The Church In Brief

Olde Tymer

Well-known member
.
FAQ: I'm considering joining the Catholic Church. Would it be a mistake?

REPLY: Roman Catholicism is a very attractive religion; but it isn't easy.

Once someone is fully committed by completing First Holy Communion and
Confirmation and undergone Christian baptism --God will be holding them
accountable to comply with everything Rome teaches and stands for, e.g. the
Commandments, the Canon Law, the dogma, the rituals, the Traditions, the
Councils, the Bulls, the Encyclicals, the rites, the holy days of obligation, and the
entire Catechism; plus everything that Jesus and the apostles taught in the New
Testament, i.e. all four gospels and all twenty-one epistles, plus Acts and
Revelation.

That's a lot to remember, let alone put into practice.

And then there's the matter of mortal sin. When Catholics leave this life with just
one mortal sin on the books awaiting absolution, just one, they go straight to Hell.
It's a direct flight; no stopover in a Purgatory. Even if a Catholic managed to be a
top performer in faith and practice for fifty years, none of that will be taken into
consideration. They will leave this life as if they'd been a pagan the whole time.
Unabsolved mortal sins are that lethal.

The paragraph below from CCC 1782 of the catechism of the Catholic Church;
acknowledges everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting a religion of
their own personal choice.

"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.
"

However, be aware that once someone joins the Catholic Church, they will have to
relinquish those rights and no longer be permitted to either interpret, or apply, the
Holy Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight per CCC 85 which says:

"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.
"

Bottom line: Catholicism isn't a democratic structure-- it's more like Big Brother in
George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four". I'm not saying that's necessarily a
bad thing; only saying that it's a level of governance that some folks find a mite too
controlling.


NOTE: The Almighty isn't a political appointee like members of the US Supreme
Court, viz: He isn't biased towards the left or to the right, i.e. the justice of God is
fair across the board regardless of age, race, gender, and/or religious preference;
so that joining The Church grants no one a certain amount of special consideration.
I grew up in Catholicism, and for many years was under the impression that my
affiliation with The Church would give me an advantage, but I was wrong. (cf. Luke
12:47-48, Rom 2:6-11, and 1Pet 1:17)

And the irony of it all; the supreme irony, is that Catholicism's hierarchy-- its
priests, nuns, Popes, and Cardinals, etc. --are in just as much danger of failing to
make the cut as John Que and Jane Doe rank and file pew warmers; in point of
fact: according to Luke 12:47-48, and Jas 3:1, they may be in greater danger
because their responsibility is greater.
_
 
.
Jesus' Three Days & Nights

Matt 12:40-41 . . For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the
great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth.

Although the Church's Good Friday model is chronologically unworkable, it's
conveniently situated. However, it's probably a good idea to become familiar with
the actual sequence of events if for no other reason than to satisfy one's curiosity.


FAQ: Was Christ deceased for three full days and three full nights, i.e. 72 hours?

REPLY: An abundance of textual evidence indicates Jesus' crucified dead body was
restored to life during the third day rather than later after the third day was
completely over and done with.

Matt 17:22-23
Matt 20:18-19
Mark 9:31
Luke 9:22
Luke 18:33
Luke 24:5-8
Luke 24:21-23
Luke 24:46
John 2:19
Acts 10:40
1Cor 15:4


FAQ: What about Matt 27:63 and Mark 8:31? They say "after" the third day rather
than during the third.


REPLY: To begin with, those verses are outnumbered 11 to 2.

Plus; the Greek word translated "after" is somewhat ambiguous. It can indicate
moments following the conclusion of an event, but it can also indicate moments
within an event. I suggest letting the 11 to 2 majority decide how best to interpret
the intent of Matt 27:63 and Mark 8:31.


FAQ: Luke 24:21-23 says the morning that women came to the cemetery was the
third day. How can that be true when the sun wasn't up yet when they arrived?


REPLY: Back then; the Jews' civil days began at 06:00 am and ended at 06:00 pm;
which made for a twelve-hour day regardless of the season. (John 11:9-10)

Sometimes civil days began before sunrise. For example: the sun arose in
Jerusalem during Passover April 09, 2023 at 06:19 am, which in Jesus' era would've
been 19 minutes after the beginning of their civil day.

