Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 ) wrote at Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council)
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."
Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 AD)
"The Council of Florence (AD 1438-1445)," at: http://www.catholicism.org/pages/florence.htm
"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy).
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins….
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Are there only Catholics in heaven? Popes say yes!
Moderator: Moderators
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Are there only Catholics in heaven? Popes say yes!
Post #41[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]
Given that there is no reason to believe that there is a heaven, there isn't any reason to care what any religious leader thinks about who goes there. They use this false belief their followers hold in order to maintain their source of power. They hold out the carrot of a life after death that will never happen.
What a sad state of affairs when people waste their one and only life worrying about a place that doesn't exist and an afterlife they'll never experience.
Given that there is no reason to believe that there is a heaven, there isn't any reason to care what any religious leader thinks about who goes there. They use this false belief their followers hold in order to maintain their source of power. They hold out the carrot of a life after death that will never happen.
What a sad state of affairs when people waste their one and only life worrying about a place that doesn't exist and an afterlife they'll never experience.
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #42
[font=Verdana]-
â—� 1Pet 1:22 . . Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit
Note the grammatical tense of the apostle Peter's statement; it's past rather than present or future.
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. However; according to John 13:10, that would be a matter pertaining to one's feet rather than their soul; i.e. their walk. (1John 1:5-10)
Peter's focus is upon something far more effective than a confessional. He’s talking about a special, one-time purification rather than a weekly routine; and it’s permanent too rather than a temporary expedient.
â—� 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.
Q: What is meant by souls?
A: In 1Pet 1:22, "soul" is translated from the koiné Greek word psuche (psoo-khay') which is a mite ambiguous; but basically means breath; which in Gen 2:7 refers to consciousness.
Human life isn't entirely organic. Adam's body was natural, but his consciousness was supernatural; i.e. Adam's consciousness didn't come from the ground; it came from God.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The afterlife disposition of human consciousness is one of life's greatest mysteries. Heck, even the origin of human consciousness is mystery enough for some, let alone where it goes when people pass away.
Anyway; bottom line is: Christ's offering of himself purified his believing followers' consciousness once and for all time; and it isn't done via a ritual; no, it's done in obeying the truth through the Spirit.[/font]
[font=Georgia]FYI[/font][font=Verdana]: This aspect of Christianity is discussed at length in a portion of the epistle to Hebrews.
/[/font]
â—� 1Pet 1:22 . . Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit
Note the grammatical tense of the apostle Peter's statement; it's past rather than present or future.
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. However; according to John 13:10, that would be a matter pertaining to one's feet rather than their soul; i.e. their walk. (1John 1:5-10)
Peter's focus is upon something far more effective than a confessional. He’s talking about a special, one-time purification rather than a weekly routine; and it’s permanent too rather than a temporary expedient.
â—� 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.
Q: What is meant by souls?
A: In 1Pet 1:22, "soul" is translated from the koiné Greek word psuche (psoo-khay') which is a mite ambiguous; but basically means breath; which in Gen 2:7 refers to consciousness.
Human life isn't entirely organic. Adam's body was natural, but his consciousness was supernatural; i.e. Adam's consciousness didn't come from the ground; it came from God.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: The afterlife disposition of human consciousness is one of life's greatest mysteries. Heck, even the origin of human consciousness is mystery enough for some, let alone where it goes when people pass away.
Anyway; bottom line is: Christ's offering of himself purified his believing followers' consciousness once and for all time; and it isn't done via a ritual; no, it's done in obeying the truth through the Spirit.[/font]
[font=Georgia]FYI[/font][font=Verdana]: This aspect of Christianity is discussed at length in a portion of the epistle to Hebrews.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #43
[font=Verdana]-
There are no sacrifices, nor any atonements, in the Aaronic qorbanot system stipulated for the human conscience; no, none at all.
â—� 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. For example:
â—� Gen 3:22 . .Then the Lord God said: See. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
The man's knowledge of good and evil at that point in time wasn't God-given. In other words: due to his disobedience in the matter of the forbidden fruit, humanity lost its God-given moral compass and became its own moral compass, i.e. man's moral compass is now humanistic instead of divine.
