Apostatized From Rome

A place to discuss Catholic topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Apostatized From Rome

Post #1

Post by 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]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Rome vs Melchizedek

Post #41

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
Melchizedek was a high priest of the Most High God in the book of Genesis
contemporary with Abraham. (Gen 14:18-20)

Mel, along with Abraham, existed prior to the covenanted law that Yhvh's
people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. This is very important seeing as how according to the Bible,
law enacted ex post facto isn't retroactive.

†. Deut 5:2-4 . .Yhvh our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Yhvh did
not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us
alive here today.

†. Rom 4:15 . . Law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no
transgression.

†. Rom 5:13 . . Sin is not imputed when there is no law.

†. Gal 3:17. .The Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does
not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God.

That being the case, then Melchizedek's constituents-- among whom was
Abraham --were immune to the consequences stipulated for breaking the
covenant's law as per Ex 34:6-7, Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut
28:1-69.

Christ's priesthood is patterned after Melchizedek's (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:5-6).
So then, seeing as how Melchizedek and his constituents-- which included
Abraham --were immune to the curses stipulated for breaking the covenant's
law, then Christ and his constituents are immune to the curses too. In a
nutshell: neither Christ nor his followers can be sent to hell for breaking the
Ten Commandments.

†. 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.

Another advantage of Christ's priesthood is its continuity.

Take for example Judaism's priesthood. No one has benefited from its
services since Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70ad. Which means of course
that 1,946 years worth of Yom Kippurs have been merely for show because
the Day Of Atonement cannot be observed properly and effectively without a
fully functioning priesthood.

In contrast: Christ's priesthood isn't effected by wars, and/or geopolitics. He
officiates in heaven where nothing happening on earth can reach to either
interfere with, or interrupt, his services (Heb 8:1-4). And seeing as how
Christ rose from the dead immortal (Rom 6:9, Heb 7:3, Rev 1:18) then old
age and death will never be a factor in either the length or the effectiveness
of his priesthood tenure.

†. Heb 7:24-25 . . He, on the other hand, because he abides forever, holds
his priesthood permanently. Hence, also, he is able to save forever those
who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them.


FYI: The order of Melchizedek is a "high priest" order (Heb 5:10, Heb 6:20).
Well; the Bible limits the number of high priests in office at a time to just
one; and the man stays in office till he's dead before being replaced-- which
of course won't happen with Christ seeing as how he rose from the dead
immortal.

Point being: Mormonism's over-crowded order of Melchizedek is unbiblical:
and so, for that matter, is Mormonism's order of Aaron seeing as how his is
the office of a high priest too.

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Contrition

Post #42

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
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 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 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.

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Rome's Recipe

Post #43

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
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

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Penance

Post #44

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
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.

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Behold Your Mother

Post #45

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
There are parts of The Holy Bible that are very easy to understand if people
would only let the Bible speak for itself while they listen to what it has to say
instead of tuning it out and putting a spin on its words. Here's a good
example of what I'm talking about.

†. John 19:26-27 . .Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his
mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus
saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to
his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple,
"Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own
home.

It is just amazing that anyone would construe that tender incident in Christ's
dying moments as a teaching that Joseph's wife was appointed the mother
of all Christians. It only goes to show you just how seriously lacking in Spirit
filled intuition Rome really is. Reading that passage sans a self-induced
psychological blindness caused by the mind's propensity to disregard
concepts that are incongruous with deep seated, preconceived notions, it's
very easy to understand what took place.

Jesus and his mother were both Jews born under the jurisdiction of the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy, The covenant obligates Jewish children to care
for their parents. Jesus was leaving; and apparently Joseph was somehow
out of the picture. So then, since Jesus was Mary's firstborn son, he became
the default male head of the house in the absence of the paterfamilias.

There are some Catholics who sincerely believe that Jesus appointed his
mom to be the Mother of all Christians in that passage. However, those
sincere Catholics are overlooking two important details in the narrative: the
other three Marys-- Mary the sister of Christ's mom, Mary the wife of Clopas,
and Mary of Magdala (John 19:25). If Jesus had really intended Christians to
interpret that passage as Mary's appointment to be the Mother of all
Christians; then he would've spoken in the plural-- "Children behold your
mother" and; "Woman behold your son and your daughters."

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that Jesus really did appoint his
mom as the mother of all Christians. Then you have got to ask: Why isn't
that concept developed in the book of Acts, nor in any of the epistles? I have
yet to find even one sentence written by any of the post Gospel authors
pointing to Christ's mother as a caretaker of Christ's sheep, nor as an
example for the sheep to emulate-- not one single verse!

