Apostatized From Rome

[WebersHome]

[font=Georgia]-
My mom had me baptized an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944;
and when old enough; enrolled me in catechism where I eventually
completed First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

My aunt and uncle were Catholics, their son is a Catholic, one of my half
brothers is now a semi retired Friar. My father-in-law was a Catholic, as was
my mother-in-law. Everybody alive on my wife's side are Catholics; her
aunts and uncles, and her cousins. My sister-in-law was a nun for a number
of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I have things to thank the Church for. It instilled within me an unshakable
confidence in the Holy Bible as a reliable authority in all matters pertaining
to faith and practice. It also instilled within me a trust in the integrity of
Jesus Christ. Very early in my youth; I began to believe that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

I was very proud to be affiliated with Roman Catholicism, and confident as
all get out that it is the one true Christian religion. Some Catholics see red
whenever the Church is criticized and/or critiqued, but I never did. Some
Catholics see criticism and/or critique of the Church's beliefs and practices as
hatred for Catholics. I have never understood that mentality.

Ironically, one of the Church's enemies, the Jehovah's Witnesses, sometimes
react the same way when somebody criticizes and/or critiques the Watch
Tower Society. For some odd reason, it translates in their minds as hatred
for Jehovah's Witnesses. I think some people have trouble telling the
difference between a sport and a sport's fans; if you know what I mean.

Oddly, though I was confident that the Bible is a reliable authority in all
matters pertaining to faith and practice; I had never actually sat down and
read it. A co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968
suggested that I buy one and see for myself what it says.

Everything went smoothly till I got to the New Testament, and in no time at
all I began to realize that Rome does not always agree with the Holy Bible;
nor does it always agree with Christ. Well; that was unacceptable with me
because I was, and still am, confident that the Holy Bible is a reliable
authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, and that Christ knew
what he was talking about and meant what he said.

Well; I soon became confronted with a very serious decision. Do I continue
to follow Rome and its catechism, or do I switch to following Christ and the
Holy Bible?

The decision was a no-brainer due to my confidence in the Holy Bible as a
reliable authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice; and due to
my trust in Jesus Christ's integrity-- that he knew what he was talking about
and meant what he said. So here I am today 48 years later still a Protestant.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==[/font]

[WebersHome]

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

Rome's interpretation of that passage pretty much echoes Santa Claus'
business practices. For example the lyrics from the classic jingle: Santa
Claus Is Coming To Town.

"You better watch out, You better not cry, Better not pout, I'm telling you
why: Santa Claus is coming to town

He's making a list, And checking it twice; Gonna find out Who's naughty and
nice: Santa Claus is coming to town.

He sees you when you're sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows
if you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness sake!"

There's no generosity in that song; none at all. Nor is there any altruism, nor
any kindness. There are no gifts in Santa's bag; only merit awards for those
who prove themselves worthy to deserve them.

Stay with me; I have a point to make.

OBJECTION: Regarding eternal assurance, and your apparent view that
Catholics do not think they are saved, please consider the official position of
the Church:

"By grace alone, through faith in Christ's saving work, and by no merit of our
own are we called by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who equips and calls
us to good works."

RESPONSE: There is no salvation in that position. The quote is basically
speaking of being called, not to salvation, but to good works. In a nutshell:
the Church believes that Christ's crucifixion makes it possible to be spared
the wrath of God by means of good works.

CLAIM: While I and other faithful Catholics can feel comfortable in our
salvation at this very moment, it is presumptuous and arrogant to assume
your eternal destiny before the end of our earthly life. Maybe you should
think a bit more about "work(ing) out your salvation, in fear and trembling."
(Phlp 2:12).

RESPONSE: That claim corroborates the Church's official position that
Christ's crucifixion makes it possible to be saved by good works; while at the
same time failing to state exactly how many good works are necessary to
succeed. Jehovah's Witnesses pretty much believe the very same thing.

