Why I Am An Apostate

[WebersHome]

-
God granted Jewish rulers the authority to legislate in regards to cases not
specifically spelled out in the laws of the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed
upon with God; and failure to comply with their decisions is a death offense.
(Deut 17:8-13)

However, the rulers were never given license to revise, amend, or repeal the
covenant.

†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of Yhvh your God that I
enjoin upon you.

†. Deut 5:29-30 . . Be careful, then, to do as Yhvh your God has
commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the
path that Yhvh your God has enjoined upon you.

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Law and
observe them.

The intent of Deut 17:8-13 was to give Jewish rulers the authority to apply
the covenanted law to Jewish civil life; not to allow them carte blanche to
revise the covenant; thus making Israel's God-given religion more strict and
more cumbersome than Yhvh intended.

Israel's religious laws were God-given and set in stone; thus any additional
laws Jewish authorities legislate have to be regarded as non-covenanted
law; e.g. the Talmud and Halacha (a.k.a. Halakhah)

By that same principle, Christ gave his top men the authority to police his
church (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:15-18) but he did not give them license to
independently add to the religion of Christianity nor to revise, amend, or
repeal it. Whatever they taught in their teachings, and/or their writings, they
did by the inspiration and/or revelation of God, not by the fertile
imaginations of despotic men of ambition.

Although the laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and commandments of the
Apostles are binding upon all Christians, the in-house laws, rules, teachings,
traditions, and commandments of individual denominations are not. Any
laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and commandments that an individual
church and/or denomination binds upon itself and its members have to be
considered local only, and binding only within the jurisdiction of the
individual church and/or denomination.

No one is bound to the laws, rules, teachings, traditions, and
commandments of just one denomination within Christianity claiming to be
the "one true church". That's laughable. Christ's church alone is the one true
church; there is no one denomination like Roman Catholicism or Mormonism
that is the one true church. A claim of that nature is nothing but downright
fraud.

If Christ was chafed with Jewish rulers for legislating laws, rules, teachings,
traditions, and commandments that countermanded, added to, embellished,
repealed, and/or diminished from Old Testament Judaism, don't you think he
would be just as chafed with Christian rulers who legislate laws, rules,
teachings, traditions, and commandments that countermand, add to,
embellish, repeal, and/or diminish from, New Testament Christianity? Yes, of
course he would; primarily because it invalidates Christ's personal guarantee
that his yoke is easy, and his burden is light (Matt 11:28-30)

Case in point: The Roman emperor Constantine initiated a committee to
compile a universally acceptable Christian handbook from an archive of
already-existing manuscripts in hopes it would unify the Christian factions in
his kingdom.

Ironically, the Catholic Church, which takes sole credit for the existence of
the New Testament, has succeeded in fragmenting Christ's church with far
more effect than Constantine's efforts to unify it. As of mid 2009, there were
1.14 billion Catholics worldwide totally alienated from the rest of Christ's
church via Rome's proprietary catechism, the laws of its Ecumenical
Councils, and its collection of Bulls, and Encyclicals. The average pew
warmer's version of Christianity is a smothering religion that has become far
more strict, and far more cumbersome than the Apostles ever dreamed or
expected.

†. Matt 15:7-9 . .You hypocrites! Isaiah was prophesying about you when he
said: These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away.
Their worship is a farce, for they replace God's will with their own man-made
teachings.

==================================

 

[WebersHome]

-
Here is Rome's definition of contrition:

CCC 1451 . . Among the penitent's acts, contrition occupies first place.
Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed,
together with the resolution not to sin again."

The resolve not to sin again is of course a big joke because no natural-born
human being has enough self control over themselves to truly honor that
kind of a commitment. However, resolve is not our concern in this section;
but rather, the concept of sorrow and how it relates to repentance.

The primary New Testament Greek word for repentance-- used 34 times in
various places --is metanoeo (met-an-o-eh'-o) which just simply means to
think differently, or to reconsider; viz: to change one's mind.

Metanoeo never, ever implies either regret or remorse. Although those
emotions may accompany changing one's mind, they are not metanoeo: no,
the changing of one's mind is the true metanoeo, with or without remorse
(e.g. Matt 21:28-30).

A second New Testament Greek word translated repent/repentance-- used
but 6 times in various places --is metamellomai (met-am-el'-lom-ahee);
which means to care afterwards; viz: regret.

A useful example of metamellomai is Judas.

†. Matt 27:3 . . Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he
was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of
silver to the chief priests and elders

Although Judas experienced regret for what he did to his friend, it didn't
result in his salvation simply because he never did believe in Christ's
Messianic claims to begin with; and at this point, hadn't changed his mind
about it. Judas simply felt bad about himself for being instrumental in
executing an innocent man. But did he go and confess his sin to God seeking
forgiveness and absolution? No. He went out and committed suicide instead.

A useful example of metanoeo occurred on the day of Pentecost.

