Standing Up To Rome
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
brewmama
New member
Who says anyone "needs" to?
First of all praying for other people is biblical.
First of all I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions,...This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (I Timothy 2:1-4)
Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power In its effects. Elijah was a man of like natures with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain and…it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit. (James 5:16-18)
Then there is the belief that the dead are still alive in Christ. Surely you don't disagree with that?
Prayer to the saints is encouraged by the Orthodox Church. Why? Because physical death is not a defeat for a Christian. It is a glorious passage into heaven. The Christian does not cease to be a part of the Church at death. God forbid! Nor is he set aside, idle until the Day of Judgment.
The True Church is composed of all who are in Christ-in heaven and on earth. It is not limited in membership to those presently alive. Those in heaven with Christ are alive, in communion with God, wor*shiping God, doing their part in the Body of Christ. They actively pray to God for all those in the Church* and perhaps, indeed, for the whole world. So we pray to the saints who have departed this life, seeking their prayers, even as we ask Christian friends on earth to pray for us.
Right Divider
Body part
That's where you're wrong. Your "church" is a liar and a thief.
WeberHome
New member
-
†. Luke 11:1-2 . . One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he
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: Mother of God,
No; Christ didn't instruct his followers to pray to his mother; rather, to his
Father.
There are no instances of the Lord and Master of New Testament
Christianity-- nor of any of the inspired New Testament writers --either
commanding, teaching, encouraging, leading by example, or even so much
as suggesting --that prayer be made to celestial beings and/or afterlife
human beings; and for good reason. Christ, a devoted, observant Jew, never
prayed to celestial beings, nor to afterlife human beings, nor to any deities
other than the one true God; which is what all Jews are commanded.
†. Deut 6:13 . . The Lord, your God, shall you fear; him shall you serve, and
by his name shall you swear. You shall not follow other gods, such as those
of the surrounding nations, lest the wrath of the Lord, your God, flare up
against you and he destroy you from the face of the land; for the Lord, your
God, who is in your midst, is a jealous God.
Webster's defines "jealous" as intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. Christ
was fully aware of his Father's feelings about rivals competing for His
people's affections.
†. Mark 12:28-30 . . One of the scribes asked him: Which is the first of all
the commandments? Jesus replied, "The first is this: Hear, O Israel! The
Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.
You see; when somebody is devoted to the Lord their God with all their
heart, all their soul, all their mind, and all their strength, then there is
nothing left of their heart, soul, mind, and strength for a rival to share.
If Christ's mother were really, and truly, a mediatrix between himself and
humanity, it would certainly be developed in the New Testament because
that would be a really big deal; but it is nowhere even so much as hinted.
Therefore, in accordance with Luke 11:1-2, Deut 6:13, and Mark 12:28-30,
conscientious Christians must-- if for no other reason than respect for God's
feelings --regard prayers directed to a celestial female eminence as offensive
to his Father.
In looking back at my years as a Catholic youth, I cannot recall catechism
instructors ever once telling me that God is sensitive; viz: that He has
feelings and/or that His feelings get hurt. Maybe they said something about
it and I wasn't paying attention; it's just that I don't recall.
Point being: God has given Christ's followers a protocol for associating with
Himself; and I am of the very strong opinion that His feelings get hurt when
Christ's supposed followers ignore the protocol and attempt to circumvent it.
Q: Does it matter who Catholics pray to?
A: No it doesn't; and here's why.
According to God's testimony, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining
to Christianity, people lacking eternal life are also lacking His son. In other
words: they are quite christless.
†. 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal
life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; and
whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.
There are currently 1.2 billion Catholics who all, to a man, including the
Pope, insist that no one obtains eternal life till sometime after they pass
away.
Well; that can mean but one thing, and one thing only. Seeing as how those
1.2 billion souls are currently existing without eternal life, then according to
God's expert testimony they are currently existing without Christ, and they will
die without Christ too; so they could even pray to Shiva and Vishnu if they
wanted without making any difference in their destiny.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
†. Luke 11:1-2 . . One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he
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: Mother of God,
No; Christ didn't instruct his followers to pray to his mother; rather, to his
Father.
