstacle for John and Jane Doe pew warmer to overcome because most of them feel far more comfortable looking to after-market providers such as Christ's mom and departed saints rather than looking to the Holy Bible's God alone for all their needs.

    Q: What about Rev 5:8 where it talks about the prayers of the saints. Doesn't that indicate they pray for us?

    A: Even if Rev 5:8 did indicate that departed saints pray for people down here on the earth, it doesn't eo ipso indicate it's okay for people on the earth to reciprocate with prayers either to them or for them.

    However, when that passage in Revelation is read with care, it's easily seen that the prayers in question are not the active prayers of saints; but rather, archived prayers.

    †. Rev 5:8 . . And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

    You see, the bowls in that passage are already full; strongly suggesting that those particular prayers were prayed in this life; not in the next; and it also indicates that no new prayers will fit in the bowls because they are already to capacity.

    The details of the prayers in those bowls aren't stated; so it would be purely conjecture to allege they're intercessory prayers. It's likely the current prayers of departed saints are for justice and vindication (e.g. Rev 6:10).

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

  2. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by WebersHome View Post
    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.
    Cool! So, we can walk after the flesh (breaking the 10 Commandments would constitute that) and still go to Heaven?

    And, did you not know that the 10 Commandments are also found... as Commandments... in the New Covenant?
    ( see - http://livingfaithforum.com/forum/sh...-New-Testament )

    Romans 8:13,14
    For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
    For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.


    God cannot accept those that are workers of iniquity because THEY have turned away from the Lord... it isn't the Lord leaving them or not honoring what Jesus did at the Cross, no it's people that allow the Word to be choked out of them (see Mark 4:14-20), and also take note of what Jesus said in John 15 about those IN HIM (talking about those who have been born again and are IN CHRIST) who bare no fruit, the Father takes away.

    What about Hebrews 12 where the Lord says (thru the writer of Hebrews, this is God's Word) those that do not accept His correction are bastards... rejecting God's correction is rejecting His leading thus rejecting Him as your LORD.

    Yeah, too many things in the New Testament that clearly teach that mankind can actually lose their salvation if they allow other things to be first in their life which would be practicing idolatry.

    2 Corinthians 6:16,17
    And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God has said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God (Lord, not just Savior), and they shall be My people....Therefore come out from among them, and be separate, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

    This scripture is why God created us... and those that refuse to allow Him to live and walk in them are rejecting Him and since we reap what we sow and God cannot be mocked (Gal 6:7,8) if we reject Him... according to His own Word He must reject us!

    James 4:4
    Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

    Too many Christians these days believe in OSAS and as a result have become enemies of God without even knowing it being workers of iniquity to which the Lord will tell them to depart from Him.

    Good luck with that extreme grace business and that's what OSAS is and it's where extreme grace came from.... this is why God said there would be a great falling away, and people would not endure sound doctrine, and would heap to themselves teachers having itching ears cause they want to hear they can walk after the flesh and the things of this world and still be OK!

    Deception is running rampant and it's only getting worse, so those that do not believe the entire New Testament... instead of just parts of it, are opening themselves to deception because a partial Gospel is a false gospel.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    You should add John 15:1-6 and Rom 11:20-22 to your list of anti OSAS proof texts. They seem to work pretty good.

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

  4. #74
    Oh, that was not my entire list...

    Several years back I started hearing about the controversy between extreme grace people and those that believe God gave man authority / responsibility for his own actions and it set me on a study. I've got a boatload of study notes on this and yes I've listened to both sides of the argument to see what scriptures each side is using to make their case.

    Before that I was kinda like Copeland used to say when they asked him if he was OSAS to which he would reply, "I don't want out, so it's a none issue for me"

    But, seeing God's warnings concerning the end times falling away... satan is up to something with these TV preachers as their seems to be a OSAS common thread among most of these guys and they don't come out and say it directly, but they do leave the implication that regardless of how you live or what you do... you'll go to Heaven anyway.

    I cannot even talk to my own pastors now because of this... if I do, correction will come out and the Word says we should not correct our elders so I would be out of line to discuss this.

    Not that it matters... they've got access to God's Word and God's Spirit.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    It needs to be pointed out that God's spirit, the custodian of sacred writ, put the focus upon Mary's virginity at the time of Christ's birth, and leaves her virginity after Christ's birth an unsolved mystery.