†. Acts 2:36-41 . . Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made
this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. When the people heard
this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles,
"Brothers, what shall we do? Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And
you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your
children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.

. . .With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them,
"Rescue yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his
message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their
number that day.

Peter's sermon succeeded in convincing his countrymen to change their
opinion about the very man they had so recently consented unto his death;
and as a result, they were spared Hell and eternal suffering.

So then, where does repentance fit into the scheme of reconciliation? Well;
that's pretty easy. It simply means to agree with God that certain of your
thoughts, words, and deeds are wrong (1John 1:8 & 1John 1:10). It is
important to note in 1John 1:9 that regret is not part of the formula; no, in
order to obtain cleansing and forgiveness one only has to own up to their
wrongs. Contrition plays no role in the formula at all.

===================================

 

[WebersHome]

-
A key component in the recipe of Rome's plan of salvation is compliance with
the Ten Commandments; which are a component of the covenant that
Yhvh's people agreed upon with God in the books of Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The problem is: according to Deut 4:2, Deut 5:29-30, and Deut 27:26 the
covenant can't be cherry-picked; viz: it's all or nothing at all.

†. Jas 2:10 . . For whosoever shall keep all the commandments, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

All of which means that Rome's use of even one point of that covenant in the
recipe of its plan of salvation, puts Catholics in grave danger of being
condemned as repeat offenders.

†. Num 15:30-31 . . But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts
defiantly reviles Yhvh; that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he has spurned the word of Yhvh and violated His commandment,
that person shall be cut off-- he bears his guilt.

†. Heb 10:26-27 . . If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have
received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a
fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the
enemies of God.

Seeing as how human sacrifices are illegal under the terms and conditions of
the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God; and seeing as how
compliance with the Ten Commandments is a key component in the recipe of
Rome's plan of salvation; then all the while I was a Catholic, Christ was of
no use to me whatsoever. In my case, Christ died for nothing.

†. Rom 4:13-16 . . It was not through commandments that Abraham and his
offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but
through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by
commandments are heirs, then faith has no value and the promise is
worthless because law brings retribution. But where there are no
commandments; there is no transgression of commandments. Therefore, the
promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace, and may be guaranteed
to all Abraham's offspring-- not only to those who are of the law; but also to
those who are of the faith of Abraham.

†. Gal 5:4 . . For if you are trying to make yourselves righteous with God by
keeping commandments, then you have been cut off from Christ! You have
fallen away from God's kindness and generosity.

†. Gal 2:21 . . I am not one of those who treats the kindness of God as
meaningless. For if we could be spared by keeping commandments, then
there was no need for Christ to die.

†. Gal 3:21-22 . . If the commandments could have given us new life, then
we could have been made right with God by obeying them. But the
Scriptures have declared that we are all prisoners of sin, so the only way to
receive God's promise is to believe in Jesus Christ.

†. Rom 3:20-24 . .Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by
observing commandments; rather, through commandments we become
conscious of sin.

===================================

 

[WebersHome]

-
I was taught in catechism that seeing as how Jesus Christ's mother was a
virgin when he was conceived, then he didn't have a human father. That
notion is easy to debunk.

According to the book of Genesis; God created Adam's flesh from the earth's
dust. That one lone male's flesh is the only human flesh that God ever
created from the earth's dust. God then proceeded to use a human tissue
sample amputated from Adam's body to construct a female version of
himself; in other words: the flip side of the same coin. (Gen 2:21-22)

Eve, then, wasn't a discreet creation. In other words: biologically, Eve's flesh
was just as much Adam's flesh as Adam's. In point of fact, the Bible refers to
Eve as Adam just as it refers to Adam as Adam (Gen 5:22).

From that point on; any human flesh that came into the world via either
Eve's body or via the body of one of her female descendants, whether
normally conceived or virgin conceived, would also be just as much Adam's
flesh as Adam's.

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

So then; unless somebody can prove-- conclusively and without ambiguity-
that Jesus Christ's mother isn't biologically related to either Adam or Eve;
then we are forced to conclude that Adam is Jesus Christ's biological father.

===================================

 

[WebersHome]

-
The New Testament Greek noun for "gospel" is euaggelion (yoo-ang-ghel'
ee-on); which means: a good message-- the contents of the message; viz:
good news.

Its complimentary action verb is euaggelizo (yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo) which
means: to announce a good message; viz: to announce good news; like this:

†. 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 religion has a gospel 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, idiot-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.

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 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 are in danger of going to Hell, then what "great joy" does news like
Rome's gospel have to offer rank and file pew warmers? None, no joy at all.
So then, truly good news should be exciting and beneficial to everyone who
hears it; regardless of whether they're sinners or saints, Jew or Gentile,
male or female, adult or child, rich or poor, slave or free, smart or dumb,
educated or ignorant, literate or illiterate.

The angel of Luke 2:8-12 announced the birth of a savior. Webster's defines
a "savior" as one who rescues. You've seen examples of rescuers-- 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 savior of Luke 2:8-12 really be to anybody if
he couldn't guarantee a fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten
Commandments-proof, idiot-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof 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 savior 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, idiot-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 you 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.