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 humanistic perception of good and evil ignored.
Human perception is produced by a three-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within our bony little skulls; and not even all three of those pounds are utilized for cognitive processes; and in point of fact, something like 60% of the human brain's mass is fat.
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".
â—� 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 expunging their records, 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.
â—� 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 natural perception of good and evil.
/[/font]
There are no sacrifices, nor any atonements, in the Aaronic qorbanot system stipulated for the human conscience; no, none at all.
â—� 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. For example:
â—� Gen 3:22 . .Then the Lord God said: See. The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
The man's knowledge of good and evil at that point in time wasn't God-given. In other words: due to his disobedience in the matter of the forbidden fruit, humanity lost its God-given moral compass and became its own moral compass, i.e. man's moral compass is now humanistic instead of divine.
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 humanistic perception of good and evil ignored.
Human perception is produced by a three-pound lump of flabby organic tissue housed within our bony little skulls; and not even all three of those pounds are utilized for cognitive processes; and in point of fact, something like 60% of the human brain's mass is fat.
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".
â—� 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 expunging their records, 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.
â—� 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 natural perception of good and evil.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #44
[font=Verdana]-
Roman Catholicism has helped to shape thousands of warped psyches and totally unnecessary guilt complexes due to its interpretation of the passage below.
â—� Matt 5:27-28 . .Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary carnal activity between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants has to be married.
The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon.
Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the ruling of covetousness; which reads:
â—� Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to "covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy (1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the full intention of possessing it.
Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it condemns scheming to take something of your neighbor's instead of getting your own.
â—� Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.
The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires, but rather, upon taking steps to fulfill them; which has the distinction of being the correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.
So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man can't look across the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it, turning green with envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom wife, undressing her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies a man going after the neighbor's Harley, and the buxom wife instead of getting his own.
Coming at this from the opposite direction: in the movie The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her heart to make it happen.
Supposing a Catholic man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to entertain thoughts about women-- any woman, whether somebody's wife or single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels, then whenever he does, he's an adulterer.
â—� Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
â—� Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly decent Catholic men out and about stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due to their perfectly normal, God-given feelings about women.
/[/font]
Roman Catholicism has helped to shape thousands of warped psyches and totally unnecessary guilt complexes due to its interpretation of the passage below.
â—� Matt 5:27-28 . .Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary carnal activity between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in order for an incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants has to be married.
The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon.
Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the ruling of covetousness; which reads:
â—� Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to "covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy (1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the full intention of possessing it.
Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it condemns scheming to take something of your neighbor's instead of getting your own.
â—� Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.
The emphasis there is not upon human nature's desires, but rather, upon taking steps to fulfill them; which has the distinction of being the correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.
So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that a man can't look across the street at his neighbor's Harley and drool over it, turning green with envy? Or that a man can't gape at his neighbor's buxom wife, undressing her with his eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies a man going after the neighbor's Harley, and the buxom wife instead of getting his own.
Coming at this from the opposite direction: in the movie The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her heart to make it happen.
Supposing a Catholic man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to entertain thoughts about women-- any woman, whether somebody's wife or single? Well; too bad because if that's the way he feels, then whenever he does, he's an adulterer.
â—� Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
â—� Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly decent Catholic men out and about stacking up piles of unnecessary sins against themselves due to their perfectly normal, God-given feelings about women.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Are There Only Catholics In Heaven?
Post #45[font=Verdana]-
â—� Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.
The Hebrew word translated "helper" is 'ezer (ay'-zer) which means aid, as in support.
In making a statement like Gen 2:18; God made it very clear right from the beginning that men were not intended to live a celibate life. If men were packaged in a box of software, one of their system requirements would be Female Companion.
The problem with a vow of celibacy is that although it may hinder a priest from getting wedded and bedded, it does nothing to prevent him from pining for a female companion.
Some time ago, a Catholic priest here in Oregon quit the vocation to get married after serving more than 30 years because he couldn't stand the loneliness anymore. He wasn't especially looking to get bedded, he just wanted to be with somebody; which is exactly how normal guys come out of the box via intelligent design.
