Why I Am An Apostate
- Thread starter WebersHome
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
-
Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The
reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living
flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh
and blood, they are going to have to first make sure it's quite dead; which of
course is impossible seeing as how Christ rose from the dead with
immortality. (Rom 6:9)
The night of Christ's last Passover meal, all the men present with him were
Jews; viz: Yhvh's people. Well; the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God in the Old Testament forbids them to eat all manner of blood (Lev
7:26-27). So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood, he would
have led them into a curse. (Deut 27:26)
Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid
explanation of John 6:32-58.
Now; the trick is: the words that Christ spoke in that section of John were
cryptic. Though his words looked like ordinary language and grammar; they
said things that the human mind would find difficult to unravel.
†. John 6:63 . .The words I have spoken to you are spirit
Seeing as how Christ's words were spoken in spirit-speak; then you'd need
some sort of Enigma device to translate them; or at least someone proficient
in spirit-speak. That ain't me.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Well; one thing we can be very sure of is that Christ wasn't literal. The
reason being that right after the Flood, God forbad humanity to eat living
flesh and blood (Gen 9:3-4). So if people are determined to eat Christ's flesh
and blood, they are going to have to first make sure it's quite dead; which of
course is impossible seeing as how Christ rose from the dead with
immortality. (Rom 6:9)
The night of Christ's last Passover meal, all the men present with him were
Jews; viz: Yhvh's people. Well; the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon
with God in the Old Testament forbids them to eat all manner of blood (Lev
7:26-27). So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood, he would
have led them into a curse. (Deut 27:26)
Bottom line: We can, and we should, rule out transubstantiation as a valid
explanation of John 6:32-58.
Now; the trick is: the words that Christ spoke in that section of John were
cryptic. Though his words looked like ordinary language and grammar; they
said things that the human mind would find difficult to unravel.
†. John 6:63 . .The words I have spoken to you are spirit
Seeing as how Christ's words were spoken in spirit-speak; then you'd need
some sort of Enigma device to translate them; or at least someone proficient
in spirit-speak. That ain't me.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Last edited:
S
From Weber post #142---'Now; the trick is: the words that Christ spoke in that section of John were cryptic. Though his words looked like ordinary language and grammar; they said things that the human mind would find difficult to unravel.†. John 6:63 . .The words I have spoken to you are spirit. Seeing as how Christ's words were spoken in spirit-speak; then you'd need some sort of Enigma device to translate them; or at least someone proficient in spirit-speak. That ain't me.'---
Ok. Lol, I don't know what an enigma device would be, but since Jesus said His words are spirit, I will trust in Him to explain the meaning. Or I guess the Holy Spirit is proficient in 'spirit-speak', and since Jesus said He would guide us into all truth, I will trust the Holy Spirit to explain. Either way, it IS a hard saying, but (and I don't mean to be offensive), but transubstantiation just seems so patently absurd, I can't believe millions believe it every day. Even if (for arguements sake) I grant that Jesus is being broken into millions of bits and ingested, every day, literally...there are even those who profess that Jesus had Himself become the bread and wine, or rather the b+w had become Him, Literally, at the 'last supper' or 'passover meal', WHILE HE WAS STILL SITTING THERE EATING WITH THE DISCIPLES! I talked to some who actually believe this, in downtown philadelphia, when the 'pope' came to town. May be the first time in my life I was speechless, (tho that didn't last long, lol). When questioned, they simply say, matter-of-factly...this is the mystery of the faith!
Good answer. But as far as the reality, I just believe Jesus was referring to accepting His word as the word of God, and that by BELIEVING He would (did) sacrifice His body and shed His blood, i.e., die, for our sins in fulfillment of prophecy, we would be spiritually 'eating' Him, and receive our spritual lifes sustenance, i.e., eternal life in Him. This is Still a hard saying, i.e., How can this be? Well THIS IS a mystery, but God has revealed it to us, albeit somewhat dimly, It's by His great love for us that we are 'saved'.
Thanks, Weber, for this thread, I will continue to look forward to it, and try to learn.