A good-works salvation is diametrically opposed to a grace-salvation; and
turns what is supposed to be a kind-hearted freebie into a merit award.

†. Eph 2:8-9 . . God spared you by His benevolence when you believed. And
you can't take credit for this; it's a gift from God. Salvation is not
compensation for the good things we have done; so none of us can boast
about it.

†. Titus 3:4-8 . . He spared us, not on the basis of deeds which we have
done in righteousness, but according to His mercy; by the washing of
regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us
richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we
might be made heirs to an anticipation of eternal life.

By failing to understand that a gift is a gratuity-- which Webster's defines as
something given voluntarily beyond recognition and/or obligation --Rome
subsequently failed to properly interpret Phlp 2:12. People who insist upon a
merit-based salvation have not yet believed the gospel; because Paul said
that God's benevolence is available "when you believe" and by no other
method.

Working in order to earn one's rescue from the wrath of God insults the
spirit of altruism, and places God's benevolence in the category of a debt.

†. Rom 4:4-5 . . Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him
as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but
trusts God who acquits the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

†. John 4:10-14 . . If you knew the gift of God and who is saying to you,
"Give me a drink" you would have asked him and he would have given you
living water.

. . . The woman said to him: Sir, you do not even have a bucket and the
cistern is deep; where then can you get this living water? Are you greater
than our father Jacob, who gave us this cistern and drank from it himself
with his children and his flocks?

. . . Jesus answered and said to her: Everyone who drinks this water will be
thirsty again; but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the
water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal
life.

†. Rev 22:17 . .The Spirit and the bride say, "Come" And let him who hears
say, "Come" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him
take the free gift of the water of life.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Georgia]-
†. 1Pet 1:22 . . Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth
through the Spirit unto sincere love of the brethren, see that ye love one
another with a pure heart fervently

Some Christians truly feel that the purification of one’s soul is transient; viz:
the moment they leave a confessional their souls begin getting soiled all
over again. No; according to John 13:10, that would be a matter pertaining
to one's feet rather than their soul.

Peter is not talking about that. No, his focus is upon something far more
effective than a confessional. He’s talking about a one-time purification,
rather than a weekly routine; and it’s permanent too rather than a
temporary expedient.

†. Heb 10:11 . . Day after day every Levitical priest stands and performs his
religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one
sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

. . . Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,
because by just that one sacrifice alone he has made perfect forever those
who have been set apart for God.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[WebersHome]

[font=Georgia]-
What we’re talking about here is the human conscience. This is crucial
because there are no sacrifices, nor any atonements, in the Aaronic
qorbanot system stipulated for the human conscience; no, none at all.

†. Heb 9:9 . . For the gifts and sacrifices that the priests offer are not able to
cleanse the consciences of the people who bring them.

The koiné Greek word for "conscience" in that passage is suneidesis (soon-i'
day-sis). It means perception; which Webster's defines as the way you think
about, or understand, someone or something.

NOTE: The NLT's word "cleanse" isn't translated from a Greek word because
there is no Greek word for it in the manuscripts; hence: it's been penciled
in; viz: it's an editorial insertion. The KJV, NAS, NASB, RSV, and the Catholic
Bible insert "perfect". The NIV inserts "clear".

So one could conceivably insert any old word they cared to in that passage.
Personally I would like to see Heb 9:9 translated like this:

"For the gifts and sacrifices that the priests offer are not able to address the
consciences of the people who bring them."

In other words: the sacrificial system in the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
only addresses people's words and actions; while leaving their perception
ignored.

Human perception is produced by a three-pound lump of flabby organic
tissue housed within our bony little skulls. It's not all that difficult to control
one's words and actions; but I have yet to encounter someone who can
exercise 100% control over their brain. It just can't be done. Our brains
literally have a mind of their own; and we are prisoners of it.

Paul once complained that in him, that is, in his flesh, dwelt no good thing
Well; his "flesh" refers to the meaty parts of his body; which of course
included his brain. That portion of himself had a "will" of its own, over which
Paul had absolutely no control; ergo: he referred to his flesh as "this body of
death" and referred to himself as a "wretched man".