According to Mark 15:40-41, Jesus was supported by a number of devoted women. But none of them were the kind of female compaion that Gen 2:18 is talking about.
Well; that is something Christ had to do without because of the brevity, and the severity, of his mission; and though the Bible says nothing in that regard; I, being a man, know it bothered him.
No doubt Jesus' divine side could easily get by without female companionship, but I seriously doubt that Jesus' human side got by near as well. I believe that Jesus suffered the same amount of loneliness and longing for a permanent female companion that all normal men undergo when doing without.
â—� Heb 2:17 . .He had to become like his brothers in every way, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest
â—� Heb 2:18 . . Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to aid those who are being tempted.
â—� Heb 4:15 . . We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way
â—� Heb 5:7-8 . . Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
Oh how dark the night the Lord walked through
On his way to die for me and you.
Loneliness plagued his righteous soul,
Love and family were ne'er his bowl.
/[/font]
â—� Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.
The Hebrew word translated "helper" is 'ezer (ay'-zer) which means aid, as in support.
In making a statement like Gen 2:18; God made it very clear right from the beginning that men were not intended to live a celibate life. If men were packaged in a box of software, one of their system requirements would be Female Companion.
The problem with a vow of celibacy is that although it may hinder a priest from getting wedded and bedded, it does nothing to prevent him from pining for a female companion.
Some time ago, a Catholic priest here in Oregon quit the vocation to get married after serving more than 30 years because he couldn't stand the loneliness anymore. He wasn't especially looking to get bedded, he just wanted to be with somebody; which is exactly how normal guys come out of the box via intelligent design.
According to Mark 15:40-41, Jesus was supported by a number of devoted women. But none of them were the kind of female compaion that Gen 2:18 is talking about.
Well; that is something Christ had to do without because of the brevity, and the severity, of his mission; and though the Bible says nothing in that regard; I, being a man, know it bothered him.
No doubt Jesus' divine side could easily get by without female companionship, but I seriously doubt that Jesus' human side got by near as well. I believe that Jesus suffered the same amount of loneliness and longing for a permanent female companion that all normal men undergo when doing without.
â—� Heb 2:17 . .He had to become like his brothers in every way, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest
â—� Heb 2:18 . . Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to aid those who are being tempted.
â—� Heb 4:15 . . We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way
â—� Heb 5:7-8 . . Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
Oh how dark the night the Lord walked through
On his way to die for me and you.
Loneliness plagued his righteous soul,
Love and family were ne'er his bowl.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #46
[font=Verdana]-
The incident depicted below is sometimes appropriated to interpret of Matt 7:1-5
â—� 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.
â—� 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.
â—� 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.
â—� 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.
â—� 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 and as such wasn't authorized to come down on his fellow Jews.
â—� 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?
â—� John 3:17 . . God didn't send His son into the world to condemn the world; but to spare the world through him.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: 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]
The incident depicted below is sometimes appropriated to interpret of Matt 7:1-5
â—� 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.
â—� 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.
â—� 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.
â—� 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.
â—� 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 and as such wasn't authorized to come down on his fellow Jews.
â—� 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?
â—� John 3:17 . . God didn't send His son into the world to condemn the world; but to spare the world through him.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: 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]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #47
[font=Verdana]-
Q: At Matt 16:18, Jesus said: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." What is the meaning of that verse?
A: Basically it's saying that should one of Christ's true believing followers slip through a crack and end up in the wrong place, they will be able to stroll right on out of there like a tourist in Paris; likely guided on their journey by a celestial being, maybe similar to Peter's experience when he escaped jail in Acts 12:3-11.
I should point out that if the Roman Catholic Church were the "my church" that Christ spoke of in Matt 16:18, then no true Catholic-- not one --would end up in hell; but I'm pretty sure that Rome expects to lose a number of its followers to eternal suffering; which reminds me of a line from the movie [/font][font=Georgia]AVATAR[/font][font=Verdana] spoken by Colonel Miles Quaritch, played by Stephen Lang, that goes like this:
It is my job to keep you alive.