So then; were his crucified dead body restored to life sometime in those 19 minutes
before sunrise, then technically he was within the limits of a new day rather than
the tail end of a previous night.


FAQ: But didn't the Jews' days begin at sunset rather than sunrise?

REPLY: That's only true for liturgical days. For example: Passover for the 9th of
April 2023 began at sunset the afternoon of the 8th.


FAQ: Can the hours of darkness during Jesus' crucifixion be counted as one of the
three nights?


REPLY: Jesus survived those hours. Matt 12:40 requires that he be dead and
buried.
_
 
.
Re: the sun arose in Jerusalem during Passover April 09, 2023 at 06:19 am,

That's a mistake. That date should've been April 08

Re: Passover for the 9th of April 2023 began at sunset the afternoon of the 8th.

That's a mistake too. The dates should've been the 6th and the 5th.

Mea Culpa
_
 
Last edited:
.
High Days

FAQ: Jesus' crucified dead body was laid to rest during the afternoon preceding a
sabbath day. (Luke 23:54-56) That particular sabbath was an high day. (John
19:31) What's so special about that particular sabbath that it should be called high?


REPLY: There are other sabbaths in the Bible far more important than the weekly
routine. For example the first and last days of the feast Of Unleavened Bread, a.k.a.
Passover (Lev 23:5-8) Yom Kippur (Lev 16:29-31) the feast of Trumpets. (Lev
23:23-25) and the first and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:34-36)

Jesus was laid to rest on the brink of Passover night when the Jews are supposed to
dine upon lambs and unleavened bread to commemorate the departure of Moses'
people from Egypt per the book of Exodus. That night also commences the
beginning of the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread because the Jews'
liturgical events begin at sundown the previous day.


FAQ: Why was crucifixion day called the preparation? (John 19:14, et al)

REPLY: No cooking by means of fire is allowed during a sabbath day. (Ex 35:3) so
then the day leading up to Passover night is set aside for the Jews to kill and roast
their lambs for dinner. Also, they are required to utilize that day for removing all
traces of leavened bread from their dwellings. (Ex 12:1-20)

* It's an interesting coincidence that while the Jews were slaughtering lambs for
Passover, the Romans were working on the lamb of God.


FAQ: Where do we place the routine sabbath in that week-end's chronology?

REPLY: It followed on the heels of Passover's sabbath, resulting in two consecutive
sabbaths that year which, although rare, does happen.

So the sequence of events went like this:

Sunday was resurrection day.
Saturday was a routine sabbath day.
Friday was Passover's sabbath day.
Thursday was crucifixion day.


FAQ: That's a total of four days. Isn't that one too many?

REPLY: It's tempting to count crucifixion day as one of the days per Matt 12:40 and
John 2:19-22, but don't do it. Wait until the Jews' preparation for Passover comes
to an end and they're ready to sit down and dine upon their lambs before starting
to tally the days and nights or your chronology won't come out right. It's essential
to leave crucifixion day set aside for the slaughtering of lambs; including the one on
the cross.
_
 
.
Leavened Bread

Gen 19:3 . . Lot prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread,

In this day and age of cultured yeast it's not easy to explain what the Bible means
by leavened and unleavened. Well; the primary difference between the two terms
isn't ingredients; rather, the primary difference is decay. The Hebrew word
translated "unleavened" essentially refers to an unfermented cake or loaf; in other
words: bread made with fresh dough rather than dough that's gone bad.

Given time, fresh dough will go bad on its own because all flour, no matter how
carefully it's milled and packaged, contains an amount of naturally-occurring
fungi.

Bread made with spoiled dough (a.k.a. sour dough) is reasonably safe to eat, we
know that; so serving his guests bread made with dough that's gone bad wouldn't
have been a health issue. However, it's likely that Lot served his guests bread
made with pure dough due to urgency, viz: it's quicker because there's no waiting
for the dough to rise before baking it.

Nowadays, the best leavened breads are made by blending a batch of pure dough
with so-called "starter" which is highly prized by some cooks. The result becomes a
blend of pure dough and impure dough; which nutritionally is okay, but spiritually
speaking is not a good thing because it's an amalgam of that which is corrupt with
that which is sound; for example:

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three
measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." (Matt 13:33)

* The woman's leavening agent in that instance was likely equivalent to the starter
mentioned above.