    In a nutshell, Catholicism's dogma on the perpetual virginity of Joseph's wife is nothing less than a shameful rumor. There is not one shred of inspired New Testament evidence that clearly, and without ambiguity, supports such a theory; Rome pulled it right out of thin air just like they've done with so many others of its Traditions.

    Some go so far as to say that Christ's followers have always believed in Mary's perpetual virginity; citing the teachings and beliefs of an elite group that they piously label church fathers a.k.a. patristic fathers. But the beliefs and opinions of so-called church fathers should never be granted a higher credibility than apostolic revelation. And along with that axiom is that antiquity is no guarantee that a particular belief is valid; because even while the apostles were still alive, even in their own day, professing Christians were already starting apostate movements. (e.g. Gal 1:6-9, 2Tim 2:15-18, 1John 2:18-19, Jud 1:17-19)

    The normal round of human experience will not support Mary's so-called perpetual virginity; nor will the Bible's inspired record.

    According to the New Testament; Joseph and his best girl were already engaged to be married before either one of them were informed about a somebody coming named Jesus. Since Mary was already engaged prior to Gabriel's announcement in Luke 1:26-38; the logical conclusion is that she was marrying a Jewish guy for the usual reasons that Jewish girls want a Jewish husband-- to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish man, and raise a Jewish family of her own.

    And since Joseph was already engaged to his best girl prior to the dream sequence in Matt 1:18-15, the logical conclusion is that he was marrying a Jewish girl for the usual reasons that Jewish guys want a Jewish wife-- to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish woman, and raise a Jewish family of his own.

    If people never get anything else out of the Gospel narratives, I hope they can at least appreciate that Joseph and his best girl were both Israelis who lived in an ancient Jewish culture-- a culture about which most Gentiles haven't a clue; and I seriously doubt a normal Jewish couple in that era would plan to wed with the full intent of living a 100% platonic union in a community where such a practice was culturally an embarrassment; for example:

    †. Luke 1:23-25 . .When Zachariah's time of service was completed, he returned home. After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant; and for five months remained in seclusion. The Lord has done this for me; she said. In these days He has shown His favor and taken away my disgrace among the people.

    Had Joseph and his wife deliberately entered a 100% platonic marriage then they would have failed to appropriate the blessing of procreation and assist in earth's subjugation.

    †. Gen 1:27 . .God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.

    A Jewish man with no children of his own loses out on a particular blessing.

    †. Ps 127:3-5 . . Sons are a heritage from Yhvh: children His reward. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.

    A deliberate platonic marriage is unthinkable to conscientious Jews as it would fail to contribute to the fulfillment of their ancestor Abraham's blessing.

    †. Gen 22:17 . . I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.

    The real question is not whether Joseph and Jesus' mom produced children of their own. No, the real question is: Did they, or did they not, sleep together and try to produce children of their own?

    Whether they succeeded in producing children of their own is irrelevant; and any arguments that go in that direction are nothing less than red herrings because even if it could be proven beyond even the slightest reservation that Joseph and his wife had no children of their own; their barren marriage would not be an eo ipso, air-tight indication that they didn't at least try to have children of their own.

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

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    †. 2Pet 1:20 . . Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation

    That verse is easily interpreted by merely reading the information that accompanies it.

    †. 2Pet 1:21 . . for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

    You see: Peter isn't saying that John and Jane Doe pew warmer can't possibly understand the Old Testament on their own; he's merely saying that the books of the Old Testaments aren't the product of a fertile imagination and/or somebody's creative writing skills like Steven King and/or Stephanie Meyer and Beatrix Potter.

    When the language and grammar of 2Pet 1:20-21 are carefully examined; it's readily seen that what Peter is actually talking about is not the understanding of prophecy, but rather; the origin of prophecy

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

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    CLAIM: There would be no Bible but for the Roman Catholic Church.

    RESPONSE: That is a good example of the political axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, anon it will be accepted as truth. It is totally false to say there would be no Bible but for the Catholic Church. The Old Testament canon was already completed and in wide-spread circulation throughout the Greek and Roman worlds way before Jesus himself was even born.

    Nazi Germany introduced the world to rocket science; and by it America transported men to the moon and built an ICBM national defense system. Does that validate Nazi Socialism as a good political system? Of course not. While Nazi Germany may have pioneered rocket science; it's well to remember that the Roman Catholic Church did not pioneer either the Old nor the New Testament. Constantine's panel merely condensed an already-existing abundance of early Christian manuscripts that the Roman Catholic Church itself did not author; and his motives were far more political than spiritual. The man was a pig; and his panel chairman a tyrannical bully.