Ok. Lol, I don't know what an enigma device would be, but since Jesus said His words are spirit, I will trust in Him to explain the meaning. Or I guess the Holy Spirit is proficient in 'spirit-speak', and since Jesus said He would guide us into all truth, I will trust the Holy Spirit to explain. Either way, it IS a hard saying, but (and I don't mean to be offensive), but transubstantiation just seems so patently absurd, I can't believe millions believe it every day. Even if (for arguements sake) I grant that Jesus is being broken into millions of bits and ingested, every day, literally...there are even those who profess that Jesus had Himself become the bread and wine, or rather the b+w had become Him, Literally, at the 'last supper' or 'passover meal', WHILE HE WAS STILL SITTING THERE EATING WITH THE DISCIPLES! I talked to some who actually believe this, in downtown philadelphia, when the 'pope' came to town. May be the first time in my life I was speechless, (tho that didn't last long, lol). When questioned, they simply say, matter-of-factly...this is the mystery of the faith!
Good answer. But as far as the reality, I just believe Jesus was referring to accepting His word as the word of God, and that by BELIEVING He would (did) sacrifice His body and shed His blood, i.e., die, for our sins in fulfillment of prophecy, we would be spiritually 'eating' Him, and receive our spritual lifes sustenance, i.e., eternal life in Him. This is Still a hard saying, i.e., How can this be? Well THIS IS a mystery, but God has revealed it to us, albeit somewhat dimly, It's by His great love for us that we are 'saved'.
Thanks, Weber, for this thread, I will continue to look forward to it, and try to learn.
-
Well; as I pointed out previously: the night of Christ's last Passover, all the
men present with him were Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb
9:16-17, the new covenant wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his
men were still under the jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God in the Old Testament: which covenant forbids Jews to
eat any manner of blood (Lev 7:26-27).
So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood via transubstantiation
that night, he would have led them into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus
relegated himself to the position of the least in the kingdom of God. (Matt
26:26-28)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Well; as I pointed out previously: the night of Christ's last Passover, all the
men present with him were Jews. Well; seeing as how according to Heb
9:16-17, the new covenant wasn't ratified until Christ died, then he and his
men were still under the jurisdiction of the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God in the Old Testament: which covenant forbids Jews to
eat any manner of blood (Lev 7:26-27).
So if Christ had led those men into eating his blood via transubstantiation
that night, he would have led them into a curse (Deut 27:26) and thus
relegated himself to the position of the least in the kingdom of God. (Matt
26:26-28)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
During my years as an active Catholic, I was never actually taught to
worship patron saints; but rather, to look to them for support, guidance,
protection, and comfort; viz: pray to them for providence. Unfortunately,
patron saints compete with God for humanity's affections; which is of course
unacceptable.
†. Deut 6:5 . .You shall love Yhvh your God with all your heart, and with all
your soul, and with all your might.
†. Mark 12:30 . .You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.
"you shall" is neither a suggestion nor an option, no; it's mandatory.
When people pray to celestial beings like departed saints and/or angels for
providence; they're not really loving God with all their heart, all their soul, all
their mind, and with all their strength. No, their loyalties are divided; viz:
they're allotting God a percentage of their all, but not 100% of their all.
A number of other gods vied for humanity's affections in Jacob's day; and
out of all the available options, he selected Yhvh (contingent, in Jacob's
spiritually immature mind, upon Yhvh's reliability as a provider).
†. 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 communicate with other gods
right along with Yhvh. This 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.
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 patron saints, 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.
That was a very important milestone for Jacob; and it's a very tall obstacle
for John 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 the Holy Bible's God alone for all
their needs.
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).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
During my years as an active Catholic, I was never actually taught to
worship patron saints; but rather, to look to them for support, guidance,
protection, and comfort; viz: pray to them for providence. Unfortunately,
patron saints compete with God for humanity's affections; which is of course
unacceptable.
†. Deut 6:5 . .You shall love Yhvh your God with all your heart, and with all
your soul, and with all your might.
†. Mark 12:30 . .You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.
"you shall" is neither a suggestion nor an option, no; it's mandatory.
When people pray to celestial beings like departed saints and/or angels for
providence; they're not really loving God with all their heart, all their soul, all
their mind, and with all their strength. No, their loyalties are divided; viz:
they're allotting God a percentage of their all, but not 100% of their all.