===================================

 

[WebersHome]

-
Questions Rome Cannot Answer

1• Where did your deceased Catholic relatives go when they died?

2• Where will your of-age Catholic children go when they die?

3• Where did the previous Catholic Pope go when he died?

4• Where will Catholic you go when you die?

Catholicism is a gamble. Nobody in the Church knows what to expect when
they cross over to the other side. Theirs is a hope-so hope rather than a
know-so hope; which is really not much different than a roll of the dice at
Las Vegas.

When I was a Catholic, I sincerely believed I had a better chance of going to
heaven than non Catholics. But the reality is: chances are not sure things;
no: a chance is a risk no matter how good the odds.

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

-
Roman Catholicism has created thousands of warped psyches and totally
unnecessary guilt complexes by its attitude toward the male libido; and at
the heart of it is the passage below.

†. 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 sexual intercourse
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 a sexual 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:

†. 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.

†. 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 unlawful desires, but rather,
upon taking steps to fulfill its unlawful desires; 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 I can't look across the
street at my neighbor's Mercedes and drool over it, turning green with envy?
Or that I can't gape at his buxom young wife, undressing her with my 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 my forming a plan in my head
to get my hands on the neighbor's buxom young wife and his Mercedes
instead of getting my 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
look with lust at a woman. Well; too bad because if his conscience bothers
him whenever he gazes with longing at a woman, then he is an adulterer.

†. Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.

†. Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.

Seeing as how adultery and covetousness are prohibited by the Ten
Commandments, then both acts are mortal sins.

That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly decent Catholic men at risk
of eternal suffering for nothing more than a normal, healthy, male libido.

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

-
According to Rome, Christ was fully man: viz: 100% human. So then, if
Christ was really and truly fully human, then he would have had a full male's
feelings about women, and he would have had a full male's libido, and a full
male's reproductive system; which includes all the organs, fluids, secretions,
and hormones that all other full males have. And most importantly, Christ--
as a 100% human --would have had the psychology of a straight human
male. Thus, Christ would have not only been fully able to reproduce; but no
doubt would have liked to given the opportunity. In other words: Christ had
just as many needs as the rest of us.

I believe Christ was fully man too. So then, my belief forces me to accept
that Christ, as a full-grown male in the prime of life, would have liked to get
laid on occasion. Unfortunately, his mission in life precluded getting laid
and/or starting a family of his own, so he had to endure a good number of
years of sexual frustration during his tenure on earth before departing for
the celestial regions.

A man's libido peaks between the ages of 18 to 24, and then begins to taper
off towards the end of his life. The tapering is gradual and hardly noticeable
at first, but sometime in a man's thirties, his libido has wound down enough
that he'll realize his interest in sleeping with girls is no longer as wild as it
was at 18. Christ lived to be about 33, so although his libido had tapered off
somewhat by then, he still had a pretty good supply of sex drive at his
crucifixion.

Is it unreasonable to assume that Christ, in the prime of life, thought about
women and/or thought about what it would be like to be with a woman, or
maybe even just a girlfriend? This is a tough question for rank and file pew
warmers because of their guilt complexes associated with sex and the
human body.

However, God created men with a desire to mate and to reproduce with
women. Rome feel it's okay for normal men to have those desires; but
not okay for Christ to have them; and yet, they forever bleat that he's fully
man. No, truth be, in Rome's mind, Christ wasn't really fully man at all; no, he
was a divine hybrid who hasn't a clue what it's like to be fully man.

†. Heb 2:17-18 . . Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is
able to aid those who are being tempted.

What does that verse say to you? Well, as a red-blooded man who didn't get
laid till he was 36, that verse tells me that Christ went through some rough
nights all alone on his bed.

†. 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

Now I'm back to Matt 5:27-28. My question is: Was Christ a hypocrite? I
mean, if Rome is rock-steady convinced that a man's erotic feelings and
thoughts about women are adultery, then how would a prime-of-life, 100%
fully functioning, fully human, fully straight man like Christ evade the
condemnation of his own words?

Rome's interpretation of Matt 5:27-28 is as unrealistic as it is impractical. If
their interpretation were to be correct; it would actually put Christ in grave
danger of eternal suffering for breaking the sixth and tenth commandments;
unless of course he underwent surgery to become a eunuch; which is not all
that far-fetched really.

†. Matt 19:12 . . and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

Whether nor not Christ was a eunuch I don't know, but it's certainly a
possibility; especially when taken into consideration with Isaiah's prediction
that Christ would leave behind no posterity.

†. Isa 53:8 . . And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off
from the land of the living

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

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

A: Below is a revision of Christ's statement. Watch for the change.

"Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church."

Here's another revision. Again; watch for the change.

"Thou art a rock, and upon it I will build my church."