    Modern Christian scholars of all denominations accept the existing New Testament not because it was compiled by Catholic authorities, but because they're own independent investigations have led them to conclude (as did Constantine's panel) that extant manuscripts of the New Testament scriptures are valid reproductions of the inspired originals.

    Constantine himself didn't actually become a Christian until he was an old man on his death bed. Although he didn't submit to Christianity's Christ during his active years of life; he did manage to change the laws of his kingdom so that it was no longer illegal to be a Christian within his jurisdiction: which was quite prudent of him given that Christians were multiplying and might have turned to rebellion. But rivalry and agitation amongst the Christians themselves was a far greater problem.

    It's a well known political principle that a nation divided in its religion cannot be unified in its politics. It was Constantine's hope that a universal Christian handbook would unify the Christian factions in his kingdom; subsequently bringing about an improved domestic tranquility. You can see how Islam's factions are causing serious problems over in Iraq. If someone could just find a way to unify Muslims, the entire Mid-East would benefit considerably.

    Rome has been very good at conquering people, and at forcing people to take up its religion; but it has utterly failed to unify people's minds. Rome may subdue people, it may subjugate them and control them, it may torture and abuse them, and it may oppress them, but that doesn't mean it won them. Catholicism its very own self is infected with schism. It has failed to unify itself, let alone unify the rest of Christendom.

    OBJECTION: How can you possibly think that God would let someone that you label a "pig" be responsible for one of the holiest compilation of documents to ever be introduced into the world of men?!

    RESPONSE: While I'm answering that objection, keep in mind that Constantine himself did not author the documents compiled in the New Testament, nor did anybody on his committee.

    Have you ever considered the operation of the holiest sacrifice for sins ever offered in the world of men: Jesus Christ's crucifixion? Was he crucified by Christian holy men? Was he crucified by Jewish holy men? No, Jesus Christ was sacrificed for the world's sins by a pagan Roman governor's pagan Roman military garrison.

    And the Temple, the one that existed in Jerusalem in Christ's day, wasn't built under the auspices of a Jewish holy man, nor of a Christian holy man; but rather, a heathen pagan named Cyrus, king of Persia (Ez 1:1-4). That same Temple was later remodeled and beautified not by a Jewish holy man, nor by a Christian holy man, but by a bloody heathen named Herod The Great, the very same Herod who ordered the wholesale slaughter of all the little Jewish children two-years old and under (Matt 2:16). Herod's Temple was labeled by Jesus as "my Father's house" (John 2:16) and was the very one he zealously purged of merchants and their wares.

    Let that be a lesson; God oftentimes uses means that the world of men consider inappropriate. After all, it was a promiscuous slut who helped Joshua's scouts escape detection in Jericho. You know what became of her? Well; after the campaign, she married a Jewish guy named Salmon, and of them came Boaz, who married Ruth, which led to David, and eventually to the holiest human being this planet has ever hosted: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Son of Man. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    And oh! My favorite is the naughty lady by the well of Samaria who was married five times and shacking up with a guy when she and Jesus met. It was to her that he revealed the nature of the "water" of John 3:5. To this good day, educated Xian theologians professing to be Christ's followers still squabble over the precise nature and purpose of that water; while she got it straight from the horse's mouth.

    Ironically, most Catholics are far more influenced in their religious thinking by the Roman Catechism than by the 27 manuscripts Constantine's committee chose for a New Testament. When the average Catholic is introduced to New Testament Christianity for the first time, very often they don't recognize it as New Testament Christianity; and readily dismiss it as Protestant heresy because the New Testament clearly does not harmonize with Rome's Catechism; and in point of fact, the Catechism all too often actually contradicts the Bible; in addition to seriously embellishing it; making Christianity more strict, and more cumbersome, than it really is; just as Judaism's traditions did in Christ's day.

    Below is a book I highly recommend to anybody curious about the origin of the Bible. It's a small book, approximately 5½ x 8½ of 224 pages counting the index and the notes. The font is roughly Courier New size 11 which is large enough to be easily read by most folks.