A number of other gods vied for humanity's affections in Jacob's day; and
out of all the available options, he selected Yhvh (contingent, in Jacob's
spiritually immature mind, upon Yhvh's reliability as a provider).
†. 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 communicate with other gods
right along with Yhvh. This 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.
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 patron saints, 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.
That was a very important milestone for Jacob; and it's a very tall obstacle
for John 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 the Holy Bible's God alone for all
their needs.
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).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
S
I just don't see how ppl in their right mind could believe this, or teach that this is what Jesus was teaching at the passover that evening. Most of the catholics that I met that (pope) weekend in town were pretty nice ppl, tho some were pretty hostile, but how can otherwise normal, decent, rational ppl believe in something so far out in left field. It saddens me for them, but angers me for those that teach transubstantiation, especially while Jesus was still sitting there with the disciples. Maybe I should just let it go and not think about it. (No need to reply, weber, thx)
-
It needs to be pointed out that God's spirit, the custodian of sacred writ, put
the focus upon Mary's virginity at the time of Christ's birth, and leaves her
virginity after Christ's birth an unsolved mystery.
In a nutshell, Catholicism's dogma on the perpetual virginity of Joseph's wife
is nothing less than a shameful rumor. There is not one shred of inspired
New Testament evidence that clearly, and without ambiguity, supports such
a theory; Rome pulled it right out of thin air just like they've done with so
many others of its Traditions.
Some go so far as to say that Christ's followers have always believed in
Mary's perpetual virginity; citing the teachings and beliefs of an elite group
that they piously label church fathers a.k.a. patristic fathers. But the beliefs
and opinions of so-called church fathers should never be granted a higher
credibility than apostolic revelation. And along with that axiom is that
antiquity is no guarantee that a particular belief 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)
The normal round of human experience will not support Mary's so-called
perpetual virginity; nor will the Bible's inspired record.
According to the New Testament; Joseph and his best girl were already
engaged to be married before either one of them were informed about a
somebody coming named Jesus. Since Mary was already engaged prior to
Gabriel's announcement in Luke 1:26-38; the logical conclusion is that she
was marrying a Jewish guy for the usual reasons that Jewish girls want a
Jewish husband-- to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish man, and raise a
Jewish family of her own.
And since Joseph was already engaged to his best girl prior to the dream
sequence in Matt 1:18-15, the logical conclusion is that he was marrying a
Jewish girl for the usual reasons that Jewish guys want a Jewish wife-- to
settle down, cohabit with a Jewish woman, and raise a Jewish family of his
own.
If people never get anything else out of the Gospel narratives, I hope they
can at least appreciate that Joseph and his best girl were both Israelis who
lived in an ancient Jewish culture-- a culture about which most Gentiles
haven't a clue; and I seriously doubt a normal Jewish couple in that era
would plan to wed with the full intent of living a 100% platonic union in a
community where such a practice was culturally an embarrassment; for
example:
†. Luke 1:23-25 . .When Zachariah's time of service was completed, he
returned home. After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant; and for five
months remained in seclusion. The Lord has done this for me; she said. In
these days He has shown His favor and taken away my disgrace among the
people.
Had Joseph and his wife deliberately entered a 100% platonic marriage then
they would have failed to appropriate the blessing of procreation and assist
in earth's subjugation.
†. Gen 1:27 . .God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply; fill the
earth and subdue it.
A Jewish man with no children of his own loses out on a particular blessing.
†. Ps 127:3-5 . . Sons are a heritage from Yhvh: children His reward. Like
arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the
man whose quiver is full of them.
A deliberate platonic marriage is unthinkable to conscientious Jews as it
would fail to contribute to the fulfillment of their ancestor Abraham's
blessing.
†. Gen 22:17 . . I will surely bless you and make your descendants as
numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.
The real question is not whether Joseph and Jesus' mom produced children
of their own. No, the real question is: Did they, or did they not, sleep
together and try to produce children of their own?
Whether they succeeded in producing children of their own is irrelevant; and
any arguments that go in that direction are nothing less than red herrings
because even if it could be proven beyond even the slightest reservation
that Joseph and his wife had no children of their own; their barren marriage
would not be an eo ipso, air-tight indication that they didn't at least try to
have children of their own.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It needs to be pointed out that God's spirit, the custodian of sacred writ, put
the focus upon Mary's virginity at the time of Christ's birth, and leaves her
virginity after Christ's birth an unsolved mystery.