FAQ: Does this imply that the fruit of the vine that Jesus and his men imbibed
during his last supper was fresh grape juice rather than fermented?


REPLY: The law of the Passover per Ex 12:1-20 prohibiting leaven only pertains to
bread because it commemorates the people's hasty departure. (cf. Ex 12:34-39)
_
 
.
Jesus and his men ate their Passover dinner the night of his arrest.

Matt 26:17-20
Mark 14:12-17
Luke 22:7-15

The Jews ate their Passover after he was dead and buried.

John 13:1-2
John 18:28-29
John 19:13-14
John 19:31)

The Jews were somehow unaware that their liturgical calendar was tardy the year
that Christ was crucified. He, being a prophet in direct contact with God, would of
course have known the precise moment that Passover that year was supposed to
begin; which is no doubt at least one of the reasons why Christ ate his own
Passover before the Jews ate theirs.

Ironically, the Jews were careful to avoid going after Jesus during Passover.

Matt 26:3-5 . .Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in
the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they plotted to arrest
Jesus in some sly way and kill him. But not during the feast-- they said --or there
may be a riot among the people.

Due to their liturgical calendar's error, the Jews inadvertently put Jesus to death
during the very season they wanted to avoid.
_
 
.
John 6:53 . . Jesus said to them, “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.

John 6:60 . . Then many of his disciples who were listening said: This saying is
hard; who can accept it?

Well; that particular saying of his is hard because it's encrypted, so to speak.

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

So before Jesus' disciples could even begin to properly understand and/or apply
that particular saying of his, they first needed to find to a way to decode Jesus'
spirit words.

A second difficulty associated with eating and drinking Jesus' flesh and blood is
access to his body.

John 6:62 . . What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was
before?

Well that's just it: Jesus departed their world per Acts 1:9 and took his flesh and
blood with him so it wasn't long before Jesus' body was completely out of reach.

A third difficulty associated with eating and drinking Jesus' flesh and blood is the
chemistry of his body. According to Luke 22:19 and 1Cor 11:24, the flesh and blood
that Jesus' disciples were supposed to eat and drink is that of his crucified body;
and although it was restored to life, his body no longer exists in its original
condition, viz: the chemistry of Jesus' body is very different than it was before, and
it's never going back. (Phil 3:21, 1John 3:2)
_
 
.
FAQ: Does the Bible teach the existence of a purgatory?

REPLY: There are numerous passages in the Bible that suggest the possibility of a
purgatory; but all such passages are indirect references rather than obvious, crisp,
black and white teachings; ergo: there's a very good chance that purgatory is the
product of human reasoning, e.g. Pope Leo X's 1520 Bull of Exurge Domine.

However, passages that suggest one thing, can also be made to suggest another,
so I do not recommend putting too much stock in Rome's ideas. It is much safer to
assume the worst, and then begin preparing yourself for it in the event that
purgatory turns out to be a huge mistake, viz: just as there are no second place
winners in a gunfight, it just might be there are no second place winners in matters
related to Heaven and Hell.


NOTE: A popular suggestion is located at 2Macc 12:48-46 wherein is told the story of a
Jewish military commander's attempt to atone for his dead soldiers' pagan amulets
which he believed is a crime against God for Jews to wear. So Judas Maccabeus
passed the hat among his surviving men and collected about 2,000 silver drachmas
which were sent to Jerusalem intended for a sacrifice to expiate his dead men's sin so
that it wouldn't jeopardize their resurrection.

However: the covenant that Mr. Maccabeus' people agreed upon with God per Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy is very narrow. There are no sacrifices in it for
expiating the unforgiven sins that people take with them over to the afterlife; ergo: the
very Law that Judas sought to appease makes it a sin to either amend, embellish, add
to, revise, edit, upgrade, update, or subtract from the covenant.

Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away
from it, but keep the commandments of The Lord your God that I enjoin upon you.

