Christian Message Board And Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Christian Message Board And Forums   » Bible Studies   » Exposing False Teaching   » Exposing Roman Catholicism

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Exposing Roman Catholicism
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Roman Catholicism is a very old religion; and traces its beginning all the way back to the first century. However, age should never be assumed an eo ipso guarantee that a particular belief system is valid; because even while the apostles were still alive, even in their own day, professing Christians were already starting apostate movements. (e.g. Gal 1:6-9, 2Tim 2:15-18, 1John 2:18-19, Jud 1:17-19)

I'm convinced, from years of study and experience, that Rome's version of Christianity is an end product of one or more of those early apostasies.

My mother was Catholic. 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 "religious" for a number of years before falling out with the hierarchy that controlled her order.

I was baptized an infant into Roman Catholicism and anon enrolled in catechism classes where I went on to complete First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

I have things to thank Rome 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.

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. When I was 24 years old, a co-worker in a metal shop where I worked as a welder in 1968 suggested that I buy my own Bible 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 or do I defect and 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 I defected, and here I am today 49 years later as of this writing and still a Protestant.

"Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters." (CCC 1782)

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
-
Abba, Father

†. Mark 14:35-36 . . He advanced a little and fell to the ground and prayed that if it were possible the hour might pass by him. He said; “Abba, Father"

The bulk of the New Testament is translated from manuscripts penned in koiné Greek. But the word "abba" isn't translated from Greek: in point of fact, it isn't translated at all; it's the actual word; viz: a transliteration.

Abba (ab-bah') is an Aramaic word that means "father" the same as the Greek word pater means father; except that abba means father in a special sense. It's a filial vocative.

For example: when I'm out in the garage working, and my son and his mother are in the kitchen talking about me, the label "dad" merely informs my wife who my son is talking about. But when my son wants to get my attention and calls out: Dad! Where are you? Then "dad" is a filial vocative.

†. Gal 4:6 . . And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

Gal 4:6 reveals something very important. The spirit of God's son always compels Christ's believing followers to call out to his Father, never to his mother, and the reason for that is actually quite simple. Christ always prays to his Father; never to his mother; ergo: the Father's children exhibit the very same behavior because the spirit of His son compels them to pray like His son.

That, by the way, is a pretty good litmus test. If somebody is comfortable praying to Christ's mom, they give away the fact that they lack the spirit of God's son in their hearts; which means of course that they have yet to undergo adoption into His home.

†. Rom 8:15 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba! Father.

The Bible instructs Christ's believing followers to pray in the Spirit (Eph 6:18, Jude 1:20). When people pray in the Spirit; they pray in accordance with Mark 14:35-36, Gal 4:6, and Rom 8:15. In other words: they don't pray to Mary and/or angels and/or departed saints; no, they pray to the son's Father.

Bottom line: God's kin should feel an overwhelming compulsion to pray to their adoptive Father without their having to be told to. It should come naturally (so to speak), just as naturally as it came to Jesus. And they should feel an equally overwhelming disregard for praying to somebody else.

So then, people with a habit of praying to Mary, and/or angels, and/or departed saints; obviously have neither the spirit of God's son in their heart, nor the spirit of adoption; and that is a very serious condition to be in.

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

/

Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Life In The Eucharist vs Life In The Manna

Transubstantiation is defined as the miraculous change by which, according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma, the Eucharistic elements (a.k.a. species) at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while retaining only the appearances of bread and wine

Even if so-called transubstantiation were actually Christ's body and blood, the elements would need to be consumed only once rather than time after time after time because the kind of life they provide is eternal life.

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

Eternal life is an unnatural quality of life that's superior in every respect to human life. In point of fact; eternal life is divine (1John 1:1-2). Seeing as how eternal life is divine, then it should go without saying that eternal life is impervious to death, decay, and the aging process. Were that not true, then God would have passed away long, long ago.

That being the case then it's necessary to obtain eternal life only once rather than go about attempting to replenish it every so often because eternal life never loses its vitality, nor ever wears out, nor wears off.