Yet the Catechism-- CCC 966 and CCC 969 --exalts her to the position of
Queen, Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix: a queen, advocate,
helper, benefactress, and mediatrix who is not even one single time in the
book of Acts, nor in any of the twenty-one epistles, mentioned as somebody
special. Christ's mom isn't even listed in 1Cor 15:3-8 as one of the people
who saw him alive after his ordeal. She's barely given a passing mention in
Acts 1:14; and that's it.

To say that Mary is the mother of all Christians is serious business because
of the ramifications of such a statement. It would mean that every woman
who preceded Mary, also deserves the title of Mother of all Christians; e.g.
Adam's wife, Noah's wife, and Shem's wife; then Sarah, Rebecca, Leah,
Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary's own mom. All those mothers of
Jesus have just as much genetic right to claim to be the mother of all
Christians as Catholicism claims for Mary.

†. Gal 3:28-29 …And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's
descendants, heirs according to promise.

Since I believe myself belonging to Christ, then logic and conscience
constrain me to accept that I am, in a Scriptural way, belonging to
Abraham; ergo: if I were to actually have a valid spiritual mother, it would
be Sarah, Christ's grandmother; rather than Joseph's wife Mary.

Q: Why can't you understand that if you're Christ's sibling by adoption;
then Mary is automatically your mother?

A: The claimant erred in assuming I was adopted into Mary's
home. No, I was not. I was adopted into God's home, not Mary's. That's an
extremely important distinction; and one that everyone should really give
some serious thought.

†. Gal 4:3 . . As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of His son
into our hearts, crying out: Abba, Father!

†. Rom 8:14-16 . . For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of
God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you
received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry: Abba, Father! The
Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

Mary, same as me, is now Christ's sister by adoption; so that Mary's earthly
distinction, as Christ's mom, is out the window because in Christ, she's a
new creature in a new order (2Cor 5:17, Gal 3:26-29).

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Mary, The Holy Ghost's Wife

Post #46

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
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, Mary was engaged to Joseph. Had the Holy Ghost engaged in
sexual activity with her, He would have been an adulterer because in that
day and age, betrothed women were considered married even before the
knot was officially tied.

For example: when the angel of the Lord spoke with Joseph in a dream, the
celestial being referred to Mary not as Joseph's girlfriend, nor as his fiancée,
but as his wife. (Matt 1:20). Compare Deut 22:23-24 where a betrothed
woman is considered a man's wife.


NOTE: The God-given law, according to which Joseph and Mary lived, required the
death penalty for men who sleep with betrothed women. (Deut 22:23-27)

So you see; claiming that Mary conceived with the Holy Ghost, and thus
became His wife; is a pretty serious allegation.

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Christmas or Marymas?

Post #47

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
At the epicenter of New Testament Christianity is a man named Jesus Christ.
But at Rome's epicenter is the woman who gave birth to him. It's just a
shame that Christ has to compete with his own mother for the loyalties, the
veneration, and the affections of people passing themselves off as his
faithful followers when the Bible puts so much emphasis on Christ; for
example:

†. John 12:32 . . And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men
unto [not my mother] me.

†. Matt 17:5 . .While Peter was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped
them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with
him I am well pleased. You listen [not to his mother] to him!"

†. Matt 28:18 . .Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven
and on earth has been given [not to my mother] to me."

†. John 14:6 . . "I (not my mother) am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me.

†. Dan 7:13-14 . . In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was
one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the
Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory
and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language
worshipped [not his mother] him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

†. Phlp 2:8-11 . . And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore
God also hath highly exalted [not his mother] him, and given [not his
mother] him a name which is above every name (every name includes his
mother's name): that at the name of Jesus every knee (every knee includes
his mother's knees) should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth; And that every tongue (every tongue includes
his mother's tongue) should confess that Jesus Christ [not his mother] is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

†. Col 1:18-19 . . And he [not his mother] is the head of the body, the
church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things
he [not his mother] might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father
that in him [not his mother] should all fullness dwell

†. 1Tim 2:5 . . For there is one God. There is also one mediator between
God and the human race, Christ Jesus (not his mother), himself (not herself)
human,

†. Heb 9:15 . . he (not his mother) is mediator of a new covenant:

†. Heb 12:24 . . Jesus, (not his mother) the mediator of a new covenant,

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

The Immaculate Conception

Post #48

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
CLAIM: Christ's mom was sinless since the Holy Bible says she was "full" of
grace (Luke 1:26-30).


RESPONSE: The Douay-Rheims and the Confraternity are both in error
because the New Testament's Greek of Luke 1:26-30 doesn't contain the
words "full of grace." The current official Catholic Bible renders Luke's
testimony like this:

†. Luke 1:26-30 . . In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God
to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named
Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming
to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was
greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this
might be. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have
found favor with God."

Rome duped Catholics for years with its erroneous version of Luke 1:26-30,
and even incorporated the error into a rote prayer well known to penance
and rosary chanters as the Hail Mary.

I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity, state that Christ's mom was full of grace. I have however seen
one that says Jesus was (e.g. John 1:14).

I have never seen any Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without
ambiguity, state that Christ's mom was sinless. I have, however, seen Bible
texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity, state that God's son
was sinless (e.g. 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 1:18-19, 1Pet 2:22, and 1John
3:5).

Bouncing off of it's own Church-made construction of Luke 1:26-30--
enhanced by a similar Church-made construction of Luke 1:42 --Rome
announced that the soul of Christ's mom was miraculously created in an
immaculate, sinless state of being, and legislated the Immaculate
Conception an official dogma Dec 8, 1854. That's about 1,700 years after
the apostles, which is very recent-- a mere 161 years ago, about the time
when gold was discovered in California and America's continental railroad
was completed.

The Dec 8, 1854 dogma has absolutely no basis in fact. In reality, there are
no Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that
Miriam's conception was a miracle. On the other hand, in reality, there are
Bible texts that clearly, conclusively, and without ambiguity state that the
conception of God's son was a miracle (e.g. Matt 1:18-24, Luke 1:26-35)


CLAIM: The immaculate conception was believed in The Church much earlier
than its becoming an official dogma; e.g. Franciscan John Duns Scotus (c.
1264-1308), introduced the idea of pre-redemption in order to reconcile
Mary's freedom from original sin in her conception before the coming of
Christ.


RESPONSE: That's precisely my point. The so-called Immaculate Conception
is an introduced idea; viz: a fantasy conceived in the minds of presumptuous
clergy; rather than a clear-cut Biblical revelation. But still, even John Duns
Scotus' idea came along more than a thousand years after the fact; which
would make his idea retroactive rather than proactive. You can't just
arbitrarily legislate retroactive revelation in order to lend credibility to
somebody's ideas. That's tantamount to creating your own revelation rather
than accepting God's.

And anyway; it should go without saying that a concept's antiquity is not an
eo ipso guarantee of its reliability. Untruths were being propagated by
professing Christians even while the apostles were still here (e.g. Gal 1:6-9,
Jud 1:3-4, 2Pet 3:15-16, 1John 2:18-19).

If Rome's clergy considers itself the keeper of the keys to the kingdom, then
it has a serious responsibility to be honest, and a responsibility to keep the
truth pure and uncontaminated from the injection of man-made fantasies
somebody contrived in an effort to reconcile things they don't understand.

Paul admonished his fellow believers at Thessalonica to "hold to the
traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter
from us" (2Thss 2:15). A tradition legislated into dogma 1,700 years after
the apostles certainly does not qualify as a tradition "from us".

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

The Fall of All

Post #49

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
CLAIM: It was essential that Jesus have no earthly father in order to avoid
the ramifications of original sin.


RESPONSE: Not even Christ could disconnect from Adam's fall due to Eve's
unique biological relationship to her husband. He was created directly from
the earth's dust but no so her.

Eve was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's
side. Thus Eve's flesh wasn't the flesh of a second species of h.sapiens. Her
flesh was biologically just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's except for
gender. In other words: Eve was the flip side of the same biological coin.
(Gen 5:2)

So then, any human beings biologically produced from Eve's flesh-- whether
virgin conceived or naturally conceived --are biologically just as much
Adam's flesh as Adam's because the source of its mother's flesh is Adam's
flesh.

And then there's this:

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

Just about everybody agrees that the seed spoken of in that passage is
Christ. Well; seeing as how Mary's flesh was derived biologically from Eve's
flesh, then Christ's flesh was just as much Eve's flesh as Eve's, and seeing
as how her flesh was just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then it's readily
deduced that Adam was Christ's biological progenitor; hence his connection
to Adam's fall.

It's commonly objected that women cannot provide the Y chromosome
necessary for producing a male child. And that's right; they usually can't.
However, seeing as how God constructed an entire woman from a sample of
man flesh; then I do not see how it would be any more difficult for God to
construct a dinky little Y chromosome from a sample of woman flesh. And
seeing as how woman flesh is just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's, then
any Y chromosome that God might construct from woman flesh would
actually be produced from Adam's flesh seeing as how Eve's flesh was
produced from Adam's flesh.

Bottom line: In order to qualify as one of Adam's biological descendants, a
person need only be one of Eve's: which we, and Christ, all are.

†. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the
mother of all the living.

Q: If Jesus Christ inherited Adam's liability, then how can it be honestly said
that he was a lamb without blemish or spot?

A: The fact that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh rather than that of
sinless flesh is easy to prove. (Rom 8:3, Heb 2:16-17)

In other words: it's easy to prove that Adam's disobedience made Christ
culpable right along with his fellow men as per Rom 5:12 and Rom 5:19; but
it didn't make him sinful; viz: Christ committed no personal sins of his own
(John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22).

We're not talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, nor about Rome's
"stain" fantasy; no, we're talking about a class-action felony, so to speak: a
class action that impacts everyone born of women regardless of whether
they're the son of God or the son of Sam.

The good news is: Adam's fall wasn't a fall unto hell. No; it's very simple to
clear his sin off the books seeing as how mortality is the proper satisfaction
of justice for Adam's fall (Gen 2:16-17). Did Christ die? Yes. So then POOF!
there went his earthly tie to Adam's fall. All done.


NOTE: On numerous occasions, Christ identified himself as "son of man".
That title was neither new nor unique in his day. God addressed the prophet
Ezekiel as "son of man" on at least 93 occasions; and in every case, the
Hebrew word for man is 'adam (aw dawm') which is the proper name of the
human race God that created in the very beginning from the flesh of just
one man. If Jesus Christ had not biologically descended from Adam, then he
would be a bald-faced liar for calling himself son of man.

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

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Jeconiah's Curse And Jacob's Precedent

Post #50

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
CLAIM: Jesus had to be virgin-conceived in order to evade Jeconiah's curse.

RESPONSE: I doubt very many Gentiles are aware of Jeconiah's curse, and I
dare say totally unaware of even Jeconiah himself (a.k.a. Jehoiakim and/or
Coniah). He was a very bad king; so bad that God black-listed his portion of
the Davidic dynasty. Here's the text of the curse.

†. Jer 22:29-30 . . O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord! Thus said
the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who shall never be
found acceptable; for no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the
throne of David and to rule again in Judah.

Well; it just so happens that Christ's dad Joseph was biologically related to
Jeconiah (Matt 1:11, Matt 1:16)

So then, it's very common for Bible students to appropriate Jeconiah's curse
as one of the reasons why Joseph could not be allowed to sire Mary's son
Jesus. They say that had Jesus been in Jeconiah's biological line, he would
have been disqualified from inheriting David's throne.

However; the wording "to rule again in Judah" indicates that the curse was
relatively brief.

The curse on Coniah's offspring was limited to the time of his family's
jurisdiction in Judah. In other words: the curse was in effect only during the
days of the divided kingdom with Judah in the south and Samaria in the
north. That condition came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the
whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian
slavery.

When Christ returns to rule, the country of Israel will be unified. His
jurisdiction won't be limited to Judah within a divided kingdom, but will
dominate all of Eretz Israel. (Ezek 37:21-24)

So the curse does not apply to him. In point of fact, it didn't apply to Joseph
either seeing as how the curse ran its course only up to the time of the end
of the divided kingdom.

Another very common error is one that says Jesus circumvented the curse
via adoption. In other words, seeing as how he was Joseph's legal son but
not his biological son, then Jeconiah's curse didn't pass to Jesus.

But adoption doesn't work like that.

According to most, if not all, adoption laws; adopted children have all the
rights, privileges, benefits, liabilities, and responsibilities of natural children,
including a right to inherit just as if they were 100% biological progeny.


NOTE: It's not uncommon for a young inexperienced fellow to marry a girl
with children from a previous relationship only to find himself paying child
support for another man's progeny when they separate because he adopted
the woman's kids and gave them his name. Ouch! That's gotta hurt.

Therefore, since Jesus was Joseph's legal son by law, then Jesus would have
inherited any, and all, curses that may have filtered down from Mr. Jeconiah
right along with Solomon's throne; just as if Jesus were Joseph's biological
progeny. In other words: the curse would have come with the throne as a
package deal. So if you take away Christ's inheritance rights to Jeconiah's
curse, then you must of necessity take away his inheritance rights to
Solomon's throne too.


NOTE: A number of Jews with whom I've dialogued in the past refuse to
accept Jesus' adoption as a valid succession to David's throne. But they
pretty much have to because their patriarch Jacob set a precedent for it at
Gen 48:5-7.

Long story short: Jacob adopted his own two biological grandsons Manasseh
and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and
power to his twelve original sons. The adoption of his own grandsons not
only had the effect of making them tribal heads, but also had the effect of
adding additional children to Rachel's brood.

Jacob's motive for adopting his two grandsons was in sympathy for his
deceased wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which
subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own.
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Asenath.

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

Post Reply