Deut 5:32-33 . . Be careful, therefore, to do as The Lord, your God, has commanded
you, not turning aside to the right or to the left, but following exactly the way prescribed
for you by The Lord, your God,

Bottom line: What Judas did was as pagan as the amulets that his men were wearing
when they died.


FYI: Just because somebody's personal beliefs are recorded in the Bible does not make
their personal beliefs eo ipso truth. Mr. Maccabeus believed it was possible for living
Jews to offer sacrifices for the unforgiven sins of deceased Jews. Is it? No; absolutely
not! Were it possible, then a procedure for that purpose would be specified in the
covenant.

Atonements for the dead fall into the category of sins of presumption; viz: unauthorized
behavior.

If 2Mcc 12:38-46 teaches anything at all it’s that the Israel of Judas Maccabeus’ day
was spiritually decadent-- just as decadent as it was in the days of the Judges when
every man did that which was right in his own eyes rather than the eyes of the
covenant.
_
 
.
Matt 16:18 . . I will build my church; and the gates of the netherworld shall not
prevail against it.

That's sometimes understood to be speaking of Jesus' church as an organization
rather than individuals. But i think we can do better than that.

God has given His son a number of sheep to manage.

John 10:29 . . My sheep . . my Father gave them to me

Jesus' Father expects His son to be reliable.

John 6:39 . .This is the will of the One who sent me: that I should not lose
anything of what He gave me.

Jesus never fails to give his Father what He wants.

John 4:34 . . My food is to do the will of the One who sent me.

John 8:29 . . I always do what is pleasing to Him.

Now the thing is: were Jesus to lose even one of the sheep his Father entrusted to
his care-- just one --then Jesus would not be able to say that he "always" pleases
the One who sent him. He could say that he pleases the One most of the time, but
certainly not always.

When people say that it's possible Jesus will lose some of the sheep that his Father
gave him; they are actually casting a vote of no-confidence in his ability to manage
his Father's interests. Well; I think Jesus' miracles sufficiently demonstrate that he
has all the powers of the supreme being at his disposal to easily ensure that
nothing of his Father's is lost.

John 10:9 . . I am the door; whoever enters through me shall be saved.

Were Christ one of the worlds shepherds; then he wouldn't dare say "shall be"
saved; no, he'd have to tone it down a bit and say "can be" saved. That would
leave him some room for error. But when Christ says "shall be" he's claiming a
0.0% failure rate. That's how confident Christ is that he will lose nothing of what his
Father gave him.

John 10:28 . . I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither
shall any man pluck them out of my hand.


FAQ: Why can't the sheep of their own free will pull away from Jesus?

REPLY: God's free will trumps the sheep's free will.

John 6:39 . .This is the will of the One who sent me: that I should not lose
anything of what He gave me.

Jesus' free will trumps the sheep's free will.

John 4:34 . . My food is to do the will of the One who sent me.

John 8:29 . . I always do what is pleasing to Him.

In other words: the sheep have no say in this. Once Jesus puts his brand on them--
so to speak --they're his forever.

Eph 1:13 . . Having also believed, you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of
promise

And anyway, even if the sheep were somehow able to pull away from Jesus, they
would still have a higher power to contend with.

John 10:29 . . My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is
able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
_
 
Last edited:
.
The beads of a rosary are little more than page upon page of indifferent sing-song
lyrics which is a clear violation of Christ's God-given instructions.

Matt 6:7-9 . . In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will
be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your Father knows
what you need before you ask Him.


OBJECTION: Jesus prayed a third time in the garden of Gethsemane, saying the
exact same words again.


REPLY: Christ's prayer with his Father was an honest conversation; and ours should
be too.

Heb 4:16 . . Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may
obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

The Greek word translated "boldly" basically means all out-spokenness, i.e.
frankness, bluntness, and/or confidence.

Rote is not what I call forthright, nor blunt, nor out-spoken, nor confident. It's
actually not much different than mindlessly chanting a mantra over and over and
over again and/or reading the lines of a script like a Hollywood actor. It's just as
ridiculous as bobbing back and forth while reading from a siddur like some of those
Jews at the Wailing Wall.

Suppose the door bell rang one day and when we opened up-- yikes! --it was God
himself in person! Would we welcome Him into our home by reading from a missal
and/or chanting rote prose; or would we greet Him as we do real visitors? Well, the
Bible's God is real; so I think we should give Him with the courtesy and respect that
His intelligence deserves if we're to expect Him to reciprocate and treat us with
courtesy and respect in return.