†. John 6:49-50 . . Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

Seeing as how eternal life is perpetually impervious to death, decay, and the aging process, then it's eo ipso perpetually impervious to the wages of sin spoken of at Rom 6:23.

FYI: Were it possible to kill eternal life, then it would be possible to kill God. In point of fact, were it possible to kill eternal life, then it would even be possible for God to commit suicide!

NOTE: The grammatical tense of the verb "has" in John 6:54 is present tense rather than future, indicating that when someone consumes Christ's flesh and blood correctly, they are granted eternal life instantly-- no delay and no waiting period.

Suppose what I'm saying turns out to be true. What might the ramifications be for Roman Catholics? Well; first off, the serious ones would immediately begin to question the value of the Church's communion services, and almost certainly become disillusioned with Rome and stop coming to church altogether.

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Rote Chanting

†. Heb 4:15-16 . . For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The word "boldly" is actually two words in New Testament Greek-- meta parrhesia (met-ah') (par-rhay-see'-ah). The term means frankness; which Webster's defines as: free, forthright, and sincere expression. Frankness implies lack of shyness or secretiveness or evasiveness due to considerations of tact or expedience; viz: frankness implies unbridled freedom of speech and the liberty to speak your mind without fear of criticism, censure, ridicule, reprisal, shame, disgrace, retribution, or retaliation.

Frank prayer is far and away much better than rote prayer. Rote prayer is really no different than reciting a poem and/or chanting a Hindu mantra. Frank prayer is conversation from the heart, not from memorized oratory. Rote-prayer models like the Our Father, the Act Of Contrition, the Apostles' Creed, and the Hail Mary, are not even close to being acceptable to God. No, on the contrary, those kinds of prayers insult the spirit of adoption; and are inappropriate; viz: it's abnormal for children to speak to their own daddies in a rote format.

†. Gal 4:4-7 . . But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption. As proof that you are kin, God sent the spirit of His son into our hearts, calling out; Abba! Father. So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.

†. Rom 8:15-16 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba! Father. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's kin.

If I were to meet President Barack Hussein Obama, I would have to make an appointment first; and then stand back and address him as Sir or Mister President. But his two daughters Sasha and Malia can run right up uninvited and cling to his arm because he's their father; and they call him daddy. Now if the Obama's should adopt a little boy some day, he will have all the very same rights and privileges as the Obama's natural born daughters; including a right to inherit. Their new son would have every right to run up uninvited to Mr. Obama yelling: Daddy! Daddy! Daddy! and cling to his other arm.

The spirit of adoption imparts to The Father's adoptees the heartfelt bond that enables adopted children to feel the love, and the friendship, and the security feelings that natural-born boys and girls feel with their birth parents. So I'm sure you can see just how ridiculous it would look for God's own precious little adoptees-- having all the God-given liberty in the world to run up and clutch His arm and address Almighty God as their daddy --were to speak to Him in rote. Do you speak to your own parents in rote? No? Then why on earth speak to God like that? The Father is no less a sentient, sensible, and sensitive person than your own parents; and I would appreciate it if Rome would show just a little more respect for His intelligence.

FYI: The teaching to come boldly unto the throne of grace is not a suggestion. The tenor of the language of Heb 4:15-16 is enjoining; in other words: it's a requirement. Therefore people who approach the throne chanting rote are grossly out of harmony with a sensible adoption relationship and behaving like a demented child.

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Purgatory

One of the Church's earliest official proclamations regarding a purgatory was Pope Leo X's Bull of Exurge Domine. In the year 1520 he stated, along with some other things, that death is the termination not of nature but of sin, and this inability to sin makes [purgatorial souls] secure of final happiness.

In other words: according to Leo X, the occupants of a purgatory are unable to sin; consequently they won't commit any new sins while undergoing discipline and purification.

I'm sure it can be seen right off just how essential it would be for souls in a purgatory to be incapable of sinning, because if they weren't, then Rome’s promise in CCC.1030, of an assured eternal salvation for purgatorians, would be a tenuous guarantee indeed since each new sin committed while interred in a purgatory would add time to the penitent’s original sentence; with the very real possibility of potentially snow-balling to the point where they would never be released.

If Pope Leo X's Bull of Exurge Domine is correct as regards the absence of sin in purgatory then I would have to conclude that it's a very peaceful place seeing as how everyone in residence there would be complying with the Sermon On The Mount and all the beatitudes.

One of the things that I would really appreciate in Leo's purgatory is civility. I've participated on better than thirty Christian internet forums beginning in 1997, and one of the things I've noticed is that too many people wearing the Christian label have forgotten all about turning the other cheek. Oh m' gosh you wouldn't believe how ugly, spiteful, and vindictive Christians can be when they put their minds to it!

In Leo's purgatory; there's no cruelty of any kind; for example dishonesty, malicious gossip, demeaning comments, thoughtless remarks, name-calling, toxic rejoinders, discourtesy, chafing, quarrelling, bickering, mockery, relentless ridicule,

. . . fault-finding, nit picking, spite, rivalry, carping, bullying, heckling, intimidation, wiseacre retorts, needling, taunting, biting sarcasm, petty ill will, yelling, ugly insinuations, cold-shouldering, calculated insults, snobbery, elitism, arrogance, subterfuge, antisocial behaviors, sociopaths, crime, war, despotism, oppression, injustice, human rights abuses, character assassination, etc, etc, et al, and ad nauseam.

If Leo is correct. then we can expect that all the Christian virtues, every one of them, are being exemplified 24/7/365 in purgatory.

However, if Leo's Bull is full of bull, then I think we can reasonably expect purgatory's social environment to be little different than what we're accustomed.

Most Catholics regard purgatory as a safety net whence they will be taken in the event they fail to sufficiently measure up to God's standards. However, purgatory is not all that easy to attain. According to the Catechism, CCC 1035, Catholics are just inches from the worst. Should it happen that they leave this life with just one un-absolved mortal sin on the books, just one, they go directly to Hell; no stop-over in a half-way house. No, their trip is a direct flight. Even if they've been a faithful Catholic for 49 years, they will miss the boat just as if they had been a Hindu, or a Muslim, or an atheist. All their years as a faithful Catholic will be stricken from the record and count for naught.

Q: Does the Bible teach a purgatory?

A: Though there are numerous passages in the Bible that suggest its possibility; purgatory isn't an obvious, clear-cut, black and white teaching. Rome has appropriated those suggestive passages as their proof texts. However, passages that suggest one thing, can also be made to suggest another, so I do not recommend putting too much stock in Rome's ideas. It is much safer to assume the worst, and then begin preparing yourself for it in the event that purgatory turns out to be a huge mistake. Better to aim too high than too low.

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
The Church Below

†. Matt 16:18 . . The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against my church.

At some time during Jonah's nautical adventure, he went to a place called sheol (Jonah 2:3) which is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word haides; translated netherworld in Matt 16:18.

Jonah sited the netherworld at the roots of the mountains. (Jonah 2:7).

Well, needless to say, mountains aren't rooted in the tummies of fish, rather, they're rooted deep in the earth; which is the very same place to which the Lord retired during his demise. (Ps 16:8-10, Matt 12:40, Acts 2:25-31)

The gates that Jesus spoke of are called bars in Jonah's adventure. (Jonah 2:7)

In other words: though Jonah was alive in the fish at some time during his adventure (Jonah 2:2) he wasn't alive the whole time because people don't enter the netherworld as whole men, rather, they enter it as dead men. In point of fact, Jonah 2:7 speaks of his resurrection.

The point is: Though a percentage of Jesus' sheep will have to pass away and part company with their body at some point in their lives, none of them will stay disembodied forever.

†. John 6:39 . . This is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what He gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day.

†. John 6:40 . . For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.

†. John 6:44 . . No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.

†. John 11:25 . . I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live.

Neither Matt 16:18, nor any of the other passages I quoted allow for losses. In other words; were the Roman Catholic Church the church that Jesus spoke of in Matt 16:18, then no Catholics, not even one, would ever be in danger of the second and final death spoken of at Rev 20:10-15.

But of course that is not the case because when Catholics pass away with un-absolved mortal sins on the books, they go straight to the netherworld's infernal zone where there's of course no chance of escape.

CCC 1035 . .The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
The Pillar and Ground of the Truth

†. 1Tim 3:15 . . If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God; the pillar and foundation of truth.

It's a very common error among Catholics to look at that verse and let their minds see the church as the pillar and foundation of truth rather than God. 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.

1Tim 3:15 is saying that if there were no real live God of out there somewhere, then Christianity would be a silly myth. It's only the reality of God that makes so-called "truth" to be actually valid 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 listening to the voice of God on the pages of the Bible that the Holy Spirit led me to part company with Rome.

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Mother(s) of God

CLAIM: To say that Mary is not the mother of God is to deny that Jesus is God.

RESPONSE: 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 not be God, rather, God's progeny, and David's too.

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

So then, if Mary was the mother of God, then David was the father of God; and so on all the way back to Adam. Ergo: every paternal father in Jesus' biological lineage would a father of God, and every maternal 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 bringing God's son into the world of men.

†. 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 Christ.

FYI: Seeing as how Eve was derived from Adam, then Adam was first in the long line of Jesus' many paternal fathers.

†. Luke 3:38 . .The son of Adam

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
The Rosary

The beads of a rosary are little more than page upon page of indifferent sing-song lyrics rather than the candor commanded by Heb 4:16. So then rosaries are in essence mantras repeated over and over and over again, which is a clear violation of not only Heb 4:16, but also Christ's God-given instructions.

†. Matt 6:7-9 . . In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

OBJECTION: Jesus prayed a third time in the garden of Gethsemane, saying the exact same words again.

RESPONSE: Christ's prayer with his Father was an honest conversation; and yours should be too.

†. Heb 4:16 . . Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

The Greek word for "boldly" is parrhesia (par-rhay-see'-ah) which means all out-spokenness, i.e. frankness, bluntness, and/or confidence.

Rote prose is not what I call forthright, nor blunt, nor out-spoken, nor confident. It's actually not much different than mindlessly chanting Hindu mantras over and over and over again and/or reading the lines of a script like a Hollywood actor. It's just as ridiculous as bobbing back and forth while reading from a siddur like a Jew at the Wailing Wall.

If people calling themselves Christians don't have enough command of their native tongue to speak up and tell God exactly what's on their minds-- clearly, coherently, candidly, intelligently, succinctly, and to the point --then maybe they ought to go back to school.

I appeal not only to your reason, but also to your sensibilities. Suppose the door bell rang one day and when you opened up-- yikes! --it was God himself in person! Would you welcome Him into your home by reading from a missal and/or chanting rote prose; or would you greet Him as you do real visitors? Well, the Bible's God is real; so treat Him with the courtesy and respect that His intelligence deserves if you expect Him to reciprocate and treat you with courtesy and respect in return.

Do you speak to your friends, your associates, your spouse, your domestic partner, your significant other, your doctor, your dentist, supermarket cashiers, or the cops by repeating the same thing over and over again? Of course not. They would write you off as one in desperate need of therapy if you did. Then why would anyone think it makes sense to speak to God by saying the same thing over and over again every tyime the approach Him: every day, every week, every month, and every year?

Don't you think He looks upon rote chanters as mental cases when they do that? Of course He does; who wouldn't? How would you like it if everybody spoke to you like that? Well, He doesn't like it either. God is far more intelligent than anybody you could possibly name and rote chanters are treating Him like a totem pole. The Bible's God is a king who deserves far more respect than a US President yet people are speaking to Him as if rewinding and replaying a tape recorder rather than the ultimate Sovereign that He is.

Don't ever treat Christ's father like some sort of sounding board. Not even Forrest Gump would appreciate being spoken to in rote, and God's IQ is way higher than Forrest's; so how do you suppose He feels about being addressed in rote. The Bible's God is a sentient, sensible person; and we all need to show some respect for His intelligence. I guarantee He will be most grateful for your regard.

A very serious flaw with rosaries is the number of mantras devoted, not to God, but to a woman-- Jesus' mom --which is in direct opposition to the spirit of God's son, and the spirit of adoption.

†. Rom 8:15-17 . . For you have not received a spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we call out: Abba! Father.

†. Gal 4:6 . . And because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His son into your hearts calling out: Abba! Father.

When people are comfortable calling out to Christ's mother, instead of his Father, it can only be because they have neither the spirit of adoption, nor the spirit of His son, in their hearts.

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Mary's Selection & Christ's Tribal Identity

ASSERTION: Mary was selected to be Christ's mom because she was a wonderful, ultra pious human being.

RESPONSE: First and foremost; Christ's mother had to meet an irrevocable prerequisite that had nothing at all to do with her personality. She had to be David's biological progeny because Christ in turn had to be David's biological progeny in order to qualify as a candidate to inherit his throne.

That prerequisite was chipped in stone way back in the Old Testament by a promise that God made to David as per 2Sam 7:12-13 and Ps 132:11, cf. Acts 2:30.

ASSERTION: Mary was a kinswoman (or cousin) of Elizabeth who was a daughter of Aaron; a man of the tribe of Levi rather than David's tribe Judah. That makes Mary a Levitical woman instead of David's kin.

RESPONSE: Levi and Judah were Leah's biological progeny (Gen 35:23) so Elizabeth and Mary are related to each other via a common biological grandmother.

Q: So what are you saying? That the "Holy Mary, Mother Of God" was merely a baby mill?

A: Women have been milling babies since the very beginning-- it is one of their God-given purposes in life; there's no shame in it.

†. Gen 3:16 . .Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children

†. Gen 3:20 . .And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she became the mother of all living.

Rome has so mystified Christ's mom to the point where she's no longer a real-life Jewish woman with thoughts and feelings of her own. And for somebody to be ticked off because I called her a baby mill is both an oxymoron and a non sequitur.

Perhaps my critics would prefer that men have the periods, and the bloating, and the pregnancies, and the deliveries, and the means for breast feeding. Christ's mom had all that, and I'm not even going to get into feminine hygiene and the ladies' room.

I demand that Rome bring Christ's mom back to reality: de-mystify Joseph's wife, and make her a human being again like she was to begin with.

ASSERTION: Inheritance was passed only through the male, whose "seed" (viz: his male sperm) was thought to contain the entire offspring. The mother's body only provided the nutrients if she was "fertile" or not if she was "barren."

RESPONSE: A woman's egg qualifies as biblical seed. Eve had seed (Gen 3:15), Hagar had seed (Gen 16:10) and Rebecca had seed (Gen 24:60). So that biblically, human seed is not only a male's sperm cell, but also a female's ovum.

Besides; inspiration clearly, and without ambiguity, testifies that Christ was produced by the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14) and specifically by David (Acts 2:30, Rom 1:3)

FYI: David was announced as Jesus' father before the lad was even conceived, thus indicating that Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus' primary lineage to David. That being the case, then Jesus' primary lineage to David was via his birth mother. Ergo: Jesus wasn't David's adopted progeny; no, he was David's biological progeny.

†. Luke 1:32 . .The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David

Christ had to be David's biological progeny in order to qualify as a candidate to inherit his throne. That prerequisite was chipped in stone way back in the Old Testament by a promise that God made to David as per 2Sam 7:12-13 and Ps 132:11, cf. Acts 2:30.

I should explain something about women.

Adam was a discreet creation put together directly from the earth's dust. Not so Eve. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body. Thus Adam was a child of the earth while Eve was a child of the man-- she wasn't a second, discrete species of h.sapiens.

Eve was biologically just as much Adam as Adam except for gender because she was Adam's flesh (Gen 2:22-23). In other words: Eve was the flip side of the same biological coin. According to Gen 5:2, Eve is Adam the same as Adam is Adam.

So then, any human life on earth biologically descending by Eve-- whether virgin conceived or normally conceived --is biologically just as much Adam as Adam because the source of its mother's flesh is Adam's flesh.

By the same token, any human life on earth biologically produced by David's biological female progeny is David's biological progeny-- whether virgin conceived or normally conceived makes no difference because the source of its mother's flesh is David's flesh.

Now; unless someone can prove beyond a shadow of any sensible doubt that Mary wasn't biologically related to David, then rational thinking has to conclude that any, and all, human life produced by Mary's body was biologically related to David.

But Christ's biological lineage goes back quite a bit further than David; for example;

†. 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 Christ; ergo: if Christ is Eve's offspring, then he is Adam's too.

†. Luke 3:38 . .The son of Adam

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Infant Baptism

Christ spoke for God.

†. John 3:34 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's Spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

†. John 8:26 . . He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me.

†. John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

†. John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.

†. Heb 1:1-2 . . In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His son

It is his Father's wishes that people heed Christ.

†. Matt 17:5 . .While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is My beloved son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to him!

It's risky to ignore the words that Jesus Christ spoke for God.

†. John 12:48 . . He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

According to the words that Jesus Christ spoke for God: it is his Father's wishes that non believers be evangelized first and baptized afterwards (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16). Seeing as how infants are de facto incapable of believing, then their baptism has to be held off until they're old enough to understand.

There are Christian churches out there who've got the cart before the horse and by doing so declare themselves Christ's opponents.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

And they don't think much of him much neither.

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.

†. John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who does not love me will not obey my teaching.

I've noted in my many years of Bible study that there are two things that God values very highly. One is honesty, and the other is loyalty; which Webster's defines as unswerving in allegiance to one's lawful sovereign or government.

†. Luke 6:46-49 . .Why do you call me lord and master and do not do what I say?

. . . Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and acts upon them, I will show you whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation upon the rock; and when a flood rose, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.

. . . But the one who has heard, and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house upon the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.

Churches that circumvent Christ's instructions as per Matt 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-16 by baptizing infants are not only disloyal; but they are also akin to pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping Shiva and Vishnu.

†. 1Sam 15:23 . . Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Half-Baked Communion Services

†. John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

When I was growing up a young Catholic boy back in the decade of the 1950s, we were given the bread at communion, but never the wine. In other words; in accordance with the principles of transubstantiation; we ate Jesus' flesh without his blood.

Well; Jesus' recipe for "life within you" consists of both his flesh and his blood. Therefore, none of my communions counted because they were incomplete. I obtained no life from them: none of them; not a single one. I might just as well have used the host to make a peanut butter and jelly hor d'oeuvre for all the good it did me without the wine element.

It is not only necessary to include the wine element in order to obtain life, but it is also necessary to include it in order to attain to Jesus' resurrection.

†. John 6:53 . . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

So then, according to the principles of transubstantiation, I not only lacked eternal life due to my total, 100% lack of Jesus' blood; but my afterlife future was in grave peril too.

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Apostolic Succession

Roman Catholicism has constructed for itself a papal tree showing its own succession all the way back to Peter. However, age should never be assumed an eo ipso guarantee that a particular belief system is valid; because even while the apostles were still alive, even in their own day, professing Christians were already starting apostate movements. (e.g. Gal 1:6-9, 2Tim 2:15-18, 1John 2:18-19, Jud 1:17-19)

Those early apostates could easily show that their own hierarchical successions connected to Peter; who was actually just a few steps away. In fact, their distance from Peter was very short, shorter by more than 1,900 years than it is today. I sincerely believe there's cause to suspect the Roman Church to be the end product of some of those early apostate movements.

OBJECTION: That couldn't be because certain passages in the apostles' epistles exposed the errors of the time so that people wouldn't follow the apostates.

RESPONSE: The epistles weren't sent out to the world at large; like as if there were millions of copies run off the presses and shipped out to news stands, television stations, radio stations, and book stores in every city and country. No, the epistles were hand-written letters sent by courier only to designated recipients. The world at large didn't have a clue, nor would it have cared anyway even if it had access to those letters.

And anyway; just because those early apostates were "exposed", do you really think that stopped them from proliferating?

Apostate movements grow at astounding rates in spite of the now wide-spread availability of New Testaments. For example, Mormonism has grown from just one man in 1820 to approximately 9.37 million in 2015; and that figure doesn't even factor in the numbers of Mormons who have lived and died during the 195 years since the Mormon Church was founded. Those 9.37 million Mormons are those of today, not the past. Mormonism's belief system incorporates the New Testament, including every one of those epistles I referenced above. In point of fact, the Mormon Church offers free Bibles to anybody who requests one.

The Watchtower Society (a.k.a. Jehovah's Witnesses) has grown from one man in 1881 to approximately 8.2 million in 2015; and that figure doesn't factor in the numbers of Watchtower Society members who have come and gone during the 134 years since the movement began. The Society bases its Christology on the New Testament.

The Roman papacy has had its humorous moments. It's a historical fact that at one time there were no less than three different "infallible" popes all in power at the same time.

In the 14th century a division occurred in the Church of Rome, and the two factions vied for superiority. One faction officially elected Pope Urban VI as the infallible Head of the Church, while the other party elected Pope Clement VII as the infallible Head of the Church.

That put two infallible Popes in power opposing each other. Pope Urban VI was succeeded by Boniface IX in 1389 and later Pope Gregory XII. Pope Clement VII-- called, historically, the Anti-Pope --was succeeded by Pope Benedictine XIII in 1394. Then in 1409 a third party of reactionaries, claiming to represent the true Church, elected Pope Alexander V as head of the Roman hierarchy. Voilà. A triune papacy.

Then, in June, 1409, the infallible Pope Alexander V officially excommunicated the other two infallible Popes, and gradually the incident was resolved. For an interesting discussion of this historical account see the Encyclopedia Britannica under the article on "The Papacy".

That, however, was not the only time when the Roman Church had more than one infallible head. In 1058 Pope Benedict X was elected, but another faction elected Pope Nicholas II. The feud between these two opposing infallible Popes resulted in the expulsion of Pope Benedict and the selection of Nicholas II as supreme head of the Church.

What is so ironic about Rome's past is that modern Catholicism is constantly going on about Protestant schism while its own infallible papacy was so bitterly divided in the past.

NOTE: Were the Holy Ghost really leading Rome in its selection of Popes; there would never be a divided vote when the college of cardinals meets in conclave. Popes are elected based upon a 2/3 majority rather than unanimous approval. Makes me wonder who the Holy Ghost is leading: the minority vote or the majority; or quite possibly neither.

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
-
Rome's Savior

†. Luke 2:8-12 . .And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.

. . . But the angel said to them; "Don't be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today, in the town of David, a savior has been born to you; he is Messiah, the Lord."

Not every Christian denomination heralds a Xmas message that qualifies as "good news of great joy". Several announce a version that is neither good nor joyful at all; but is actually bad news indeed because their message-- although adequately announcing the reality of divine retribution --fails to tell of a guaranteed fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, bad behavior-proof, apostasy-proof, reprobate-proof, back-sliding proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God. Roman Catholicism, the very centerpiece and public image of Christianity, can't even guarantee safety for its own Popes nor its outstanding nuns.

Friday, April 8, 2005; millions of Catholics around the world-- including Cardinals, Bishops, and Monsignors --prayed for Karol Wojtyla during his funeral. Let me point out something that should go without saying: if someone has already gone on to eternal life; is it really necessary to continue praying for them? Of course not. They'd be home free. The millions of Catholics left behind would be the ones in need of prayer; not Mr. Wojtyla. But the sad reality is: no Catholic, not even a Pope, knows for sure where they're going when they cross over to the other side.

If Popes and super duper nuns like Mother Teresa are in danger of missing out on eternal life, then what "great joy" does news like Rome's gospel have to offer John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer? None, no joy at all. The best they can do is cross their fingers and pray for the best while in the backs of their minds dreading the worst.

The angel announced the birth of a savior. Webster's defines a "savior" as one who rescues. You've seen examples of rescuers-- lifeguards, firemen, cops, emergency medical teams, Coast Guard units, snow patrols, and mountain rescue teams. Rescuers typically save people who are facing imminent death and/or grave danger and utterly helpless to do anything about it.