In a nutshell, Catholicism's dogma on the perpetual virginity of Joseph's wife
is nothing less than a shameful rumor. There is not one shred of inspired
New Testament evidence that clearly, and without ambiguity, supports such
a theory; Rome pulled it right out of thin air just like they've done with so
many others of its Traditions.
Some go so far as to say that Christ's followers have always believed in
Mary's perpetual virginity; citing the teachings and beliefs of an elite group
that they piously label church fathers a.k.a. patristic fathers. But the beliefs
and opinions of so-called church fathers should never be granted a higher
credibility than apostolic revelation. And along with that axiom is that
antiquity is no guarantee that a particular belief 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)
The normal round of human experience will not support Mary's so-called
perpetual virginity; nor will the Bible's inspired record.
According to the New Testament; Joseph and his best girl were already
engaged to be married before either one of them were informed about a
somebody coming named Jesus. Since Mary was already engaged prior to
Gabriel's announcement in Luke 1:26-38; the logical conclusion is that she
was marrying a Jewish guy for the usual reasons that Jewish girls want a
Jewish husband-- to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish man, and raise a
Jewish family of her own.
And since Joseph was already engaged to his best girl prior to the dream
sequence in Matt 1:18-15, the logical conclusion is that he was marrying a
Jewish girl for the usual reasons that Jewish guys want a Jewish wife-- to
settle down, cohabit with a Jewish woman, and raise a Jewish family of his
own.
If people never get anything else out of the Gospel narratives, I hope they
can at least appreciate that Joseph and his best girl were both Israelis who
lived in an ancient Jewish culture-- a culture about which most Gentiles
haven't a clue; and I seriously doubt a normal Jewish couple in that era
would plan to wed with the full intent of living a 100% platonic union in a
community where such a practice was culturally an embarrassment; for
example:
†. Luke 1:23-25 . .When Zachariah's time of service was completed, he
returned home. After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant; and for five
months remained in seclusion. The Lord has done this for me; she said. In
these days He has shown His favor and taken away my disgrace among the
people.
Had Joseph and his wife deliberately entered a 100% platonic marriage then
they would have failed to appropriate the blessing of procreation and assist
in earth's subjugation.
†. Gen 1:27 . .God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply; fill the
earth and subdue it.
A Jewish man with no children of his own loses out on a particular blessing.
†. Ps 127:3-5 . . Sons are a heritage from Yhvh: children His reward. Like
arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the
man whose quiver is full of them.
A deliberate platonic marriage is unthinkable to conscientious Jews as it
would fail to contribute to the fulfillment of their ancestor Abraham's
blessing.
†. Gen 22:17 . . I will surely bless you and make your descendants as
numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.
The real question is not whether Joseph and Jesus' mom produced children
of their own. No, the real question is: Did they, or did they not, sleep
together and try to produce children of their own?
Whether they succeeded in producing children of their own is irrelevant; and
any arguments that go in that direction are nothing less than red herrings
because even if it could be proven beyond even the slightest reservation
that Joseph and his wife had no children of their own; their barren marriage
would not be an eo ipso, air-tight indication that they didn't at least try to
have children of their own.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
†. 2Pet 1:20 . . Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture
that is a matter of personal interpretation
That verse is easily interpreted by merely reading the information that
accompanies it.
†. 2Pet 1:21 . . for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather
human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
You see: Peter isn't saying that John and Jane Doe pew warmer can't
possibly understand the Old Testament on their own; he's merely saying
that the books of the Old Testaments aren't the product of a fertile
imagination and/or somebody's creative writing skills like Steven King
and/or Stephanie Meyer and Beatrix Potter.
When the language and grammar of 2Pet 1:20-21 are carefully examined;
it's readily seen that what Peter is actually talking about is not the
understanding of prophecy, but rather; the origin of prophecy.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
†. 2Pet 1:20 . . Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture
that is a matter of personal interpretation
That verse is easily interpreted by merely reading the information that
accompanies it.