There are no instances of the Lord and Master of New Testament
Christianity-- nor of any of the inspired New Testament writers --either
commanding, teaching, encouraging, leading by example, or even so much
as suggesting --that prayer be made to celestial beings and/or afterlife
human beings; and for good reason. Christ, a devoted, observant Jew, never
prayed to celestial beings, nor to afterlife human beings, nor to any deities
other than the one true God; which is what all Jews are commanded.
†. Deut 6:13 . . The Lord, your God, shall you fear; him shall you serve, and
by his name shall you swear. You shall not follow other gods, such as those
of the surrounding nations, lest the wrath of the Lord, your God, flare up
against you and he destroy you from the face of the land; for the Lord, your
God, who is in your midst, is a jealous God.
Webster's defines "jealous" as intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness. Christ
was fully aware of his Father's feelings about rivals competing for His
people's affections.
†. Mark 12:28-30 . . One of the scribes asked him: Which is the first of all
the commandments? Jesus replied, "The first is this: Hear, O Israel! The
Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.
You see; when somebody is devoted to the Lord their God with all their
heart, all their soul, all their mind, and all their strength, then there is
nothing left of their heart, soul, mind, and strength for a rival to share.
If Christ's mother were really, and truly, a mediatrix between himself and
humanity, it would certainly be developed in the New Testament because
that would be a really big deal; but it is nowhere even so much as hinted.
Therefore, in accordance with Luke 11:1-2, Deut 6:13, and Mark 12:28-30,
conscientious Christians must-- if for no other reason than respect for God's
feelings --regard prayers directed to a celestial female eminence as offensive
to his Father.
In looking back at my years as a Catholic youth, I cannot recall catechism
instructors ever once telling me that God is sensitive; viz: that He has
feelings and/or that His feelings get hurt. Maybe they said something about
it and I wasn't paying attention; it's just that I don't recall.
Point being: God has given Christ's followers a protocol for associating with
Himself; and I am of the very strong opinion that His feelings get hurt when
Christ's supposed followers ignore the protocol and attempt to circumvent it.
Q: Does it matter who Catholics pray to?
A: No it doesn't; and here's why.
According to God's testimony, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining
to Christianity, people lacking eternal life are also lacking His son. In other
words: they are quite christless.
†. 1John 5:11-12 . . This is what God has testified: He has given us eternal
life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has this life; and
whosoever does not have this life, does not have His son.
There are currently 1.2 billion Catholics who all, to a man, including the
Pope, insist that no one obtains eternal life till sometime after they pass
away.
Well; that can mean but one thing, and one thing only. Seeing as how those
1.2 billion souls are currently existing without eternal life, then according to
God's expert testimony they are currently existing without Christ, and they will
die without Christ too; so they could even pray to Shiva and Vishnu if they
wanted without making any difference in their destiny.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WeberHome
New member
-
unto me.
Rome does not draw all men unto Christ. No; Rome draws all men unto his
mother. The December 2015 issue of National Geographic bears this out.
God is not on friendly terms with the Roman church. How do I know that?
Because according to Christ's testimony-- as an expert witness in all matters
pertaining to his Father's business --God does not draw people to Christ's
mother, no, God draws people to Christ.
†. Matt 17:5 . . Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a
voice out of the cloud, saying: This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well
pleased; listen to Him!
If so many Catholics around the world are drawn more to Christ's mother
than to Christ: what's the problem. That's easy. They are not obeying God's
edit to listen to His son. By their devotion to Christ's mother, they are
actually thwarting God's efforts to get their attention.
†. John 6:44 . . No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent
me draw him
The Roman church can be likened to the church of Laodicea where Christ is
depicted standing outside the building banging on the door trying to get
someone to open it (Rev 3:14-22). Nobody in that church listened him; not
even its hierarchy.
But those of us who listen to Christ instead of listening to Rome, are assured
permanent protection from the wrath of God.
†. 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.
†. Heb 7:25 . . He is able to save forever those who draw near to God
through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
To illustrate a point; I'm going to deliberately mistranslate Heb 7:25. Watch
for the revision.
"He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since
his mother always lives to make intercession for them."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
†. John 12:32 . . And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men
unto me.
