Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 106

Thread: Why I Had To Apostatize

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    CLAIM: If Jesus is God, and Mary is Jesus' mother, it must be concluded that she is the Mother of God.

    RESPONSE: Christ's biological mother didn't just pop up out of nowhere. No, she was the natural human child of a normal human relationship between a man and a woman-- and having her biological father's and mother's genes in her system, she would quite naturally transfer those genes to her baby whether the baby was virgin-conceived or not.

    In other words: if the Holy Spirit, as per Luke 1:26-35 used any portion of Mary's ovum, any portion at all, for Christ's conception; then Christ has a biological ancestry stretching clear on back to Adam.

    In point of fact, prior to Christ's conception; the angel said that Mary's baby would be David's progeny (Luke 1:32). It's easy to establish that David was Adam's progeny because every human being that ever existed before us was Adam's progeny.

    †. Acts 17:26 . . He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth

    So then, in accordance with Rome's logic: Every woman in Christ's biological line, including Mary's mother and going back to Eve, are mothers of God; and every man in Christ's biological line, including Mary's father and going back to Adam, are fathers of God.

    If my comment isn't true; then the angel lied when it predicted Christ would be David's progeny.

    OBJECTION: Mary's female ancestors don't count as mothers of God

    RESPONSE: It is not your right to count Christ's mothers; it is the Bible's right.

    †. Gen 320 . .The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.

    If Eve was the mother of all the living, then she was the mother of Christ; ergo: according to Rome's logic; Eve was the mother of God.

    Seeing as how Eve began producing all the living by sleeping with Adam, then Adam was the father of Christ; ergo: according to Rome's logic; Adam was the father of God.

    †. Acts 17:26 . . He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth.

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

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post Re: The Watch Tower Society vs Christianity

    -
    One of the Watch Tower Society's rather curious claims is located on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watch Tower magazine; which reads: "If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be taking his sacrifice off God's altar."

    I'm a fan of a very bright woman named Marilyn vos Savant. She pens a weekly column in the Sunday paper's Parade Magazine. Her tested IQ is somewhere in the 200 range. Marilyn received a question that goes like this:

    QUESTION: Our family has been arguing about this: If a person makes a statement, and another person challenges it; who has the burden of proof?

    MARILYN'S ANSWER: Usually the person who makes an affirmative statement (defined as a statement that asserts a fact, makes an allegation, or favors an action; etc) has the burden of proof. America's justice system is an example. The prosecution (or the plaintiff, as the case may be) rather than the defense, must prove its case to the jury. Failure to prove it's case, requires that the defense be exonerated.

    In other words: when the Society makes a claim like the one on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watch Tower magazine; it has a moral obligation to substantiate it because it is not incumbent upon the Society's opponents to prove its claims are false; no, it is incumbent upon the Society to prove it's claims are true; and they should never be given a green light to do it with humanistic reasoning, semantic double speak, and/or clever sophistry; no, they have to show it not only from scripture, but also in scripture. If their claim cannot be shown from scripture, and in scripture, then rational jurisprudence demands their claim be thrown out of court as spurious fiction.

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

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Easter week commemorates the most important event in the history of mankind-- Christ's resurrection.

    The Bible says that Jesus was raised again for our justification (Rom 4:25).

    In other words: his recovery validates Christianity.

    †. 1Cor 15:17 . . And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

    But did his mom believe he would be back from the dead? I don't think so. Search the list of names of the women who went out to Christ's gravesite on Easter morning, and you will not find her mentioned among them. None of Christ's original disciples believed he was going to recover from crucifixion, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Christ's mom didn't believe either. It's not like she committed some kind of heinous atrocity or gross sin. Her doubt was simply status quo among Christ's followers.

    There's really very few plausible Bible reasons why Christ's mom wasn't out in the cemetery waiting to greet her son Easter morning.

    1• She didn't believe he was coming back

    2• She didn't believe he could come back

    3• She forgot he said he was coming back

    4• She didn't know he said he was coming back

    5• She was indisposed when he came back

    6• She was out of town when he came back

    In regards to #1; because normal mothers are so bonded to their own flesh and blood, this reason seems to us the most likely.

    In regards to #2; the physical mess Jesus was in after his ordeal makes this a likely possibility; but no excuse.

    In regards to #3; that actually happened to a number of the disciples-- but would a normal mother forget something like that?

    In regards to #4; it's highly unlikely Jesus would confide such an important matter with his disciples and not his own mom-- the alleged Queen Of Heaven and the Mother Of All Christians?

    In regards to #5; there's nothing in the Gospel narratives suggesting Christ's mom was indisposed.

    In regards to #6; it's highly unlikely Christ's mom would leave Jerusalem if she knew her boy was going to recover from crucifixion. Any truly loving mother would want to be on hand when her boy was restored to life and his injuries healed. Surely that would be just as much cause for a joyous reunion as a son coming home alive and well from the war in Iraq.