Of what real benefit would the rescuer of Luke 2:8-12 really be to anybody if he couldn't guarantee a fail-safe rescue from the wrath of God? He'd be of no benefit to anybody. No; he'd be an incompetent ninny that nobody could rely on.

But, if a rescuer were to be announced who guaranteed anybody who wants it, a completely free of charge, no strings attached, guaranteed fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, bad behavior-proof, apostasy-proof, reprobate-proof, back-sliding proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God, and full-time protection from future retribution; wouldn't that qualify as good news of great joy? I think just about everybody concerned about ending up in the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:10-15 would have to agree with me that news like that would not only most certainly be good; but also cause for celebration, and for ecstatic happiness.

/

Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa:ji:sdo:de
Advanced Member
Member # 13749

Icon 15 posted      Profile for Sa:ji:sdo:de     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

-
Patron Saints

Paul said that things written in the past, were written for our instruction (Rom 15:4). Here's a case in point.

†. Gen 28:20-21 . . Jacob then made a vow, saying: If God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father's house-- Yhvh shall be my god.

What did Jacob say? Yhvh wasn't his god up to that point? Not necessarily. It wasn't uncommon in those days for people to dabble in other gods right along with Yhvh. The practice was later strictly forbidden by the first of the Ten Commandments.

†. Ex 20:1-3 . . And God spoke all these words: I am Yhvh your god, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods in my sight.

"in my sight" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially refer to Yhvh's competitors. In other words: it is not the God's wishes to have a market share of His people's devotion; no, He'll settle for nothing less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)

†. Ex 20:5 . . I, Yhvh thy God, am a jealous God

Webster's defines "jealous" as intolerant of rivalry and/or unfaithfulness.

Jacob's uncle Laban was notorious for polytheism. On the one hand, he recognized Yhvh as a legitimate deity (Gen 24:50, Gen 31:29) while on the other hand he harbored a collection of patron gods in his home (Gen 31:19, Gen 31:30). In the ancient Semitic world; patron gods were equivalent to Catholicism's patron saints-- objects of devotion; venerated as special guardians, intercessors, protectors, and/or supporters; viz: alternate sources of providence.

Jacob's vow reflects a personal decision of his own volition to make Yhvh the sole source of his providence to the exclusion of all the other gods that people commonly looked to in his day. So Gen 28:20-21 could be paraphrased to read like this:

"If God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father’s house-- Yhvh shall be my only patron."

So, although I didn't worship Jesus' mom and the patron saints during the 24 years I was a Catholic from infancy, nevertheless, I practiced polytheism just like uncle Laban because of my devotion to God's competitors rather than narrowing the field down to just the one benefactor like Jacob did.

Anyway; that was a very important milestone for Jacob; and it's a very tall obstacle for John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer to overcome because most of them feel far more comfortable looking to after-market providers such as Christ's mom and departed saints rather than looking to God only.

Q: What about Rev 5:8 where it talks about the prayers of the saints. Doesn't that indicate they pray for us?

A: Even if Rev 5:8 did indicate that departed saints pray for people down here on the earth, it doesn't eo ipso indicate it's okay for people on the earth to reciprocate with prayers either to them or for them.

However, when that passage in Revelation is read with care, it's easily seen that the prayers in question are not the active prayers of saints; but rather, archived prayers.

†. Rev 5:8 . . And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

You see, the bowls in that passage are already full; strongly suggesting that those particular prayers were prayed in this life; not in the next; and it also indicates that no new prayers will fit in the bowls because they are already to capacity.

The details of the prayers in those bowls aren't stated; so it would be purely conjecture to allege they're intercessory prayers. It's likely the current prayers of departed saints are for justice and vindication (e.g. Rev 6:10).

/


Posts: 462 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Church Webs | Privacy Statement



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

The Christian Message Board Rules - Please Read

Christian Visual Media  Bible MP3  Hear Good News  Free Facebook Covers  Jesus Videos  Jesus
Christian Website Host  Watch Videos  Chat Christian Search Engine Evangelism  Graphics  Movies