Rome does not draw all men unto Christ. No; Rome draws all men unto his
mother. The December 2015 issue of National Geographic bears this out.
God is not on friendly terms with the Roman church. How do I know that?
Because according to Christ's testimony-- as an expert witness in all matters
pertaining to his Father's business --God does not draw people to Christ's
mother, no, God draws people to Christ.
†. Matt 17:5 . . Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a
voice out of the cloud, saying: This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well
pleased; listen to Him!
If so many Catholics around the world are drawn more to Christ's mother
than to Christ: what's the problem. That's easy. They are not obeying God's
edit to listen to His son. By their devotion to Christ's mother, they are
actually thwarting God's efforts to get their attention.
†. John 6:44 . . No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent
me draw him
The Roman church can be likened to the church of Laodicea where Christ is
depicted standing outside the building banging on the door trying to get
someone to open it (Rev 3:14-22). Nobody in that church listened him; not
even its hierarchy.
But those of us who listen to Christ instead of listening to Rome, are assured
permanent protection from the wrath of God.
†. 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.
†. Heb 7:25 . . He is able to save forever those who draw near to God
through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
To illustrate a point; I'm going to deliberately mistranslate Heb 7:25. Watch
for the revision.
"He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since
his mother always lives to make intercession for them."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Cruciform
New member
Straw Man Fallacy. Don't bother. :yawn:
Cruciform
New member
Already answered---and corrected---in Post #303 above.
Cruciform
New member
Still waiting for you to post your proof for this anti-Catholic claim. Please post it now.
Right Divider
Body part
You've never proven that the RCC is what you say that it is. You post RCC biased opinions about "history". Your history is nothing but a silly fantasy that does not even come close to representing the truth.
Cruciform
New member
Post #309
Right Divider
Body part
Post #312
Cruciform
New member
So, then, no actual proof whatsoever for your anti-Catholic claims. That's what I thought. :yawn:
Right Divider
Body part
You think that you know something, but you don't.
Cruciform
New member
I know that you have thus far been utterly unable to provide the proof for your anti-Catholic claim requested in Post #309 above. So much, then, for the claim itself.
WeberHome
New member
-
God granted Jewish rulers the authority to legislate in regards to cases not
specifically spelled out in the laws of Old Testament Judaism; and it is a
death offense to ignore their decisions. (Deut 17:8-13)
However, the rulers were never given carte blanche to add to, embellish,
diminish, nor repeal already-existing covenanted Law.
†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of Yhvh your God that I
enjoin upon you.
†. Deut 5:29-30 . . Be careful, then, to do as Yhvh your God has
commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the
path that Yhvh your God has enjoined upon you.
†. Deut 27:26 . .Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Law and
observe them.
The intent of Deut 17:8-13 was to give Jewish rulers the authority to apply
the covenanted law to Jewish civil life; not to write new laws for the religion
of Judaism that would actually make the religion of Judaism more strict and
more burdensome than it really is. Israel's religious laws were God-given
and set in stone; any additional laws Jewish authorities legislate have to be
regarded as non-covenanted law; e.g. the Talmud and Halacha (a.k.a.
Halakhah)
By that same principle, Christ gave his top men the authority to police his
church (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:15-18) but he did not give them authority to
independently add to the religion of Christianity nor to repeal it, nor to
diminish it. Whatever they taught in their teachings, and/or their writings,
they did by the inspiration and/or revelation of God, not by the fertile
imaginations of despotic men of ambition.
Although the laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and commandments of the
Apostles are binding upon all Christians, the in-house laws, rules, teachings,
traditions, and commandments of individual denominations are not. Any
laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and commandments that an individual
church and/or denomination binds upon itself and its members have to be
considered local only, and binding only within the jurisdiction of the
individual church and/or denomination.
No one is bound to the laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and
commandments of just one denomination within Christianity claiming to be
the "one true church". That's laughable. Christ's church alone is the one true
church; there is no one denomination like Roman Catholicism or Mormonism
that is the one true church. A claim of that nature is nothing but downright
fraud.