    How We Got The Bible
    By Neil R. Lightfoot
    ISBN-10: 1-56731-722-7
    ISBN-13: 978-1-56731-722-0

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

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Rome has constructed for itself a papal tree showing its own succession all the way back to Peter. But man-made successions aren't reliable, and should never be trusted by serious students of the Holy Bible; because even while the apostles were still alive, even in their own day, there were professing Christians already breaking away and starting apostate movements (e.g. Gal 1:6-9, 1Tim 1:3-4, 2Tim 2:15-18, 1John 2:18-19, Jud 1:17-19).

    Those early apostates could easily show that their own hierarchical successions connected to Peter; who was actually just a few steps away. In fact, their distance from Peter was very short, shorter by more than 1,900 years than it is today. I believe the Roman Church to be the end product of some of those early apostates.

    OBJECTION: That couldn't be because the purpose of those passages in the apostles' epistles was to expose the errors of the time so that people wouldn't follow the apostates.

    RESPONSE: The epistles weren't sent out to the world at large; like as if there were millions of copies run off the presses and shipped out to news stands, television stations, radio stations, and book stores in every city and country. No, the epistles were hand-written letters sent by courier only to designated recipients. The world at large didn't have a clue, nor would it have cared anyway even if it had access to those letters. Just because those early apostates were "exposed", do you really think that stopped them from proliferating?

    Apostate movements grow at astounding rates in spite of the now wide spread availability of New Testaments. For example, Mormonism has grown from just one man in 1820 to approximately 9.37 million in 2015; and that figure doesn't even factor in the numbers of Mormons who have lived and died during the 195 years since the Mormon Church was founded. Those 9.37 million Mormons are those of today, not the past. Mormonism's belief system incorporates the New Testament, including every one of those epistles I referenced above. In point of fact, the Mormon Church offers free Bibles to anybody who requests one.

    The Watch Tower Society (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses) has grown from one man in 1881 to approximately 8.2 million in 2015; and that figure doesn't factor in the numbers of Watch Tower Society members who have come and gone during the 134 years since the movement began. The Society bases its Christology on the New Testament.

    The Roman papacy has had its humorous moments. It's a historical fact that at one time there were no less than three different "infallible" popes all in power at the same time.

    In the 14th century a division occurred in the Church of Rome, and the two factions vied for superiority. One faction officially elected Pope Urban VI as the infallible Head of the Church, while the other party elected Pope Clement VII as the infallible Head of the Church.

    That put two infallible Popes in power opposing each other. Pope Urban VI was succeeded by Boniface IX in 1389 and later Pope Gregory XII. Pope Clement VII-- called, historically, the Anti-Pope --was succeeded by Pope Benedictine XIII in 1394. Then in 1409 a third party of reactionaries, claiming to represent the true Church, elected Pope Alexander V as head of the Roman hierarchy. Voilà. A triune papacy.

    Then, in June, 1409, the infallible Pope Alexander V officially excommunicated the other two infallible Popes, and gradually the incident was resolved. For an interesting discussion of this historical account see the Encyclopedia Britannica under the article on "The Papacy".

    That, however, was not the only time when the Roman Church had more than one infallible head. In 1058 Pope Benedict X was elected, but another faction elected Pope Nicholas II. The feud between these two opposing infallible Popes resulted in the expulsion of Pope Benedict and the selection of Nicholas II as supreme head of the Church.

    What is so ironic about Rome's past is that modern Catholicism is constantly going on about Protestant schism while its own infallible papacy was so bitterly divided in the past.

    NOTE: Were the Holy Ghost really leading Rome in its selection of Popes; there would never be a divided vote when the college of cardinals meets in conclave. Popes are elected based upon a 2/3 majority rather than unanimous approval. Makes me wonder who the Holy Ghost is leading: the minority vote or the majority; or quite possibly neither.

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

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Although I don't recommend Rome's interpretations of the New Testament; I highly recommend its current English translation; the New American Bible. You do understand what I mean by an interpretation as opposed to a translation?

    Translations move the words and expressions of one language into another language. But interpretations are a whole different animal. They are attempts to explain what the Bible means— sometimes regardless of what the text actually says in writing.

    Members of cult religions— e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons —readily attest that they believe the Bible; when in reality they don't believe the Bible itself, but rather, they believe what their clergy says the Bible means. This can also be said of rank and file Catholics. They too readily attest that they believe the Bible; when in reality they don't believe the Bible itself, but rather, they believe what their clergy says the Bible means.