The rock about which Christ spoke is a special kind of rock modified by the
word "this". In other words, the focus in Christ's statement shifts from the
apostle to something else entirely: viz: to a suitable anchorage upon which a
temple can be constructed; which is not ordinary rock, but rather, bedrock.

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

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

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

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

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

Christ is clearly identified as petra rock.

†. 1Cor 10:1-4 . .For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers,
that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed
through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the
sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink;
for they drank from the spiritual petra that accompanied them, and that
petra was Christ.

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

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

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

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

Here; let me show you just how stupid we'd look were we to go with Rome's
interpretation of Matt 16:18.

John 3:14-15 . . Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so Peter
must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:17-19 . . For God did not send Peter into the world to condemn the
world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in Peter is not
condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already
because he has not believed in Peter's name.

John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to Peter's message, and believe
in God who sent him, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

John 6:53-58 . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat Peter's flesh and drink
his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Peter's flesh and drinks his
blood has eternal life, and Peter will raise him up at the last day. For Peter's
flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. Whoever eats Peter's flesh and
drinks his blood remains in him, and Peter in him. Just as the living Father
sent Peter and he lives because of the Father, so the one who feeds on Peter
will live because of him. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your
forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live
forever.

1Cor 3:10-12 . . By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an
expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be
careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one
already laid, which is the apostle Peter.

=========================

 

[Ahwatukee]

Good day WebersHome,

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

A: Below is a revision of Christ's statement. Watch for the change.

"Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church."

Here's another revision. Again; watch for the change.

"Thou art a rock, and upon it I will build my church."

Some times what we are reading, because of going from the Greek to English we don't receive it correctly. Here is the conversation:

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[SUP]d[/SUP] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

In the Scripture above, Jesus asks his disciple who the people say that he is, then he asks them who do you say I am. Peter says to the Lord, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Then the Lord responds with, "and I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." What happened is that Peter acknowledged Christ and then the Lord acknowledged Peter (I tell you that you are Peter). The Lord was simply returning the acknowledgment to Peter. Therefore, when he says, "on this rock I will build my church" the Lord is referring back to himself as that Rock that the church would be built on and not Peter. Jesus is symbolically that Rock that Moses struck. In fact the Lord is referred to as our Rock in multiple Scriptures. As far as the apostles go, Paul did more for the Church than any of the other apostles, for the Lord chose him. He is the one who received visions and revelations and wrote most of the letters in the NT and where many of the Lord's teachings come from.

Jesus is that Rock upon which the church is being built, not Peter.

 

[WebersHome]

-
Webster's defines "penance" as an act of self-abasement, mortification, or
devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin.

Extreme forms of penance include things like malnutrition, hermitage,
celibacy, walking around with a pebble in your shoe, privation, self
flagellation, and the wearing of garter belts studded with metal spikes; viz:
in Rome's mind; pain and suffering = holiness and purification.

Those things may seem logical to a humanistic sense of piety; but actually
Christ's believing followers can get by just fine without self-abasement,
mortification, and devotion performed to show sorrow and/or repentance for
sin.

†. 1John 1:9 . . If we confess our sins, He is faithful, and just, and will
forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

According to the above; the only requirement for absolution is admission of
guilt, and God is guaranteed to forgive and purify; and He won't do it
arbitrarily, no, He will do it justly; which simply means that God doesn't
sweep sins under the rug. That's because the wages of sin is death (Rom
6:23) and those wages have to be paid before God can let people off.

†. 1John 2:2 . . And he himself is the propitiation for our sins

Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate,
mollify, placate, sweeten. In other words: Christ's crucifixion adequately
satisfies Rom 6:23's demand for its pound of flesh.

†. Isa 53:4-6 . . Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he
was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the
punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

The practice of penance insinuates that Christ's crucifixion is inadequate for
paying the wages of sin. In other words: penance says that Christ's
crucifixion makes it possible to obtain absolution, but by itself is insufficient
to procure it.

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

-
Not all Christians are permitted to grasp the Complexities of the Divinity.
Only specially selected individuals are given that privilege and the rest are
left to a superficial overview because The Son is the custodian of that kind of
knowledge and it can be found out from no one else.

†. Matt 11:27 . .No one really knows The Son except The Father, and no one
really knows The Father except The Son and those to whom The Son
chooses to reveal him.

Do you currently possess eternal life? I ask you that because according to
the lord and master of New Testament Christianity, nobody can begin to
understand the Complexities of the Divinity until they are first in possession
of eternal life.

†. John 17:2-4 . .You have given him authority over all flesh, that he should
give eternal life to as many as You have given him. And this is eternal life,
that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You
have sent.

Christians trying to get a handle on the Complexities of the Divinity sans
eternal life are like blind men, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that
isn't there. That's what it's like to sort out the Godhead without eternal life--
it's just not there for them. The obvious conclusion is that since the average
pew warmer does not have eternal life, then they are spending Sunday after
Sunday in church and getting no closer to understanding the complexities of
the Divinity than they were the day they first entered catechism as a child.

The complexities of Jesus Christ, and those of his Father, are well guarded
sacred secrets that are revealed only to selected individuals of Christ's own
personal choosing. So that no matter what a person's IQ, those secrets can't
be discovered by deep thought, nor by catechism, nor by lectures; no, they
can only be understood via inspiration on a person to person basis.

You see, even if professing Catholics were to hear, and/or study, the most
exacting, the most detailed, the clearest, the simplest, and the easiest to
understand explanation of the complexities of The Godhead, they wouldn't
accept it; no, not even from a trusted source because nobody can accept the
explanation sans The Son; and to obtain The Son, human beings must first
obtain eternal life.

Christians who aren't in current possession of eternal life can study the Bible
all they want to and still not accept who and what Jesus is really all about. In
point of fact, it's typical of those kinds of Christians to adamantly oppose the
possibility of living Christians possessing eternal life right now in this life;
thus self-locking themselves into perpetual ignorance.

According to God's testimony as an expert witness; professing Christians
who don't have eternal life don't have His son; viz: they are Christless
Christians.

†. 1John 5:9-12 . .We accept human testimony; but God's testimony carries
more weight because it's the testimony of God, which He has given about
His son. Everyone who believes in God's son has this testimony in his heart.
Everyone who does not believe God insinuates that He's a liar, because he
hasn't believed the testimony God has given about His son. And this is the
testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. He who
has The Son has this life; he who does not have this life, does not have
God's son.

If someone were to die this evening as a Roman Catholic before first
obtaining eternal life from God's son, then they will leave this life without
Christ, and go into eternity a total stranger to The Only True God; and hear
these dreadful words:

I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoer! (Matt 7:23)

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

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

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

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

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

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

†. Rev 3:7 . . And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is
holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut,
and who shuts and no one opens

Ring a bell?

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

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

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

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

-
When people are desperately clinging to a treetop, with murky flood waters
roiling beneath their feet, just inches away from death and the hereafter,
the last thing they need is somebody coming by to lecture them on good
citizenship. No, they don't need lectures on citizenship; they need a National
Guard helicopter to lower a harness down and pull them up from that
treetop. That's the redemption stage of salvation. It rescues sinners from
certain death regardless of their degree of piety or depravity.

†. Rom 5:5-10 . .While we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died
for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps
for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates
His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

. . . Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be
saved from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God through the death of His son, much more, having
been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

"His life" refers to the kind of life that God is; viz: eternal life. The reason
that His life saves people is because eternal life is impervious to death.
Therefore, eternal life is impervious to the wages of sin.

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

†. 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.

Note the grammatical tense of Christ's statement: it's present tense rather
than future, indicating that people who listen to his message, and believe in
God who sent him, have eternal life right now-- no delay and no waiting
period. People lacking eternal life, lack it because they don't listen to him;
neither do they believe in God who sent him.

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

-
Webster's defines "immunity" as exempt; viz: free, or released from, some
liability or requirement to which others are subject.

Immunity is the current possession of all Christ's believing followers.

†. Rom 6:14 . . For sin shall not control your destiny, for you are not under
the jurisdiction of God's law, but under His grace.

†. Rom 6:15 . . God's grace has set us free from His law's jurisdiction

†. Rom 8:1-3 . .There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free
from the law of sin and death.

Gospel immunity is not the same as diplomatic immunity; wherein foreign
ambassadors are exempt from prosecution by American laws. That kind of
immunity is not only insulting to law-abiding citizenry, but a miscarriage of
justice as well. No, the gospel's immunity is not like that. God can't turn a
blind eye to people's sins without seriously compromising His own integrity.
God's law has to be vindicated and enforced to its maximum extent:
somebody has to pay.

Christ's crucifixion is a "ransom" in that it satisfies debts to God's law by
punishing offenders via proxy participation in Christ's execution.

†. Rom 6:3-11 . . Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? . . For we know that our old self
was crucified with him

†. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

†. Col 3:2-3 . . Set your affection on things above, not on things on the
earth. For you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Though Christ's believing followers are dead men walking, they are alive
forever more.

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

When Jesus was nailed to the cross to die for the sins of the world, God
somehow-- in a way that I have yet to fully understand --counted me nailed
to the cross right with him; so that on God's books, I satisfied justice that
day on Calvary. True, I got through it without a scratch. But on God's books,
Christ's injuries are my injuries, and his execution my execution. And since I
fully expect that the Bible's God would never lower Himself to the evil
practice of double jeopardy; then I fully expect that I will never again be
dragged to justice for my sins. The gospel's proxy justice system is a very
good deal for sinners; and a deal that is really just too good to pass up.

The sweet part is this: once Christ's crucifixion executes a sinner, they can
never commit a sin that God didn't foresee and subsequently place on the
cross already; because Jesus didn't pay for their sins up to a point; no, he
paid for them all the way to their grave; so, in reality, Christ's believing
followers have been fully punished already for every sin that they will
commit in their entire lifetime; from the first sin to the last sin. In point of
fact, if his believing followers didn't die for all their sins when Christ was
crucified; then they themselves will have to die for the balance later on in
the lake of fire depicted at Rev 20:11-15.

Although I have a number of legitimate reasons for apostatizing; it's mostly
because Rome's way cannot, and does not, promise its followers immunity
from the wrath of God; whereas Christ's way does. So, I dumped Rome's
way and took up Christ's instead because his way guarantees whoever wants
it a fail-safe, fool proof, human error proof, sin proof, Ten Commandments
proof, God proof, Devil proof, human nature proof, stupidity proof, free of
charge, no strings attached rescue from the wrath of God and full time
protection from retribution.

†. Rev 22:16-17 . . I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you these
things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright
morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And let the one who
hears say: Come. And let the one who is thirsty come-- let the one who
wishes take the water of life without cost.

=========================

 

[sydlit]

-
Webster's defines "immunity" as exempt; viz: free, or released from, some
liability or requirement to which others are subject.

Immunity is the current possession of all Christ's believing followers.

†. Rom 6:14 . . For sin shall not control your destiny, for you are not under
the jurisdiction of God's law, but under His grace.

†. Rom 6:15 . . God's grace has set us free from His law's jurisdiction

†. Rom 8:1-3 . .There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free
from the law of sin and death.

Gospel immunity is not the same as diplomatic immunity; wherein foreign
ambassadors are exempt from prosecution by American laws. That kind of
immunity is not only insulting to law-abiding citizenry, but a miscarriage of
justice as well. No, the gospel's immunity is not like that. God can't turn a
blind eye to people's sins without seriously compromising His own integrity.
God's law has to be vindicated and enforced to its maximum extent:
somebody has to pay.

Christ's crucifixion is a "ransom" in that it satisfies debts to God's law by
punishing offenders via proxy participation in Christ's execution.

†. Rom 6:3-11 . . Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? . . For we know that our old self
was crucified with him

†. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

†. Col 3:2-3 . . Set your affection on things above, not on things on the
earth. For you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Though Christ's believing followers are dead men walking, they are alive
forever more.

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

When Jesus was nailed to the cross to die for the sins of the world, God
somehow-- in a way that I have yet to fully understand --counted me nailed
to the cross right with him; so that on God's books, I satisfied justice that
day on Calvary. True, I got through it without a scratch. But on God's books,
Christ's injuries are my injuries, and his execution my execution. And since I
fully expect that the Bible's God would never lower Himself to the evil
practice of double jeopardy; then I fully expect that I will never again be
dragged to justice for my sins. The gospel's proxy justice system is a very
good deal for sinners; and a deal that is really just too good to pass up.

The sweet part is this: once Christ's crucifixion executes a sinner, they can
never commit a sin that God didn't foresee and subsequently place on the
cross already; because Jesus didn't pay for their sins up to a point; no, he
paid for them all the way to their grave; so, in reality, Christ's believing
followers have been fully punished already for every sin that they will
commit in their entire lifetime; from the first sin to the last sin. In point of
fact, if his believing followers didn't die for all their sins when Christ was
crucified; then they themselves will have to die for the balance later on in
the lake of fire depicted at Rev 20:11-15.

Although I have a number of legitimate reasons for apostatizing; it's mostly
because Rome's way cannot, and does not, promise its followers immunity
from the wrath of God; whereas Christ's way does. So, I dumped Rome's
way and took up Christ's instead because his way guarantees whoever wants
it a fail-safe, fool proof, human error proof, sin proof, Ten Commandments
proof, God proof, Devil proof, human nature proof, stupidity proof, free of
charge, no strings attached rescue from the wrath of God and full time
protection from retribution.

†. Rev 22:16-17 . . I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you these
things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright
morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And let the one who
hears say: Come. And let the one who is thirsty come-- let the one who
wishes take the water of life without cost.

=========================

Beautiful! Wonderful! And so much I needed to hear/read that! Could use all the encouragement I can get, especially with what's going on this weekend. (I have to admit, the thread title kept throwing me off a bit, but you mean you are an apostate in the eyes of the rcc, right? Sorry I'm a bit thick sometimes, but when I read along, I think, wow, this guys standing for the truth in Jesus, why does he call himself an apostate?!)Please keep posting, you're helping AT LEAST one person out here, and I'm betting many many more.

 

[WebersHome]

-
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
one of David's biological grandchildren because Christ in turn had to be
David's biological grandchild in order to qualify as a candidate to inherit his
throne. This prerequisite was chipped in stone way back in the Old
Testament in a promise that God made to David as per 2Sam 7:12-13 and
Ps 132:11, cf. Acts 2:30 and Rom 1:3)

OBJECTION: David was of the tribe of Judah. Mary was related to Elizabeth
who in turn was of the tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36)

RESPONSE: Judah and Levi are biological brothers by means of Leah. (Gen
35:23)

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

A: Women have been milling babies since the very beginning-- it is their
purpose in life and it doesn't make them any less a person.

†. 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. (cf. 1Tim 2:13-15)

Catholicism 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 Catholicism 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.

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

-
It's commonly believed that Christ wasn't effected by the so-called original
sin because it wasn't passed down to him by a biological father. But it's easy
to debunk that theory by going back to the very beginning.

Adam was created directly from the earth's dust. Not so Eve.

She was created from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's side.
Thus Eve wasn't a second species of h.sapiens. She was biologically just as
much Adam as Adam except for gender. 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, human life biologically produced by Eve-- whether virgin conceived
or naturally conceived --is biologically just as much Adam as Adam because
the source of its mother's life is Adam.

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

It is pretty much universally agreed among Christians that the offspring
spoken of in that passage is Christ. Well; seeing as how Christ derived his
life from Eve, and she in turn derived her life from Adam, then it's readily
deduced that Adam is Christ's biological progenitor.

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

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

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

It was the creator's deliberate design that all human life be derived from a
solo specimen of human life.

†. Acts 17:26 . . From one man he made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth

The Greek word for "nation" is ethnos (eth'-nos) which pertains to racial
diversity.

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

So then; seeing as how Christ is Adam's biological progeny, then Christ,
right along with all the rest of Adam's biological progeny, shares the guilt of
tasting the forbidden fruit.

†. Rom 5:12 . . Sin entered the world through one man, and death through
sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

†. Rom 5:19 . .Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were
made sinners.

Q: If Jesus Christ was made a sinner due to Adam's disobedience, then how
can it be honestly said that Christ was a lamb without blemish or spot?

A: Adam's disobedience made Christ a sinner right along with his fellow
men, yes; but it didn't make him sinful; viz: Christ committed no personal
sins of his own (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22). We're not
talking about the so-called "fallen nature" here, nor about Rome's "stain"
fantasy; no, we're talking about a class-action felony, so to speak.

The good news is: Adam's sin is not a sin unto hell. No; it's very simple to
clear his sin off the books seeing as how Adam's demise is the proper
satisfaction of justice for his sin (Gen 2:16-17). The satisfaction of justice for
his race's own personal sins is another matter.

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

-
†. Luke 1:43 . . And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord
should come to me?

That passage is a common proof text as scriptural evidence that Mary is the
mother of God; but its a poor choice for that purpose.

When Elizabeth made that statement, she was filled with the Holy Spirit
(Luke 1:41). To be consistent, the Holy Spirit would have to be in agreement
with Gabriel's announcement.

†. Luke 1:32-33 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never
end.

To a Spirit-filled Jew like Elizabeth, the term "my Lord" doesn't mean my
God; no, it means my king; viz: the ultimate Davidic monarch predicted in
the Old Testament to rule over the nation of Israel from within a theocratic
kingdom of peace and prosperity.

New Testament Greek isn't classical Greek, nor is it modern Greek. It's a
kind of ancient Greek called koiné, which was a lingua franca in common use
during the first century. There's no formal capitalization in New Testament
Greek and no punctuation either.

Capitalizations and punctuations have been penciled in at the discretion of
translators, and often reflect their own best guess, and quite possibly their
own personal religious beliefs too. So then "my Lord" can just as easily be
translated; "my lord" and even as "my master" (cf. Matt 18:26 where a
debtor addressed his king as lord, and also fell down and did obeisance).

New Testament Greek doesn't have a glossary of precise terms for God like
Old Testament Hebrew does. The Greek word kurios (koo'-ree-os) is sort of
a catch-all. It can apply to God as well as to anybody who's either superior
in rank, in authority, or social status (e.g. Matt 10:24, Matt 13:27, Matt
18:25, and Matt 24:45). The kurios at Luke 1:43 is the same kurios used for
Abraham at 1Pet 3:6, and used for Jesus by non Spirit-filled people at least
twenty times in the book of Matthew alone.

So then, when interpreting kurios in Luke 1:43, it first needs to be
remembered that Miriam and Elizabeth were both Jewish women. The
religion that they each believed and practiced wasn't Catholicism, nor was it
Christianity; no, their religion was Old Testament Judaism. According to their
religion, it's appropriate to address the Aaronic priests, and the kings of the
Davidic dynasty, as "my lord" (e.g. 1Sam 1:26, and 2Sam 4:8).

Miriam was told that her baby would ascend the throne of its ancestor David.
Thus, it was quite appropriate for a Spirit-filled Jewish woman like Elizabeth
to refer to Miriam's baby as "my kurios" in recognition of its right to rule
over her own self, as well as over the whole nation of Israel.

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

Compare Psalm 110:1 and Matt 22:42-45 where David recognized his
Messianic son's superior rank and called him 'adown in the Old Testament,
which doesn't mean God, no, it means master-- the same word Sarah
referred to Abraham in Gen 18:12, and the same word Ephron referred to
Abraham in Gen 23:11-15, and the same word Rachel referred to her dad
Laban in Gen 31:35.