If Christ was chafed with Jewish rulers for legislating laws, rules, teachings,
traditions, and commandments that countermanded, added to, embellished,
repealed, and/or diminished from Old Testament Judaism, don't you think he
would be just as chafed with Christian rulers who legislate laws, rules,
teachings, traditions, and commandments that countermand, add to,
embellish, repeal, and/or diminish from, New Testament Christianity? Yes, of
course he would; primarily because it invalidates Christ's personal guarantee
that his yoke is easy, and his burden is light (Matt 11:28-30)
Case in point: The Roman emperor Constantine initiated a committee to
compile a universally acceptable Christian handbook from an archive of
already-existing manuscripts in hopes it would unify the Christian factions in
his kingdom.
Ironically, the Catholic Church, which takes sole credit for the existence of
the New Testament, has succeeded in fragmenting Christ's church with far
more effect than Constantine's efforts to unify it. As of mid 2009, there were
1.14 billion Catholics worldwide totally alienated from the rest of Christ's
church via Rome's catechism, and the laws of its Ecumenical Councils, its
collection of Bulls, and its encyclicals. The average pew warmer's Christianity is
a smothering religion that has become far more strict, and far more
cumbersome than the Apostles ever dreamed or expected.
†. Matt 15:7-9 . .You hypocrites! Isaiah was prophesying about you when he
said: These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away.
Their worship is a farce, for they replace God's will with their own man-made
teachings.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
God granted Jewish rulers the authority to legislate in regards to cases not
specifically spelled out in the laws of Old Testament Judaism; and it is a
death offense to ignore their decisions. (Deut 17:8-13)
However, the rulers were never given carte blanche to add to, embellish,
diminish, nor repeal already-existing covenanted Law.
†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of Yhvh your God that I
enjoin upon you.
†. Deut 5:29-30 . . Be careful, then, to do as Yhvh your God has
commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the
path that Yhvh your God has enjoined upon you.
†. Deut 27:26 . .Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Law and
observe them.
The intent of Deut 17:8-13 was to give Jewish rulers the authority to apply
the covenanted law to Jewish civil life; not to write new laws for the religion
of Judaism that would actually make the religion of Judaism more strict and
more burdensome than it really is. Israel's religious laws were God-given
and set in stone; any additional laws Jewish authorities legislate have to be
regarded as non-covenanted law; e.g. the Talmud and Halacha (a.k.a.
Halakhah)
By that same principle, Christ gave his top men the authority to police his
church (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:15-18) but he did not give them authority to
independently add to the religion of Christianity nor to repeal it, nor to
diminish it. Whatever they taught in their teachings, and/or their writings,
they did by the inspiration and/or revelation of God, not by the fertile
imaginations of despotic men of ambition.
Although the laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and commandments of the
Apostles are binding upon all Christians, the in-house laws, rules, teachings,
traditions, and commandments of individual denominations are not. Any
laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and commandments that an individual
church and/or denomination binds upon itself and its members have to be
considered local only, and binding only within the jurisdiction of the
individual church and/or denomination.
No one is bound to the laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and
commandments of just one denomination within Christianity claiming to be
the "one true church". That's laughable. Christ's church alone is the one true
church; there is no one denomination like Roman Catholicism or Mormonism
that is the one true church. A claim of that nature is nothing but downright
fraud.
If Christ was chafed with Jewish rulers for legislating laws, rules, teachings,
traditions, and commandments that countermanded, added to, embellished,
repealed, and/or diminished from Old Testament Judaism, don't you think he
would be just as chafed with Christian rulers who legislate laws, rules,
teachings, traditions, and commandments that countermand, add to,
embellish, repeal, and/or diminish from, New Testament Christianity? Yes, of
course he would; primarily because it invalidates Christ's personal guarantee
that his yoke is easy, and his burden is light (Matt 11:28-30)
Case in point: The Roman emperor Constantine initiated a committee to
compile a universally acceptable Christian handbook from an archive of
already-existing manuscripts in hopes it would unify the Christian factions in
his kingdom.