Does anybody speak to their friends, their associates, their spouse, their domestic
partner, their significant other, their doctor, their dentist, supermarket cashiers, or
the cops by repeating the same thing over and over again? Of course not. They
would write us off as one in desperate need of therapy if we did. Then why would
anyone think it either civil and/or cordial to speak to God by saying the same thing
over and over again every time they address Him: every day, every week, every month,
and every year-- as if rewinding and replaying a music box? No; the Bible's supreme
being is a sentient, sensible person and we all need to show some respect for His
intelligence.
_
 
Last edited:
.
Luke 11:1-2 . . He was praying in a certain place, and when he had finished, one
of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John taught his
disciples.” He said to them, “When you pray, say: yada, yada, yada, etc."

When I was a little boy, just about every night at bedtime I recited the classic lay
me-down-to-sleep children's prayer. In my opinion; a rote prayer like that one is
okay for getting kids started communicating with God.

In the beginning; Jesus' disciples were full-grown men physically. But they were
just babies spiritually. A prayer like the Our Father is a good place for spiritually
immature Christians to begin, but it's not a good place for them to stay.

1Cor 13:11 . .When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child,
reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.

Now take Jesus for example. There is no record of him ever even once praying the
Our Father. In point of fact, when examining Jesus' prayers, it's readily apparent
that he typically prayed in a conversational style instead of reciting rote. Two good
examples of his style are located at Matt 11:25-26 and John 17:1-26. Jesus' style is
the style that mature Christians are to follow as their role model.

Eph 4:15 . .We should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ

Eph 4:11-13 . . And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as
evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for the work of
ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith
and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full
stature of Christ

When people have been Christians for some time, and still reciting rote prayers, I'd
have to say that their spiritual growth has been stunted, i.e. they're not developing
properly because they haven't been getting adequate nourishment.
_
 
.
POSIT: Mary is the mother of God.

REPLY: I learned in Biology that like reproduces like; viz: bears give birth to bears,
opossums give birth to opossums, coyotes give birth to coyotes, and moles give
birth to moles. So then, in order for a woman's body to produce God, she herself
would have to be God too.

The angel who announced Jesus' birth, informed his mother that her son would be
David's offspring.

Luke 1:31 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.

Rom 1:3 declares Jesus was David's offspring according to the flesh, i.e. David's
body. In point of fact; no man can take David's throne lest they first of all be his
biological heir; no exceptions. (Jer 23:5, Ps 89:3-4, Ps 89:35-36, Ps 132:11, Acts
2:30, cf. Isa 11:1 and Mic 5:2)

So then, if Mary was the mother of God, then David was the father of God; and so
on all the way back to Adam. Ergo: every paternal father in Jesus' biological lineage
would be a father of God, and every maternal mother in his biological lineage all the
way back to Eve would be a mother of God; so that Mary would not have a lock on
that distinction.

In point of fact, it is very easy to prove that Eve had a hand in bringing Mary's baby
into the world.

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

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that prediction pertains to
Christ.

So then; seeing as how Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body
(Gen 2:21-22) then Adam and Eve were first in the long line of Jesus' many
paternal mothers and fathers.

Luke 3:38 . .The son of Adam


NOTE: It's commonly believed among Christians that Jesus was fully God and fully
Man; and then they go to extremes finding ways to subtract Adam from the
equation; yet he's the paternal ancestor of everyone fully Man. (Gen 5:2 & Acts 17:26)
_
 
Last edited:
.
1Tim 3:15 . . If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the
household of God, which is the church of the living God; the pillar and foundation of
truth.

It's very common among Catholics to look at that verse and let their minds see the
church as the pillar and foundation of truth rather than the living God. But that
would make no sense at all since the church of the living God consists of mortal
beings infected with human nature and a natural propensity to embellish the truth
and twist it rather than preserve it.