I will not succeed . . not with all of you.
/[/font]
Q: At Matt 16:18, Jesus said: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." What is the meaning of that verse?
A: Basically it's saying that should one of Christ's true believing followers slip through a crack and end up in the wrong place, they will be able to stroll right on out of there like a tourist in Paris; likely guided on their journey by a celestial being, maybe similar to Peter's experience when he escaped jail in Acts 12:3-11.
I should point out that if the Roman Catholic Church were the "my church" that Christ spoke of in Matt 16:18, then no true Catholic-- not one --would end up in hell; but I'm pretty sure that Rome expects to lose a number of its followers to eternal suffering; which reminds me of a line from the movie [/font][font=Georgia]AVATAR[/font][font=Verdana] spoken by Colonel Miles Quaritch, played by Stephen Lang, that goes like this:
It is my job to keep you alive.
I will not succeed . . not with all of you.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #48
[font=Verdana]-[/font]
[font=Georgia]POSIT[/font][font=Verdana]: You Protestants worship the Bible as if itself were God. Matt 16:18 doesn't say; "upon this book I will build My church". Your God is a paper God: you worship the almighty printing press.[/font]
[font=Georgia]RESPONSE[/font][font=Verdana]: Most of the Catholics with whom I've dialogued place far more faith in the Roman Catechism than they do the Bible; which is not an uncommon error. For example: when Christ was here, he condemned elements of Judaism that are allowed more authority than the Bible (Matt 23:23 and Mark 7:6-13). Well, that being his manner; I've no doubt Christ has a list of things that he'd like very much culled from the Roman Catechism.
According to the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) the Scriptures are sacred and canonical because "having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author"
As a professing Roman Catholic: do you, or do you not, agree with the Council's ruling that the Bible is:
1• Inspired by the Holy Ghost, and
2• Authored by God
"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 people listen to the Bible; they're hearing the voice of God, and also listening to that which the Holy Spirit utilizes to spread His light and His warmth over all men.
A knowledge of the Bible protects people from falsehood.
â—� 2Tim 4:2-4 . . Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching. For a time is coming when they will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear. They will reject the truth and follow strange myths.
In reference to the parable of the sower; Christ said: "This is the meaning of the parable: the seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11)
Substituting the Catechism for the Bible turns people into the path spoken of in that parable. Well; whoever reads the parable of the sower knows that the word of God does not take root in that particular kind of soil; it's a killing field for evil.
â—� Luke 8:12 . .Those on the path are the ones who have heard, but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved.
/[/font]
[font=Georgia]POSIT[/font][font=Verdana]: You Protestants worship the Bible as if itself were God. Matt 16:18 doesn't say; "upon this book I will build My church". Your God is a paper God: you worship the almighty printing press.[/font]
[font=Georgia]RESPONSE[/font][font=Verdana]: Most of the Catholics with whom I've dialogued place far more faith in the Roman Catechism than they do the Bible; which is not an uncommon error. For example: when Christ was here, he condemned elements of Judaism that are allowed more authority than the Bible (Matt 23:23 and Mark 7:6-13). Well, that being his manner; I've no doubt Christ has a list of things that he'd like very much culled from the Roman Catechism.
According to the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) the Scriptures are sacred and canonical because "having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author"
As a professing Roman Catholic: do you, or do you not, agree with the Council's ruling that the Bible is:
1• Inspired by the Holy Ghost, and
2• Authored by God
"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 people listen to the Bible; they're hearing the voice of God, and also listening to that which the Holy Spirit utilizes to spread His light and His warmth over all men.
A knowledge of the Bible protects people from falsehood.
â—� 2Tim 4:2-4 . . Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching. For a time is coming when they will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear. They will reject the truth and follow strange myths.
In reference to the parable of the sower; Christ said: "This is the meaning of the parable: the seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11)
Substituting the Catechism for the Bible turns people into the path spoken of in that parable. Well; whoever reads the parable of the sower knows that the word of God does not take root in that particular kind of soil; it's a killing field for evil.