    I don't know if you have any children of your own, but I can tell you from 28+ years of parental experience with a very sensitive woman, that if my son were to be killed, and his mother expected him back in three days; she would have been camped out in that cemetery all three of those days waiting for him; and threats to cut her throat wouldn't persuade her otherwise. Any normal mother would have been out there in that cemetery even if there was only a remote chance their boy might recover. I know, because I've seen that kind of mother's love right here in my own home.

    If Christ's mom truly believed her boy would recover, and truly expected him to; then if she was even half the mother my wife is; she would have been out there at the very least on the third day waiting for him with food and water and fresh clothing; but alas, she wasn't: not because she didn't love her son; but simply because she wasn't expecting him to be there.

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

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Q: What about John 19:26-27? "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother: Woman, behold, your son. Then he said to the disciple: Behold, your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her into his home." - - Doesn't that indicate Mary was out of town?

    A: Does anyone really know the location of the home of the disciple whom Jesus loved?

    The word "took" doesn't automatically imply that the disciple whom Jesus loved put Mary in his buggy and drove her to his house. It can also mean to accept something and/or someone; like in marriage vows; e.g. Do you take so and so to be your lawfully wedded wife?

    From that angle, it can be seen that the disciple, whom Jesus loved, accepted responsibility for the care of Christ's mom without hesitation; as if she were his own kin; in accordance with Ex 20:12.

    The disciple whom Jesus loved was still in Jerusalem on resurrection morning (Luke 24:9, John 20:2-9). So I think it's safe to assume his new dependent was still in Jerusalem too; most especially if she was expecting her boy to recover. So Christ's mom had an opportunity to go out to the cemetery on the third day with Peter and John (John 20:1-10), but didn't. Christ's mom and Mary Magdalena were close friends (John 19:25). Even after her friend Mary M. reported Jesus alive, Christ's mom still didn't go out to see if maybe he was.

    The first woman on record to see Jesus back from the dead wasn't his kin; no, it was an outsider, Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9, John 20:11-18). And she subsequently became Christ's messenger to the other disciples; which of course, would include his mom.

    Think of that— the so-called Mother Of God, the Queen Of Heaven, the prime focus of prayer and mediation between Catholics and Heaven, the "Madonna of the" everything you can imagine, and believed to be the channel of graces from God —wasn't the very first woman to whom Jesus showed himself alive and back from death! Doesn't that seem just a bit odd to you? Shouldn't Jesus at the very least have shown himself alive to his own mother first in order to solace her grief at his passing? Well . . he would have; had she been out to the cemetery on time.

    Later that first day, Jesus showed himself alive to more disciples, and yet even then his mother isn't named among the group (John 20:19-20). And there's no record that he ever made a special trip to the home of the disciple to whom he entrusted his mom's care. Christ's mom isn't named among the disciples until after he left the earth (Acts 1:9-14) and then she disappears; never mentioned again in not one single verse in the rest of the entire New Testament. Paul doesn't even list her name among any of those that saw Jesus alive (1Cor 15:3-8).

    The conclusion to draw from Mary's conspicuous absence at the tomb, and from subsequent events, should be obvious to any unbiased observer. God's Spirit— the inspirer and custodian of holy writ —knowing human nature's propensity to elevate motherhood to the heights of deity, and gravitate towards a female-centered religion; deliberately left Mary's activities blank from the day of her son's death to the day of Pentecost, and afterwards, in order to discourage unwarranted veneration of an ordinary human being so as to keep the spotlight on the Christ of Christianity where it belongs. But Rome has managed to somehow circumvent the Holy Ghost, and do exactly what He would prefer they didn't.

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

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -

    Q: What about Ste. Jerome's reason that: What bigger blessing could two Moses-trained Jewish adults wish for than the Messiah? Surely they would neither want, nor need, any additional children.

    A: That is truly an amazing statement coming from a religion that doesn't believe in birth control and/or planned parenthood; plus the statement itself is a blatant non sequitur. Moses-trained Jewish adults would never stop at just one child just because the first one was some sort of wunderkind. That notion is incredibly uneducated.

    And what about daughters? Are little girls a curse? Don't you think Mary would've liked at least one little girl in her home? And let's remember that Jesus was Mary's kid. Don't you think Joseph would want some children of his own? Yes, he would, because that's no doubt why he was engaged to wed Mary in the first place.

    You see, it would be thoroughly un-Jewish to limit Joseph's family to just Mary's kid. It's only right that she help Joseph produce some of his own. Had Jerome the heart of a family man, he wouldn't have made such at thoughtless statement.

    Rome invented the holy couple's platonic chastity right out of the fantasies of their own human reasoning rather than deriving it from apostolic revelation.