The ideal sacrifice would not only address the brain's perception, but also
make it possible for God to replace the brain's perception with a perception
that never needs addressing.

†. Heb 10:1-4 . .The law is only a shadow of the good things that are
coming-= not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the
same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who
draw near to worship.

. . . If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the
worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have
felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,
because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

The focus of that verse is Yom Kippur. It's kind of a humorous ritual because
the people are not assembled for the purpose of obtaining an atonement,
but rather, for the purpose of beating themselves over the head for past
sins.

In other words: the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as
per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy never, ever, allows
people to stop feeling guilty. Anyone who attempts to stop feeling guilty gets
slammed with a curse.

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

My point is: The Roman sacrament of reconciliation can't obtain absolution
for the conscience any more than Aaronic sacrifices can; ergo: Catholicism's
reconciliatory system is really no better a reconciliatory system than
Judaism's. Though both systems address people's words and actions, neither
address people's feelings of guilt.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[Ancient of Years]

The NLT's word "cleanse" isn't translated from a Greek word because there is no Greek word for it in the manuscripts; hence: it's been penciled in; viz: it's an editorial insertion. The KJV, NAS, NASB, RSV, and the Catholic Bible insert "perfect". The NIV inserts "clear".

So one could conceivably insert any old word they cared to in that passage.

As can be seen in the Greek text here, the passage does include the word ‘perfect’ , (teleiOsai G5048). Nothing was penciled in.

[WebersHome]

[font=Georgia]As can be seen in the Greek text here, the passage does include the word ‘perfect’ , (teleiOsai G5048). Nothing was penciled in.[/font]

[font=Georgia]The word teleioÏŒsai is enclosed with guillemets in the Greek interlinear of the
Strong's Concordance to indicate that it's not actually in the Greek text.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[Ancient of Years]

[font=Georgia]As can be seen in the Greek text here, the passage does include the word ‘perfect’ , (teleiOsai G5048). Nothing was penciled in.[/font]

[font=Georgia]The word teleioÏŒsai is enclosed with guillemets in the Greek interlinear of the
Strong's Concordance to indicate that it's not actually in the Greek text.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

I do not understand your reply.

Strong’s Concordance is based on the KJV. (Reference) I have no idea what you mean by “the Greek interlinear of the Strong's Concordance� unless you mean a Greek Interlinear of the Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based. (Reference) I have already provided a Greek Interlinear of the Textus Receptus. It contains the word τελειῶσαι (teleiOsai). No <<guillemets>> on the Greek. No [brackets] on the English word ‘perfect’ in the translation, which as I have already showed is the correct translation.

Here is Young’s Literal Translation which includes the word ‘perfect’. Note that it has examples of words in brackets that are added in the English that do not appear in the Greek. ‘Perfect’ is not one of the bracketed words.

Can you provide a link or other reference to:

@ “The Greek interlinear of the Strong's Concordance� that is other than the Textus Receptus

@ Any Greek text that does not have τελειῶσαι or encloses it in guillemets.

@ Any English translation in which a word, any word, corresponding to τελειῶσαι is either omitted or bracketed.

[Ancient of Years]

Here are real guillemots. I only simulated them in the previous post.

« »

[WebersHome]

[font=Georgia]-
†. Hag 2:10-15 . .On the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, in the second
year of Darius, the word of Yhvh came to Haggai the prophet saying; Thus
says Yhvh of Legions; Ask now the priests for a ruling:

. . . If a man carries consecrated meat in the fold of his garment, and
touches bread with this fold, or cooked food, wine, oil, or any other food, will
it become consecrated? And the priests answered and said; No.

. . .Then Haggai said; If one who is unclean from a corpse touches any of
these, will the latter become unclean? And the priests answered and said; It
will become unclean.

. . .Then Haggai answered and said; So is this people. And so is this nation
before Me; testifies Yhvh, and so is every work of their hands; and what
they offer there is unclean.