It's far more likely that 1Tim 3:15 is saying that if there were no real live God out
there somewhere, then Christianity would be a silly myth. It's only the reality of
God that makes so-called "truth" to be actual fact, i.e. valid, and reliable.
_
 
.
Webster's defines "immunity" as exempt; viz: free, or released from, some liability
or requirement to which others are subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

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

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

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

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

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

Rev 22:16-17 . . I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you these things for
the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star. And
the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And let the one who hears say: Come. And let
the one who is thirsty come-- let the one who wishes take the water of life without
cost.
_
 
.
Heb 5:4-6 . . Christ did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest.
But God said to him; "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." (cf. Ps
110:4)

Melchizedek was God's high priest in Abraham's day. (Gen 14:18-20, Heb 5:10)

Mel's authority held sway in his region quite a few years prior to the covenant that
Moses' people agreed upon with God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. (a.k.a. Moses' law)

The thing to note is that none of the curses listed in Moses' law are retroactive.
(Deut 5:2-4 & Gal 3:17)

In a nutshell; when your high priest is patterned after Melchizedek, then you are
in no danger of being cursed for failure to comply with Moses' law; which includes,
but isn't limited to, the Ten Commandments.

That was quite an advantage for Mel's constituents, They were at liberty to
follow God another way because they weren't covenanted with God to comply
with Moses' law, and seeing as how Jesus is Christianity's Melchizedek, then
his followers are at liberty to follow God another way too.

This principle is an extremely important element of Christianity but I have yet to
meet even one practicing Catholic online who knows of it; let alone believes it's
true.
_
 
Last edited:
.
Former US President Gerald Ford pardoned former US President Richard Nixon back
in 1974 relative to the Watergate scandal. Ford's pardon in no way exonerated
Nixon, it only allowed him to avoid punishment. In other words: Mr. Nixon will
always and forever be on the books of world history as a crook.

Criminal circumstances similar to Mr. Nixon's would befall every Christian had not
Jesus' crucified dead body been returned to life.

Rom 4:25 . . He was delivered over to death for our sins, and was raised to life
for our justification.

The first half of that verse testifies that Christ's crucifixion completed the
atonement process per Isaiah 53:6 and 1John 2:2.

However, atonements are limited. They don't have what it takes to protect people
from ultimately facing justice. For that, people need their personnel files wiped.

The second half of Romans 4:25 testifies that Christ's resurrection gains people
what his cross alone could not obtain for them.

The Greek word for "justification" is dikaiosis (dik-ah'-yo-sis) which means
acquittal; defined as an adjudication of innocence.

People merely forgiven and/or pardoned still carry a load of guilt; viz: they have a
record, i.e. a criminal history. Christ's resurrection makes is possible for God to
delete that history so that on the books, it's as though they've never been anything
but 100% innocent.

Without Christ's crucified dead body restored to life, everyone would remain on
track for the sum of all fears even though he fully atoned for their sins on the cross
because when the books are opened, per Rev 20:11-15, their sins would still be on file
as offenses not yet fully addressed.

1Cor 15:17 . . Further, if Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless; you
are yet in your sins.


FAQ: So? What does all this have to do with Rome's followers?

REPLY: Fully catechized Catholics have been instructed that if perchance they
should leave this life with just one mortal sin on the books-- just one --they will go
directly to Hell with no stopover in a purgatory. Well; Jesus' resurrection insures
that will never happen no his followers no matter how many mortal sins they
accumulate in this life because his resurrection makes it possible for God to stop
recording their sins as criminal matters and to begin addressing their conduct as
family matters.

2Cor 5:19 . . God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting
their trespasses against them

The Greek word translated "counting" is logizomai (log-id'-zom-ahee) which means
to take an inventory; i.e. an indictment.

Now supposing a lapsed believer neglects to confess their sins in a timely manner
as per 1John 1:8-10. Are they in danger of Hell's fire? No, not in the slightest,
because Christ's resurrection granted them an exoneration the very day they
became one of his believing followers, and from that day forward, they will never
again be in danger of eternal suffering.

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.


FAQ: How would an interested party go about obtaining this blanket acquittal about
which you speak?