    A Jewish family with only one child is missing a blessing.

    †. Ps 127:3-5 . .Behold, children are a gift of Yhvh; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them!

    By limiting the household to just Mary's kid, Joseph would be relegated to a woman's helper rather than the way God planned marriage from the very beginning.

    †. Gen 2:18-19 . .Then Yhvh God said; It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him an helper suitable for him.

    You see, Mary was supposed to be Joseph's helper, not the other way around. Therefore, it was her sacred duty to help her husband bring his own children into the world.

    For those who haven't already guessed, the basis of Rome's reasoning is that men somehow contaminate the sanctity of women when they copulate; consequently: it is unthinkable (in their minds at least) that any man, including Joseph, would dare to insert his filthy pudendum into the very birth canal that bore The Holy Son Of God; ergo: Rome implies that Joseph would have insulted God's sensibilities had he slept with his own wife.

    Moses taught his people (which eo ipso includes Joseph and his Jewish wife) that Jewish men and women both contaminate each other by copulation; and temporarily render Jewish males unsuitable to participate in worship services and partake of holy things (e.g. Ex 19:15, Lev 15:16-18, 1Sam 21:4). So then, if, and whenever, Joseph and his wife copulated, she made him just as contaminated as he made her.

    Rome's dogma is thoroughly inconsistent with one of its own Popes-- I can't remember exactly which --who wrote a treatise on the beauty of sex in marriage. Apparently sex is beautiful in marriage for John Q. and Jane Doe pew warmer, but not for Joseph and his wife. For the holy couple, normal marital relations are carnal, unholy, nasty, and unthinkable; which again, is inconsistent with Jewish culture. Moses taught his people (which eo ipso includes Joseph and his Jewish wife) that it is blessed to procreate.

    †. Gen 1:27 . .God created man in his image; in the divine image He created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying; Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.

    For Abraham's posterity (which eo ipso includes Joseph and his Jewish wife) to fail to make an honest effort to procreate, would be inconsistent with 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.

    There are Catholics who sincerely believe it is a sin to marry with no intention of producing offspring; and that if one spouse should later change their mind and express a wish to remain childless, then the other has grounds for annulment. A Catholic belief of that nature would make Joseph and his wife sinners if they did not sleep together and make an honest effort to produce children in accordance with Gen 1:27 and Gen 22:17.

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

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    OBJECTION: Shouldn't you take into account the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, written around 380 AD, regarding Mary's perpetual virginity?

    RESPONSE: I consider it much more profitable to consider the controversy between Rome's fantasies and the Bible's realities.

    †. Matt 16:23 . .Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.

    Catholics who persist in rejecting the New Testament as Almighty God's final authority, are doomed to be judged by that very same New Testament rather than only by their church's proprietary catechism, or its traditions, its encyclicals, its ecumenical councils, or the beliefs and opinions its so-called church fathers; and the preposterous yarns spun by its fertile imagination.

    †.
    John 12:48-49 . .He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father himself who sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak.

    The Holy Spirit, the divine inspirer of holy writ, puts the emphasis on Mary's virginity at the time of Christ's birth. I think it's quite out of harmony with God's Spirit to quarrel over whether or not two Jews lived out their days in platonic chastity after Jesus was born.

    It reminds me of a scene in an old Sean Connery movie titled "The Name Of The Rose" where church dignitaries argued whether the Christ owned the clothes that he wore, or not. People are tumbling into the dungeons of hell every hour even as we speak, and that's where those dignitaries put the emphasis?!

    According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census' current estimates: one person dies on average every 10 seconds in America. That's 8,640 homeland deaths in the course of just one 24-hour day.

    According to 2009 US Census data; roughly 27.3% of America's daily deaths are under the age of 19, which would indicate that approximately 6,282 of the current daily death rate of 8,640 per 24 hours are adults. Giving the "many" the benefit of the doubt by setting their maximum percentage at 51%, would indicate a minimum of 3,204 American adults transferring to perdition every day: which translates to roughly 133 per hour. Think of that! By the time CBS completes its half-hour evening news, 66 Americans have passed away and transferred to hell.

    Those numbers would fill the new 51,800 seat Yankee Stadium in roughly 16 days; and that's only the numbers arriving in hell from America. Similar numbers are arriving from other countries all around the world; and a portion of those people are doomed Roman Catholics.

    Do you really think that any of those doomed Roman Catholics actually think it's important whether or not Christ's mom remained a perpetual virgin?

    †. 1Tim 6:3-5 . .If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of depraved minds and deprived of the truth.

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

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    "Because of Eve's disobedience to God and Adam's cooperation with her, they lost sanctifying grace for themselves and their offspring. Like Eve, Mary was created full of grace. But unlike Eve, Mary remained obedient to God, just as Christ, unlike Adam, remained obedient to God. In cooperation with God, Mary became Mother of the Redeemer and, in cooperation with Christ, she became Mother of the redeemed as well.