â—� Luke 8:12 . .Those on the path are the ones who have heard, but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #49
[font=Verdana]-
The RCC 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.
â—� 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; plus the Ark's door was calked with bitumen to prevent leakage. In other words, the Ark's door could be opened only from the outside.
According to the record; the one door of the Ark was located in its hull. So then, safety aboard the Ark hinged upon the integrity of that one door.
Ring a bell?
â—� 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.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: 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 a mechanical structure; no, it's Christ himself. Well; I should think the Lord's sheep would have no more luck getting past him then Noah would've had getting past the Ark's door.
And anyway; if even one sheep were allowed 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 (at least in theory anyway) that Christ is a competent shepherd, and that he, as the sheepfold's gate, is secure enough. But apparently they're of the opinion that once outside in the open, their safety can be compromised.
â—� 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 and get lost while their master's back is turned. Well; that's never going to happen because according to John 6:39, it is God's will that His son lose nothing of what He has given him. And according to John 8:29, Jesus never fails to comply with his Father's wishes.
Bottom line: Noah's Ark is a figure of the good shepherd rather than the RCC.
/[/font]
The RCC 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.
â—� 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; plus the Ark's door was calked with bitumen to prevent leakage. In other words, the Ark's door could be opened only from the outside.
According to the record; the one door of the Ark was located in its hull. So then, safety aboard the Ark hinged upon the integrity of that one door.
Ring a bell?
â—� 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.[/font]
[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: 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 a mechanical structure; no, it's Christ himself. Well; I should think the Lord's sheep would have no more luck getting past him then Noah would've had getting past the Ark's door.
And anyway; if even one sheep were allowed 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 (at least in theory anyway) that Christ is a competent shepherd, and that he, as the sheepfold's gate, is secure enough. But apparently they're of the opinion that once outside in the open, their safety can be compromised.
â—� 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 and get lost while their master's back is turned. Well; that's never going to happen because according to John 6:39, it is God's will that His son lose nothing of what He has given him. And according to John 8:29, Jesus never fails to comply with his Father's wishes.
Bottom line: Noah's Ark is a figure of the good shepherd rather than the RCC.
/[/font]
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
Post #50
[font=Verdana]-
â—� Luke 18:14 . . I tell you, this man went down to his house forgiven rather than the other
No; Jesus didn't say "forgiven" he said justified.
The koiné Greek word is dikaioo (dik-ah-yo'-o) which essentially means to regard as innocent.
In order for God to grant the tax man innocence, He couldn't merely pardon him the way that former US President Gerald Ford pardoned former US President Richard Nixon back in 1974 relative to the Watergate scandal. Ford's pardon in no way exonerated Nixon, it only let him off the hook. Though the pardon protected Nixon from prosecution; his crimes didn't go away. In other words: Mr. Nixon will always and forever be a crook.
No, God had to exonerate the tax collector; and how does one do that when there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial; where a verdict of guilty is a foregone conclusion?
Well, according to the Bible, Christ was restored to life for our justification (Rom 4:25). In other words; though Christ's crucifixion was sufficient to obtain forgiveness for people's sins; his crucifixion alone wasn't sufficient to make it possible for people to obtain an acquittal.
â—� 1Cor 15:17 . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.
An acquittal can be defined as exoneration; viz: an adjudication of innocence, which is normally granted when there is insufficient evidence to convict. In other words: by means of Christ's resurrection, God was able to cook the books so that it appears the tax collector never did anything bad. On the surface; this looks very unethical, but from God's perspective it's all on the up and up.
Q: Don't Catholics obtain justification when they go to confession?
A: The scope of the Roman church's reconciliatory process is somewhat limited. It's primarily designed for washing, i.e. sanitation (1John 1:7-10). While it pardons sins, and washes off the contamination of sin, it does nothing to expunge the sinner's history.
In other words: sinners leave the confessional with their rap sheets unchanged. That's unfortunate because those records are subject to review at the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev 20:11-15 where they can, and will, be used to vet people, i.e. evaluate their character; viz: the records constitute people's references as if they were applying for immigration and/or employment.