It's very common for non-Jews, poorly trained in Old Testament Christology,
to read Christian thinking into the Bible and thus err in regards to Christ's
Davidic royalty. Below is an example of an enlightened Gentile woman who
knew a thing or two about Messiah's rank; and accepted his sovereignty
over not only the Jews, but over herself and the entire world as well.

†. Matt 15:21-22 . .Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of
Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same
coasts, and cried unto him, saying: Have mercy on me, O lord, thou son of
David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

That woman called Jesus "lord, son of David" rather than Lord son of God
because she knew nothing of the so-called deity of Christ. All she knew was
Christ's Jewish relationship to Davidic royalty, and that is how she addressed
him.

People commonly addressed Christ by the title kurios; e.g. the promiscuous
woman at the well (John 4:11). The only thing she knew about Jesus was his
gender and ethnicity. He was just some Jewish guy the cat dragged in; yet
she addressed him by a title that Catholicism would dearly love to assume
means God in Elizabeth's statement. In that woman's case, kurios certainly
did not mean God; not even close.

=========================

 

[WebersHome]

-
Webster's defines an heretic as: (1) a dissenter from established church
dogma; especially a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who
disavows a revealed truth, and (2) one who dissents from an accepted belief
or doctrine; viz: a nonconformist.

There are lots of Catholics right here in the USA disagreeing with Rome who
would never consider themselves heretics; but that's exactly what they are
anyway. The New Testament Greek word for heretic is hairetikos (hahee-ret
ee-kos') which means: a schismatic; viz: someone in your very own church
who causes dissent, reformation, division, discord, disputes, and
disharmony.

In other words: heretics aren't outsiders; no, a true heretic goes to the
same church you go to and professes to believe and practice the very same
religion that you profess to believe and practice; viz: for Catholics, a heretic
would be a professing Catholic who openly disagrees with Rome, and
attempts to persuade other Catholics to follow suit; for example on issues
like abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage.

Heresy is a serious sin; stubborn cases call for excommunication.

†. Titus 3:10-11 . . A man that is an heretic after the first and second
admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth,
being condemned of himself.

Heresy is different than apostasy, which is defined as: renunciation of a
religious faith, and/or abandonment of a previous loyalty. In other words: an
apostate is a defector whereas an heretic is a dissenter.

Q: Why can't I oppose Rome's stance on some things? Surely you don't
suggest that makes me a bad Catholic. I'm just being democratic; after all:
dissent is a human right.

A: The USA is a democracy consisting of a representative form of
government. The Church is a theocracy consisting of a monarchal form of
government; viz: The Church is not a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people; but rather; it's a government of Christ, by Christ,
and for Christ-- a monarch who expects nothing less than 110% loyalty from
his subjects; which, relative to the pew warmer, implies submission to
Rome.

†. Matt 16:19 . . And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Those keys were not given to the rank and file; they were given to the
hierarchy; therefore, Catholics who dissent with Rome are actually rebelling
against the Christ whom Rome supposedly represents. It's a domino effect
all the way to the top.

†. Luke 10:16 . .Whoever listens to you; listens to me. Whoever rejects you;
rejects me. And whoever rejects me; rejects the one who sent me.

Dissention within the Church isn't democratic; no, dissention within the
Church is all the same as pagans practicing dark arts and/or worshipping
Shiva and Vishnu.

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

Several years ago, on Good Morning America, a Monsignor was asked by
David Hartman and Joan Lunden about Catholic dissidents, and he replied:
"They've left the Church; and don't know it."

†. Matt 12:30 . . He that is not with me is against me

One of the New Testament's Greek words for "lord" is despotes (des-pot'
ace) which indicates absolute rule; viz: despotism. That word is applied to
Christ in more than one location in the New Testament. Despots typically
have little patience with dissenters.

According to the May 2, 2005 issue of Newsweek, a Gallup pole taken during
April 2005, on "difficult moral questions" showed that 74% of USA Catholics
would follow their own conscience rather than the authority of Rome. Just
20% said they would follow Rome. Apparently 6% were undecided.

Look; let me give that 74% a word of advice (and also that 6% who're
undecided); and this coming from a 71 year-old ex Catholic who was faithful
to Rome for the first 24+ years of his life. If you can't give your whole-
hearted support to those whom you profess to believe hold the keys of the
kingdom; then it's time to bow out. It would be far better for all concerned,
yourself included, to defect and to self-excommunicate rather than to hang
around causing division and attempting to reform a religion that you find
impossible to support as-is.

Catholic pew-warmers like that are not true Catholics at all; no, not in any
sense of the word. They're hybrids; actually Protestant Catholics, who have,
in spirit, already left the Church but just can't bring yourselves to step out
the door and make it final.

†. Rev 3:15-16 . . I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I
would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither
hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

=========================