    The phrase "New Eve" or similar expressions occur in the early Church Fathers. Take, for example, Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. A.D. 150), Justin explains that Christ destroyed Satan's work in the same way evil originally entered the world. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin. Each woman willingly participated in the act they performed. Neither was an unconscious instrument.

    Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death. Mary listened to the angel Gabriel and conceived life. Justin sees this clearly in Luke 1:38 when Mary says, "Let it be to me according to your word." Thus, for Justin, Christ's becoming a man involved his Mother's willing cooperation in undoing the tangled web of sin that Eve introduced. The concept of the New Eve taught by the Church Fathers is a case in point because it is a summary and natural extension of Paul's doctrine of Christ as the New Adam." (KJ Howell)

    Howell's primary error of course was in labeling Christ a "new" Adam. The correct title is the "last" Adam (1Cor 15:45). That may seem like semantic nit picking but significance is lost when the last Adam is labeled new instead of last.

    The Greek word is eschatos (es'-khat-os) which doesn't mean new; it means final. That's important; especially when final is the final option.

    Webster's defines "final" as pertaining to something not to be changed or done again and/or something that is not to be either altered or undone.

    Howell's label "the new Eve" isn't biblical: it's a man-made construction. Nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus' mother labeled either a second Eve, a new Eve, a last Eve; or any other kind of an Eve for that matter.

    Jesus' mom gave birth to an h.sapiens. However; the last Adam isn't described as an h.sapiens, rather, he's described as something much more.

    †. 1Cor 15:45a . . It is written: "The first man, Adam, became a living soul"

    That's quoted from Gen 2:7 where the first Adam came into being by means of creation. But the last Adam didn't come into being by means of creation. In point of fact, the last Adam is the origin of the first Adam's existence.

    †. 1Cor 15:45b . . the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

    In other words: the last Adam is the source of life for all creatures great and small, including Jesus' mom.

    The first Adam is perpetuated through Eve.

    †. Gen 3:20 . .The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.

    However, the last Adam is not perpetuated through a woman. No, the last Adam is self-perpetuating. In other words: Jesus' mom plays no role in perpetuating the last Adam because none of the life-giving spirit's progeny are born of women, instead, they are born of God.

    †. John 1:10-13 . . He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but of God.

    †. John 3:5-7 . . Amen, Amen, I say to you: no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you: You must be born from above.

    Howell's title "the new Eve" is construed by means of some pretty clever extrapolation; but in the long haul; all it really amounts to is spurious sophistry.

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

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Christ's Jewish opponents weren't pagans. No, the religion that they professed to believe and practice was the very same God-given religion that Christ himself professed to believe and practice.

    Their differences of opinion with Jesus came from the fact that Jesus was a fundamentalist, while his Jewish opponents were followers of a rabbinical form of Judaism, which isn't purely Old Testament Judaism, but rather an unholy amalgam of Scripture and Tradition.

    While professing to follow the Bible's God; in reality Rome opposes His son just as vehemently as rabbinical Judaism opposed him 2,000 years ago. The rabbis doctored Old Testament Judaism with tradition, just as Rome has done the very same thing to New Testament Christianity; so that Rome is no longer fundamental like Jesus was; no, now they're traditionalists; just as Christ's Jewish opponents were.

    Christ's traditionalist Jewish opponents didn't claim the fatherhood of another god. No, they claimed that Christ's God was their Father. Roman traditionalists don't claim the fatherhood of another god either. No, they too claim that Christ's God is their Father; yet are no more inclined to abandon their traditions in order to follow Christ than the Jews are inclined to abandon theirs.

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

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    †. 1John 5:9-13 . .We accept human testimony, but God's testimony carries more weight because it is the testimony of God, which He has given about His son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in himself. Anyone who does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His son.

    . . . And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. Whoever has The Son has the life; whoever who does not have the life, does not have God's son. 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.

    I don't think 1John 5:9-13 needs any interpretation. Bible students may obtain the following information from it just by a simple cursory reading.

    1) Verses 11-12 are God's own personal testimony.

    2) To deny the validity of verses 11-12 is to insinuate that God is a person of low moral integrity who cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

    3) Those who currently possess eternal life, currently possess Christ

    4) Those who don't currently possess eternal life; currently don't possess Christ

    5) John's first epistle was written to believers who currently possess eternal life.

    Since no conscientious Catholic would ever claim that they currently possess eternal life; then the obvious ramifications of 1John 5:9-13 is that the overwhelming majority of Catholics are christless-- it's as simple as that; and according to Paul; to be christless, is to be fake sheep.

    †. Rom 8:9 . . if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

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

  10. #90
    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
  •  
Visit Vase Resin for information and purchase of resin for silk flower arrangements.