REPLY: Well; they could begin with an RSVP, in other words: speak up for themselves
and tell God they are concerned that they have a lot to answer for; and would like to
take advantage of His son's resurrection.
_
 
.
"Among the penitent's acts, contrition occupies first place. Contrition is sorrow of
the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to
sin again." (CCC 1451)

The resolve not to sin again is of course a big joke because no natural-born human
being has enough self control over themselves to truly honor that kind of a
commitment. The so-called Act Of Contrition is just that: an act; as in role-playing
and following the lines of a script on stage and and in the movies.

However, resolve is not our concern in this post; but rather, the concept of sorrow
and how it relates to repentance.

The primary New Testament Greek word for repentance-- used thirty-four times in
various places --is metanoeo (met-an-o-eh'-o) which just simply means to think
differently, or to reconsider; viz: to change one's mind.

Metanoeo never, ever implies either regret or remorse. Although those emotions
may accompany changing one's mind, they are not metanoeo: no, the changing of
one's mind is the true metanoeo, with or without remorse. (e.g. Matt 21:28-30)

A useful example of metanoeo occurred on the day of Pentecost.

Acts 2:36-41 . . Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this
Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. When the people heard this, they
were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall
we do? Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for
all whom the Lord our God will call.

. . .With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Rescue
yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were
baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Peter's sermon succeeded in convincing his countrymen to change their opinion
about the very man they had so recently consented unto his death; and as a result,
they were spared the wrath of God.

An additional New Testament Greek word translated repent/repentance-- used but
six times in various places --is metamellomai (met-am-el'-lom-ahee); which means
to care afterwards; viz: regret.

A useful example of metamellomai is Judas.

Matt 27:3 . . Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was
condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the
chief priests and elders

Although Judas experienced regret for what he did to his friend, it didn't result in
his salvation simply because he never did believe in Christ's Messianic claims to
begin with; and at this point, hadn't changed his mind about it. Judas simply felt
bad about himself for being instrumental in executing an innocent man. But did he
go and confess his sin to God seeking forgiveness and absolution? No. He went out
and committed suicide instead.

So then, in a nutshell: where does repentance fit into the scheme of reconciliation?
Well; it simply means to agree with God that certain of your thoughts, words, and
deeds are evil (1John 1:8 & 1John 1:10).

* It's important to note in 1John 1:9 that regret isn't included in the formula; no, in
order to obtain cleansing and forgiveness one only has to own up to their bad.
Contrition is a nice touch; but not especially required. I think we may safely posit
that God is far more concerned that we be honest and transparent rather than
wasting time and energy getting ourselves into character before we speak with
Him about our conduct. (cf. Heb 4:16)
_
 
Last edited:
.
A key ingredient in the recipe of Rome's plan of salvation is compliance with the
Ten Commandments; which are a component of the covenant that Moses' people
agreed upon with God per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Those ten statutes are very dangerous due to the fact that when Jews fail to comply
with them-- any of them --they accrue a curse on themselves.

Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by
carrying them out.

Jas 2:10 . . For whosoever shall keep all the law, and yet offend in one point, he
is guilty of all.

It gets worse.

When someone has been adequately catechized to the point where they're
sufficiently aware that failure to comply with those ten statutes results in a curse,
and/or a mortal sin, and then in the course of human events they break any one of
them, then they are really in very big trouble because under the terms and
conditions of the covenant, there is neither forgiveness nor atonements available
for willful sins.

Num 15:30-31 . . But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly
reviles The Lord; that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he
has spurned the word of The Lord and violated His commandment, that person shall
be cut off-- he bears his guilt.

Heb 10:26-27 . . If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.


NOTE: The pronoun "we" in that verse pertains to anyone, and everyone, whose
association with God-- and thus the circumstances of their afterlife --hinges upon
compliance with the Ten Commandments which, by definition, includes not only
lapsed Jews, but also lapsed Catholics.
_
 
.
POSIT: Mary is the mother of God.
Total foolishness. Mary (the REAL ONE not the "Catholic creation") is Jesus' mother, and the one who, along with her husband Joseph, raised him and their other kids, to maturity. Pretty much EVERYTHING Catholics say about their "Mary Thing" is as phony as a thee dollar bill!!!!

GOD is eternal, and doesn't Have a mother.

The Catholic foolishness is: "Jesus is GOD, Mary is his mother, so Mary is "God's Mother". "Theology"!!! You gotta love it!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom