Apostatized From Rome

A place to discuss Catholic topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

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

Post #31

Post by WebersHome »

marco wrote:[font=Georgia]Your concern for these young Catholic men who are on the verge of hell[/font]
[font=Georgia]Young? Man are you ever wet behind the ears! I'm 72 and still entertaining
some pretty lively thoughts about women; especially after a day at the mall
around shapely, full figured ladies wearing yoga pants and clingy, low cut
tops.

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

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #32

Post by marco »

WebersHome wrote:
marco wrote:[font=Georgia]Your concern for these young Catholic men who are on the verge of hell[/font]
[font=Georgia]Young? Man are you ever wet behind the ears! I'm 72 and still entertaining
some pretty lively thoughts about women; especially after a day at the mall
around shapely, full figured ladies wearing yoga pants and clingy, low cut.


You're a nice guy, but boy, you make some big assumptions, and we're not talking Our Lady here.

Irishman James Joyce when asked by his mother if he was becoming a Protestant, having lost his Catholic faith, said , roughly,
"I may have lost my faith, mother, but not my senses."

That's my position too, wet behind the ears though I am, old fella. Have a good day.

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

Eternal Life

Post #33

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
Were I invited to speak to a Catholic catechism class; I would select as my
subject eternal life because I know from experience that the average John Q
and Jane Doe pew warmer doesn't know the difference between eternal life
and immortality.

According to John 5:26-27 and 1John 1:1-2 Christ had eternal life when he
was here. However, according to Rom 6:9 he didn't obtain immortality until
his resurrection. The same holds true for Christ's believing followers.
According to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:35-54, they too won't obtain
immortality until their resurrections.

So then, eternal life has zero to do with the longevity of a human body. But
like as Christ had eternal life while being mortal; so do his believing
followers.

Note the grammatical tense of the "have" verb in the passages below. It's
present tense rather than future, indicating that believers have eternal life
right now-- no delay, and no waiting period.

†. John 3:36 . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life

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

†. John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

†. John 6:54 . . Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal
life

†. 1John 5:13 . . I write these things to you who believe in the name of the
Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Eternal life earmarks Christ's sheep.

†. John 10:27-28 . . My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow
me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.

So then, according to Christ; people lacking eternal life are not his sheep,
neither do they hear his voice, nor follow him.

The possession of eternal life is very crucial because according to God's
testimony, as an expert witness in all matters pertaining to life and death;
Christians currently lacking it do not have God's son. In other words: they
are currently 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.

I should think that it goes without saying that christless Christians are in
grave danger of the sum of all fears.

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

How many christless Christians are there? Well; for starters: Roman
Catholicism-- known everywhere as the largest single denomination in the
world --currently consists of approximately 1.2 billion followers who all, to a
man, including the Pope, insist that no one obtains eternal life till sometime
after they die and cross over to the other side.

Well; that can mean but one thing, and one thing only: seeing as how those
1.2 billion souls are currently lacking eternal life, then according to God's
expert testimony they are currently living without Christ, and they will die
without Christ. And you can safely apply that rule to any, and all,
denominations who insist that nobody obtains eternal life till sometime after
they pass away.

Q: John 5:24 says: "Amen, amen, I say to you: whoever hears my word,
and believes in the one who sent me, has eternal life and will not come to
condemnation, but has passed from death to life." What happens to born
again Christians who stop listening to Christ and stop believing in God who
sent him? Do they then lose eternal life, pass back from life into death, and
go on to condemnation?

A: The question is based upon an inadequate understanding of the qualities
of eternal life.

1• Eternal life is impervious to death; therefore its impervious to the wages
of sin.

†. Rom 6:23 . . For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal
life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

†. Rom 8:2 . . For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you
from the law of sin and death.

Ergo: people with eternal life cannot pass back from life into death.

†. John 10:27-28 . . My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow
me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.

Webster's defines "never" as; not ever, at no time, not in any degree, not
under any condition.

2• Truly born-again Christians are incapable of rejecting Christ's message
and/or disbelieving in God.

†. 1John 3:9 . . No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God's
seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God.

Once again: According to God's testimony, as an expert witness in all
matters pertaining to live and death: people lacking it are also lacking His
son; viz: 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.

People resisting God's testimony, are insinuating that He's a dishonest
person of marginal integrity who can't be trusted to tell the truth.

†. 1John 5:10 . .Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar by not
believing the testimony God has given about His son.

When people do that-- when they insinuate that God is dishonest --they
imply that He belongs in hell because according to Rev 21:8, hell is where
liars are destined.

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

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

The Woman Taken In Adultery

Post #34

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
The incident depicted below is often appropriated to substantiate the opinion
that Christ is a soft touch.

†. John 8:1-6a . .Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared
again in the Temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and
he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees
brought in a woman caught in adultery.

. . .They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus; Rabbi, this
woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the law, Moses commanded us
to stone such women. Now what do you say?

. . .They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for
accusing him.

That scene took place outdoors. Israel's covenanted law permits only
Levitical priests to enter the structural portion of the Temple facility. The
acreage adjoining the structure served as a sort of sacred town square, where
just about anybody with the moxie and the wherewithal could set up a soap
box yeshiva to teach and/or preach, and vendors such as money changers
and livestock and fowl dealers could set up for business.

In those days, when Jews spoke of "God's house" the term always included
the courtyard as well as the structure, and the whole precinct was enclosed
inside a very large retaining wall.

Gentiles are often unaware of the Levitical restrictions controlling the
structure's entry and typically think of it as a church. But the rank and file
did their worship outside; not inside. Their closest approach was the Altar,
which was situated at the foot of steps leading up to a portico.

Christ wasn't a member of the Sanhedrin. So his Jewish opponents didn't
bring the woman to him for legal proceedings. This incident was wholly an
entrapment staged only to see where Christ stood regarding the stipulations
mandated in Israel's covenanted law regarding adultery; but as the woman's
accusers were to soon find out, Christ was a stickler for due process.

The covenant mandates that adulterers be put to death-- both the man and
the woman --no excuses and no exceptions.

†. Lev 20:10 . . And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife,
even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and
the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

However, the covenant requires the testimony of a minimum of at least two
witnesses in capital cases.

†. Deut 17:6-7 . . At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall
he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness
he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon
him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou
shalt put the evil away from among you.

As it turned out; every one of the witnesses against the woman disqualified
themselves.

†. John 8:6-9 . . Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with
his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said
to them: He among you without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at
her.

. . . Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who
heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus
was left, with the woman still standing there.

Consequently; the accusation was dropped.

†. John 8:10-11 . . Jesus said to her: Woman, where are they? Does no one
condemn you? And she said: No one, sir. And Jesus said: Neither do I
condemn you

You see; even if Christ had been a legitimate witness, he couldn't testify
against her because the covenant requires a minimum of two witnesses in
capital cases.

Q: Isn't Christ supposed to be God; therefore knowing all things and seeing
all things? Why couldn't Christ prosecute the woman in that capacity?

A: Christ wasn't here the first time to judge-- he was here as John Q Citizen.

†. Luke 12:13-14 . . Someone in the crowd said to him: Teacher, tell my
brother to divide the inheritance with me. Jesus replied: Man, who appointed
me a judge or an arbiter between you?

†. John 3:17 . . God didn't send His son into the world to condemn the
world; but to spare the world through him.


NOTE: It's fun to speculate about what Christ wrote on the ground in the
incident of the woman taken in adultery. Well, as for me; I suspect it was
the names of girlfriends that the woman's accusers had on the side that they
thought nobody knew about. Hence when Christ said "let him who is without
sin cast the first stone" he wasn't talking about sin in general; no, he talking
about the same sin; viz: adultery.

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

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

Of Rocks And Stones

Post #35

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
Q: In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build My church." (Matt. 16:18) What is the meaning of that verse?

A: Peter's surname was Cephas; a moniker that Christ pinned on him at
John 1:42. Cephas is from the Aramaic word kephas (kay-fas') which means
"the Rock".

But in Matt 16:18 he isn't called Cephas. Instead; Christ addressed Peter by
the Greek word petros (pet'-ros) which refers to rock, but not to a specific
rock, nor to a specific variety of rock; rather, to nondescript rock of any size,
shape, chemistry, or configuration.

The rock to which Christ referred in relation to his church as "this rock" isn't
petros. It's the Greek word petra (pet'-ra) which refers to rock formations;
e.g. bedrock, and/or immovable monsters like the monoliths decorating
Yosemite Valley.

What we're looking at in petra rock is a suitable anchorage upon which it's
safe to erect a permanent structure. You wouldn't want to erect something
like that on just any kind of rock; no, it has to be immovable; viz: able to
hold your structure in place during adverse geological and meteorological
conditions like earth movements and severe storms.

The great skyscrapers in New York City's lower Manhattan are anchored in a
huge underground mass of dense material called schist. It's some pretty
tough stuff and not easily cut by tunneling machines for aqueducts and
subway trains. Manhattan's schist can be likened to the rock about which
Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount.

†. Matt 7:24-26 . . Everyone who hears these words of mine, and acts upon
them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock.
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst
against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon rock.

The Greek word for "rock" in that passage is petra (pet'-ra) which is the very
same word for the rock that Christ labeled "this" rock in Matt 16:18.

Petra rock can also be an entire mountain of stone like Gibraltar, or Mt.
Palomar in California. Palomar was chosen to site the Hale telescope because
underneath it's coating of earth, Palomar is just one huge hunk of solid
granite.

Another good example of petra rock is the ancient rock-hewn city of Petra in
the country of Jordan. Major portions of the city are carved right into stone
cliffs and mountainsides

Christ is clearly identified as petra rock in Rom 9:33, 1Cor 10:1-4, and 1Pet
2:8.

Peter is nowhere in the New Testament even once identified as petra rock.

There are very convincing arguments supporting both sides of this issue: the
one side insists that Peter is the bedrock of Christ's church, and the other is
that Christ is the bedrock of his church. I would highly recommend erring on
the high side with Christ rather than erring on the low side with Peter and
thereby relegating Christ to a position of less importance than the men who
served him.

Q: The Latin words "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam
meam
" (You are Peter (the rock) and on this rock I shall build my church)
are carved in marble above the main altar in Ste. Peters. Why can't we just
let it go at that?

A: We can't go with Rome on that because Christ's church is built upon his
crucifixion for the sins of the whole world, and his subsequent resurrection
for our justification. Had it been Peter who was crucified for the sins of the
whole world, and then raised from the dead for our justification; I'd go with
him instead of Christ, but as everyone knows; that's not how it went down.

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

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

The Church And Hades

Post #36

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
†. Matt 16:18 . . I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.

The verse above was taken from the Douay Rheims. Modern versions of the
Bible have changed the wording just a bit to more accurately reflect what
Christ actually said, because hell (as we usually understand hell) is incorrect
since the Greek text doesn't use the word geena; instead, it uses haides,
which indicates the underground abode of the dead; so that the verse should
read like this:

†. Matt 16:18 . . I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will
not overcome it.

Some versions substitute the word "powers" for gates, but the Greek word is
pule (poo'-lay); which literally does mean a gate, viz: the leaf or wing of a
folding entrance.

So then, the netherworld is depicted as a walled community the entrance to
and/or exit from is controlled by gates the likes of those in the walls of the
old city of Jerusalem, which had twelve gates.

Gates then, are designed to either keep people in or to keep people out.
Apparently the purpose of the netherworld's gates is to keep people in.

According to Jonah, the netherworld's gates are like the bars of a prison.
(Jonah 2:6)

Christ testified that his church could not be held by the gates of the
netherworld. He didn't say some of his church, nor most of his church.
Seeing as how he didn't qualify his statement, I think it's pretty safe to
assume Christ meant his entire church; from the lowliest pew warmer to the
top of the hierarchy.

Roman Catholicism insists that it alone is Christ's church. So then, if Rome's
claim is true, then the gates of the netherworld should be powerless to
permanently confine even one Catholic. In other words: no Catholic should
be in danger of missing out on heaven; but the fact of the matter is: Rome
cannot guarantee its followers 100% safety from the wrath of God; but
instead, fully expects to lose a number of its people to hell; and that should
not be if Roman Catholicism is Christ's true church; especially seeing as how
Christ is the custodian of the keys to the netherworld's gates.

†. Rev 1:18 . . I hold the keys of death and the netherworld.

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

†. John 6:39-40 . .This is the will of Him who sent me, that of all that He has
given me; I lose nothing

†. John 10:27-28 . . My sheep heed my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

How many Roman Catholics can honestly say: I have eternal life, I have
passed from death into life, I will never be condemned for my sins, and I will
never perish? The reality is: they better not make such a claim because the
Council of Trent Session 6, Chapter 16, Canon 16 slams all such with
anathema for presuming to have that kind of confidence.

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

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

The Church As Noah's Ark

Post #37

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
Rome sometimes compares itself to Noah's Ark. But If Rome were truly a
model of the Ark; then not one single Catholic would ever be in the slightest
danger of hell and eternal suffering because nobody aboard the Ark perished
in the Flood.

And not only that, but were the Church a true model of the Ark, then nobody
would be able to apostatize. The reason being that after all were aboard,
God sealed the hatch.

†. Gen 7:16 . .Those that entered were male and female, and of all species
they came, as God had commanded Noah. Then Yhvh shut him in.

The Hebrew word for "shut" actually means to shut up; like as when a corral
gate is closed to pen livestock and/or the door of a jail cell. In other words,
Noah was locked inside the Ark by a door that could be opened only from the
outside.

That's interesting. It means that once the Ark's door was sealed, Noah
became a prisoner; and were he, or anybody else inside, to change their
mind about going, it was too late. In other words: God alone controlled
access and egress, viz: were someone aboard to change their mind and
want off the Ark; they couldn't.

Ring a bell?

†. John 10:7-10 . . I assure you, I am the gate for the sheep. Yes, I am the
gate. Those who come in through me will be saved.


NOTE: One of the meanings of the Greek word for "saved" is to protect. In
other words: Christ's sheepfold is the place of safety from a big bad wolf
called the wrath of God.

The gate controlling access and egress to Christ's sheepfold isn't something
that can be carelessly left ajar so the sheep can get out and run off because
the gate is Christ himself. You'd have no more luck getting past Christ then
Noah would have getting past the Ark's hatch.

†. John 10:26-29 . . My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they
follow me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and
no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to
me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's
hand.

It's sometimes alleged that Christ's sheep are strong enough to overpower
God and snatch themselves out of both Christ's and his Father's hands; but I
should think that the words "no one" would preclude that possibility.

In addition, were the sheep able to escape; it would reflect very poorly on
Christ's competence as a shepherd. Well; in my estimation, shepherds that
let their sheep escape are careless: they're not good shepherds at all;
they're just average shepherds; viz: no better than most.

I think most Christians would agree that Christ is a competent shepherd,
and that as the sheepfold's gate he's secure enough. But apparently they're
of the opinion that once outside in the open, their safety can be compromised.

†. John 10:3-4 . .He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. After
he has gathered his own flock, he walks ahead of them, and they follow him
because they recognize his voice.

It's at this point that the sheep are most vulnerable because now they're out
in the open where they can wander off while their master's back is turned.
Well; that might happen if Christ were the sheep's only guardian; but
according to John 10:29, he doesn't watch over them all my himself.

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

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

The Pillar and Ground of the Truth

Post #38

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
†. 1Tim 3:15 . . But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou
oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God; which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

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

The New Testament Greek word for "pillar" is stulos (stoo'-los); which
means: a post. The same word is used at Gal 2:9, Rev 3:12, and Rev 10:1.
Pillars (a.k.a. columns) were common structural members in the architecture
of the ancient world; utilized inside buildings as colonnades, and to hold the
roofs of porches in place. It was those kinds of structural members that
Samson tugged to pull down a Philistine temple (Jdg 16:29-30).

The word for "ground" is hedraioma (hed-rah'-yo-mah); which means: a
support. Unfortunately, 1Tim 3:15 is the only place in the entire New
Testament where hedraioma is used so it's difficult to really know precisely
what Paul was trying to convey.

One of Webster's definitions of *support is: to provide a foundation for. That
seems reasonable since colonnades don't usually rest upon soil, but upon
some type of solid flooring; which in turn would rest, ideally, upon bedrock.

A much clearer translation of 1Tim 3:15 would be like this:

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, who is the
colonnade and the foundation of the truth."

The "truth" then, is depicted as a building constructed upon bedrock, and
whose roof is supported by colonnades; with God himself being both the
foundation and the colonnades.

You see, without the words "who is" that passage is vague and can trick the
mind into thinking that the building exists without God being an integral part
of the structure; but it doesn't. The building would collapse in an instant
during the very first earthquake without a solid foundation supporting hefty
colonnades. So then, the truth doesn't uphold God, no, just the opposite:
God upholds the truth (cf. John 14:6).

1Tim 3:15 is saying that if there were no real live God of the Bible out there
somewhere, then Christianity would be a silly myth and Christ's church no
more sacred than the Elk's Club. It's only the reality of a Bible's God that
makes so-called "truth" to be actually true and reliable.


FYI: The Bible is highly recommended by the Church.

"The Scriptures are sacred and canonical because: Having been written by
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and as such
have been handed down to the Church" (Vatican Council; Sess. III, c. ii)

"In its pages we recognize His voice, we hear a message of deep significance
for every one of us. Through the spiritual dynamism and prophetic force of
the Bible, the Holy Spirit spreads His light and His warmth over all men, in
whatever historical or sociological situation they find themselves." (Paulus PP
VI, from the Vatican, September 18, 1970)

So then; according to that Vatican Council and to Paulus PP VI; when I listen
to the Bible; I'm listening to the voice of God, and I'm also listening to that
which the Holy Spirit utilizes to spread His light and His warmth over all
men.

Ironically, it was by my listening to the voice of God on the pages of the
Bible that the Holy Spirit led me to part company with Rome.

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

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

The Mother(s) of God

Post #39

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
CLAIM: To say that Mary is not the mother of God is to deny that Jesus is
God.


RESPONSE: I just have to wonder how far people got in school who say
things like that.

I learned in Biology that like reproduces like; viz: bears give birth to bears,
opossums give birth to opossums, coyotes give birth to coyotes, and moles
give birth to moles. So then, in order for a woman to give birth to God, she
herself would have to be God too. But since Mary was a Jewish human
being, then her offspring was a Jewish human being. That's just simple
biological genetics.

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

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

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

In point of fact, it is very easy to prove that Eve had a hand in producing
Jesus.

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

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that prediction refers
to Jesus.

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

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

The Church; Which Is His Body

Post #40

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Arial]-
Christ's church is stated to be his body (Col 1:24, Eph 1:22-23, Eph 5:30).

The bread of communion is stated to be Christ's body (Matt 26:26, 1Cor
11:24)

Actually, Jesus has been in possession of two bodies-- the mortal body he
was crucified in, and the immortal one in which he now resides. Which of
those two bodies is the church-- the mortal body or the immortal body?

This is not a trick question; but rather, a very serious question because--
stating the obvious --an immortal body cannot be hurt by the second death
of Rev 20:11-15.

If Christ's church is his immortal body, then everyone who is correctly "in
Christ" has immortality in the bag; though for now they have to live out their
days in a mortal body (1Cor 15:49-57). Thus; Christ's biblical church is
immortal; viz: everybody in his body possesses immortality right now
because he himself possesses immortality right now.

†. Rom 6:3-11 . .Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with
him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from
the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

. . . If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly
also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was
crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we
should no longer be slaves to sin-- because anyone who has died has been
freed from sin.

. . . Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For
we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again;
death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin
once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count
yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

If the RCC were truly Christ's church, as it claims to be; then every Catholic
who takes Communion in respect of John 6:48-51, should now possess
immortality;

†. John 6:48-51 . .I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the
wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from
heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread
which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for
ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life
of the world.

No doubt very few practicing Catholics have enough faith in Christ's
statement to claim to possess immortality after ingesting a Host or imbibing
the wine.

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

Post Reply