This is a fascinating principle. The consecration of a consecrated item,
cannot be transferred to an unconsecrated item by physical contact with it.

In contrast, the uncleanness of an unclean item can be transferred to an
otherwise clean item by physical contact with it.

So then, when people bless themselves with holy water when passing
through the vestibule of a Catholic church, all they are really doing is making
the holy water unholy; viz: the instant the consecrated water makes contact
with the skin of an unconsecrated human being; it makes the sacred water
just as unsacred as the water in a hog trough.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[Ancient of Years]

[font=Georgia]-
†. Hag 2:10-15 . .On the twenty-fourth of the ninth month, in the second
year of Darius, the word of Yhvh came to Haggai the prophet saying; Thus
says Yhvh of Legions; Ask now the priests for a ruling:

. . . If a man carries consecrated meat in the fold of his garment, and
touches bread with this fold, or cooked food, wine, oil, or any other food, will
it become consecrated? And the priests answered and said; No.

. . .Then Haggai said; If one who is unclean from a corpse touches any of
these, will the latter become unclean? And the priests answered and said; It
will become unclean.

. . .Then Haggai answered and said; So is this people. And so is this nation
before Me; testifies Yhvh, and so is every work of their hands; and what
they offer there is unclean.

This is a fascinating principle. The consecration of a consecrated item,
cannot be transferred to an unconsecrated item by physical contact with it.

In contrast, the uncleanness of an unclean item can be transferred to an
otherwise clean item by physical contact with it.

So then, when people bless themselves with holy water when passing
through the vestibule of a Catholic church, all they are really doing is making
the holy water unholy; viz: the instant the consecrated water makes contact
with the skin of an unconsecrated human being; it makes the sacred water
just as unsacred as the water in a hog trough.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

Incorrect, even if one insists on applying Jewish ritual purity laws to Catholic practices, which is already a stretch. Jewish ritual purification involves the use of water. The water endows purity. It does not lose purity by contact with the impure.

Several religious functions are served by this powerful symbol of submerging in water. In the days of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem, the mikveh was used by all Jews who wanted to enter the precincts of the Sanctuary. The law required every person inside the Temple grounds to be in a spiritually pure state appropriate to the pristine spirituality of the Sanctuary itself.

Throughout Jewish history, unmarried women have immersed in the mikveh prior to their wedding; married women immerse at the end of seven days of stainless purity from the end of each monthly menstrual cycle, in preparation for the resumption of family relations in their most fertile days.

A major function of immersion in the mikveh is for conversion to Judaism. The sages declare that a gentile who wishes to become a Jew must undergo the identical process by which Jewish ancestors converted. As Jews performed immersion at Mt. Sinai to complete the conversion process they had begun with circumcision as they left Egypt, so converts in every age must immerse in a mikveh.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article ... he-mikveh/#

There are elaborate rules for what kind of water to put in the mikveh and how to do it. But once it is properly established, the water never becomes ritually impure.

There is, however, one regulation with regard to the mikveh which considerably eases the problems of assuring a supply of valid water. Once it possesses the minimum quantity of 40 se'ah of valid water even though "someone draws water in a jug and throws it into the mikveh all day long, all the water is valid." In addition "if there is an upper mikveh containing 40 se'ah of valid water, and someone puts drawn water in the upper mikveh, thus increasing its volume, and 40 se'ah of it flows into the lower pool, that lower pool is a valid mikveh" (Yad, Mikva'ot 4:6). It is thus possible to exploit limitless quantities of valid water.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... veh.html#2

[ttruscott]

[font=Georgia]As can be seen in the Greek text here, the passage does include the word ‘perfect’ , (teleiOsai G5048). Nothing was penciled in.[/font]

[font=Georgia]The word teleioÏŒsai is enclosed with guillemets in the Greek interlinear of the
Strong's Concordance to indicate that it's not actually in the Greek text.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

Not at http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/9-9.htm either...