Justification, on the other hand, as per the koiné Greek word dikaioo, completely deletes the offender's criminal history; i.e. dikaioo wipes their records so clean and efficiently that there is nothing left that can in any way be used to prove that the sinner has ever been anything less than 100% innocent.
Now, the advantage of the kind of justification I'm talking about is that sinners need obtain it only once because from thence, God stops keeping records on them.
â—� 2Cor 5:19 . . God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them
The koiné Greek word translated "counting" is logizomai (log-id'-zom-ahee) which means to take an inventory; i.e. an indictment.
â—� Rom 4:8 . . Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record.
Q: But if we have to confess sins; doesn't that mean God is keeping track of them?
A: The judicial aspect of my sins, from first to last, as an indictment, was dealt with on the cross. From now on, my sins are dealt with as a family matter; i.e. disciplinary issues. In other words: I am in absolutely no danger of hell whatsoever regardless of the number and/or the gravity of my sins because Christ gave the laws of God their pound of flesh.
â—� 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.
/[/font]
â—� Luke 18:14 . . I tell you, this man went down to his house forgiven rather than the other
No; Jesus didn't say "forgiven" he said justified.
The koiné Greek word is dikaioo (dik-ah-yo'-o) which essentially means to regard as innocent.
In order for God to grant the tax man innocence, He couldn't merely pardon him the way that former US President Gerald Ford pardoned former US President Richard Nixon back in 1974 relative to the Watergate scandal. Ford's pardon in no way exonerated Nixon, it only let him off the hook. Though the pardon protected Nixon from prosecution; his crimes didn't go away. In other words: Mr. Nixon will always and forever be a crook.
No, God had to exonerate the tax collector; and how does one do that when there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial; where a verdict of guilty is a foregone conclusion?
Well, according to the Bible, Christ was restored to life for our justification (Rom 4:25). In other words; though Christ's crucifixion was sufficient to obtain forgiveness for people's sins; his crucifixion alone wasn't sufficient to make it possible for people to obtain an acquittal.
â—� 1Cor 15:17 . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.
An acquittal can be defined as exoneration; viz: an adjudication of innocence, which is normally granted when there is insufficient evidence to convict. In other words: by means of Christ's resurrection, God was able to cook the books so that it appears the tax collector never did anything bad. On the surface; this looks very unethical, but from God's perspective it's all on the up and up.
Q: Don't Catholics obtain justification when they go to confession?
A: The scope of the Roman church's reconciliatory process is somewhat limited. It's primarily designed for washing, i.e. sanitation (1John 1:7-10). While it pardons sins, and washes off the contamination of sin, it does nothing to expunge the sinner's history.
In other words: sinners leave the confessional with their rap sheets unchanged. That's unfortunate because those records are subject to review at the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev 20:11-15 where they can, and will, be used to vet people, i.e. evaluate their character; viz: the records constitute people's references as if they were applying for immigration and/or employment.
Justification, on the other hand, as per the koiné Greek word dikaioo, completely deletes the offender's criminal history; i.e. dikaioo wipes their records so clean and efficiently that there is nothing left that can in any way be used to prove that the sinner has ever been anything less than 100% innocent.
Now, the advantage of the kind of justification I'm talking about is that sinners need obtain it only once because from thence, God stops keeping records on them.
â—� 2Cor 5:19 . . God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them
The koiné Greek word translated "counting" is logizomai (log-id'-zom-ahee) which means to take an inventory; i.e. an indictment.
â—� Rom 4:8 . . Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record.
Q: But if we have to confess sins; doesn't that mean God is keeping track of them?
A: The judicial aspect of my sins, from first to last, as an indictment, was dealt with on the cross. From now on, my sins are dealt with as a family matter; i.e. disciplinary issues. In other words: I am in absolutely no danger of hell whatsoever regardless of the number and/or the gravity of my sins because Christ gave the laws of God their pound of flesh.
â—� 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.
/[/font]