Ironically, the Catholic Church, which takes sole credit for the existence of
the New Testament, has succeeded in fragmenting Christ's church with far
more effect than Constantine's efforts to unify it. As of mid 2009, there were
1.14 billion Catholics worldwide totally alienated from the rest of Christ's
church via Rome's catechism, and the laws of its Ecumenical Councils, its
collection of Bulls, and its encyclicals. The average pew warmer's Christianity is
a smothering religion that has become far more strict, and far more
cumbersome than the Apostles ever dreamed or expected.
†. Matt 15:7-9 . .You hypocrites! Isaiah was prophesying about you when he
said: These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away.
Their worship is a farce, for they replace God's will with their own man-made
teachings.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WeberHome
New member
-
Here's Rome's definition of contrition:
CCC 1451 . . 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."
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. However, resolve is not our concern in this section;
but rather, the concept of sorrow and how it relates to repentance.
The primary New Testament Greek word for repentance-- used 34 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 second 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.
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.
So then, where does repentance fit into the scheme of reconciliation? Well;
that's pretty easy. It simply means to agree with God that certain of your
thoughts, words, and deeds are evil (1John 1:8 & 1John 1:10). It is
important to note in 1John 1:9 that regret is not part of the formula; no, in
order to obtain cleansing and forgiveness one only has to own up to their
bad. Contrition plays no role in the formula at all.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Here's Rome's definition of contrition:
CCC 1451 . . 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."
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. However, resolve is not our concern in this section;
but rather, the concept of sorrow and how it relates to repentance.
The primary New Testament Greek word for repentance-- used 34 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 second 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.
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.
So then, where does repentance fit into the scheme of reconciliation? Well;
that's pretty easy. It simply means to agree with God that certain of your
thoughts, words, and deeds are evil (1John 1:8 & 1John 1:10). It is
important to note in 1John 1:9 that regret is not part of the formula; no, in
order to obtain cleansing and forgiveness one only has to own up to their
bad. Contrition plays no role in the formula at all.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
WeberHome
New member
-
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
Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the books of Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The problem is: according to Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30, and Deut 27:26 the
covenant can't be cherry-picked; viz: it's all or nothing at all
†. Jas 2:10 . . For whosoever shall keep all the law, and yet offend in one
point, he is guilty of all.
Which means that Rome's use of even one point of that covenant in the
recipe of its plan of salvation, puts Catholics in grave danger of being
prosecuted as repeat offenders.
†. Num 15:30-31 . . But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts
defiantly reviles Yhvh; that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has spurned the word of Yhvh 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.
Seeing as how human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of
the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God; and seeing as how
compliance with the Ten Commandments is a key ingredient in the recipe of
Rome's plan of salvation; then all the while I was a Catholic, Christ was of
no use to me whatsoever. In my case, Christ died for nothing.
†. Gal 2:21 . . I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes
through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
†. Gal 3:21 . . If a law had been given which was able to impart life, then
righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
†. Gal 5:4 . .You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be
justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
†. Rom 3:20 . . By the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in His sight
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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
Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the books of Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
The problem is: according to Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30, and Deut 27:26 the
covenant can't be cherry-picked; viz: it's all or nothing at all
†. Jas 2:10 . . For whosoever shall keep all the law, and yet offend in one
point, he is guilty of all.
Which means that Rome's use of even one point of that covenant in the
recipe of its plan of salvation, puts Catholics in grave danger of being
prosecuted as repeat offenders.
†. Num 15:30-31 . . But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts
defiantly reviles Yhvh; that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has spurned the word of Yhvh 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.
Seeing as how human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of
the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God; and seeing as how
compliance with the Ten Commandments is a key ingredient in the recipe of
Rome's plan of salvation; then all the while I was a Catholic, Christ was of
no use to me whatsoever. In my case, Christ died for nothing.
†. Gal 2:21 . . I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes
through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
†. Gal 3:21 . . If a law had been given which was able to impart life, then
righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
†. Gal 5:4 . .You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be
justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
†. Rom 3:20 . . By the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in His sight
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Last edited:
WeberHome
New member
-
Webster's defines "penance" as an act of self-abasement, mortification, or
devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin.
Extreme forms of penance include things like malnutrition, hermitage,
celibacy, walking around with a pebble in your shoe, privation, self
flagellation, and the wearing of garter belts studded with metal spikes; viz:
in Rome's mind; pain and suffering = holiness and purification.