†. 2Pet 1:21 . . for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather
human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
You see: Peter isn't saying that John and Jane Doe pew warmer can't
possibly understand the Old Testament on their own; he's merely saying
that the books of the Old Testaments aren't the product of a fertile
imagination and/or somebody's creative writing skills like Steven King
and/or Stephanie Meyer and Beatrix Potter.
When the language and grammar of 2Pet 1:20-21 are carefully examined;
it's readily seen that what Peter is actually talking about is not the
understanding of prophecy, but rather; the origin of prophecy.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-
Prior giving up on Rome; I was a Catholic for 24+ years. In anticipation of
consuming the Host on Sunday mornings, I typically went to confession
Saturday afternoon.
The subject matter of my confessions was pretty much limited to violations
of the Ten Commandments according to what I was taught during Catechism
lessons. However, as thorough as the nuns had been in teaching me the Ten
Commandments, they failed to touch on violations of the law of the land;
with which— according to Matt 22:14-21, Rom 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1Pet
2:13-16 —Christians are obligated to comply. It's been my own personal
experience, that numbers of practicing Catholics are unaware that breaking
the law of the land is just as much in need of confession as breaking the Ten
Commandments.
According to Matt 22:21, Rom 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1Pet 2:13-16, Christians
are obligated to comply with the entire law of the land; which of course
includes all laws regulating automobiles and pedestrians. Since it is just
about impossible for anybody with average intelligence to read those
passages and still believe it's not a sin against God for to break the law of
the land; then I have to assume that they have simply never bothered to
read those passages at all, nor has anyone till now encouraged them to do
so.
According Christ, and to Paul's and Peter's mandates, every time Christans
J-walk, run a red light, coast through a STOP sign, pass on the shoulder,
engage in road rage, exceed the posted speed limit, make an illegal U-turn,
fail to activate their turn signal, tail-gate, feed a limited-time parking
meter, cross the street against a Don't Walk signal, make an unsafe lane
change, drive under the influence, throw litter out the window, etc, etc,
etc; they are in active rebellion against the very person whom they profess
to worship and serve as their sovereign monarch.
I don't usually resort to Bulls, and Encyclicals and such for proof texts, but in
this case, the wording of one in particular is so useful I just had to
appropriate it. According to the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, held in
the year 1866: the Church teaches that obedience to civil authorities is
founded upon obedience to God. And as Paul said, in Rom 13:2-3,
"Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what
God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Prior giving up on Rome; I was a Catholic for 24+ years. In anticipation of
consuming the Host on Sunday mornings, I typically went to confession
Saturday afternoon.
The subject matter of my confessions was pretty much limited to violations
of the Ten Commandments according to what I was taught during Catechism
lessons. However, as thorough as the nuns had been in teaching me the Ten
Commandments, they failed to touch on violations of the law of the land;
with which— according to Matt 22:14-21, Rom 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1Pet
2:13-16 —Christians are obligated to comply. It's been my own personal
experience, that numbers of practicing Catholics are unaware that breaking
the law of the land is just as much in need of confession as breaking the Ten
Commandments.
According to Matt 22:21, Rom 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1Pet 2:13-16, Christians
are obligated to comply with the entire law of the land; which of course
includes all laws regulating automobiles and pedestrians. Since it is just
about impossible for anybody with average intelligence to read those
passages and still believe it's not a sin against God for to break the law of
the land; then I have to assume that they have simply never bothered to
read those passages at all, nor has anyone till now encouraged them to do
so.
According Christ, and to Paul's and Peter's mandates, every time Christans
J-walk, run a red light, coast through a STOP sign, pass on the shoulder,
engage in road rage, exceed the posted speed limit, make an illegal U-turn,
fail to activate their turn signal, tail-gate, feed a limited-time parking
meter, cross the street against a Don't Walk signal, make an unsafe lane
change, drive under the influence, throw litter out the window, etc, etc,
etc; they are in active rebellion against the very person whom they profess
to worship and serve as their sovereign monarch.
I don't usually resort to Bulls, and Encyclicals and such for proof texts, but in
this case, the wording of one in particular is so useful I just had to
appropriate it. According to the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, held in
the year 1866: the Church teaches that obedience to civil authorities is
founded upon obedience to God. And as Paul said, in Rom 13:2-3,
"Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what
God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=