    During an encounter with a Baptist man back in 1968, I was amazed to learn from him that all Christian Bibles say pretty much the very same things. True, the sayings aren't verbatim duplicates in all Bibles; but that's to be expected when the English language has at its own disposal such a vast storehouse of so many synonyms to work with; and when the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages are themselves sometimes extremely ambiguous. There are ancient Hebrew words that, to this day, nobody really knows what they mean, so translators just take their best shot. However; as long as the original information isn't lost in the process, the words selected by translators can be flexible. Here's an example:

    In the Douay Rheims version, Romans 5:18 reads like this:

    "By the offense of the one man the result was unto condemnation to all men, so from the justice of the one the result is unto justification of life to all men."

    In Rome's current official version, the New American Bible (NAB), that same verse reads like this:

    "In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all."

    You see how the NAB substituted the word acquittal for the D-R's justification? Although justification and acquittal are both accurate enough translations of the Greek word dikaioma, acquittal is the better choice seeing as how Webster's defines it as a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process; i.e. to render, or pronounce, innocent. Viz: Christ's crucifixion was an act of criminal justice that looses sinners from any, and all, criminal charges God holds against them.

    Therefore, through Christ's crucifixion, I'm now an acquitted man. In response to my God-granted acquittal; I fully agree with the angel's announcement at Luke 2:10, that Christ's arrival was certainly good news of great joy!

    If you knew for certain that God has permanently loosed you from any, and all, charges held against you— and/or ever will accumulate against you — wouldn't you be happy about it? I think you would, because the benefits of such an acquittal are immediately apparent: You, my friend, would never again be in danger of eternal suffering.

    †. 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.

    An interesting aspect of this particular acquittal is that, according to Rom 5:6-20, it's effects are similar to how Adam's one sin made all men sinners. In like manner, Christ's one crucifixion has the potential to make all men innocent.

    This is a one-time kind of acquittal just as Adam's sin was a one-time kind of condemnation. So that it isn't necessary to keep seeking acquittal after acquittal for your sins. No, you get this special acquittal only just the one time and you don't need to get it again any more than you can expect to get Adam's condemnation again and again. Adam's act, and its consequences, is the model that clarifies Christ's act and its consequences.

    Romans 5:6-20 has probably been responsible for producing more ex Catholics than any other passage in the Bible. Just about every ex I've spoken with, including a priest who actually conducted masses in the Vatican itself, came to a realization via Romans 5:6-20.

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

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    "Just as we do not deny these things which are written, so do we repudiate things that are not written. That God was born of a Virgin we believe, because we read it. That Mary was married after His birth we do not believe because we do not read it." - Ste. Jerome -

    Jerome was correct on one point. Up till the time of Christ's birth, Mary and Joseph were betrothed, but not yet married. (Luke 2:5)

    At one point in their engagement, Joseph wanted to break it off. (Matt 1:18 19)

    But a heavenly messenger intervened to prevent him. (Matt 1:20)

    Subsequently, Joseph continued to honor the engagement. (Matt 1:24)

    Now the really significant part is: the messenger instructed Joseph to name Mary's baby (Matt 1:21).

    Joseph did as he was told. (Matt 1:25)

    Mary too was ordered to name her baby; with the very same name the messenger dictated to Joseph. (Luke 7:31)

    So when the time came to give the baby his legal name, both Joseph and Mary stepped forward together to identify themselves as Christ's parents.

    †. Luke 2:21 . . And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

    Now; by some strange twist of the imagination, Jerome somehow convinced himself that when Joseph and Mary stepped forward to give Christ his legal name, they did so as a betrothed couple rather than a married couple. In other words; Jerome somehow convinced himself that Christ's parents remained engaged forever and never got around to tying the knot!

    But that's not how engagements work. They are not meant to be perpetual arrangements with no end in sight. No. When a man and woman commit themselves to an engagement, it's with the intent and fore view of getting married and settling down together. Why Jerome didn't get it I just don't know.

    A far more sensible take on Joseph and Mary, is that sometime between Christ's birth and his circumcision, they tied the knot. So when they stepped forward to give Christ his legal name, they did so as man and wife. Thus, in full accord with the normal round of human experience: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were a family in every sense of the word— a holy family; not some freak coven consisting of a child shared by two people engaged to never be married.

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Has your Kia Optima warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.