Those things may seem logical to a humanistic sense of piety; but actually
Christ's believing followers can get by just fine without self-abasement,
mortification, and devotion performed to show sorrow and/or repentance for sin.
†. 1John 1:9 . . If we confess our sins, He is faithful, and just, and will
forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
According to the above; the only requirement for absolution is admission of
guilt, and God is guaranteed to forgive and purify; and He won't do it
arbitrarily, no, He will do it justly; which simply means that God doesn't
sweep sins under the rug. That's because the wages of sin is death (Rom
6:23) and those wages have to be paid before God can let people off.
†. 1John 2:2 . . And he himself is the propitiation for our sins
Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate,
mollify, placate, sweeten. In other words, Christ's crucifixion adequately
satisfies Rom 6:23's demand for its pound of flesh.
†. Isa 53:4-6 . . Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he
was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the
punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Bottom line: Penance insults the spirit of charity. It says people have to
prove they deserve the application of Isa 53:4-6 before God will grant it;
and if they fail to prove they deserve it, He puts a lump of coal in their Xmas
stocking instead of a goody.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Webster's defines "penance" as an act of self-abasement, mortification, or
devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin.
Extreme forms of penance include things like malnutrition, hermitage,
celibacy, walking around with a pebble in your shoe, privation, self
flagellation, and the wearing of garter belts studded with metal spikes; viz:
in Rome's mind; pain and suffering = holiness and purification.
Those things may seem logical to a humanistic sense of piety; but actually
Christ's believing followers can get by just fine without self-abasement,
mortification, and devotion performed to show sorrow and/or repentance for sin.
†. 1John 1:9 . . If we confess our sins, He is faithful, and just, and will
forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
According to the above; the only requirement for absolution is admission of
guilt, and God is guaranteed to forgive and purify; and He won't do it
arbitrarily, no, He will do it justly; which simply means that God doesn't
sweep sins under the rug. That's because the wages of sin is death (Rom
6:23) and those wages have to be paid before God can let people off.
†. 1John 2:2 . . And he himself is the propitiation for our sins
Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate,
mollify, placate, sweeten. In other words, Christ's crucifixion adequately
satisfies Rom 6:23's demand for its pound of flesh.
†. Isa 53:4-6 . . Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he
was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the
punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Bottom line: Penance insults the spirit of charity. It says people have to
prove they deserve the application of Isa 53:4-6 before God will grant it;
and if they fail to prove they deserve it, He puts a lump of coal in their Xmas
stocking instead of a goody.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Last edited:
WeberHome
New member
-
CLAIM: The very fact that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit,
makes her the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
RESPONSE: Yes, Christ's mom conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
(Luke 1:35) but she didn't conceive with the Holy Spirit. That's a distinctive
difference.
The one is a miracle; while the other is a sin because it alleges that Jesus'
mom and the Holy Spirit became married by means of sex; which is
outrageous to say the least. In point of fact, by using sex in lieu of a proper
marriage, the Holy Spirit would've turned Jesus' mom into a harlot.
In addition: if the Holy Ghost consummated a marriage with Mary, then The
Father did too, and so did The Son: the entire Trinity would have slept with
Joseph's wife; including her own son since he's a member of the Trinity too.
CLAIM: You are wrong in saying Mary was wed to all three persons of the
Trinity. Mary's relationship with the three persons of the Godhead differ from
each other. Mary's chief title is Mother Of God. But, when we say she is
God's Mother, we are referring to her relationship with the second person of
the Trinity; not to the first nor the third.
RESPONSE: Since it was the Holy Ghost who allegedly sired Jesus, and since
it was the Holy Ghost who allegedly married Christ's mother, then why is
Jesus never called the son of the Holy Ghost? Did you ever stop to think of
that?
You see, Christ's conception by the Holy Spirit automatically made him the
Father's son because the Father and the Holy Spirit are one and the same
God; viz: it is impossible to fragment the Trinity and break it down into
three separate divinities. It is only one divinity.
NOTE: When Jesus referred to a person he called "My Father" was he
referring to the Holy Ghost who allegedly sired him; or to some other
personage? Who is this person whom Jesus called My Father? Isn't it the first
person of the Trinity? Yes, it is. So then, the first person of the Trinity, and
the third person of the Trinity, are one and the same person because both
are given credit for siring Jesus.
The fact that Christ is God, and that Mary gave birth to him, is the very
reason why Catholics believe her to be God's mother. Isn't that right? Yes,
that's right. So then, applying the logic of their own reasoning: God is the
son of the Holy Spirit, the son of the Son, and the son of the Father too.
Ergo: the triune God is His own father and His own son too.
So then, according to Rome's own proprietary beliefs: Christ's mom is not
only a bigamist, an adulteress, and a harlot; but also an incestuous mother
by bearing a child sired by her own son.
Rome has been making Jesus to be God for years, so Catholics shouldn't be
antagonized by the logical conclusions of their own dogma.
Rome's sick yarn about Mary and God's so-called mystical marriage has
burdened a pretty fair amount of shame and mockery upon Christianity, and
I will relish with delight Rome's utter and thorough humiliation at the throne
of God when its proprietary yarns, fantasies, and myths are debunked and
ignobly discarded in the lake of fire right along with the imaginative buffoons
that invented them.
†. 2Cor 11:13-15 . . For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers,
disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan
disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his
servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end
shall be according to their deeds.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CLAIM: The very fact that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit,
makes her the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
RESPONSE: Yes, Christ's mom conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
(Luke 1:35) but she didn't conceive with the Holy Spirit. That's a distinctive
difference.
The one is a miracle; while the other is a sin because it alleges that Jesus'
mom and the Holy Spirit became married by means of sex; which is
outrageous to say the least. In point of fact, by using sex in lieu of a proper
marriage, the Holy Spirit would've turned Jesus' mom into a harlot.
In addition: if the Holy Ghost consummated a marriage with Mary, then The
Father did too, and so did The Son: the entire Trinity would have slept with
Joseph's wife; including her own son since he's a member of the Trinity too.
CLAIM: You are wrong in saying Mary was wed to all three persons of the
Trinity. Mary's relationship with the three persons of the Godhead differ from
each other. Mary's chief title is Mother Of God. But, when we say she is
God's Mother, we are referring to her relationship with the second person of
the Trinity; not to the first nor the third.
RESPONSE: Since it was the Holy Ghost who allegedly sired Jesus, and since
it was the Holy Ghost who allegedly married Christ's mother, then why is
Jesus never called the son of the Holy Ghost? Did you ever stop to think of
that?
You see, Christ's conception by the Holy Spirit automatically made him the
Father's son because the Father and the Holy Spirit are one and the same
God; viz: it is impossible to fragment the Trinity and break it down into
three separate divinities. It is only one divinity.
NOTE: When Jesus referred to a person he called "My Father" was he
referring to the Holy Ghost who allegedly sired him; or to some other
personage? Who is this person whom Jesus called My Father? Isn't it the first
person of the Trinity? Yes, it is. So then, the first person of the Trinity, and
the third person of the Trinity, are one and the same person because both
are given credit for siring Jesus.
The fact that Christ is God, and that Mary gave birth to him, is the very
reason why Catholics believe her to be God's mother. Isn't that right? Yes,
that's right. So then, applying the logic of their own reasoning: God is the
son of the Holy Spirit, the son of the Son, and the son of the Father too.
Ergo: the triune God is His own father and His own son too.
So then, according to Rome's own proprietary beliefs: Christ's mom is not
only a bigamist, an adulteress, and a harlot; but also an incestuous mother
by bearing a child sired by her own son.
Rome has been making Jesus to be God for years, so Catholics shouldn't be
antagonized by the logical conclusions of their own dogma.
Rome's sick yarn about Mary and God's so-called mystical marriage has
burdened a pretty fair amount of shame and mockery upon Christianity, and
I will relish with delight Rome's utter and thorough humiliation at the throne
of God when its proprietary yarns, fantasies, and myths are debunked and
ignobly discarded in the lake of fire right along with the imaginative buffoons
that invented them.
†. 2Cor 11:13-15 . . For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers,
disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan
disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his
servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end
shall be according to their deeds.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=